Was the flood/creation account Historical?

[patg]

miguel:

The Catholic position is that God is the author. He inspired the words chosen by the human authors.

I’m not sure what you are saying with this - are you placing a restriction on God requiring all inspiration to be historical fact? That is definitely NOT the Catholic position.

…or is God allowed to tell the truth using all the literary devices understood by the reader?

 

[miguel]

patg:

I’m not sure what you are saying with this - are you placing a restriction on God requiring all inspiration to be historical fact? That is definitely NOT the Catholic position.

…or is God allowed to tell the truth using all the literary devices understood by the reader?

I am in full agreement with the Catechism where it says:

“In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.” (CCC 110)

Historical writing is acknowledged by the Church as one of the forms God uses to tell the truth. When it appears in Scripture, I don’t want it to be confused and misrepresented as something else. The anti-supernatural approach is open to this error. If God is in fact trying to tell us that demonic possession is a real possibility, and that he has dominion over demons which he demonstrates by casting them out, but I have a pre-conceived, anti-supernatural notion against that when I try to interpret a passage that plainly deals with that subject, then I’m going to look for ways to explain it away. Is that not an attempt to place restrictions on God?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

miguel:

I have absolutely zero problem with using the best tools at our disposal for exegesis. My concern is that even after these tools have been used, the end result, in some circles, is very far from the plain meaning as patg demonstrated in the example of Mark 5:1-20.

The Catholic position is that God is the author. He inspired the words chosen by the human authors. They “…consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.” (CCC 106) And I might add, his readers are not composed of 100% scholars.

If the end result of the process is that God has been edited, there is something wrong with the process.

“But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written.” (CCC 111)

Ignoring this principle, (i.e., groundruling out the “appeal to the supernatural”) is akin to playing Mozart using only drums. It’s not surprising how it all turns out…a dead letter.

The supernatural realm, though real, is irrelevant to a very large number of issues in Biblical scholarship.​

For example, appealing to the “supernatural” will not:

• explain why Ur is called “of the Chaldeans” in Gen.11.31, centuries before they were present in Mesopotamia
• settle the reading or meaning of Judges 18.30
• gives us the text of 1 Samuel 13.1
• settle the order, dating, composition & integrity of Ezra & Nehemiah
• it will not settle the date or route of the Exodus
• it will not solve the question of whether there was an Exodus; or whether there were several
• it will not tell us whether the Genesis account of the Flood was influenced at all by Tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic
• it will not tell us the date of Psalms
• it will not tell us whether the Psalm 104 was influenced by the religious ideas of Akhenaten
• it will not settle the vexed question of the location of Sinai
• it will not account the parallels between Canaanite ideas about Ba’al and Israelite ideas about JHWH

• again & again & again, in case after case, invoking the supernatural is completely useless and irrelevant in answering the thousands of detailed, important, and fascinating questions raised by close attention to Scripture.

That is why scholars do not use the category of the supernatural; it settles nothing.

It would be more “supernatural” to insist on a late date for all the Gospels than an earlier one; if the only source of knowledge about Our Lord’s life on earth was a direct Divine revelation made in the year 100 to each Evangelist, that would be a far greater wonder than for them to writre at earlier date such as 50 (say), when there would presumably be many human witnesses to what had happened. Yet an earlier date is often favoured over a later one - as though the God Who rules all things could not guarantee the truth of the Gospels as easily in AD 100 as in AD 50. Is something less true because it is later ? Not if we appeal to the supernatural - God is quite mighty enough to make sure that a later writer will be as inspired and truthful as an earlier one.

Scripture is indeed inspired - that fact is not in the slightest degree negated by adopting all the available tools of Biblical scholarship as now usually practiced.

It is no fault of the scholars, if the texts do not always mean quite what they have often been thought to mean - each problem should be taken individually, to avoid the danger of unhelpful generalisations.

Those who have only a casual knowledge of the Bible, won’t notice the problems raised - the fuller one’s acquaintance with the fine detail of the Bible, in all its bearings, the less easy it is to ignore the questions raised.

