My professor told us the Holy Innocents weren’t real?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gabrielle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wish I knew what your point was.

From his workshops I have attended I believe Raymond Brown would likely not be too concerned if the massacre of the Holy Innocents was only a handful of murders in a village or two…or not even historical. He also believes there is very slender Biblical evidence supporting the angels appearing to Mary and Joseph, the Flight into Egypt and quite a few more minor Infancy events.

Yet he is highly respected by both Protestants and the Magisterium.
He also sees goof evidence for the bodily Resurrection of Jesus in the NT.
I really don’t see what the fuss is all about re Modern Biblical Scholarship.

But if lay persons don’t have the skills to distinguish minor events from major events and respected scholars from crackpots then I can well understand the chicken-lichen fears re all Modern Catholic Biblical Scholarship.
For those of us who follow respected Catholic scholars its a storm in a teacup.
 
Last edited:
I think we all understand that we’re supposed to see a point to the stories. The homily usually brings out the point of the daily Mass reading. Many of the stories also have multiple “points”, which a good homilist will bring out.

Those of us who took some Bible history know that the stories in different Gospels were slanted towards different audiences for the three synoptic Gospels, and in John towards a general theme.

Those of us who have studied eyewitness testimony know that eyewitness accounts of the same event usually have a lot of differences, so something like all the people going to the tomb on Resurrection Day and coming back with different stories about where the angel sat or what was said or the timeline of what happened, is perfectly normal. In fact, if they all came back telling the exact same story down to every detail, that would suggest that the story was made up and they all memorized it, rather than relating it as eyewitnesses.

I can see where the “English lesson” approach might be helpful to some people who either are trained in that sort of approach from their area of scholarship, or are trying to get down to the core of what they truly believe and not get bogged down in details of whether the angel sat on the rolled-away stone or sat in the tomb. I myself have never felt a need to analyze in that way because I would just rely on the two things I said above.

There are a lot of legitimate ways to approach the Scripture. And I guess upon re-reading, you also recognized that in your posts.
 
I took an Old Testament course. The professor said the miracles were made up. I asked myself at that point what I believed. I decided at 18 that it did not matter if I believed that God had done all the miracles in the Bible. It only matters that I believe He could.
I believe that everything in the Bible is true, in that it tells me a truth.
 
BlackFriar said:
For those of us who follow respected Catholic scholars its a storm in a teacup.
Click to expand...
Name those “respected Catholic scholars” that you follow so we can assess whether or not “storm in a teacup” is an apt description for what is going on.

There have been Catholic scholars who are modern and respected who have gone off the rails. It all depends upon who they are respected by and what Traditional views they are willing to throw out of their theology.
 
What helps to corroborate the event is its historical context. It is widely established among scholars that, in the ancient Roman world, decimation was used as a form of punishment against one’s own people and troops and as a means of demoralizing and reducing ranks of enemy forces or other oppressed groups such as slaves.

You might suggest to your professor that the texts concerning the death of the Holy innocents is an example of the well known ancient practice of decimation. Would King Harrod, the puppet king of Rome, have been unfamiliar with such brutal tactics? That is very unlikely as the occuplying Romans most certainly would have used it against the people of ancient Palestine. Harrod and his Roman superiors most certainly would have seen decimation as a possible remedy for a growing male population and concerns of future rebellion against the Empire.

However, your professor may be unfamiliar with decimation if he has never studied ancient military history. So, do not be surprised if he has no idea what you’re talking about.
 
Last edited:
I’ve always asked those who deny miracles what proof they have of any hoax or fabrication. Many have said its because they’ve asked for miracles and did not recieve one. I suspect it is less painful for them to believe that there is no God or that God does not perform miracles than it is to believe God answered “No.” to their prayers.

I once had dinner with a famous scriptural professor known for denying miracles in the Bible. When someone at the table suggested miracles are real and still happen, he became irate, pounded the table, pointed his fork at the person and started yelling “Then why did God let my wife die of cancer?! Tell me that and I’ll believe you!!!”

Two people got up and left the table as the embarrassed, illustrious professor tried to regain his composure. I, however, remained seated as my dinner was very delicious. It takes more than mere heresy and a tantrum to separate the Old Colonel from good chow.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself4h

I agree with everything you said, and if you look at my previous posts in various places, you’ll find I have said exactly the same things!

