Genesis puzzle

[thinkandmull]

Understanding that “the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm” does not do away with the literal interpretation. Leo XIII also said that Bible must be interpreted literally unless there is *clear *reason not to. The idea that moderate non-literalists can distinguish themselves from progressives (who may believe not all of Maccabees is true history) is naive.

 

[thinkandmull]

“But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water.” 2 Peter 3:5

Also, geocentrism was considered as taught by the Bible in the Church until it was apparently demonstrated otherwise by science.

 

[HelenRose]

Understanding that “the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm” does not do away with the literal interpretation. Leo XIII also said that Bible must be interpreted literally unless there is *clear *reason not to. The idea that moderate non-literalists can distinguish themselves from progressives (who may believe not all of Maccabees is true history) is naive.

You are right. God has the power to create this world any way He wants to. I have no problem with anyone taking the Bible absolutely literally. Whether or not God created the universe 15 billion years ago or 6000 years ago has very little to do with feeding the poor, clothing the hungry, visiting the sick and those in prison.

I do see problems however when a literal minded scientist and a literal minded theologian attempt to communicate.

I dot not engage in this argument because I can see both sides. I am glad that the Church allows for both approaches.

 

[davidv]

Understanding that “the reader must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm” does not do away with the literal interpretation. Leo XIII also said that Bible must be interpreted literally unless there is *clear *reason not to.

Not only does not do away with it, it reinforces the literal interpretation. This should not be confused with a literalistic reading.

The idea that moderate non-literalists can distinguish themselves from progressives (who may believe not all of Maccabees is true history) is naive.

 

[thinkandmull]

The Church only allows non-Literal interpretation when there is very very clear reason for it. There is no distinction between “literal interpretation” and “a literalistic reading”. With what right has someone to say the Book of Job is just a story but not Esther or Ruth? Or that Genesis, a book composed as a whole, is not literal at the beginning but is at the end??

 

[Gorgias]

The Church only allows non-Literal interpretation when there is very very clear reason for it. There is no distinction between “literal interpretation” and “a literalistic reading”.

Actually, there is. The two mean completely different things. In your earlier post, you attempted to contrast “what the human authors intended to affirm” with “the literal interpretation.” In fact, the former is a definition of the latter.

A “literalistic reading”, on the other hand, is a reading that asserts that the literal sense – that is, what the author intended – is that the words are historically and/or scientifically true on their face. Please note that there continues to be a “literal sense” even if the author did not intend a “literalistic reading”.

With what right has someone to say the Book of Job is just a story but not Esther or Ruth?

Well, first of all, the genre of literature of Job is different than the genre of stories of Esther and of Ruth.

Or that Genesis, a book composed as a whole, is not literal at the beginning but is at the end??

Genesis wasn’t “composed as a whole.” It covers a range of time from origins to pre-history to history.

 

[thinkandmull]

I did not say what you said I said in a previous post. Whether Genesis has one author or not is not the issue. It is a complete book, as read in the liturgy. There is no true criteria for a “genre of literature” in the Bible. The book of Job says so and so said what, and God said thusly. So do other books.* It’s all the same thing.* If there was someday found an early Christian writer who believed that Mark and Matthew were literal but Luke and John was theological but not historical, what argument would you have to contradict this claim? Truly there is none. When Peter says in his epistle that the earth came “by and from the water”, he may have simply been saying that the earth arouse by God out of the water. “By” and “from” perhaps have the same meaning, both meaning “arouse from”. That is a question of “what do the words mean”. But we know what the words mean “they heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day”. To say that is not literal but John’s telling of what Jesus did is literal… well that is arbitrary. You are use to (accustomed) to thinking of some books as literal but some parts as not. But your habit is not everybodys’, and sure enough there are historical critical writers in the Church who want to say that not only the Flood, but most of the history in the Bible is just stories for Jewish and Christian edification.

 

[Gorgias]

I did not say what you said I said in a previous post. Whether Genesis has one author or not is not the issue. It is a complete book, as read in the liturgy.

You didn’t say “Genesis is a complete book”; you said, “Genesis [is] a book composed as a whole.” Big difference.

There is no true criteria for a “genre of literature” in the Bible.

