First Three Chapters of Genesis: Literal or Figurative?

[Redbandito]

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.

Yet, through all this, religion and “civilization” have managed to co-exist for thousands of years. Maybe you should look more closely at the “evidence.”

 

[Valke2]

Yet, through all this, religion and “civilization” have managed to co-exist for thousands of years. Maybe you should look more closely at the “evidence.”

The crusaders didn’t have nuclear weapons.
Islamic extremists didn’t have nuclear weapons.

 

[buffalo]

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.

The****Infancy**narratives

**
In a 1977 book, R.E.Brown, a leading Catholic Markan priority scholar, denied the historicity of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke. Edith Black has shown that the exegetical principles used by Brown, according to which he denies this historicity are in sharp conflict with the norms laid down by the Catholic Church ((EB)).
Brown attracted a large following, but he had not examined the narratives with an open mind. He was committed to the theory of Markan priority with its acceptance of late composition by anonymous non-Apostolic authors personally out of touch with each other, writing creative theological treatises rather than history.
From this presupposition and therefore narrow perspective, Brown presumed that the only way the infancy narratives in Matthew and Luke could possibly be historical, was if their authors had both copied an earlier tradition.
As the infancy narratives did not repeat the same stories, he concluded that such an earlier document could not have existed, and therefore the first chapters of these Gospels were not historical ((RBM 34-36)). From this understanding he found many alleged problems. Some of his ‘problems’ have gained wide circulation. Yet when Markan Priority is rejected, the ‘problems’ disappear.
For example, he said that secular historians did not corroborate the massacre and census stories. But is there a need for corroboration? It is unscientific prejudice to accept the evidence of all sorts of ancient historians provided they were not a Christian as was Luke. Unbiased modern historians accept the accounts of ancient historians as being correct unless there is strong contrary evidence. In this case contrary evidence does not exist. Also, Luke claimed to be giving an account of historical events, so had to be very careful. He knew that many anti-Christians would try to find errors in what he was writing.

more…

 

[patg]

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.

Scholarly unsupportable??? That’s ridiculous! One of the greatest biblical scholars of modern times, Raymond Brown, as a member of the pontifical biblical commission (appointed by 2 different popes) has taught and written books with exactly this theme. The Jesuit bible scholar John Meier, writing under the imprimatur, writes prolifically about this topic. All the adult bible education classes in all the diocese’s I am familiar with teach this. The Paulist Press publishes books explaining this. What is scholarly unsupportable is saying the infancy narratives are literal history.

Even Dei Verbum emphasizes that the literary form of the writing must be considered in order to understand it. Infancy Narratives are not primarily history.

 

[patg]

Paul VI asserted, … affirms the sacred writers “faithfully recounted [Jesus’] life and words.”

Fortunately, the Infancy Narratives don’t reccount a single word or deed of Jesus.

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.).

Too bad that pope didn’t study with the church’s biblical scholars - he might not have made such untenable statements.

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.

Here we go again with trying to deny the authors the right and ability to teach the truth using a non-historical genre. Dei Verbum clearly allows for this.

• 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)

All of which has nothing to do with recognizing that the truth can be presented in many different genres. Failure to recognize the fictional nature of a classical literary device such as seen in the Infancy Narratives is a sign of very poor scholarship (if any scholarship is involved at all).

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)."

You’ve left out the important part which clearly allows for the mythological nature of the Infancy Narratives (among other things).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger stated that over the past hundred years biblical exegesis has made some great errors “and these errors have virtually become academic dogmas.” [Joseph Card. Ratzinger, “L’interpretazione della Bibbia in conflitto,” in Ignace de la Potterie, ed., *L’esegesi cristiana oggi (Casale Monferrato, Italy: PIEMME, 1991), p. 123.]

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Instead of the poorly supported theories of modernist exegesis, I recommend the following book …

The Truth of Christmas Beyond the Myths: The Gospel of the Infancy of Christ by Fr. Rene Laurentin

Fr. Laurentin was selected as periti or expert at the Second Vatican Council, and has been singled out and honored by four Popes including Pope John Paul II, who conducted numerous personal audiences and consultations with him.

John Paul II has this to write regarding Fr. Laurentin’s work:
“The Holy Father encourages your works which are very aptly oriented to defend the treasures of the Church.”

What is Fr. Laurentin defending in this text? He does away with illusory presuppositions of modernist exegesis which weaken the faith of many, and it manifests the divine reality of the Incarnation by affirming the historical dimensions of the infancy narratives of Matthew and Luke.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, in the preface of the above texts wrote: “With this book, the Infancy Gospels are restored to us with a new life.”

