First Three Chapters of Genesis: Literal or Figurative?

[PhilVaz]

Thanks for the information ItsJustDave. Yeah even the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission won’t support the Catholic creationist young-earthers (like the “Kolbe Center”). The PBC acknowledges figurative and allegorical language in Genesis (as does the Catechism), while the literal and historical cannot be totally dispensed with (Questions 1 and 3). I have the relevant sections on my site with the Latin.

Phil P

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Thanks for the information ItsJustDave. Yeah even the 1909 Pontifical Biblical Commission won’t support the Catholic creationist young-earthers (like the “Kolbe Center”). The PBC acknowledges figurative and allegorical language in Genesis (as does the Catechism), while the literal and historical cannot be totally dispensed with (Questions 1 and 3). I have the relevant sections on my site with the Latin.

Phil P

Phil, great link … thanks!

 

[jbuck919]

The Bible is easy to interpret in a Fundamentalist way - it looks unnatural, “subjective”, even dishonest, to deny that the Flood was universal, that Adam was as historical as Christ, that Isaiah wrote all 66 chapters of the book bearing his name, that Isaiah 7.14 is meant to predict the Incarnation, etc. ISTM that the Church is still partly Fundamentalist; that this may be a reason why there is suspicion of the clergy; & that there is no solution to the pastoral problems which arise; for those who are certain it is malign are not likely to want to find out about it. I wouldn’t be surprised if it (has ?) caused a de facto schism.

The part of the Catholic Church that is bibilically fundamentalist is on an extreme fringe and seems to be over-represented here. I assure you that as a cradle Catholic in his mid-50s I have not personally encountered such a person in my entire lifetime. Modern Catholics are as children indoctrinated in such a way as not to feel the need to believe such nonsense, and have been so for many decades. The Catholic high school at which I taught for ten years had an ordinary science curriculum–could not in fact have been accredited otherwise.

If I made a cafeteria Catholic pronouncement that disagreed with what the current Pope thinks (e.g., women should be ordained, which is just offered as an example and not my true opinion), I’d have half the membership here at my throat within 24 hours. But these people offer an opinion, born of pure ignorance, with which the Pope (an extremely erudite man) would totally disagree, and they are not called on it.

 

[Valke2]

IMO, the past is not sacred simply because it was the past. How can one look at the creation story today and insist it be taken literally?

 

[Melchior]

IMO, the past is not sacred simply because it was the past. How can one look at the creation story today and insist it be taken literally?

By understanding that it is historical narrative, employing many rich literary devices where straight history can’t easily be communicated, and not a science or or straight history text. The story is true. Adam and Eve were real. We cannot simply take this text and say well Evolution is not supported here so it much be allegory. That would be way too simplistic and requires as much faith as the reverse. There are other roads, using reason, other than all or nothing.

 

[patg]

IMO, the past is not sacred simply because it was the past. How can one look at the creation story today and insist it be taken literally?

One can’t. I find it amazing that so many do not accept that something can be true and also non-literal history. The mystery of our origins and the mystery of our suffering are two true realities that are dealt with through myth in the first chapters of Genesis.

A myth is about reality. Myth is not a synonym for fiction. In fact, we are not commenting on the truth or falsity of the content of something we call a myth at all, we are talking about the form. A myth represents a serious attempt to come to grips with reality. The myths that are revelation have succeeded in coming to grips with the reality of God’s relationship with human beings in a profound way.

A myth is about reality and it also an imaginative story that must use symbols because the reality the myth explores is one which is beyond the author’s comprehension.

A myth deals with reality but not with a specific event in recorded history. So instead of saying that a myth grows out of an event, I would say that it grows out of an experience - an experience of trying to understand realities beyond the author’s and/or the reader’s comprehension.

This outlook is perfectly in tune with the church, it is taught in many catholic adult education sessions and it is in books by catholic publishers.

