 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
jogomu
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 11:55 am |
|
Of that which is taken to be writing in the historical genre in Scripture, what portion is actual history?
I believe that all of this historical genre in Scripture is true history. My local priests (including my RCIA instructor) take the view that some "important" things are historical (like the Resurrection) and other things might not be. As for how they can "draw the line" and tell one from the other, I don't know.
It seems like the Magisterium is on my side about this, and Ratzinger's comments give me comfort too (about the co-originality of "event" with "word") -- see references below. Two questions:
1) Is it true that the Magisterium teaches the historicity of ALL Scripture that is of a historical genre? Is this multiply stated and affirmed? What are the sources of these affirmations? If not, are there explicit statements to the contrary-- i.e., that some of the historical genre is not true history? (By 'true' I mean 'as true as can be expected of the vehicle of human language.')
2) How do I encourage the leadership of my local church to obey the Magisterium, assuming that the Magisterium teaches total historicity?
References:
``Q: Whether the opinion can be admitted as a principle of sound exegesis, which holds that the books of Sacred Scripture which are held to be historical, either in whole or in part sometimes do not narrate history properly so called and truly objective, but present an appearance of history only, to signify something different from the properly literal and historical significance of the words?
A: In the negative, except in the case, however, not readily or rashly to be admitted, where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgment, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words.'' (1905 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, approved by Pope Pius X)
Also, http://www.tcrnews2.com/RatzingerExegesis88.html
Thanks,
John
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5312 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 03:51 pm |
|
jogomu wrote: Of that which is taken to be writing in the historical genre in Scripture, what portion is actual history?
I believe that all of this historical genre in Scripture is true history.
First of all, John, let me state without hesitation that I fully agree with the statement you made that all of the historical genre in Scripture is true history. I also fully accept, agree with, and believe all of the teachings of our Church regarding the infallible inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that the human authors wrote under inspiration only what God wanted written using their own human faculties and understandings.
Given that, how can we judge which portions of scripture are intended as true history and which are not? We can't read the mind of the original author to know what he was inspired to write, and we can't read the "mind" of the Holy Spirit, either. So the best we can do is compare it to God's other revelation through nature, that of the sciences, and to the records compiled by others. If they match, fine. The historical nature of the story is confirmed. In my opinion, it is becoming more evident that a flood event really happened in the nature of the one described in the story of Noah.
But what if the natural record does not match the bible story? Does that invalidate it? Absolutely not. The Church tells us to look beyond the "facts" of the story and to look for the lesson beneath it. Did the story of Job really happen? How about Jonah? For the purposes of our faith, does it matter? The lessons taught by these important books of the Hebrew Scriptures are valuable regardless of whether the historicity of the writing is confirmed or not, accepted or not.
Jesus told the story of the Prodigal Son. Did it really happen, or did Jesus make it up? I don't know. It's generally accepted as a parable, but maybe it really did occur just as Jesus told it. How about the Good Samaritan? Was he real? Maybe, maybe not. Is the lesson any different if it is a recounting of an actual event as opposed to a fable? No.
My local priests (including my RCIA instructor) take the view that some "important" things are historical (like the Resurrection) and other things might not be. As for how they can "draw the line" and tell one from the other, I don't know.
How can you tell? How can you "draw the line"? I can't. I can only make an "educated guess" based on the record contained in nature and in other writings of the time, under the guidance of the experts of the Church. And this is exactly how the Church decides. If the Phoenicians and Egyptians and Babylonians and Assyrians recorded a flood, and seashells are found on the top of Mount Sinai, and a boat is lodged on the side of Mount Ararat, then there was probably a flood. But if the historians of Niniveah do not record the coming of Jonah, there is no way to confirm the story.
So the answer to your question, in my opinion, is not to argue over whether a "minor" event in scripture actually took place or not, but to look to the lesson that underlies the story of the event. Of course, that does not apply to the "major" events such as the revelation of God to Moses, or David's entry into Jerusalem with the Ark of the Covenant, or the Annunciation, Incarnation, baptism, death, or resurrection of Jesus, or the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, etc. Our faith is based on the historical accuracy of these "major" events, which I wholeheartedly accept and believe, and no doubt your priests and teachers do as well. Let's face it, the gospel stories were written by eyewitnesses and those who interviewed them; there was no written record of the exact details of the flood. In fact, the Hebrews had no written language at the time, so they couldn't have recorded it if they wanted to. And the ink probably would have gotten wet and washed out anyway.
So don't fall into the trap of literalism and assume that everything in scripture has to be true. Look instead to the meaning that underlies the story, then ask yourself, "If the events related here did not happen, will it affect my faith?" If Moses did not receive the commandments from God, that will affect my faith. If Gabriel did not announce the Incarnation to Mary, that will affect my faith. If Jesus did not die and rise from the dead, that will affect my faith. But it will not affect my faith if Jonah was not swallowed by a whale, so it doesn't matter to me whether it happened or not. The lesson is the same either way.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 2037 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 04:10 pm |
|
So far as I am aware, John, there is no definitive magisterial pronouncement on this subject. A few books have been designated as authentically historical in character. Specifically, these are Genesis and the four Gospels, whose historicity was defended against the modernists. (The citation you give is part of this.) But how much of what is stated in these books is historical, and in what way we may understand this historicity, has not been spelled out.