 

[patg]

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger stated that over the past hundred years biblical exegesis has made some great errors “and these errors have virtually become academic dogmas.” [Joseph Card. Ratzinger, “L’interpretazione della Bibbia in conflitto,” in Ignace de la Potterie, ed., *L’esegesi cristiana oggi

(Casale Monferrato, Italy: PIEMME, 1991), p. 123.]
Maybe he’s updated his personal opinion on this in the last 15 years. If not, he is still entitled to it as the church allows one to go either way. I’ll stick to the scholars who have devoted their lives to this study and be confident that I believe something much more supportable and meaningful.

 

[Melchior]

Scholarly unsupportable??? That’s ridiculous! One of the greatest biblical scholars of modern times, Raymond Brown, as a member of the pontifical biblical commission (appointed by 2 different popes) has taught and written books with exactly this theme. The Jesuit bible scholar John Meier, writing under the imprimatur, writes prolifically about this topic. All the adult bible education classes in all the diocese’s I am familiar with teach this. The Paulist Press publishes books explaining this. What is scholarly unsupportable is saying the infancy narratives are literal history.

Even Dei Verbum emphasizes that the literary form of the writing must be considered in order to understand it. Infancy Narratives are not primarily history.

Unfortunately, far too many Catholic scholars have bought into liberal protestant scholarship. If the Gospels are not reliable I would not be a Christian. You are essentially saying the Gospel writers were lying. Plus, you ignoree roughly 2,000 years of scholarship to the contrary, being satisfied that a handful of scholars who have bought into one, very recent and seceptical school of hermeneutics are the be all and end all of scholarship. You need to read more widely and familiarize youslef with other, more time honored scholarly Biblical exegesis.

The Gospels are accurate, historical narratives and that is the concensus of the vast majority of Biblical scholars who have ever lived, not just a handful hippy generation scholars who have swallowed the bllue pill. Do realize how many have had their faith destoryed because the believe the claims of people who come up with these foolish things, whole cloth? What’s worse is when you compare them to real scholarship, and examine the claims, there is so much that has obviously been pulled from these guys nether regions that it should be embarrassing to anyone who takes about 3 hours to compare claims.

 

[mikew262]

Yes, the guy who pushed the opinion that the earth moves- unproven to this day.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

Huh? Unproven?

 

[patg]

Instead of the poorly supported theories of modernist exegesis, I recommend the following book …

The Truth of Christmas Beyond the Myths: The Gospel of the Infancy of Christ by Fr. Rene Laurentin

Unfortunately, Fr. Laurentin falls into many serious holes as described better than I could in an issue of the The Roman Theological Forum which I recommend you read (rtforum.org/lt/lt10.html):

With regard, then, to the kind of historicity to be found in the Infancy Narratives of Matthew and Luke, I would maintain that Fr. Laurentin’s intention is sound, but his historical apparatus is faulty. He recognizes (p. 315) Luke’s “fundamental concern to conform to the actual events” that took place, but he does not clearly ascertain what Luke’s fundamental historical concern implies. Fr. Laurentin characterizes Luke’s account as “not purely factual or anecdotal,” but rather as “a holy history” which “would have been perceived as such.” A holy history it is, but a more adequate apparatus of historical concepts will show that the holiness of the account is set down in an absolute adherence to the historical facts; it is not fictional at all. The criterion of historical truth is mathematical (contra p. 314) in the sense that the account is in one-to-one correspondence with the historical facts. Fr. Laurentin encourages us to recognize this crucial fact, yet he does not arrive at it himself.

The thrust of Fr. Laurentin’s book is, in fact, encouraging us to return to the fundamental distinction between the historical and the symbolic, or allegorical, sense of the text and to develop this distinction into a systematic approach meeting all the modern standards. It is a deficiency of his present exposition that he hardly takes into consideration the Catholic exegesis of almost two millennia, but instead tries to base his results on a method going back only to the 1960s. Often he ends up crediting himself and his colleagues with insights that were well expressed (even better expressed) by commentators of centuries ago, and he leaves unsolved some questions that have been worked out and resolved long ago. From the start he is hesitant about going back to earlier exegetical positions, even of the Fathers of the Church, but ultimately he is prevented by the too-narrow limits of his semiotic method. Regarding the case in point (pp. 314-315), holiness does not substitute for historical fact; it is a dimension of the historical facts that leads into the higher senses of the text. An adequate method of exegesis must treat the historical sense first as historical and then move on to an examination of the holiness as a deeper meaning inherent in the historical facts, expressed by means of symbol and allegory.

There are many other issues and problems with Fr. Laurentin’s theories (too many to quote here) and there are many other scholars one needs to read in order to come to tenable conclusions.

Maybe we should return to the subject of this thread and open a new one to explore the fiction of the infancy narratives?

 

[mikew262]

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.

Try 2 hours!

 

[Redbandito]

The crusaders didn’t have nuclear weapons.
Islamic extremists didn’t have nuclear weapons.

