Old Testament as taught in Catholic High Schools

[momof8]

I was informed this weekend by my high school-aged children, who go to two different Catholic high schools, that Adam is not a real person and the events in the Old Testament either didn’t happen or were highly exaggerated. For instance, besides agreeing that Adam did not exist, they both strongly asserted that they were taught that the Red Sea didn’t “really” part, and that the events regarding the plagues and the Passover were greatly exaggerated. They do not believe that Abraham, Issac and Jacob actually existed. I didn’t get a clear answer from them on when in Jewish history these stories supposedly first developed or why the Jews apparently believe they are true. I would think that their answer would be that some Jews believe it’s true because they want to believe it’s true (in a fundamentalist Christian sort of way) and that many Jews know it isn’t true.

The schools that they attend are considered relatively orthodox in their teaching, at least lately. I understand that what they are being taught is what is generally believed in the Church today, at least by catechists. I think people who think otherwise (that the Bible is perhaps far more accurate historically than we realize) are considered simplistic and born-again-Protestant in their thinking. In other words, they would think that I am simplistic and born-again-Protestant in my thinking! But I know I’m not. I am very open to learning more but I am highly skeptical of this “most of the Old Testament is untrue” educational theory. If I were 16 and someone convinced me of that, my next question would be, “And then why should I believe that the New Testament is true? Because people who lived 2000 years ago are to believed but everyone who lived earlier was ignorant and gullible? Are you sure that YOU are not as ignorant and gullible as the Jews are or were? Did something magic happen that all of a sudden, 2,000 years ago ancient history somehow became dependable? Or is it all a nice story told to convey ‘the truth of God’s love for us’.” Like God can’t use actual history to convey actual truth, except after Jesus was born.

I hope people follow what I’m asking. I’m not asking if the earth was really created in 6 days. I’m asking if it is official Church teaching that the Old Testament, as a whole, is more or less fabricated, mostly more.

 

[Hecares]

My take on what you have said your children were taught is:

The Bible is an inspired book, written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, so it must be true. The truth. however, isn’t so much in the details of the individual stories as it is that God created us and that he loves us. He gave us a free will and we have continually used it to sin, to disobey His commands. However, He has always allowed us to return to Him when we repent of our sins because He is all merciful.

I read recently that the story of creation probably did not take place exactly as it is written. It is told to teach us a lesson. However, the article did say that there was one first man and one first woman. We all descended from one beginning couple, not from several “first couples.” In that sense Adam and Eve were real people.

I suspect that often when our children first hear these things they are so shocked that they don’t grasp the full meaning of what they are being taught. They get stuck on the fact that what they believed and what they are being taught don’t seem to agree.

There is much written about interpreting the Bible: The different kinds of writings and their purposes, the different levels of understanding each part, etc.I hope that you will read some of this information in order to help your children understand wwhat they are being taught.

 

[Dave_B]

I’m asking if it is official Church teaching that the Old Testament, as a whole, is more or less fabricated, mostly more.

The official Church teaching as I understand it, is that the Old Testament like the New, is true, and inerrant, free from error.

 

[Dave_B]

… however I think it also teaches it is the product of the culture in which it is written. And there is an implication that it is man-made as well as God-inspired. Which would explain the progressive nature of God’s revelation. God bless.

 

[patg]

The O. T. is not “a” book - it is a collection of books, much like a library. It contains some history but it also contains poetry, myth, legend, fable, allegory, etc - just like a library. It is all “truth” but the truth is expressed using different literary forms of the individual author’s choosing. Saying that a story is a myth or legend does not comment on the truth or falsehood of the story, it is a way of defining the literary form of the story, which is essential for a full understanding.

The church dogmatically states these ideas in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation - Dei Verbum. Here is an excerpt:

To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to “literary forms.” For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.

It is wonderful that your children are being introduced to the serious scripture scholarship of the church. Its not simple.