There are two reasons I get excited by this topic.
  1. Although the Church clearly says there are different legitimate ways to approach the Bible, too many people not only adopt a literal approach, but they also condemn others who do not.
  2. I have seen too many Youtube videos and read too many stories about high school and college students who were brought up and / or educated to believe that a literal reading was the only acceptable one. Eventually they come across a problem where a literal reading doesn’t make sense, and instead of approaching it a different way, they simply become atheists, Muslims, or whatever. Because if they go to a teacher or parent with the issue, they are told to shut up and not ask questions. This is inexcusable. Pew Research has done many polls that touch on all this, most notable a 2009 / 2011 poll, “Faith in Flux.” http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/
 
Last edited:
Erikaspirit16 said:
too many people not only adopt a literal approach, but they also condemn others who do not.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, we have also seen people who take the scholarly, non-literal approach condemning those who either take a more literal approach or who don’t accept all the conclusions of particular scholars. Those who prefer a literal belief are laughed at, told they are ignorant, told they are denying scholarship, etc.
 
Gabrielle said:
He told us that there is no historical proof that Herod ever called for the killing of these children.
Click to expand...
there’s no historical proof that it didn’t happen. We have a written record that it happened. Why is this professor discounting the biblical written record? Just because it is in the Bible doesn’t mean it needs an outside source to back it up anymore than we needed an outside source to back up Suetonius stating that Caesar crossed the Rubicon.
 
TheOldColonel said:
I’ve always asked those who deny miracles what proof they have of any hoax or fabrication. Many have said its because they’ve asked for miracles and did not recieve one. I suspect it is less painful for them to believe that there is no God or that God does not perform miracles than it is to believe God answered “No.” to their prayers.

I once had dinner with a famous scriptural professor known for denying miracles in the Bible. When someone at the table suggested miracles are real and still happen, he became irate, pounded the table, pointed his fork at the person and started yelling “Then why did God let my wife die of cancer?! Tell me that and I’ll believe you!!!”

Two people got up and left the table as the embarrassed, illustrious professor tried to regain his composure. I, however, remained seated as my dinner was very delicious. It takes more than mere heresy and a tantrum to separate the Old Colonel from good chow.
Click to expand...
That was a heartwarming story. I hope you also had a nice dessert and coffee. 😉
 
Erikaspirit16 said:
40.png
joeybaggz:
Or is that something that didn’t really occur and was written for the heck of it?
Click to expand...
It seems to me we agreed about something on another thread. But apparently not here!
Click to expand...
Erika, I think you missed the sarcasm in that statement. Everything in Scripture is included for a purpose.
Shalom
 
As I recall, the dinner was exquisite despite certain disturbances at the table.
 
You are over thinking the “respected”.
Clearly I refer to the Magisterium.
 
We have lots of ancient records about unicorns and dragons.
There is no historical proof they never existed either.
Hopefully you are not gullible enough to believe in these.
But I suppose you can if you want to as it actually makes no difference to anything.
 
HolySpirit said:
I’ve always asked those who deny miracles what proof they have of any hoax or fabrication.
Click to expand...
That’s an unusual approach.
Given we are talking of exceptions to the normal course of events I personally take the view that such are guilty until proven innocent rather than the reverse.

Big claims require big evidence.
Mere lack of an overt explanation is insufficient and unreasonable a basis to change one’s way of life over an alleged spiritual explanation - at least for people using the gift of discernment He gave us and asked us to use.

There is a reason why my Asian relatives bend over their bowls and stop talking once the food is on the table. But then one needs to come from a poor background where daily bread is not taken for granted to understand that.
 
BlackFriar said:
You are over thinking the “respected”.
Clearly I refer to the Magisterium.
Click to expand...
I suppose I must be overthinking asking for the names of these magisterially respected theologians since you haven’t named any names. It might be worth reading some of their highly regarded thoughts, no?
 
I came here to recommend The Infancy Narratives. Glad to see you beat me to it!
 
I really don’t know what the issue is for you.
The small point I make is that the cranks of any discipline do not call the whole discipline into question. Do current day flat-earthers call all of Newtonian Physics into question?

Why then should renegade Modern Biblical Scholars do so?
Some posters here seem forced to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because they have no skills themselves to separate Ptolemys from Copernicii.

And does saying there is slender evidence for asserting some of the stories in the Infancy narratives are actually historical as recounted constitute being a renegade? I know of no Magisterial or Vatican department missive of the last 50 years that states that.

Perhaps you can quote one?

As the name of Raymond Brown has been bandied about here the following article is interesting:


I believe Fr Brown, of happy memory, has a reputation second to none in this field despite the above professor of this thread likely following his lead re The Holy Innocents.

While derided by extremists both traditional and liberal he is in fact a centrist in this area and was known for being a man of the Church. He died without opprobrium or defrocking or censure and none of his 25 publications being indexed. In fact Fr. Brown was appointed in 1972 to the Pontifical Biblical Commission and again in 1996, two years before he died. So I suggest he is Kosher until proven otherwise. And therefore his views also.

The jury is still out as to whether his assessment of the NT evidence for Mary’s Virginal conception of Jesus (slender evidence) is objective. That seems to be about the limit of serious concern amongst the Magisterium and his Catholic peers.

Catholic extremists of no academic learning whatsoever will likely disagree from both sides.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top