Communists have had them for decades. So what’s your point? Religion would not be killing people. People would be killing people. No sincere and faithful Jew or Christian believes we should go nuke the rest of the world. If you believe that fanatical (and Orthodox) Muslims wanting to destroy all non-Muslims proves your rule that, “Religion and civilization cannot co-exist,” I am going to call your bluff. Judaism and Christianity can exist in a civilized world and prosper. In fact, part of what makes the modern world “civilized” are the Judeo-Christian principles it is founded upon. Unfortunately, those seem to be eroding due to the rise of secular humanism and moral relativism. Which is why I disagree with your assertion. The reality is that secular humanism and moral relativism cannot co-exist with civilization. It is the rise of these in Western Europe that has led to the decay of that continent and the gradual infiltration of militant Islamo-Nazi’s into France, England, etc. Had they held to their “religious,” Christian roots, Europe would be nowhere near in the dire situation it finds itself in today.

 

[patg]

Unfortunately, far too many Catholic scholars have bought into liberal protestant scholarship.

That could be because it is more correct

If the Gospels are not reliable I would not be a Christian.

They are reliable - they teach the truth about God. You are the one trying to deny the authors the right to teach that truth with non-historical stories. If the church required me to believe that every story in the New Testament was literal history I would not be a Christian today.

You are essentially saying the Gospel writers were lying.

You are saying that a non-historical story can’t teach the truth and that is totally false. Was Jesus lying when he told a parable or allegroy about something which didn’t actually happen? No, he was telling a fictional story to make a point. The gospel authors are perfectly allowed to use multiple genres to teach truths as all authors have always been.

Plus, you ignoree roughly 2,000 years of scholarship to the contrary, being satisfied that a handful of scholars who have bought into one, very recent and seceptical school of hermeneutics are the be all and end all of scholarship. You need to read more widely and familiarize youslef with other, more time honored scholarly Biblical exegesis.

I have and I recommend you read some of the writings of the pontifical biblical commission and other serious catholic scholars who have built their work on the thousands of others who have gone before them.

The Gospels are accurate, historical narratives and that is the concensus of the vast majority of Biblical scholars who have ever lived,

That’s just not true. And, if I might add, not something the church requires you to believe. You may do so but it is not what is being taught and not what I teach in adult ed classes.

not just a handful hippy generation scholars who have swallowed the bllue pill.

So those are the types that popes appoint to the pontifical biblical commission? Not from what I’ve seen.

Do realize how many have had their faith destoryed because the believe the claims of people who come up with these foolish things, whole cloth?

None that I know of. To the contrary, I know many who would have rejected the church totally if they were required to believe the naive fundamentalism of absolute historicity.

What’s worse is when you compare them to real scholarship, and examine the claims, there is so much that has obviously been pulled from these guys nether regions that it should be embarrassing to anyone who takes about 3 hours to compare claims.

I respectfully suggest you do some reading or take some classes.

 

[Valke2]

Communists have had them for decades. So what’s your point? Religion would not be killing people. People would be killing people. No sincere and faithful Jew or Christian believes we should go nuke the rest of the world. If you believe that fanatical (and Orthodox) Muslims wanting to destroy all non-Muslims proves your rule that, “Religion and civilization cannot co-exist,” I am going to call your bluff. Judaism and Christianity can exist in a civilized world and prosper. In fact, part of what makes the modern world “civilized” are the Judeo-Christian principles it is founded upon. Unfortunately, those seem to be eroding due to the rise of secular humanism and moral relativism. Which is why I disagree with your assertion. The reality is that secular humanism and moral relativism cannot co-exist with civilization. It is the rise of these in Western Europe that has led to the decay of that continent and the gradual infiltration of militant Islamo-Nazi’s into France, England, etc. Had they held to their “religious,” Christian roots, Europe would be nowhere near in the dire situation it finds itself in today.

The only way that Judaism and Christainity can peacefully co-exist is if neither religion takes on absolute faith every word of their scripture, which is what is happening. Muslims are so dangerous because many of them believe exactly what their scripture says.

 

[Melchior]

That could be because it is more correct

Says you. With no support. Justa bald assertion. I have the support of 2,000 years of church tradition, scholarship and many living scholars today, both Protestant and Catholic. You are in the minority, friend.

They are reliable - they teach the truth about God. You are the one trying to deny the authors the right to teach that truth with non-historical stories. If the church required me to believe that every story in the New Testament was literal history I would not be a Christian today.

That’s novel. You have not even demonstrated what is ficiton in the gospels or backed it up.

You are saying that a non-historical story can’t teach the truth and that is totally false. Was Jesus lying when he told a parable or allegroy about something which didn’t actually happen? No, he was telling a fictional story to make a point. The gospel authors are perfectly allowed to use multiple genres to teach truths as all authors have always been.