But this deserves a separate post. ##

 

[miguel]

I’m not arguing that all questions raised in Biblical scholarship require an appeal to the supernatural. Obviously, it is irrelevant to whether the flood account in Genesis was influenced by the Gilgamesh Epic. To avoid unhelpful generalizations, I asked you about Mark 5:1-20. That is an example where the supernatural cannot be easily brushed aside. That’s why I brought it up.

 

[miguel]

Call me naive, but the Catholic Church is not afraid of the truth. If anything, it is afraid of error and the damage that can come from it.

“It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”
“But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”(St Augustine) (CCC 119)

This may seem like an obnoxious claim, but it is founded in the divine authority given to St. Peter by Our Lord “…whatever you hold bound on earth will be held bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

 

[Cherubino]

“There are many things that are true which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false, it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise.”

St. Augustine, “The City of God”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

miguel:

Call me naive, but the Catholic Church is not afraid of the truth. If anything, it is afraid of error and the damage that can come from it.

“It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God.”
“But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me.”(St Augustine) (CCC 119)

This may seem like an obnoxious claim, but it is founded in the divine authority given to St. Peter by Our Lord “…whatever you hold bound on earth will be held bound in heaven, whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt 16:19)

All this needs to be thought about and taken into consideration - I’ve benn thinking about all this for a very long time.​

One tries to consider the matter from all points of view - that is one of several reasons why it is worthwhile, and necessary, to do what one can to make a case for the rightness, Christian-ness, & Catholic-ness, of studying the Bible in the greatest possible detail, using all means available.

One is advocating nothing that is not already allowed by the Church.The Church encourages the use of the “historical-critical” method (it’s an unhelpful name for it, but it will do for the moment); and the examination of literary genres. Yet quite a few Catholics agonise over these matters - I know I did, so I know what it is like to worry about the ages in Genesis 5, the extent of the Flood, the authorship of Isaiah, the dating of the Gospels, and half a hundred other issues that bother people. So one is doing nothing whatever that is not completely permissible.

As for the truth: if it is true that Isaiah 40 was written in 538 or so, and not in 700; if Revelation is to be understood as a Christian apocalypse rather than as a prophecy; if there are solid arguments for supposing that there is some kind of literary relation between Genesis 6-8 & Tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic; if the prophecy of Ezekiel in Ezek. 26 was modified by chapter 29 of the same book; if the dating of the Exodus is more complicated and uncertain than meets the eye; if the interpretation of the Biblical texts is not as straightforward as it was 200 years ago - let all these things be said, by all means. Let them be faced.

The difficulty is, that there is a tension between what the proper authorities allow, and what certain Catholics think it should allow - as the furore over the notes of the NAB shows. What is to be done ? Is a scholar to adopt a semi-Fundamentalist position (which is not what the Church recommends BTW) and say that every detail that looks like history, is history, so as not to scandalise one lot of Catholics; or is he (or she) to speak his mind, and risk scandalising them ?

I don’t see any easy solution to this - what I do think, is that the only way to remove the suspicions of which scholars and bishops are the objects, is, to educate Catholics in what the scholars actually do. And such an undertaking will itself probably cause scandal. But so does doing nothing. The current status quo is very unhealthy - one lot of Catholics is doing no more than the Church allows, another lot of Catholics is suspicious of them: so their accusations of heresy, anti-supernaturalism, and so on. This cannot be good for the Church, or her mission, or her growth in grace, or her efficacy, or her testimony to Christ. ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

miguel:

I’m not arguing that all questions raised in Biblical scholarship require an appeal to the supernatural. Obviously, it is irrelevant to whether the flood account in Genesis was influenced by the Gilgamesh Epic. To avoid unhelpful generalizations, I asked you about Mark 5:1-20. That is an example where the supernatural cannot be easily brushed aside. That’s why I brought it up.

Now I understand - sorry.​

The first question I would ask - it is far from the most important AFAICS - is whether what is described is meant to be understood as supernatural. Jesus is presented as doing a work of great power; but is it, in the categories of later theological thinking, supernatural ?

Perhaps more important, the action of Jesus reveals Who He is (note the recognition of Him by “Legion”), so it prepares for the recognition in Chapter 8, and looks back to the question about who can forgive in Chapter 2. However one “classifies” what Jesus does here, the significance of what is done is relatively easy to recognise.