So within the letter of the law, it appears that your parish priests and RCIA instructor are not in violation. That said, I personally do not believe it is the intent of the Church to deny the historicity of works that have been traditionally been accepted as historical. In other words, these people may be violating the “accepted everywhere and at all times” rule of thumb concerning Church doctrine. But it would be impossible to prove a case against them so long as it isn’t spelled out by the magisterium so you can quote chapter and verse.
To answer your questions specifically: Yes, the magisterium specifically teaches that those books of scripture which are of a historical genre do relate real history. The rub is that there is no definition of which books these are or what “historical genre” and “real history” mean. The most that could be said is that the five books mentioned above have definitely been included in the category of “historical genre,” at least where it is clear that it was the intent of the author to relate actual historical events. It isn’t enforceable. But this is too vague to be of use for your purpose.
With this in mind, the issue of admonishing the leadership of your local church to obey the magisterium is moot. Sorry I can’t be more encouraging.
David
|
|
|
jogomu
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 17th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 2 |
| First Name: | | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 25th, 2006 07:26 pm |
|
Thanks for the comments, this helps somewhat. I still think the majority of Western Catholics are missing the boat (thank God the Church isn't defined as the contemporary majority!) by believing in too much that God-via-nature has not actually proposed for our belief...
The Magisterium seems to think that the original intent of the author is important. For example, if the inspired author or redactor (after all, most scriptural books contain redactions of previous material, thus canonizing other redactions or translations such as the Septuagint) intended for the incident with Jonah and the fish/whale (for example) to be taken historically, then it happened. The opening seems only to be to "prove with strong arguments, and not lightly" that the inspired author had a different intent, not to likewise "prove" that they were mistaken despite their intent. Inspiration can go beyond the intent of the author, but not cancel or invalidate his conscious intent...
As Ratzinger states (please read the article linked in the original post), there seem to be many underlying philosophical assumptions that we don't analyze closely enough. For example, the assumption that modern scholarship can be as objective about history as it is about applying the scientific method. That assumption is patently false since the scientific method is about repeatable experimentation, while the historical method is about "concurring sworn testimony", and to have a valid testimony you have to have trust in the witness. Why should I trust any historical testimony more than God's word, given that no historical question can be settled scientifically without a bastardization of science?
I'm speaking of human historicity here, but the same bad philosophy applies to questions about cosmological history that people lump into the realm of "science." I don't think it matters how long it took to create the "heavens and the earth", but I do think it is incredibly interesting that there seem to be grounds for questioning the constancy of "universal constants" (like the speed of light) and believing rather that these "constants" changed with the expansion of the universe... thus destroying all current theories about the timing of cosmological history.
I mean seriously, all of this happened before when we went from Newton to Einstein... out with the old, in with the new. The problem is that "religions" sprout up around these tentative "scientific" conclusions which are taken more seriously than Church dogma... which actually impedes the progress of science. What if some "grand unification theory" really worked, but implied a young earth? How many scientists would be willing to go there philosophically? Very few. Knowing this to be the case, how can I take modern theories seriously when they are so shot through with "Enlightenment" philosophy and will probably be replaced even in my lifetime?
Here is the problem I see: if we allow that Jonah was not miraculously preserved from suffocation in the belly of a fish/whale (because it isn't history) then we are led to ask whether the Red Sea was really parted or whether Jesus really rose from the dead. This is not approaching the Kingdom like a child, which Jesus says is the only way. It is an anti-supernatural mindset or presupposition. It is not "inner-biblical"... or so it seems to me. Jesus' entombment is even compared, by Jesus himself, to Jonah's travail (Mt 12:40)-- are they both mere a-historical symbols?
Of course this isn't limited to scripture; I've met Catholics who say that Mary's Assumption is only really important as a Jungian archetype... whether or not it actually happened (they say) is irrelevant. Au contraire!
If faith is mere symbol then it is only worthy of belief by a mere symbol. I'm not a symbol or a "value", I'm a fact of history... a fact that hopes for a new body someday... not a symbol of one. :-)
``God must be true, though every human being is a liar.'' (Rom 3:4)
``God is the author of Sacred Scripture.'' (CCC 105)
To some extent I can sympathize with the likes of Robert Sungenis, who wants the universe to literally revolve around the earth. And he's right, nobody has disproven it... it certainly seems not to be the case, but this is a matter of arbitrary perspective.
Of course general and special revelation cannot contradict, but this isn't because we keep hacking away at special revelation to make it line up with our "objective" knowledge of general revelation... but rather because we always keep firmly in mind the subjectivity of our knowledge of general revelation (and of history in particular) and thus give special revelation the benefit of the doubt. This is not what I see in my particular church. I see, as Ratzinger says, "science" steering Church dogma, or at least its interpretation and kind of relevance. Our whole culture needs to snap this spell of believing dogmatically in scientific "conclusions"... true science, which always questions the unquestionable (e.g., Newton to Einstein to ???), depends on it!
I guess the bottom line is that the level of belief in modern "science" that I see in the clergy bothers me a lot, simply because I don't think it is deserving of such belief. This particularly irks me when I see Scripture playing second fiddle because of this secular dogmatism. We cannot serve two masters...! What canonized Saint had only tentative/selective belief in Scripture's historicity in sections that present themselves as history?
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 754 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26th, 2006 12:22 pm |
|
Jogomu:
AMEN!
____________________
"I praise you, for I am wondrously made. Wonderful are our works! My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret." Ps 139
"Guard me, O Lord, from the hands of the wicked; preserve me from violent men." Ps 140
|
|
|
Current time is 05:02 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
