Which Biblical Stories are Historical, Miraculous, and Unexplainable by Science?

[rpp]

I can sum up the objection to HCM very simply.

You cannot study Sacred Scripture and disregard faith. To do so can lead to serious spiritual problems.

It is that simple. No lengthy involved explanations.

To read scriptures and ignore the fact they are Divinly inspired is simply wrong.

While you are free to disagree, you will have to defend the study of Scripture from a-theist perspective (I do not mean atheistic, I simply mean without the presence of the Lord.)

You will also have to square that with the guidelines from the Catechism I quoted earlier. While SpiritMeadow raised some interesting points, I do not believe he was able to justify, in the light of those rules, the use HCM method as it is currently taught (excluding faith from study).

By the way, here is a related thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206239

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

rpp:

Additionally, miracles are sometimes explained-away as “literary devices”

They may be just that - it’s a perfectly admissible explanation.​

or a misunderstanding about places (e.g. explaining the parting of the Red Sea by claiming they actually crossed a marsh they named the “Sea of Reeds”.

As Pere de Vaux points out (in vast detail), the OT sources are not consistent; & the Red Sea is a long way from any of the sites suggested for Mount Sinai. The difficulty is not in the scholars - it’s in the texts. If readers don’t notice this, that is no fault of the scholars; did they write the texts ?​

And claimimg that it was the Egyption chariots that got stuck in the mire. It does not explain how the foot soldiers drown or how the Israelites heavily loaded carts did not get stuck but the lighter Chariots did.)

That sort of detail sounds more like somrething from popular apologetics than scholarly study - they are not apologists; so they are not concerned with “proving the truth of the Bible”. (Thank God.)​

By isolating Holy Scripture from faith and trying to interpret it as some type of historical record, the student can get lost in the details and forget the reason for study to begin with. Or even God’s primary purpose in giving us Holy Scripture.

See above​

There is also an undercurrent of “We are smarter than people were then.” attitude the infiltrates all of HCM. This grossly inaccurate premise is not generally helpful either.

• 1. They probably do know slightly more than most Christians in the past - it is not a sin to be better equipped than others.
• 1. Two can play psychological games - so: maybe their critics are envious
• 1. It is merely a fact that no exegete knew Akkadian or Hittite until these cultures were unearthed. Now any student of the Bible can learn all sorts of things the exegetes of the past had no opportunity to learn. Shall we throw away all medical knowledge since 1800 in case we know more than our fathers about leprosy, epilepsy, & infection ? If not - why the attacks on Biblical scholars, but not on epidemiologists or paediatricians ? Knowledge of the causes of epilepsy (say) is as much a threat to the miracles of Christ as any idea of the critics’; more so.

We can see how using this method can hide the Glory of God in details.

So can medical study, or any other.​

As for the who I mentioned at the beginning? Well, there are always people who want to deny scripture. By provide mundane explanations to miraculous events, little by little, they tear down scripture and do great harm to the faith of many.

Mundane explanations are far more a feature of Fundamentalism - as for doing harm, anything done by sinful man can have that effect.​

Enemies of the Church love HCM. Why? It gives them the ability to attack the Church indirectly by giving them a basis for alternate explanations or outright denials that certain events even occurred. And they can do under the guise of “scholarly research”.

That’s too vague to be answered. I’m sure poisioners find toxicology most helpful. Is it to be abolished ?​

I am not saying that HCM is all bad. Not at all. It can help us understand what is really happening at the time and why certain things are important. However, to try to apply it to miraculous events, moments of Divine intervention, and the like, then it is being misapplied. Using HCM as the primary or sole method of Scripture study and exegesis, is a misapplication of it as well.