 

[Valke2]

By understanding that it is historical narrative, employing many rich literary devices where straight history can’t easily be communicated, and not a science or or straight history text. The story is true. Adam and Eve were real. We cannot simply take this text and say well Evolution is not supported here so it much be allegory. That would be way too simplistic and requires as much faith as the reverse. There are other roads, using reason, other than all or nothing.

To accept the fact that Adam and Eve were real requires a kind of schzophrenia. If I told you your wife was cheating on you, you wouldn’t take my word for it without proof. But billions of people embrace a wide variety of often conflicting religious dogma without any proof. And millions and millions of people are killed over various unsupported religous dogma.

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that our religion does not have a monoply on absolute truth, that our scriptures are flawed, human documents and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

 

[Valke2]

One can’t. I find it amazing that so many do not accept that something can be true and also non-literal history. The mystery of our origins and the mystery of our suffering are two true realities that are dealt with through myth in the first chapters of Genesis.

A myth is about reality. Myth is not a synonym for fiction. In fact, we are not commenting on the truth or falsity of the content of something we call a myth at all, we are talking about the form. A myth represents a serious attempt to come to grips with reality. The myths that are revelation have succeeded in coming to grips with the reality of God’s relationship with human beings in a profound way.

A myth is about reality and it also an imaginative story that must use symbols because the reality the myth explores is one which is beyond the author’s comprehension.

A myth deals with reality but not with a specific event in recorded history. So instead of saying that a myth grows out of an event, I would say that it grows out of an experience - an experience of trying to understand realities beyond the author’s and/or the reader’s comprehension.

This outlook is perfectly in tune with the church, it is taught in many catholic adult education sessions and it is in books by catholic publishers.

That’s an excellent post. I think all religion should be viewed as a mythic structure designed to provide its followers with acces to the divine. I can find it through the mythic structure or story of Judaism and you can find it through the mythic structure or story of Jesus. And Achmed can find it through the mythic structure or story of Islam. But the problem is that so many people are willing to kill and die for their stories. in fact, I would guess that more people are willing to kill for their stories than to embrace or at least acknowledged the validity of their neighbor’s stories.

This situation was bad enough over the last 2000 years. In a nuclear age, it is worse than disasterous.++++±

 

[Melchior]

To accept the fact that Adam and Eve were real requires a kind of schzophrenia. If I told you your wife was cheating on you, you wouldn’t take my word for it without proof. But billions of people embrace a wide variety of often conflicting religious dogma without any proof. And millions and millions of people are killed over various unsupported religous dogma.

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that our religion does not have a monoply on absolute truth, that our scriptures are flawed, human documents and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

All I can say is I disagree. But I do respect your opinion and the spirit in which you offer it. I am certain I will not be able to convince you otherwise.

 

[Melchior]

One can’t. I find it amazing that so many do not accept that something can be true and also non-literal history. The mystery of our origins and the mystery of our suffering are two true realities that are dealt with through myth in the first chapters of Genesis.

A myth is about reality. Myth is not a synonym for fiction. In fact, we are not commenting on the truth or falsity of the content of something we call a myth at all, we are talking about the form. A myth represents a serious attempt to come to grips with reality. The myths that are revelation have succeeded in coming to grips with the reality of God’s relationship with human beings in a profound way.

A myth is about reality and it also an imaginative story that must use symbols because the reality the myth explores is one which is beyond the author’s comprehension.

A myth deals with reality but not with a specific event in recorded history. So instead of saying that a myth grows out of an event, I would say that it grows out of an experience - an experience of trying to understand realities beyond the author’s and/or the reader’s comprehension.

This outlook is perfectly in tune with the church, it is taught in many catholic adult education sessions and it is in books by catholic publishers.

So, by your definition of “myth” would you say the Gospels and Acts fit this category? If not, why?

 

[trth_skr]

To accept the fact that Adam and Eve were real requires a kind of schzophrenia. If I told you your wife was cheating on you, you wouldn’t take my word for it without proof. But billions of people embrace a wide variety of often conflicting religious dogma without any proof. And millions and millions of people are killed over various unsupported religous dogma.