BTW: ISTM that it is not possible to give a general answer to the question, “Are all Jesus’ healings supernatural ?” I think one has to take each episode individually, rather than attempting to make blanket statements. ##

 

[miguel]

“There are many things that are true which it is not useful for the vulgar crowd to know; and certain things which although they are false, it is expedient for the people to believe otherwise.”

St. Augustine, “The City of God”

Hey, nobody’s perfect!

 

[buffalo]

## The supernatural realm, though real, is irrelevant to a very large number of issues in Biblical scholarship.

For example, appealing to the “supernatural” will not:

• explain why Ur is called “of the Chaldeans” in Gen.11.31, centuries before they were present in Mesopotamia
• settle the reading or meaning of Judges 18.30
• gives us the text of 1 Samuel 13.1
• settle the order, dating, composition & integrity of Ezra & Nehemiah
• it will not settle the date or route of the Exodus
• it will not solve the question of whether there was an Exodus; or whether there were several
• it will not tell us whether the Genesis account of the Flood was influenced at all by Tablet 11 of the Gilgamesh Epic
• it will not tell us the date of Psalms
• it will not tell us whether the Psalm 104 was influenced by the religious ideas of Akhenaten
• it will not settle the vexed question of the location of Sinai
• it will not account the parallels between Canaanite ideas about Ba’al and Israelite ideas about JHWH

• again & again & again, in case after case, invoking the supernatural is completely useless and irrelevant in answering the thousands of detailed, important, and fascinating questions raised by close attention to Scripture.

That is why scholars do not use the category of the supernatural; it settles nothing.

It would be more “supernatural” to insist on a late date for all the Gospels than an earlier one; if the only source of knowledge about Our Lord’s life on earth was a direct Divine revelation made in the year 100 to each Evangelist, that would be a far greater wonder than for them to writre at earlier date such as 50 (say), when there would presumably be many human witnesses to what had happened. Yet an earlier date is often favoured over a later one - as though the God Who rules all things could not guarantee the truth of the Gospels as easily in AD 100 as in AD 50. Is something less true because it is later ? Not if we appeal to the supernatural - God is quite mighty enough to make sure that a later writer will be as inspired and truthful as an earlier one.

Scripture is indeed inspired - that fact is not in the slightest degree negated by adopting all the available tools of Biblical scholarship as now usually practiced.

It is no fault of the scholars, if the texts do not always mean quite what they have often been thought to mean - each problem should be taken individually, to avoid the danger of unhelpful generalisations.

Those who have only a casual knowledge of the Bible, won’t notice the problems raised - the fuller one’s acquaintance with the fine detail of the Bible, in all its bearings, the less easy it is to ignore the questions raised.

But this deserves a separate post. ##

When interpreting texts who would have the better vantage point?

The author?
The people who read the author at the time?
The first generations of oral tradition?
The continous oral tradition?
The continous oral and written tradition?
Or the current scholarship attempting to interpret scripture through a modern lens?

 

[miguel]

Gottle of Geer:

…The difficulty is, that there is a tension between what the proper authorities allow, and what certain Catholics think it should allow - as the furore over the notes of the NAB shows. What is to be done ? Is a scholar to adopt a semi-Fundamentalist position (which is not what the Church recommends BTW) and say that every detail that looks like history, is history, so as not to scandalise one lot of Catholics; or is he (or she) to speak his mind, and risk scandalising them ?

I don’t see any easy solution to this - what I do think, is that the only way to remove the suspicions of which scholars and bishops are the objects, is, to educate Catholics in what the scholars actually do. And such an undertaking will itself probably cause scandal. But so does doing nothing. The current status quo is very unhealthy - one lot of Catholics is doing no more than the Church allows, another lot of Catholics is suspicious of them: so their accusations of heresy, anti-supernaturalism, and so on. This cannot be good for the Church, or her mission, or her growth in grace, or her efficacy, or her testimony to Christ. ##

If a detail really is history, it shouldn’t be misrepresented as something else. And it certainly isn’t helpful to call people “Fundamentalist” who are afraid of that. Speaking one’s mind to one’s peers (i.e., within scholarly circles) is fine. But going around proper Church authority and taking scholarly opinion to the masses, especially when that opinion contradicts or appears to contradict long accepted doctrine is irresponsible. It amounts to taking unfair advantage of one’s expert status, since most people aren’t equipped to challenge the experts. It just causes bewilderment. But I can also understand the frustration among scholars when their ideas aren’t immediately accepted. But they should realize that going in. They are pushing the limits, asking important qestions, etc. That should be the joy in itself. It should never be viewed as wasted effort.