ISTM you want it to be applied in a manner that ignores its character - but critical methods cannot be uncritical. As for miracles:​

• 1. It is arguing in a circle to assume that what may or may not be a miracle is one
• 1. The HCM does not logically depend on denial of them
• 1. If the text is not talking about a miracle, or is not saying what people have supposed - I want to know. I do not want to base belief on untruths, however lovely, traditional or widely-accepted: I do want to know what the texts mean in their context - not impose my own Christian eisegesis on them.
• 1. The HCMs help us to avoid making the Holy Bible say what we want or like - it is a means of making its real meaning available. The recent cleaning of the Sistine Chapel was controversial - the beauty in paintings about to be cleaned often turns out to be nothing more wonderful than encrusted dirt. The same is true of the Bible. Critical study is a profoundly Christian enterprise.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I can sum up the objection to HCM very simply.

You cannot study Sacred Scripture and disregard faith. To do so can lead to serious spiritual problems.

Well that simply eliminates thousands of scholars doesn’t it. You are saying in essence that university scholars are prohibited from studying scripture unless they are first believers and second if they agree to not use methods commonly used by other scholars because the bible is somehow sacrosanct and must be treated differently. Truth is not to be objective then, but only seen through the lens of faith. That would be fundamentalist in nature and I believe against the Church’s teaching.

It is that simple. No lengthy involved explanations.

To read scriptures and ignore the fact they are Divinly inspired is simply wrong.

While you are free to disagree, you will have to defend the study of Scripture from a-theist perspective (I do not mean atheistic, I simply mean without the presence of the Lord.)

**Why would we have to defend it? It’s being done by thousands every day. Check out the number of books and articles published per year by biblical scholars and theologians. **

You will also have to square that with the guidelines from the Catechism I quoted earlier. While SpiritMeadow raised some interesting points, I do not believe he was able to justify, in the light of those rules, the use HCM method as it is currently taught (excluding faith from study).

**I am in no way bound by any rules from the CCC. They apply to simply reading which is done by anyone and requires no training in exegetics. **

By the way, here is a related thread. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206239

You see what we have here is a simply disagreement on what kind of biblical commentary you like. You prefer that which is written from a faith base. I enjoy that myself when I am looking for pastoral views. However, I prefer to learn things from those who make every effort to remove any lens from their work and attempt to discover the actual truth. The vast majority of the time, what they uncover in no way threatens any belief necessary to my faith. And I’m a woman.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

You see what we have here is a simply disagreement on what kind of biblical commentary you like. You prefer that which is written from a faith base. I enjoy that myself when I am looking for pastoral views. However, I prefer to learn things from those who make every effort to remove any lens from their work and attempt to discover the actual truth. The vast majority of the time, what they uncover in no way threatens any belief necessary to my faith. And I’m a woman.

If the historical critical method removes the ‘lens of faith’ from viewing the scriptures, what use does this method have to people who have faith? If we have faith, why would we be interested in viewing things without faith?

Removing the ‘lens of faith’ means to view the scriptures as someone who does not have faith would see them.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

If the historical critical method removes the ‘lens of faith’ from viewing the scriptures, what use does this method have to people who have faith? If we have faith, why would we be interested in viewing things without faith?

**The same value it has in studying anything. We don’t reject one in favor of the other. We simply add this view which often helps us understand what scriptures are trying to tell us in the first place. It definitely gives one great respect for the Gospel writers who were very talented people. **

Removing the ‘lens of faith’ means to view the scriptures as someone who does not have faith would see them.

That as I said is but half the story. One takes the “objective” facts and blends them with faith to hopefully arrive at a more complete and fuller understanding of scripture. We live deluded when we adher only to a definition of scripture that is designed to make everything appear in agreement, which apologetics tends to do.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

That as I said is but half the story. One takes the “objective” facts and blends them with faith to hopefully arrive at a more complete and fuller understanding of scripture. We live deluded when we adher only to a definition of scripture that is designed to make everything appear in agreement, which apologetics tends to do.

But if we believe that a faithless ‘lens’ would wrongly distort anything viewed through it, this lens should have no purpose for us. Why look through a lens of error when there is a lens of truth? Unless you aren’t sure which lens is the distorted lens and which is the good lens?

It makes no sense to want to look through a faithless lens unless you suspect that lack of faith may be more truth than faith.