Right and billions accept that the earth goes around the sun without any proof. So what is the point? Has the “rational approach” created an any more rational answer?

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that our religion does not have a monoply on absolute truth, that our scriptures are flawed, human documents and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Truth is revealed by God. It does not require development. This does not mean that our understanding cannot develop over time, but we do not presume that the Bible contains error.

Any system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

I guess you did join John Lenon. Imagine.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[patg]

So, by your definition of “myth” would you say the Gospels and Acts fit this category? If not, why?

No, not at all. I clearly stated that myths are symbolic stories exploring that which is beyond the ability of the author to understand. The gospels and Acts contain some things which are mythological and clearly fiction, such as the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew. For the most part, however, they are not symbolic and they are about a real person that the authors either experienced directly or knew of quite well. They are, however, partly fictional narratives created to provide a framework to convey the very real teachings and works of a real person.

A gospel is a unique literary form which contains elements of myth but it is far more than that.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Melchoir,

Despite this assertion by some …

… The gospels and Acts contain some things which are mythological and clearly fiction, such as the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew. … They are, however, partly fictional narratives …

Paul VI asserted, prior to his approval of *Dei Verbum, *in his Instruction on the Historical Truth of the Gospels, *Sancta Mater Ecclesia *(1964), catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=3291] affirms the sacred writers “faithfully recounted [Jesus’] life and words.” The sacred writers did not transform Jesus “into a ‘mythical’ personage” (ibid.) and his teachings were not “distorted by reason of worship which the disciples now paid him” (ibid.). Rather, they handed on "the things which in actual fact the Lord has said and done" (ibid.). While they may have tailored their accounts according to the needs of their hearers, consolidating, synthesizing, using different contexts, etc., “the Evangelists report the sayings or the doings of our Lord in a different order … us[ing] different words to express what he said, not keeping to the very letter, but nevertheless preserving the sense.” (ibid.).

So, although various literary genres are used by the sacred authors, "… the truth of the events and sayings recorded in the Gospels is being challenged. In view of this … [we] insist on the following… For certain exponents of this [historical-critical] method, led astray by rationalistic prejudices …practically deny a priori the historical value and character of the documents of revelation. .… these abberations are … opposed to Catholic doctrine … at all times the interpreter must cherish a spirit of ready obedience to the Church’s teaching authority, and must also bear in mind that … the Gospels were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that it was he who preserved their authors immune from ALL ERROR. It is doctrine above all that they must impart… They must altogether shun what is merely new-fangled or what is insufficiently proved … Let them regard themselves as in duty bound never to depart in the slightest from the common doctrine and tradition of the Church. … they should keep altogether clear of the precarious fancies of innovators…" (ibid)

Paul VI, after his approval of Dei Verbum, in his allocution of Dec 18, 1966 (Insegnamenti di Paolo VI), he complained that some…"… *try to diminish the historical value of the **Gospels ***themselves, especially those that refer to the birth of Jesus and His infancy. We mention this devaluation briefly so that you may know how to defend with study and faith the consoling certainty that **these pages are not inventions of people’s fancy, but that they speak the truth… . The authority of the [Vatican II] Council has not pronounced differently on this: ‘The Sacred Authors wrote… always in such a way that they reported on Jesus with sincerity and truth’ **(Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, n. 19)."

 

[Valke2]

All I can say is I disagree. But I do respect your opinion and the spirit in which you offer it. I am certain I will not be able to convince you otherwise.

Man, you were so close! IF you just made one more post… I was sitting on the fence and you blew it!

Thanks for the diplomatic words. My interpertation may, obviously be wrong, and your view may be correct.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

With regard to the historicity of the infancy narratives…

Pope Paul VI (Insegnamenti *di Paolo VI *[1972], p. 1325):

“St. Luke, as if to indicate the authentic source of that night at Bethlehem, concludes it with this precious testimony: ‘And Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart (Luke 2:19).’”

