S
steve-b
Guest
steve-b:
If you mean that I suspect Houghton is wrong, that’s inaccurate. I fear he’s right.
reason(s)?
- Status
reason(s)?
H
Hope1960
Guest
- he’s a scholar
- the article says this discovery “adds weight to the idea that many early scholars did not see the Bible as a history”
- I read elsewhere that Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia wrote this before our ECFs writing.
S
steve-b
Guest
As to your last comment: No, he did not predate the ECF’s. http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/oldest-latin-commentary-on-the-gospels-rediscoveredsteve-b:
- he’s a scholar
- the article says this discovery “adds weight to the idea that many early scholars did not see the Bible as a history”
- I read elsewhere that Italian bishop Fortunatianus of Aquileia wrote this before our ECFs writing.
And
Re: the 2nd comment, There was no bible till after ~382. Because before 382, there was no closed canon.
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
St. Jerome comments on this, it predates the Vulgate and predates Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome.
H
Hope1960
Guest
So, can somebody debunk Houghton’s conclusions?
W
Wesrock
Guest
You seem like you’re looking for reasons to disbelieve. Have you looked through the actual translation of the fourth century text this article is about? Gorgias linked it earlier. I don’t see any concerns about the commentary with Catholicism, and even the article that causes you worry is a sensationalized title, which seems more concerned with fundamentalist “plain reading of scripture” than a Catholic approach.
R
rom
Guest
This is just my 2 cents on the OP.
I think it is OK to make a literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture. St. Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between the “literal sense” and the “spiritual senses” of Holy Scripture. The spiritual senses include the allegorical. But according to him the literal sense is more important than the spiritual senses and that, in fact, it is the basis of the spiritual senses.
We must understand what St. Thomas meant by the “literal sense.” The literal sense is not necessarily the meaning of the words, but the meaning that the author meant to convey. For example, when Christ told the Scribes and Pharisees: “You serpents, generation of vipers …” (Matt 23:33), He clearly was not cusring the snakes; He was condemning the Scribes and Pharisees. And that is the literal meaning of Christ’s words, for that is what He wanted to convey. To think that Christ was condemning the snakes is to make a literalist interpretation, not a literal interpretation. In reading the Bible, we are supposed to make a literal, but not a literalist interpretation.
All these are just my opinion.
I think it is OK to make a literal interpretation of the Holy Scripture. St. Thomas Aquinas made a distinction between the “literal sense” and the “spiritual senses” of Holy Scripture. The spiritual senses include the allegorical. But according to him the literal sense is more important than the spiritual senses and that, in fact, it is the basis of the spiritual senses.
We must understand what St. Thomas meant by the “literal sense.” The literal sense is not necessarily the meaning of the words, but the meaning that the author meant to convey. For example, when Christ told the Scribes and Pharisees: “You serpents, generation of vipers …” (Matt 23:33), He clearly was not cusring the snakes; He was condemning the Scribes and Pharisees. And that is the literal meaning of Christ’s words, for that is what He wanted to convey. To think that Christ was condemning the snakes is to make a literalist interpretation, not a literal interpretation. In reading the Bible, we are supposed to make a literal, but not a literalist interpretation.
No. The scholar might just be encouraging us to dig deeper into the spiritual senses, and not limit ourselves to the literal sense of Holy Scripture. I can’t say more than this because I have not read the scholar’s book.
All these are just my opinion.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Catholic Church pretty much agrees with Dr. Hugh Houghton.
Even the Gospel’s have contradictions as pointed out by Pope Benedict XVI.
However, the core truth of Jesus, is still in them.
Jim
Last edited:
A
adgloriam
Guest
Happy cake day @Hope1960 
God bless you.
God bless you.
S
steve-b
Guest
It’s commentary ~50 yrs earlier than Jerome concerning the gospel .steve-b:
http://theconversation.com/lost-lat...-500-years-thanks-to-digital-technology-82874
St. Jerome comments on this, it predates the Vulgate and predates Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome.
How does that commentary contradict what I said in the folllowing?
- No, he did not predate the ECF’s
- “Still there are styles of thought in the Gospels that aren’t exactly to be taken in a wooden and literal sense” here
"Fortunatianus explains that the sea which is sometimes rough and dangerous stands for the world, while the boat corresponds to the Church in which Jesus is present and carries people to safety.
There are also moments of insight into the lives of fourth-century Italian Christians, as when the bishop uses a walnut as an image of the four Gospels or holds up a Roman coin as a symbol of the Trinity.
## English translation
In the form of a single (no longer anonymous) manuscript, or even a scholarly edition of the Latin text, it will still be some time before this work becomes as widely known as the famous writings of later Christian teachers such as Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome".
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
Thanks so much, Adgloriam!Happy cake day @Hope1960
H
Hope1960
Guest
I’m confused. Where in your link does it indicate this came after the ECFs?
W
Wesrock
Guest
The ECF’s date from the late first century to the eighth century. This document was written probably between the year 340 to 360, rough estimate. We have writings from many Church Fathers prior to that.steve-b:
I’m confused. Where in your link does it indicate this came after the ECFs?
Last edited:
H
Hope1960
Guest
The article says Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome wrote later.
W
Wesrock
Guest
By a couple decades, yes…Wesrock:
The article says Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome wrote later.
But we have other Church Fathers who predate this document by decades and centuries, too. This document was after the First Council of Nicea.
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
Clement I
Justin Martyr
Polycarp
Irenaeus of Lyon
Clement of Alexandria
Athanasius
Ignatius of Antioch
Tertullian
Hippolytus
Melito of Sardis
And there were plenty of other ECFs who wrote before this document.
Justin Martyr
Polycarp
Irenaeus of Lyon
Clement of Alexandria
Athanasius
Ignatius of Antioch
Tertullian
Hippolytus
Melito of Sardis
And there were plenty of other ECFs who wrote before this document.
H
Hope1960
Guest
Ok. Thank you. But is this Houghton right? Are the Gospels untrue?
S
steve-b
Guest
I was responding to your point #3 in something you read re: his writing came “before” the ECF’s heresteve-b:
I’m confused. Where in your link does it indicate this came after the ECFs?
Last edited:
W
Wesrock
Guest
That’s not what Houghton was saying.
And, while I didn’t read every word of the document he’s talking about, didn’t see anything objectionable in what I read. Every read Pope Benedict’s XVI Jesus of Nazareth series?
And, while I didn’t read every word of the document he’s talking about, didn’t see anything objectionable in what I read. Every read Pope Benedict’s XVI Jesus of Nazareth series?
H
Hope1960
Guest
I think I may have read one of them.
- Status