 

[fhansen]

I was informed this weekend by my high school-aged children, who go to two different Catholic high schools, that Adam is not a real person and the events in the Old Testament either didn’t happen or were highly exaggerated. For instance, besides agreeing that Adam did not exist, they both strongly asserted that they were taught that the Red Sea didn’t “really” part, and that the events regarding the plagues and the Passover were greatly exaggerated. They do not believe that Abraham, Issac and Jacob actually existed. I didn’t get a clear answer from them on when in Jewish history these stories supposedly first developed or why the Jews apparently believe they are true. I would think that their answer would be that some Jews believe it’s true because they want to believe it’s true (in a fundamentalist Christian sort of way) and that many Jews know it isn’t true.

The schools that they attend are considered relatively orthodox in their teaching, at least lately. I understand that what they are being taught is what is generally believed in the Church today, at least by catechists. I think people who think otherwise (that the Bible is perhaps far more accurate historically than we realize) are considered simplistic and born-again-Protestant in their thinking. In other words, they would think that I am simplistic and born-again-Protestant in my thinking! But I know I’m not. I am very open to learning more but I am highly skeptical of this “most of the Old Testament is untrue” educational theory. If I were 16 and someone convinced me of that, my next question would be, “And then why should I believe that the New Testament is true? Because people who lived 2000 years ago are to believed but everyone who lived earlier was ignorant and gullible? Are you sure that YOU are not as ignorant and gullible as the Jews are or were? Did something magic happen that all of a sudden, 2,000 years ago ancient history somehow became dependable? Or is it all a nice story told to convey ‘the truth of God’s love for us’.” Like God can’t use actual history to convey actual truth, except after Jesus was born.

I hope people follow what I’m asking. I’m not asking if the earth was really created in 6 days. I’m asking if it is official Church teaching that the Old Testament, as a whole, is more or less fabricated, mostly more.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that we all share a literal pair of first parents who literally sinned by disobeying God. She also teaches that some stories in both the OT and NT are allegorical-and she hasn’t commented on every one regarding which are and which aren’t. In any case you’d be within your rights to bring the false teachings up to your bishop. I’d also explore the Catechism (all of it ) but especially, for now, the following links on the fall of man and the correct way to read scripture:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm

scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s1c2a3.htm#108

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

I was informed this weekend by my high school-aged children, who go to two different Catholic high schools, that Adam is not a real person and the events in the Old Testament either didn’t happen or were highly exaggerated. For instance, besides agreeing that Adam did not exist, they both strongly asserted that they were taught that the Red Sea didn’t “really” part, and that the events regarding the plagues and the Passover were greatly exaggerated. They do not believe that Abraham, Issac and Jacob actually existed. I didn’t get a clear answer from them on when in Jewish history these stories supposedly first developed or why the Jews apparently believe they are true. I would think that their answer would be that some Jews believe it’s true because they want to believe it’s true (in a fundamentalist Christian sort of way) and that many Jews know it isn’t true.

The schools that they attend are considered relatively orthodox in their teaching, at least lately. I understand that what they are being taught is what is generally believed in the Church today, at least by catechists. I think people who think otherwise (that the Bible is perhaps far more accurate historically than we realize) are considered simplistic and born-again-Protestant in their thinking. In other words, they would think that I am simplistic and born-again-Protestant in my thinking! But I know I’m not. I am very open to learning more but I am highly skeptical of this “most of the Old Testament is untrue” educational theory. If I were 16 and someone convinced me of that, my next question would be, “And then why should I believe that the New Testament is true? Because people who lived 2000 years ago are to believed but everyone who lived earlier was ignorant and gullible? Are you sure that YOU are not as ignorant and gullible as the Jews are or were? Did something magic happen that all of a sudden, 2,000 years ago ancient history somehow became dependable? Or is it all a nice story told to convey ‘the truth of God’s love for us’.” Like God can’t use actual history to convey actual truth, except after Jesus was born.