Pope Paul VI again affirms (Insegnamenti *di Paolo VI *[1974], pp. 24-25):

“Very probably Mary was the genuine and direct source of information for Luke, the evangelist who wrote this.”

Pope John Paul II:

“To identify the source of the infancy narrative one must go back to St. Luke’s remark: ‘Mary kept all these things, pondering them in her heart’… Mary ‘who kept these things in her heart’… could bear witness, after Christ’s death and resurrection, in regard to what concerned herself and her role as Mother, precisely in the apostolic period when the New Testament texts were being written, and when the early Christian tradition had its origin.” (General Audience, January 28, 1988)

"As the infancy Gospels enable us to grasp, the first Christian communities themselves gathered together Mary’s recollections about the mysterious circumstances of the Savior’s conception and birth. In particular, the Annunciation account responds to the disciples’ desire to have the deepest knowledge of the events connected with the beginnings of the risen Christ’s earthly life. In the last analysis, Mary is at the origin of the revelation about the mystery of the virginal conception by the work of the Holy Spirit.

This truth, showing Jesus’ divine origin, was immediately grasped by the first Christians for its important significance and included among the key affirmations of their faith." (General Audience, 13 September 1995)

 

[buffalo]

But if the Catholic always revises his or her understanding of Genesis based on scientific evidence, and out of sync with the Magisterium (whatever that is), then (for apologetics purposes alone, not considering matters of personal faith) how we can we be sure of any of Scripture?

This is what is known as syncretism and is not allowed.

 

[buffalo]

To accept the fact that Adam and Eve were real requires a kind of schzophrenia. If I told you your wife was cheating on you, you wouldn’t take my word for it without proof. But billions of people embrace a wide variety of often conflicting religious dogma without any proof. And millions and millions of people are killed over various unsupported religous dogma.

I am becoming more and more convinced that civilization cannot survive religion unless we are all willing to acknowledge that our religion does not have a monoply on absolute truth, that our scriptures are flawed, human documents and that it is the height of folly to assume that the road to faith was perfected 3,500, 2,000 or 1400 years ago.

Any system that imposes ethical behavior, promotes civilization and discourages violence, must be respected, acknowledged and given equal value to one’s own religious system. Anything in one’s own religous system that does not fit this criteria needs to be changed. Otherwise, we’re doomed.

Are you saying that civilization cannot survive religion (binding to God)?

And you are saying God is unable to transmit His ultimate truth?

 

[Valke2]

Are you saying that civilization cannot survive religion (binding to God)?

And you are saying God is unable to transmit His ultimate truth?

We’ve seen God transmit ultimate truth through flooding the earth. And we’ve seen people kill each other over nothing more than who is in possession of ultimate truth. As things stand now, I am doubtful that civilization can survive religion.

As an example, many here have said that Islam has no room for outsiders. And that violence will not stop until the world is all Islamic or until Islam is “defeated.”
But there’s a third option – until civilization is sacrificed at the alter of religious faith.

 

[Melchior]

No, not at all. I clearly stated that myths are symbolic stories exploring that which is beyond the ability of the author to understand. The gospels and Acts contain some things which are mythological and clearly fiction, such as the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew. For the most part, however, they are not symbolic and they are about a real person that the authors either experienced directly or knew of quite well. They are, however, partly fictional narratives created to provide a framework to convey the very real teachings and works of a real person.

A gospel is a unique literary form which contains elements of myth but it is far more than that.

The gospels and Acts contain some things which are mythological and clearly fiction, such as the infancy narratives in Luke and Matthew.

What??? This is nonsense. It is also scholarly unsupportable. There is nothing clear about it.

 

[Melchior]

Man, you were so close! IF you just made one more post… I was sitting on the fence and you blew it!

Thanks for the diplomatic words. My interpertation may, obviously be wrong, and your view may be correct.

Crud, I lost my momentum! Now I will never convince you.