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (Jn 17:21)

 

[patg]

miguel:

The anti-supernatural approach is open to this error. If God is in fact trying to tell us that demonic possession is a real possibility, and that he has dominion over demons which he demonstrates by casting them out, but I have a pre-conceived, anti-supernatural notion against that when I try to interpret a passage that plainly deals with that subject, then I’m going to look for ways to explain it away. Is that not an attempt to place restrictions on God?

First, whether the story is historical or not, it is teaching the truth - that demonic possession is a real possibility, and that God has dominion over demons.

Now, it is still left to the reader to determine the historical reality - if they care. Knowing the truth I stated above may be all they care about. It is very clear to me that the author is telling us he is not relating an actual event. The unknown place name, the bad geography, the direct references to the Romans, and the symbolism of the unclean pig all point to a fictional tale.

I don’t have a preconceived, anti-supernatural notion controlling my interpretation, I am just letting the author use the normal tools of writing to talk to me.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buffalo:

When interpreting texts who would have the better vantage point?

The author?
The people who read the author at the time?
The first generations of oral tradition?
The continous oral tradition?
The continous oral and written tradition?
Or the current scholarship attempting to interpret scripture through a modern lens?

Thanks.​

In the year 3000, people may well be treating “Lord of the Rings” as sober history, and excavating bits of southern England in order to find out more about the habits & habitat of Hobbits

This would be the same type of blunder as people make when they insist that the Flood “must have” been universal, and that there “must have” been a star over the birth-place of Jesus - the texts say thus, so, it must be true, in the sense in which the ordinary reader takes it. Is Little Bo-Peep an historical person, merely because a text makes a series of statements about her ? Neither is Geoffrey of Monmouth to be regarded as a relibable historian, on the mere ground that his statemenrts about Brutus great-grandson of Aeneas are “history-like” in some respects.

Being the subject of a statement in a text, is not a guarantee of having been an historical person. Surely that is self-evident. And if that is true, then the text mentioning the person cannot be regarded as purely and simply and straighforwardly historical. Sargon the Great of Akkad - who ruled Mesopotamia in about 2300 BC - was an historical person: but it does not follow that all the texts about him are historical. The anecdote that he offended a deity by taking some of the earth from Babylon so as to sanctify his own city of Akkad, is an historical impossibility, so it is not treated as history; though it was formerly, about 80 years ago. That text is not historical, if by that is meant that it relates events which are certainly factual - but it does show how he was regarded, and is valuable for that. There are several stories about him: one of them is a variation on the folk-lore theme of “The Fatal Message”; it may have an historical core, but it can’t be treated as undoubted fact.

And just the same happens in the OT: Exodus 2 contains a version of the tale of the abandoned foundling who is found by a well-disposed stranger who takes the child and brings him (or her) up until the foundling comes into his own. This is a universal theme - there is a Sargon-story of exactly this kind. So it is not unnatural that it should have found its way into Israel & the Bible. Moses and David are both, in different ways, heroes of this type - there are folklore elements in the narratives about them. This is entirely to be expected, because the Bible seems to follow the pattern of the Incarnation: it grows up from within a particular culture, and is influenced by it.

Readers of the OT who know nothing of Canaanite religion(say), won’t notice reminiscences and themes from it. They won’t wonder why both Ba’al and JHWH are depicted as warrior-gods riding the clouds, if they don’t know - why should they ? - that texts from Ugarit and texts in the OT describe these gods in very similar terms. That does not mean those themes are absent from the OT, or unimportant.