That’s quite a claim. Patently false, I’d assert… but quite a claim.

Tell me: are the psalms not poems and songs? Does Leviticus not contain legal codes? Does Job not take the literary format of a didactic story (a ‘morality play’, that is)? More to the point, does Genesis not contain a highly stylized account of creation in chapter 1 – an account that has features that can only be described as ‘poetic’? Does the Catechism not affirm that Genesis 3 is true, but in the mode of allegory?

The issue is not whether there are criteria for the various genres of literature (no blood is spilled there), but rather, the issue is over how we assign the genres among the texts of Scripture (now that’s where the real battles are raged!).

The book of Job says so and so said what, and God said thusly. So do other books.* It’s all the same thing.*

The thing is… it’s not “all the same thing.” Job is likewise a highly stylized and carefully structured book. If you’ve read it, you’ll know that it takes the form that’s quite similar to a modern-day debate: the question is set up and posed; one by one, people taking a position against Job stand up and present their arguments against him; in response to each, Job offers a rebuttal. Finally, having thwarted his opponents’ arguments, Job presents his case to God… and acquiesces to Him. As an epilogue, God rewards Job for a job well done.

So, when God says “thus and so” to Job, it’s different than when God says “thus and so” to Moses. One is in the genre of morality play, and the other the genre of historical writing. Big difference.

If there was someday found an early Christian writer who believed that Mark and Matthew were literal but Luke and John was theological but not historical, what argument would you have to contradict this claim? Truly there is none.

LOL! You’re about 20 years too late, t&m! That’s precisely the claim that some Scripture scholars were making up through at least the mid-20th century! In fact, the argument was that the Gospel of John was of late 2nd century composition (and that, as a consequence, it was not an eyewitness account, but rather, a purely theological reflection on Christ). Within the past 20 years, a variety of arguments have been produced to refute this claim. Documents containing texts from the Fourth Gospel, dating to the early 2nd century, have been found. Arguments about early or late authorship (centering on the identity of the author and the timing of the composition vis-a-vis the Roman destruction of the temple) have been put forth. Far from there being no arguments to contradict the claim, there are myriads of them…!

Peter says in his epistle that the earth came “by and from the water”, he may have simply been saying that the earth arouse by God out of the water. “By” and “from” perhaps have the same meaning, both meaning “arouse from”. That is a question of “what do the words mean”. But we know what the words mean “they heard God walking in the garden in the cool of the day”. To say that is not literal but John’s telling of what Jesus did is literal… well that is arbitrary.

It really isn’t just ‘arbitrary’. One must consider the contexts, forms, and contents of a piece of writing before deciding what approach to the texts is appropriate. I’m not saying it’s a trivial analysis; but it’s possible… and not simply an arbitrary choice.

You are use to (accustomed) to thinking of some books as literal but some parts as not. But your habit is not everybodys’

That’s one of the errors of the Reformation: each gets to interpret the Bible on his own (under, of course, the guidance of the Holy Spirit! ).

, and sure enough there are historical critical writers in the Church who want to say that not only the Flood, but most of the history in the Bible is just stories for Jewish and Christian edification.

The fact that there are people out there who get it wrong doesn’t mean that there’s not a way to get it right, or that we’re hopelessly mired in a quagmire of faulty interpretation from which there’s no escape…

 

[thinkandmull]

Genesis was composed by its authors as a whole because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be. You say the beginning is not literal but the rest is? Why isn’t the ending non-literal as well? The Catechism does not teach that the beginning IS allegory. All that the Catechism could be saying is that “days” do not refer to “days”, since science is saying something different. The evidence has to be great, not some ideas about a books poetic meter.

Your claim that Job must be a special genre of “literature” is a lack of faith on your part. Just because its an amazing story it must be poetry? Psalms are prayers for the most part. There is no comparison. You have no argument against those who say Samson’s hair really wasn’t the source of his strength, that this was a figure of speech

Neither are there arguments against those who say John is not historical. The beginning starts with theology, so someone can argue that its all just theology and poetry. You are not use to the thought, but others believe it. The “errors of the Reformation” applies to your thesis because everyone gets to decide for themselves what “genre” books of the Bible are in.