I hope people follow what I’m asking. I’m not asking if the earth was really created in 6 days. I’m asking if it is official Church teaching that the Old Testament, as a whole, is more or less fabricated, mostly more.

1. Read Song of Songs
2. Try to contemplate it literally
3. ???
4. Reach understanding

 

[momof8]

Thanks, everyone. Probably the comment that says the most in the fewest words is patg’s, that serious scripture scholarship is not simple. I have been in touch with my son’s religion teacher, who said he tells the students, “Don’t say that I said…!” because this IS very difficult to understand and I’m sure he is often misquoted. I will certainly do more study myself so that I can understand the literary styles used in the Bible and the way that knowledge of the styles helps us understand the message of the Bible.

Thanks again for the comments, encouragement and links. It is all very helpful!

 

[patg]

If you are interested in this subject you should try the book used in many Catholic adult scripture education classes: *And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms *by Margaret Ralph. This is an inexpensive paperback available from Amazon. etc.

 

[Contarini]

I was informed this weekend by my high school-aged children, who go to two different Catholic high schools, that Adam is not a real person and the events in the Old Testament either didn’t happen or were highly exaggerated. For instance, besides agreeing that Adam did not exist, they both strongly asserted that they were taught that the Red Sea didn’t “really” part, and that the events regarding the plagues and the Passover were greatly exaggerated. They do not believe that Abraham, Issac and Jacob actually existed. I didn’t get a clear answer from them on when in Jewish history these stories supposedly first developed or why the Jews apparently believe they are true. I would think that their answer would be that some Jews believe it’s true because they want to believe it’s true (in a fundamentalist Christian sort of way) and that many Jews know it isn’t true.

Well, Jews like Christians certainly differ on how to interpret these stories. Orthodox Jews have a strict “dictation” theory of inspiration that is held by very few Christians, for instance.

I suspect that your kids’ teachers wouldn’t say that these stories aren’t “true,” but that they are true in a way that differs from historical accuracy.

Teaching these issues is very difficult–I teach an intro to the Bible at an evangelical college and run into these problems every semester.

If I were 16 and someone convinced me of that, my next question would be, “And then why should I believe that the New Testament is true? Because people who lived 2000 years ago are to believed but everyone who lived earlier was ignorant and gullible? Are you sure that YOU are not as ignorant and gullible as the Jews are or were? Did something magic happen that all of a sudden, 2,000 years ago ancient history somehow became dependable? Or is it all a nice story told to convey ‘the truth of God’s love for us’.” Like God can’t use actual history to convey actual truth, except after Jesus was born.

Well, no one denies that God used actual history to convey actual truth in the OT as well as the NT. The question is one of evidence. It’s not that people were more “ignorant” or “gullible” in the OT–it has to do with the lapse of time between when the events happened (or allegedly happened) and when they were recorded. Of course, that’s itself a controversial question, since traditionally Christians and Jews have believed that the Torah was written by (or dictated to) Moses. But by any normal historical/literary standards there are huge problems with this theory. At any rate, my point here is simply that the Gospels were written 30-70 years after the events they describe (this is by the common consensus of scholars). Even the Gospel of John was written within living memory if you suppose an unusually (but not miraculously) long-lived person. That’s very different from the case with the Torah, which most scholars believe was written in its final form during or after the Exile, something like 800 years after the events described. The genres and the historical issues simply aren’t the same.

The Torah is probably sacred history passed down for centuries before it was put in the form we have it. That doesn’t mean that the events it described didn’t happen, but that the genre of the Torah isn’t anything like what we would call history. It certainly is a kind of history, of course–in fact some would say that it’s the first really ambitious historical project engaged in by any culture. But it’s neither the modern kind of scholarly history based on archival research and other primary source documents, archeological artifacts, etc., nor the Thucydidean kind of ancient history (a category into which I’d put the Gospels–at least Luke) based on interviewing eyewitnesses (more like what we’d now think of as journalism).