If knowledge of these things is lost and then rediscovered, why should scholars be reproached for being aware of them, and using what they know ? ##

 

[buffalo]

## Thanks.

In the year 3000, people may well be treating “Lord of the Rings” as sober history, and excavating bits of southern England in order to find out more about the habits & habitat of Hobbits

This would be the same type of blunder as people make when they insist that the Flood “must have” been universal, and that there “must have” been a star over the birth-place of Jesus - the texts say thus, so, it must be true, in the sense in which the ordinary reader takes it. Is Little Bo-Peep an historical person, merely because a text makes a series of statements about her ? Neither is Geoffrey of Monmouth to be regarded as a relibable historian, on the mere ground that his statemenrts about Brutus great-grandson of Aeneas are “history-like” in some respects.

Being the subject of a statement in a text, is not a guarantee of having been an historical person. Surely that is self-evident. And if that is true, then the text mentioning the person cannot be regarded as purely and simply and straighforwardly historical. Sargon the Great of Akkad - who ruled Mesopotamia in about 2300 BC - was an historical person: but it does not follow that all the texts about him are historical. The anecdote that he offended a deity by taking some of the earth from Babylon so as to sanctify his own city of Akkad, is an historical impossibility, so it is not treated as history; though it was formerly, about 80 years ago. That text is not historical, if by that is meant that it relates events which are certainly factual - but it does show how he was regarded, and is valuable for that. There are several stories about him: one of them is a variation on the folk-lore theme of “The Fatal Message”; it may have an historical core, but it can’t be treated as undoubted fact.

And just the same happens in the OT: Exodus 2 contains a version of the tale of the abandoned foundling who is found by a well-disposed stranger who takes the child and brings him (or her) up until the foundling comes into his own. This is a universal theme - there is a Sargon-story of exactly this kind. So it is not unnatural that it should have found its way into Israel & the Bible. Moses and David are both, in different ways, heroes of this type - there are folklore elements in the narratives about them. This is entirely to be expected, because the Bible seems to follow the pattern of the Incarnation: it grows up from within a particular culture, and is influenced by it.

Readers of the OT who know nothing of Canaanite religion(say), won’t notice reminiscences and themes from it. They won’t wonder why both Ba’al and JHWH are depicted as warrior-gods riding the clouds, if they don’t know - why should they ? - that texts from Ugarit and texts in the OT describe these gods in very similar terms. That does not mean those themes are absent from the OT, or unimportant.

If knowledge of these things is lost and then rediscovered, why should scholars be reproached for being aware of them, and using what they know ? ##

The question still stands - who has a better vantage point? If 3,000 years in the future we try to find evidence of hobbits, who better than the current author and readers to advise that they are fiction. Could someone from 3,000 years in the future discover this?

So if the authors say universal flood and oral tradition maintains it, why would we assume local flood? How can we be really sure. Science can tell us some things, but not all. Has the constant tradition been invalidated by a geological theory?

If the ark is discovered at 17,000 feet rather than at sea level, would this support the constant tradition?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

miguel:

If a detail really is history, it shouldn’t be misrepresented as something else. And it certainly isn’t helpful to call people “Fundamentalist” who are afraid of that. Speaking one’s mind to one’s peers (i.e., within scholarly circles) is fine. But going around proper Church authority and taking scholarly opinion to the masses,

1. There is a problem with a sort of Fundamentalism in the CC - this is not my belief alone: I was echoing a 1993 Vatican document. With which I heartily agree​

especially when that opinion contradicts or appears to contradict long accepted doctrine is irresponsible.

1. None of what one has been arguing for is in contradiction to the teaching or discipline of the Church - so it would be very helpful if certain Catholics could avoid speaking ill of scholars who doing no more than the Church encourages them to do.

I did say there was a tension - we seem to agree on this. And you did say that there was nothing to fear from the truth. I agree. So I took you at your word and spoke freely on this set of difficult matter.

If people make objections that are unfounded - such as that about the supernatural - are other Catholics to behave as though they had no answer to give ? And as though the sort of exegesis encouraged by the highest teaching authorities in the CC were necessarily based on scepticism ? Are Catholics to be misrepresented, for doing no more than the Church has encouraged them to do ? ##

It amounts to taking unfair advantage of one’s expert status, since most people aren’t equipped to challenge the experts.