 

[SemperFidelis]

But if we believe that a faithless ‘lens’ would wrongly distort anything viewed through it, this lens should have no purpose for us. Why look through a lens of error when there is a lens of truth? Unless you aren’t sure which lens is the distorted lens and which is the good lens?

It makes no sense to want to look through a faithless lens unless you suspect that lack of faith may be more truth than faith.

I’ve been trying to argue this same point since page one. They are too “enamored” by a destructive method. No one has yet to point out any good the HCM has done, but I can tell you that it has led some to claiming that parts, even very important parts of the Bible, are false made-up stories. What good does this accomplish? If goes back to “anathema on those who are critical of the method that is critical of the Bible.” Ridiculous. Satan must love the HCM.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’ve been trying to argue this same point since page one. They are too “enamored” by a destructive method. No one has yet to point out any good the HCM has done, but I can tell you that it has led some to claiming that parts, even very important parts of the Bible, are false made-up stories. What good does this accomplish? If goes back to “anathema on those who are critical of the method that is critical of the Bible.” Ridiculous. Satan must love the HCM.

I agree. Most of the proponents of HCM seem to get carried away and want to completely abandon the notion that scripture is the word of God.

I see that the method might have some thigns to offer, though. For example there are apparent contradictions (or differences) between the synoptic gospels. But by reading about the gospels were written from oral traditions, it helped make sense of it all.

But I didn’t get to understand that by looking at the scriptures through a lens of faithlessness, but rather from learning about what oral tradition is and how it gets written down. You don’t have to pretend to stop believing in order to understand those things.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But if we believe that a faithless ‘lens’ would wrongly distort anything viewed through it, this lens should have no purpose for us. Why look through a lens of error when there is a lens of truth? Unless you aren’t sure which lens is the distorted lens and which is the good lens?

**I cannot conceive how one would arrive at that conclusion. There is no lens of error. One looks from a certain perspective, the other attempts to look purely objectively, in so far as that can be done. How can a faithless lens distort the truth? Common sense has told us for several thousand years that objective looking tends to provide the clearest truth. Now you can’t confuse theological truth with historical truth. They are often not the same. **

It makes no sense to want to look through a faithless lens unless you suspect that lack of faith may be more truth than faith.

**No, I look to them for totally different things. **

 

[SpiritMeadow]

To those that think HC methodology is threatening to faith, I think it best you stick to Scott Hahn and a whole series of wonderful apologetic writers. Their work is undeniably valuable and thoughtful.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I agree. Most of the proponents of HCM seem to get carried away and want to completely abandon the notion that scripture is the word of God.

**I think you must seriously not understand how biblical scholars do their thing. No one gets carried away with anything. Your unstated premise is incorrect. People who do academic biblical scholarship come to it as believers, and non believers. They are aware of that bias, they do the best they can to inform their peers of their bias, and do the very best they can to factor their bias out of their investigations. Thus they arrive at we hope objective factual historical facts. You would certainly expect the same of any professional in any science to do the same. That is why creationists run into trouble, they have a desire for a specific outcome and thus their conclusions are suspect. **

I see that the method might have some thigns to offer, though. For example there are apparent contradictions (or differences) between the synoptic gospels. But by reading about the gospels were written from oral traditions, it helped make sense of it all.

**They can help explain a good deal. I’m glad you find it useful in some small way. **

But I didn’t get to understand that by looking at the scriptures through a lens of faithlessness, but rather from learning about what oral tradition is and how it gets written down. You don’t have to pretend to stop believing in order to understand those things.