 

[Gorgias]

Genesis was composed by its authors as a whole because the Holy Spirit wanted it to be. You say the beginning is not literal but the rest is?

So does the catechism. So do many respected theologians (not the least of which include Ratzinger).

thinkandmull:

Why isn’t the ending non-literal as well?

It’s a big book. It covers many eras (some historical, some pre-historical). At its end, it covers historical persons including Joseph and one of the Pharaohs.

thinkandmull:

The Catechism does not teach that the beginning IS allegory.

Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day.

That’s CCC #327.

For each one of the works of the “six days” it is said: “And God saw that it was good.”

The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the “six days”, from the less perfect to the more perfect

That’s CCC #339 and #342. Notice the quotes around “six days”.

The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

That’s CCC #362. Notice the reference to “symbolic language”.

The Church, interpreting the symbolism of biblical language in an authentic way, in the light of the New Testament and Tradition, teaches that our first parents, Adam and Eve, were constituted in an original “state of holiness and justice”

That’s CCC #375. It’s affirming the “symbolism of biblical language” found in the first two chapters of Genesis.

The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event

That’s CCC #390.

Look… I’m not saying that the Bible doesn’t teach truth; just that the truth is found in accounts that aren’t all historical accounts. The Catechism doesn’t teach exactly that, you claim? No, t&m, you’re mistaken on that count. The quotes I’ve provided from the CCC demonstrate the error of your understanding abundantly.

thinkandmull:

Your claim that Job must be a special genre of “literature” is a lack of faith on your part.

LOL… really? Really? No… it is an amazing story… but it’s a classic example of specific genre of literature that’s found in that culture and in that time frame.

thinkandmull:

You have no argument against those who say Samson’s hair really wasn’t the source of his strength, that this was a figure of speech

I’m not sure where you’re pulling this from, or why you’re attributing it to me.

thinkandmull:

Neither are there arguments against those who say John is not historical.

There are plenty of arguments. I’ve sketched out a few. I might recommend that you spend a bit of time researching the arguments for and against “early authorship of the Gospel of John” and “late authorship of the Gospel of John”. Trust me: there are plenty of arguments out there.

 

[thinkandmull]

There is no definite argument you can use against those who say John was not a historical book. Nor that Samson’s hair really wasn’t the source of his strength as the Bible relates. You are WAY underestimating the ability of people to find reasons for turning historical statements into something else. You have your own system, but others have there own reasons for de-historicizing the Bible and your position has no argument against people taking this a little further than you do

 

[thinkandmull]

327 The profession of faith of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) affirms that God "from the beginning of time made at once (simul) out of nothing both orders of creatures, the spiritual and the corporeal, that is, the angelic and the earthly, and then (deinde) the human creature, who as it were shares in both orders, being composed of spirit and body.

339 Each creature possesses its own particular goodness and perfection. For each one of the works of the “six days” it is said: “And God saw that it was good.” "By the very nature of creation, material being is endowed with its own stability, truth and excellence, its own order and laws."208 Each of the various creatures, willed in its own being, reflects in its own way a ray of God’s infinite wisdom and goodness. Man must therefore respect the particular goodness of every creature, to avoid any disordered use of things which would be in contempt of the Creator and would bring disastrous consequences for human beings and their environment.

342 The hierarchy of creatures is expressed by the order of the “six days”, from the less perfect to the more perfect. God loves all his creatures209 and takes care of each one, even the sparrow. Nevertheless, Jesus said: “You are of more value than many sparrows”, or again: “Of how much more value is a man than a sheep!”

None of the above paragraphs has to do with what we are talking about

362 The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in symbolic language when it affirms that “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.”

Leo XIII called the dust “slime”. Any creature or organic material that was used for Adam’s body has elements of both in it. By speaking generally as the Bible does here, it can be called symbolic in that sense. Paragraph 375 means the same. You are taking this to a different level. A general statement can be called symbolic when it just not express in a sufficient way the physical matter that is spoken about.

 

[thinkandmull]

Spiritual meanings of a text does not change the fact that we are to interpret the Bible literally. Science apparently has proven that the sun is older than the earth, contra Genesis. That’s therefore an exception. But just because Job, for example, is flowery and amazing and has a moral theme, that doesn’t mean it’s not history. Same with the Flood. I love the Bible, and this discussion got me a little down this Christmas time. Anyway, take care.