That could be said of anything involving the possession of greater expertise than is possessed by others. No one complains of Cardinal Ratzinger that he knows rather more about the ecclesiology of St. Augustine and the spiritual doctrine of St. Bonaventure than most or all of us on this board.​

No one complains that the Pope’s acquaintance with phenomenalism puts us at a disadvantage. This is said only of Biblical scholars & theologians - even if they are cardinals admired and honoured by Rome.

It seems that expertise is fine - provided that it is pleasing to the onlooker. If it is not pleasing, if it is incomprehensible and reated to religion - it is suspect. I detect a double standard here.

AFAICS, the issue is one of trust: and lack of trust of other Christians, even those in one’s own communion, is one of the principal, and most destructive, Fundamentalist characteristics. ##

It just causes bewilderment. But I can also understand the frustration among scholars when their ideas aren’t immediately accepted.

Immediate acceptance is of very little importance - Biblical scholarship proceeds very largely by mutual criticism and mutual correction: ideas are rejected all the time. As for “immediacy” - a lot of work takes many years: editing of texts, for example. No; the real problems do not lie there - they lie in the lack of communication between “the learned” & “the pious” - as though the two could never be wedded, or must always be in conflict.​

Egotism is not a fault peculiar to the learned - despite some of the objections. ##

But they should realize that going in. They are pushing the limits, asking important qestions, etc. That should be the joy in itself. It should never be viewed as wasted effort.

That they all may be one, as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. (Jn 17:21)

True: but that is no excuse for Fundamentalism, or for any other evils.​

Thank you for being conciliatory ##

 

[Orogeny]

buffalo:

The question still stands - who has a better vantage point? If 3,000 years in the future we try to find evidence of hobbits, who better than the current author and readers to advise that they are fiction. Could someone from 3,000 years in the future discover this?

Who wrote the story of Noah? I thought tradition was that Moses wrote that book, and he lived long after Noah. So, he may have been the author, but was no where close to being an eye witness.

So if the authors say universal flood and oral tradition maintains it, why would we assume local flood? How can we be really sure. Science can tell us some things, but not all. Has the constant tradition been invalidated by a geological theory?

Tradition for a very long time held that the earth was flat and the sun revolves around the earth. The geology is very clear that there was no global flood in this case.

If the ark is discovered at 17,000 feet rather than at sea level, would this support the constant tradition?

If THE ark is found anywhere, it will support the tradition!

Peace

Tim

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

buffalo:

The question still stands - who has a better vantage point? If 3,000 years in the future we try to find evidence of hobbits, who better than the current author and readers to advise that they are fiction. Could someone from 3,000 years in the future discover this?

You know that - we know that.​

The authors of the Canaanite texts knew the meaning of their texts; the archaeologists and students of the texts who excavate and study the texts are in a position to relate the Canaanite texts to Israelite religion, however incompletely. This is a constant process.

Can things not known for centuries be rediscovered and recognised ? Yes: look at the rebirth in the knowledge of Akkadian, the Semitic language of thousands of cuneiform texts which had been dead for about 1700 years before it was rediscovered in the 19th century. A living tradition is desirable, but by no means always required in such matters as knowledge of the past.

Those who insist on reading the OT as if (say) Canaanite religion were known of only from the OT, are unable to read the texts in this historically-conscious way. They condemn themselves not to - it is their choice. But that is no reason at all for insisting that everyone else who reads the OT should imitate them - and it is certainly not an excuse or a reason for for accusations of doctrinal error or scepticism.

The generations of Christians who lived before the rise of the “Biblical question” and knew nothing of Canaanite religion, were not like those today who reject approaches to the Bible which study it in its cultural, religious, historical, and material context. They were unlike people today, because these questions had not arisen as they have now, so, they did not reject them - we cannot reject what we do not know about. Those earlier readers of the texts were not anti-critical - they were pre-critical. Jerome and St. Thomas and Bellarmine did not reject data from the Assyrians, Hittites, Hurrians, Canaanites or whoever - it was not available to them. That, is true no longer.

BTW, one cannot ignore what is now available, in order to read the Bible and the commentators of that “pre-critical” period as though the information now available did not exist. This would be to live a lie.