**Again, you seriously misunderstand how to use HC. You do not need to pretend to stop believing. That would be silly. You are not required to look at scripture from a faithless lens. You are totally missing the point. Only serious scholars do this and it is so they can present to you the facts as objectively as possible. You are then free to reject or accept them as you wish. Of course this is all in a utopian world. The fact is that it is very hard to remove one’s own beliefs and experiences from one’s investigation of anything. The serious scholar does define him/herself to their readers so that they can judge the conclusions accordingly. **

 

[Neil_Anthony]

**Again, you seriously misunderstand how to use HC. You do not need to pretend to stop believing. That would be silly. You are not required to look at scripture from a faithless lens. You are totally missing the point. Only serious scholars do this and it is so they can present to you the facts as objectively as possible. You are then free to reject or accept them as you wish. Of course this is all in a utopian world. The fact is that it is very hard to remove one’s own beliefs and experiences from one’s investigation of anything. The serious scholar does define him/herself to their readers so that they can judge the conclusions accordingly. **

But this HCM book I’m reading doesn’t claim to be providing the athiest’s outlook on scripture, it’s presented as an explanation of scripture for Catholics in general. It doesn’t say to read it alongside a book written by someone through the eyes of faith. It just flat out denies many of the things that scripture tells us about, and presents this as the catholic interpretation. So HCM isn’t being presented as one way among many of looking at scripture, its being presented as the way.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

But this HCM book I’m reading doesn’t claim to be providing the athiest’s outlook on scripture, it’s presented as an explanation of scripture for Catholics in general. It doesn’t say to read it alongside a book written by someone through the eyes of faith. It just flat out denies many of the things that scripture tells us about, and presents this as the catholic interpretation. So HCM isn’t being presented as one way among many of looking at scripture, its being presented as the way.

I’m really not sure what you mean by a HCM book. You mean a writing wherein someone has used that as his/her methodology? I guess I just don’t understand your concerns. Of course anyone who writes believes they are speaking accurately. And I’m not sure what you expect them to say. Some do make reference to readers as being academic or casual.

Why do you conclude that HCM is written from an atheistic point of view? I can assure you that many, perhaps most serious scholars are believers. Nowt hey many not believe in a manner than you find suitable or sufficient, but they are not atheists. I find it unlikely that there are many who choose to make their life’s work a subject they condemn from the inception as simple fiction.

The discerning reader knows that they must read a good deal, and from many different perspectives in order to form a rational belief in what is true or how to view scripture. This is the responsibility of the reader. I was taught by theologians and scriptural scholars that the better tack is always to state your personal location in the world along with your methodology along with the premise and conclusions at the beginning of any writing. That’s just helpful to readers. When you travel around the web, you find very little of that, and so one must be excruciatingly careful about what one reads and the emphasis one places on it. The vast vast majority of what passes as serious exegetical work on the web is actually nothing more than apologetics. And this does come from professionals sadly enough. I’ve called two on it so far, both backed down, angry at being caught as they were.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I’m really not sure what you mean by a HCM book. You mean a writing wherein someone has used that as his/her methodology?

I’m talking about the book “And God Said What?” by Margeret Nutting Ralph

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

**Again, you seriously misunderstand how to use HC. You do not need to pretend to stop believing. That would be silly. You are not required to look at scripture from a faithless lens. You are totally missing the point. Only serious scholars do this and it is so they can present to you the facts as objectively as possible. You are then free to reject or accept them as you wish. Of course this is all in a utopian world. The fact is that it is very hard to remove one’s own beliefs and experiences from one’s investigation of anything. The serious scholar does define him/herself to their readers so that they can judge the conclusions accordingly. **

Excellent posts ​

IOW - HCMs do not require one to suspend one’s ID as a person of faith; studies of that sort do not proceed in that way.

A chef may be a Catholic - that’s not going to mean that he says a rosary instead of attending to his pots & pans. A cook cooks, & attends to food & recipes - he’s not cooking in order to pray rosaries. They have no place in a kitchen - & he would get no thanks if his rosary-praying led to his poisoning someone. That doesn’t mean he leaves his Catholicism outside the kitchen. Equally, being Catholic is not relevant to cooking; unlike recipes, food, & pots & pans. He acts as a Catholic when cooking not by praying the rosary, but by being faithful to his vocation as a cook; & that means performing the work of a cook; that work, & not “obviously” religious activity, is his prayer. Rosaries & other “obviously” religious activities can wait for a time & place suitable to them.