 

[Gorgias]

There is no definite argument you can use against those who say John was not a historical book. Nor that Samson’s hair really wasn’t the source of his strength as the Bible relates. You are WAY underestimating the ability of people to find reasons for turning historical statements into something else.

Your argument devolves to “some people cannot be convinced, even when confronted with reason.” I agree. Yet, that doesn’t mean that the arguments are invalid. Are you trying to convince me that some people are irrational and unreasonable? I agree. Are you trying to convince me that the arguments I’ve outlined are without merit? No, I don’t agree.

None of the above paragraphs has to do with what we are talking about

Each of the paragraphs I’ve quoted address the non-literalistic interpretation of Genesis 1-3 – that is, interpretations of the literal sense that are not literalistic. That is precisely what we’re talking about.

Spiritual meanings of a text does not change the fact that we are to interpret the Bible literally.

No, I’m not talking about the spiritual senses of Scripture (see CCC 117). I’m talking about the literal sense of Scripture (see CCC 116) – the meaning “discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation.”

 

[Gorgias]

Science apparently has proven that the sun is older than the earth, contra Genesis.

That’s the whole point: whatever science discovers or proves cannot – by definition – be “contra Genesis.” Anything that appears to be contrary to the truth cannot be ascribed to Genesis; therefore, the logical implication is that anything that appears contrary is merely a misunderstanding of Genesis.

That’s therefore an exception.

I see. So, according to your perspective, exceptions to the truth of Scripture are possible? That’s not what the Church teaches.

But just because Job, for example, is flowery and amazing and has a moral theme, that doesn’t mean it’s not history.

No. That’s not what I’m arguing. I’m arguing that it’s not history because it’s recorded as a morality play.

Same with the Flood.

No. A different argument applies to the assertion of a global flood.

I love the Bible

So do I.

, and this discussion got me a little down this Christmas time.

I’m sorry. That wasn’t my intent.

 

[thinkandmull]

Interpreting the Bible less then literally is allowed when science has proven something, like with regard to the age of the sun. However, Leo XIII taught with Augustine that the Bible must be interpreted literally unless there is* clear reason* not to. You don’t have a* clear reason* with regard to Job, the Flood, or Samson’s hair. Just because something is incredible, that doesnt’ make it not credible. The Catechism does not specify what parts of Genesis are figurative. The example of the sun may well have been all it was speaking about. If you read works by historical critics of the Bible, you will find a whole host of reasons for them doubting the literal meaning of some of Jesus’s words, as well as many other parts of the Bible. My belief is that they are all wrong, and those types of arguments can only be taken further and further and therefore must be wrong. You draw a line which your children can latter step over until almost none of the Bible is historical and literal anymore

 

[Gorgias]

However, Leo XIII taught with Augustine that the Bible must be interpreted literally unless there is* clear reason* not to.

You’re never going to understand what that teaching means until you realize that “literally” doesn’t mean “literalistically.” When we say that we understand the literal sense of the Bible, it doesn’t mean that we must always and in every place treat it as if it were a science book or the 7 o’clock national news. Until you recognize this fact, you’re going to continue to rail against a position that the Church holds (but which you think the Church does not hold). I’m sorry, but that’s what you’re stuck on. :sad_yes:

The Catechism does not specify what parts of Genesis are figurative.

Go back to the citations I gave you and re-read them. Ask yourself, “what part of the Bible is the catechism talking about here?” (Hint: it’s the first three chapters of Genesis. )

If you read works by historical critics of the Bible, you will find a whole host of reasons for them doubting the literal meaning of some of Jesus’s words, as well as many other parts of the Bible.

Again: the fact that some people misapply sound techniques in order to reach misinterpretations of Scripture passages does not mean that the error is in the hermeneutic, but in the application of it.

 

[thinkandmull]

The CCC doesn’t say that it is taking “figurative” to apply to more than the two examples I gave. Your hermenutics is like a river. Everyone will have there own interpretation of “what the Holy Spirit was REALLY trying to say in this verse”, and the Bible gets washed away in the waterfall. The only safeguard is the age old Catholic principle of taking everything in the Bible at face value unless there is very good reason not to. Saying “I think Jews wrote moral books without desiring to have history in it, so Job is not history” is not good enough. There are far too many “opinions” about that sort of thing, and where you stop another will always take it further.

