For many, the opposite is true. It is Ok if you don’t agree with the Church’s most respected biblical scholars and a few popes and you don’t want to study historical criticism or literary forms (as instructed by the Church), but there is no need to belittle those who do. We are all searching for the truth.
Finding these works was the one and only thing that brought me back into seriously reading the bible (oh, and don’t forget the horribly evil works I didn’t mention by the Jesus Seminar).
I suggest that the Church’s most significant scholars with their nihil obstats, *imprimaturs, *and papal encouragement surely carry as much weight as random strangers on the internet.When one reads that “Well, this stuff didn’t really happen–these are just pious reflections from later Christians that were attractive in teaching unsophisticated early believers” one just shuts the book, puts the Bible back on the shelf, and with Flannery O’Connor says “Just a myth? To hell with it then.”
As I never tire of pointing out, these people are not “the Church’s scholars” but individuals who, knowledgable though they may be, do NOT speak for the Church.
Hmm… but if the historical circumstances forming the setting for the infancy narrative aren’t important, why would Luke mention them at all? I don’t really understand how that fits into the infancy narrative genre. Hmm.
Thank you (and everyone) for your imput. I’m still a bit skeptical though, I mean… I’m fine with the idea that, for example, the first chapters of Genesis is not intended to be read literally as a record of the formation of the universe… that it describes Creation in a way that we can understand. It just seems weird for seemingly straightforward and mundane details to be used that way. I probably should read about different literary types of the time, to convince myself that “x-narrative” isn’t a lame excuse for something being fake. I mean… what if Hillary Clinton claimed her sniper story was a “Bosnia Narrative”? Certainly it did reflect elements of truth about Bosnia in the 90s, and I bet her security situation wasn’t perfect. Maybe that’s an unfair comparison, but I just want to explain how footnotes like that look to someone who isn’t all up on Biblical scholarship and ancient literature. I can understand those who say the Bible gets its facts right, and I can understand those who say the Bible is nothing but a story, but it’s a lot harder to see how a tenable middle position can exist. Maybe, with proper nuance it can; but I guess I need more study to figure that out.
For someone who has put so much time into this, it defies belief that you would completely misunderstand Church teaching on form criticism in the way that you put forth in this post. Either your post intentionally disregards what form criticism actually is for polemical reasons, or you really need to go back to square one and learn everything over.
I think that you need to read the entire documents you are selectively quoting from and maybe pick up some of the more recent ones. The Instruction on the Historical Truth of The Gospels might help you, along with Witherup’s Biblical Fundamentalism, What Every Catholic Should Know.
No…but:
Have you ever taken a class in English literature? That might be helpful for you. Learn to appreciate poems, fiction, and other types of writing. Until you appreciate poetry and fiction I don’t think you can really understand the bible or form criticism.
Simple: ignore the footnotes in the NAB.
It’s true the mircales don’t entirely say who Jesus is. The Old Testament recorded people doing a lot of the same things anyway. But there seem to be Christological significance associated with most the miracle stories. I don’t think they are mere extras… if the miracles are all made up, I don’t see much reason for being Christian.
I’m not a big fan of the NAB footnotes either, but I just want to point out that when they call something a “Lucan insertion” or “Markan insertion” this doesn’t automatically mean that it’s incorrect. They are assuming that Luke started with Mark’s gospel as a starting point and added some things. The additions could be historical or correct. Calling them an insertion doesn’t say anything about their validity, only that it was something new added by Luke.
All I am saying is that there is so much to be learned from the bible that it is wasteful to continue trying to deny obvious truths. The bible was written by fallible people. They made errors about historical facts. They did math incorrectly from time to time. They put forth more often than not rather brilliant writings which were beautifully designed to accomplish their purpose. Many of the writers were quite eloquent. I have no problem that they were not erroneous in many respects. The fact that Luke and Matthew agreed that many of Mark’s stories were correct attests to this. They used them themselves. These were stories that had been around for years, errors creep into any oral tradition as well as written ones over time. Attempts to adher to a strict “there can be no error of any kind” are simply doomed to failure and make the speaker look foolish, and thus he loses his efficacy as a speaker.
I am really fond of this statement. Poetry, facts, prose, stories can all speak of the truth of God. The Bible is all of this and so much more.
Let’s not get any facts in the way now.
I think we get upset by this stuff because even a single error in scripture could be the counter-example which proves that God did not author scripture (since God is assumed to not make mistakes).