When Jesus is speaking in parables it is clear from the text. The gospel authors, minus one, were eye witnesses that they would need to make stuff up or embellish the story does not even make logical sense.

I have and I recommend you read some of the writings of the pontifical biblical commission and other serious catholic scholars who have built their work on the thousands of others who have gone before them.

I have been studying scripture with the aid of multiple sources and scholars for years. Are you saying the commission teaches exactly what you are saying? Or that you prefer that take?

That’s just not true. And, if I might add, not something the church requires you to believe. You may do so but it is not what is being taught and not what I teach in adult ed classes.

Of course it’s true, you find me one scholar, prior to the late 19th century that believed or taught otherwise. Just one.

So those are the types that popes appoint to the pontifical biblical commission? Not from what I’ve seen.

Slim pickins these days unfortunately.

None that I know of. To the contrary, I know many who would have rejected the church totally if they were required to believe the naive fundamentalism of absolute historicity.

What a strawman! So every one of the church fathers, Cardinal Newman and all the doctors of the church were fundamentalists? Those foolish, naive, boobs. I am not happy that you forced my to say “strawman” either. But tossing around the “fundamentalist” label to anyone who does not buy into all aspect of higher criticism is not an argument, it is an argument stopper with no teeth.

I respectfully suggest you do some reading or take some classes.

I respectfully suggest you learn to stand on the shoulders of giants rather than tripping on little people who are married to one, very weak, hermeneutic that is very recent. With all due respect you should not be teaching anyone until you broaden your own studies and get a fuller biblical picture and not just a modernist one.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Unfortunately, Fr. Laurentin falls into many serious holes as described better than I could in an issue of the The Roman Theological Forum which I recommend you read (rtforum.org/lt/lt10.html):

I’m glad that you found Fr. McCarthy’s review of this book valuable, which I had read already. It is generally quite positive.

I hope you take the time to read his other works, namely those critical of Fr. Raymond Brown’s faulty conclusions.

According to Fr. McCarthy…

Fr. Brown followed a exegetical method that “that does not respect the Catholic faith” (soure)

Fr. Brown’s conclusions are a result of “flimsy reasoning…involves circular reasoning…based upon unproved assumptions, faulty reasoning, and anachronism.” (source)

“we contrast the false and unhistorical approach of writers like Rudolf Bultmann, Martin Dibelius, Raymond Brown” (source)

“Brown’s reasoning leaves a big problem.” (source)

 

[Redbandito]

The only way that Judaism and Christainity can peacefully co-exist is if neither religion takes on absolute faith every word of their scripture, which is what is happening.

I absolutely disagree. Christianity can absolutely and MUST co-exist with Judaism. Christians that reject this do not “take on absolute faith, every word of their Scripture.” Judaism is the origin of Christianity. Orthodox Catholic Christianity ultimately believes that the Jews remain in God’s plan of salvation. Thus, speak for yourself. We can whole-heartedly live in peace with Jews while ardently holding to the tenets of our faith.

Furthermore, I find it sad that you cannot see a way for people to disagree on theology and still find a way to co-exist. Are you that cynical? If you cannot co-exist with someone you disagree with, without abandoning your faith, you need to take a hard look at the faith you profess.

Muslims are so dangerous because many of them believe exactly what their scripture says.

Agreed. I already made this point in the post you are responding to. However, I also made the point that Islam does not represent religion as a whole. Islam is the exception to the rule.

 

[mikew262]

When you get down to it, is it really that important whether one takes the Bible literally or figuratively as long as one understands the underlying message?

It seems to me that folks get so wrapped around the axle concerning this subject that they forget what is really important here; God’s message within the words. This is what is truly important, isn’t?

Whether God inspired the scripture writers to write in a literal sense, in a symbolic one, or a mixture is something we may never truly know (at least in this world).

 

[Valke2]

I
Furthermore, I find it sad that you cannot see a way for people to disagree on theology and still find a way to co-exist. Are you that cynical? If you cannot co-exist with someone you disagree with, without abandoning your faith, you need to take a hard look at the faith you profess.

Of courser there is a way. You have to abandon the strict adherence to your theology to the extent it provides for you being right and others being wrong. If we stuck with and had faith in the literal word of the scripture, we’d be killing those who profane the sabbath, those who try to lead us astray to other Gods, those who woship idols, those who commit adultry, those who insult their mother or father…

True believers kill over this stuff all the time. It is only through social/secular advancement that “liberalism” in religion allows for reinterpetation of the scripture in a way that does not require us to kill each other.

Islam is not the exception to the rule, I think. It happens to be the violent religion du jure. Who is to say that the pendulem of “true believers” will not swing back for christians or jews?