I just stumbled (re-stumbled?) across this thread, and saw Granny’s and Aloysium’s posts and the link to the video clip. Good stuff…
"Aloysium:
I watched it a few times myself, granny. I can’t say I got much out of it.
I have watched the video more than once, and I still do not completely understand it.
To my ears, it sounds like he’s reiterating the thesis of the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document on how the Catholic Church approaches the Bible. That is, she realizes that it’s a collection of books, and that there are a variety of genres of literature found within the Bible (and within individual books, as well!).
It starts off badly with some weird comment that the focus of the crucifixion is Jesus’ pain and then saying that is wrong.
It seemed to me that Tilling is asserting that we, as 21st-century readers of the Gospels, look at the crucifixion accounts and see – primarily – an account of the painful aspect of the event. We, as westerners in the 21st century, see an account that details the brutal nature of the passion and death of Jesus. Tilling suggests, however, that this isn’t what the Gospel writers had in mind; rather, they are focused on the
shame of the event. That is, everyone in their day
knew that crucifixion was a nasty business, and was a way that Roman authorities used to browbeat populations into submission. So, for that audience, just to say ‘crucifixion’ would already presume what they knew – torture, suffering, death. However, Tilling seems to be saying, what the Gospel writers are really showing us is the shame associated with a crucifixion: we see that Jesus is mocked; we see that Jesus is stripped and physically exposed; we see that Jesus is berated by Jews and Gentiles and fellow convicts alike. This ‘shame’ aspect is
huge in that society; when one experiences shame, he gets knocked down a peg, in the culture of the day. Tilling is pointing out to us that, when we read the Gospels, we bring in our own context and our own perspectives, and in doing so, we can miss critical messages that are part of the Gospel stories.
(Let’s look at another one that’s commonly recognized: the Samaritan woman at the well. As 21st-century readers, we’d completely miss some critical details: Jesus is talking to a
woman (a huge cultural taboo); He is talking to a
Samaritan (likewise, verboten); He is talking to a woman who is an outcast (since she is not filling her water jugs in the morning, when all do so, but in the mid-day, because she is not part of her community’s ‘proper ladies’); He is offering salvation to someone who is not a Jew (gasp!). If we see only what our 21st-century perspective allows us to see, then we only see that Jesus has insight into the woman’s life, and that He incents her to be an apostle of sorts, and that His invitation is efficacious. We miss, therefore, a
ton of relevant information… which is what Tilling’s point is.
He talks of theological truth as distinct from modern historical and biological truth; there was clearly something that the author was trying to say, but he did not manage to reach me.
I could tell you the story of a Super Bowl victory by the Steelers. My point might be that, through their victory, a city was energized and revitalized. My story might have nothing to do about ‘historical’ and ‘biological’ truth, depending on how I tell it: but, it might speak to the nobility of the human spirit, and the ways in which a community draws upon strengths that it didn’t know it had. Depending on the way I tell the story, you might not be able to point to a particular historical event that is the basis of my narrative; however, in telling my story, I’ve said something that is particularly
true and notably filled with theological impact. The fact that my story cannot be corroborated with historical ‘truth’, however, doesn’t mean that my story isn’t likewise ‘true’. That’s his point. Truth isn’t found only in history books and science texts; it’s found where we tell truths about theology and about human dignity.
It does not stir the soul. Does anyone feel closer to God listening to those words?
Yep. It tell me that God teaches us the truth; it tells me that, even if we’re not hearing Walter Cronkite telling us the way it is, we’re still hearing God telling us the way it is!
I can say truthfully that I bring a number of presuppositions to the first three chapters of Genesis.
I think that all of us ‘cradle Catholics’ can make that claim. The question, though, is whether we allow ourselves to be stuck in an approach that is accessible to grade-schoolers, or whether we allow ourselves to see that God isn’t limited to particular modes of expression.
My presuppositions are based on Catholic doctrines
Fair enough. However, that doesn’t mean that one’s presuppositions are, likewise, doctrinally true.