 

[thinkandmull]

I think the difference between us is that I’ve read material from historical criticists who use all kinds of techniques, principles, and ideas to reduce most of the Bible to non-history. Mostly everything incredible they try to interpret naturalisticly and symbolically. If you saw these arguments I think you’d be cured of your position quickly. From your position, what would give you the right to say they “misapply sound techniques”?

 

[Gorgias]

The CCC doesn’t say that it is taking “figurative” to apply to more than the two examples I gave.

It doesn’t say that figurative language is limited to those examples, either.

Your hermenutics is like a river. Everyone will have there own interpretation of “what the Holy Spirit was REALLY trying to say in this verse”, and the Bible gets washed away in the waterfall.

No, certainly that is not the case. You’re putting words in my mouth, as if I had said “there’s figurative language in the Bible and every person gets to decide for himself which is figurative and which is literalistic.” I most definitely have not said that – in fact, I pointed to the errors of the Reformation, during which this technique started coming into vogue in western culture.

The only safeguard is the age old Catholic principle of taking everything in the Bible at face value unless there is very good reason not to.

You keep alluding to an understanding of the literal sense of the Bible that’s not what the Church teaches. Allow me to point you to the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Among the things it teaches us which are relevant to our discussion, it states in paragraph 4:

According to “Divino Afflante Spiritu,” the search for the literal sense of Scripture is an essential task of exegesis and, in order to fulfill this task, it is necessary to determine the literary genre of texts

and again in section F:

Fundamentalist interpretation starts from the principle that the Bible, being the word of God, inspired and free from error, should be read and interpreted literally in all its details. But by “literal interpretation” it understands a naively literalist interpretation, one, that is to say, which excludes every effort at understanding the Bible that takes account of its historical origins and development. It is opposed, therefore, to the use of the historical-critical method, as indeed to the use of any other scientific method for the interpretation of Scripture.

Most importantly for this discussion, it explains the literal sense of the Bible in the section “The Meaning of Inspired Scripture”:

It is not only legitimate, it is also absolutely necessary to seek to define the precise meaning of texts as produced by their authors—what is called the “literal” meaning. St. Thomas Aquinas had already affirmed the fundamental importance of this sense (S. Th. I, q. 1,a. 10, ad 1).

The literal sense is not to be confused with the “literalist” sense to which fundamentalists are attached. It is not sufficient to translate a text word for word in order to obtain its literal sense. One must understand the text according to the literary conventions of the time. When a text is metaphorical, its literal sense is not that which flows immediately from a word-to-word translation (e.g. “Let your loins be girt”: Lk. 12:35), but that which corresponds to the metaphorical use of these terms (“Be ready for action”). When it is a question of a story, the literal sense does not necessarily imply belief that the facts recounted actually took place, for a story need not belong to the genre of history but be instead a work of imaginative fiction.

The literal sense of Scripture is that which has been expressed directly by the inspired human authors. Since it is the fruit of inspiration, this sense is also intended by God, as principal author. One arrives at this sense by means of a careful analysis of the text, within its literary and historical context. The principal task of exegesis is to carry out this analysis, making use of all the resources of literary and historical research, with a view to defining the literal sense of the biblical texts with the greatest possible accuracy (cf “Divino Afflante Spiritu: Ench. Bibl.,” 550).

thinkandmull:

Saying “I think Jews wrote moral books without desiring to have history in it, so Job is not history” is not good enough.

Indeed. Rather, honoring the teaching found in Divino afflante spiritu, we look at the literary genre of the book and the conventions of the culture, and from these we discover that the book of Job is written precisely in the form of a ‘morality play.’ From this discovery, some discernment is necessary: we ask why the inspired author used a literary form that incorporates fiction in order to tell a moral truth? Was it, perhaps, that he molded true events into a form that his audience would have presumed was fiction – was he really trying to confuse them and us? Or, perhaps, did he use this type of fiction as fiction in order to teach what God was inspiring him to write? Hmmm…