And that is much how it is with academic work - including that on the Bible. It doesn’t involve religious acts, any more than mountaineering would - that does not make either activity faithless or atheistic. Those words, apply not to the activities, but to those doing them; to people, not vocations or methods. There is nothing to make the back-stroke more pious than the doggy-paddle

Obviously, there is far more that needs to be said.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Excellent posts ​

IOW - HCMs do not require one to suspend one’s ID as a person of faith; studies of that sort do not proceed in that way.

A chef may be a Catholic - that’s not going to mean that he says a rosary instead of attending to his pots & pans. A cook cooks, & attends to food & recipes - he’s not cooking in order to pray rosaries. They have no place in a kitchen - & he would get no thanks if his rosary-praying led to his poisoning someone. That doesn’t mean he leaves his Catholicism outside the kitchen. Equally, being Catholic is not relevant to cooking; unlike recipes, food, & pots & pans. He acts as a Catholic when cooking not by praying the rosary, but by being faithful to his vocation as a cook; & that means performing the work of a cook; that work, & not “obviously” religious activity, is his prayer. Rosaries & other “obviously” religious activities can wait for a time & place suitable to them.

And that is much how it is with academic work - including that on the Bible. It doesn’t involve religious acts, any more than mountaineering would - that does not make either activity faithless or atheistic. Those words, apply not to the activities, but to those doing them; to people, not vocations or methods. There is nothing to make the back-stroke more pious than the doggy-paddle

Obviously, there is far more that needs to be said.

Well said. I guess in the end I find this kind of paternalistic concern that I may be somehow misled into heresy by these deceptive people, well simply condenscending. I’m in the process of preparing a book review on Dr. E. Schussler Fiorenza’s latest book on the power of the rhetoric of empire in the bible. I’m expecting the usual, anti-feminist stuff. Dr. Schussler Fiorenza is the leading feminist biblical scholar/theologian in the world no doubt and a Catholic, yet she is vilified by the Religious Right for her daring to “tamper” with the way we read scripture. Somehow its always lost of all to many folks that these views of scripture, different though they might be, broaden and enlarge our understanding. Her arguments that especially the epistles need often to be read “against the grain” most assuredly will raise the hackles of some. To me, they give a more accurate glimpse of what was really going on in the 1st century church than the epistles direct statements.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

I’m talking about the book “And God Said What?” by Margeret Nutting Ralph

I’m not familiar with the book, but here’s what I’ve learned in a quick look around:

Margaret Nutting Ralph is secretary of educational ministries for the Roman Catholic diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, and director of the masters degree programs for Roman Catholics at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is the author of eight books on Scripture and has given workshops on Scripture throughout the U.S. and in Canada.

This doesn’t suggest what her educational background is and that would be of some import to me, but her credentials seem more than adequate. She is apparently Catholic. Before her present duties she taught at a Catholic high school.

There are about 9 reviews on Amazon. Three were written by teachers of adult bible studies in parishes. All found it great and their ‘students’ loved it. Two claimed that they themselves or others they knew strengthened their faith or came to faith from atheism based on her book or books. So I’d say off the top of my head it sounds like an excellent book. Every review gave it the highest rating.

If you really can’t stand it, I’d be happy to send you my address and you can send it to me. I’d love to read it.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

This doesn’t suggest what her educational background is and that would be of some import to me, but her credentials seem more than adequate. She is apparently Catholic. Before her present duties she taught at a Catholic high school.

Yes… reminds me a bit of my catholic high school teacher who suggested to us that Jesus’ resurrection was symbolic and just spiritual, not physical.

Anyway I’m enjoying the book, and learning a bit from it, but also shocked by some of it.

My guess is that for some people, the miracles in the bible must be an obstacle to their faith, and so they look for ways around them. For some of us, denying the miracles would be an obstacle for us. I guess I don’t really understand what some people believe, and how and why…