This is yet another reason why it is so necessary to educate the average non-expert Bible reader (= most of us) in how to read the Bible. Then many misunderstandings will be avoided, as will a great deal of anguish and unfairness. Which will be all the better for the Church and her work.

These days, students learn languages such as Akkadian, Hittite, Egyptian, Canaanite - nothing was known of these languages 200 years ago; yet they are of help in studying cultures which affected Israel & its ideas. Are Catholics to stick to Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, & Latin, so as to avoid being able to read anything that might just make ordinary Catholics have to think about the meaning of the Bible ? Some Catholics might applaud this - it is not how the Church sees things.

As a look at the publications of the Pontifical Biblical Institute will show. ##

So if the authors say universal flood and oral tradition maintains it, why would we assume local flood? How can we be really sure. Science can tell us some things, but not all. Has the constant tradition been invalidated by a geological theory?

If the ark is discovered at 17,000 feet rather than at sea level, would this support the constant tradition?

 

[miguel]

patg:

First, whether the story is historical or not, it is teaching the truth - that demonic possession is a real possibility, and that God has dominion over demons.

This makes me feel a bit better.

patg:

Now, it is still left to the reader to determine the historical reality - if they care. Knowing the truth I stated above may be all they care about. It is very clear to me that the author is telling us he is not relating an actual event. The unknown place name, the bad geography, the direct references to the Romans, and the symbolism of the unclean pig all point to a fictional tale.

And your certitude about this not being an actual event was in no way influenced by the scholarly opinion that you gave? Let me ask you, if the response would have been “My name is Green” instead of “My name is Legion”, would you have taken that as a direct reference to the Irish?

 

[miguel]

Gottle of Geer:

…I did say there was a tension - we seem to agree on this.

The tension between those in authority and those subject to it goes back to the Garden.
Gottle of Geer:

…That could be said of anything involving the possession of greater expertise than is possessed by others. No one complains of Cardinal Ratzinger that he knows rather more about the ecclesiology of St. Augustine and the spiritual doctrine of St. Bonaventure than most or all of us on this board…

Cardinal Ratzinger also isn’t doing end runs around proper Church authority to get his pet ideas accepted by the masses.
Gottle of Geer:

…AFAICS, the issue is one of trust: and lack of trust of other Christians, even those in one’s own communion, is one of the principal, and most destructive, Fundamentalist characteristics…the real problems…lie in the lack of communication between “the learned” & “the pious”

Trust is a two way street. If the proper Church authority isn’t trusted by the “learned”, the “learned” won’t be trusted by the “pious”. And the temptation will be to retreat into Fundamentalism.

 

[twf]

My biggest problem with this whole issue is this. The Church teaches that one should interpret Scripture based on what the author wished to convey. The Church lists ‘history’ as one of the genres the sacred writers used; thus there IS history in Scripture. I realize that not all of Scripture is history, but there are many portions of Scripture that ARE written as history, and since the Magisterium over the centuries has made it very clear that Scripture can not err in any form whatsoever, it follows that any portion of Scripture which the sacred writer intended to be history must be taken as true history. I realize part of the issue is determing what was meant to be history and what was not, but it seems to me that many Catholics, including several on this board, have a very hard-time of seeing the history genre at all in Scripture.

Regarding the Gospels, I thought that the Church had infallibly defined that they are to be taken as historical works. They do convey spiritual truths, but I thought that it has already been established by the Magisterium that the Gospels are historically accurate.

I also struggle with the notion that 1800 years of tradition was false; that every saint, bishop, and doctor of the Church for the VAST MAJORITY of Church history was misguided with serious misunderstandings of Scripture. (If NAB footnotes are to be trusted, then the vast majority of Catholic saints, doctors, and bishops throughout history were indeed in error). I fear what scholars of the future will teach. How far will it go?
(Regarding the NAB footnotes, some of the teaching contained within them have really shocked me…I mentioned to my bishop that I found the footnotes quite liberal, and even bordering on heresy in some places—and he seemed to agree. At the very least, I think all must agree that the vast majority of popes throughout history would have considered the NAB footnotes heretical).