Question about Matthew for Christians

Great Debates
281

I stopped being a Biblical literalist when I met my soon-to-be stepfather. I was, I think, 28, so I was an adult at the time. One of the first things he said to me, in a discussion about the Bible, was, “The Bible is not a history book.”. Further discussion revealed that, while this didn’t mean the words of Scripture weren’t true, they were not always meant to be taken literally.

My stepfather believes, and now so do I, that Adam was not (to use my stepfather’s term) a “singular male individual”. “Adam” was “the human race”. And Eve was not a “singular female individual”. “Eve” was the granting of freewill. In other words, God created humanity as a species, not an individual. And that idea effectively eliminates any “incest” arguments about the propagation of the species.

This leads to some interesting ideas:

Cain and Abel were not individuals, they were tribes. “Cain” was agricultural (perhaps the origin of city-states), “Abel” was pastoral (nomadic sheepherders). “Cain” made war upon “Abel”, and was victorious.

Likewise, all of those ridiculous lifespans in Genesis. Take all of those people who are listed as having lived for centuries. Now think of them as tribes or nations/city-states, rather than individuals. What makes more sense? “George lived for 130 years and begat Bill, and George lived to 812 years” or “The tribe of George multiplied for 130 years. Having outgrown the resources of their territory, certain members of the Tribe of George, under the leadership of Bill, set out to found a new city/territory, and named their new city ‘Bill’.”

While it is generally accepted that the Pentateuch was actually written down during the Babylonian captivity, based upon oral tradition, I’ve found it interesting, as a student of ancient history, that there are so many parallels in Sumerian writings, the oldest writings we have. One thing that struck me while reading about Sumerian creation stories was that the Sumerian gods “spoke” the world into existence, which is exactly how the Torah/Old Testament says God did it. No turtles, just words. The book of Job is considered to be the oldest book in the Old Testament … Sumerian stories have a very similar story. Sumerian stories even include a story about The Flood.

Of course, my favorite Sumerian story is the one that explains disabled people (the blind, the deaf, the lame, the others who are born with unfortunate congenital conditions). Once the gods were finished with creation, they had a party to celebrate their success, and drank a lot of beer. Once they were good and drunk, they had the bright idea to make some more people … and the disabled were the result. (Yes, this is an actual Sumerian religious text.)

282

For fuck’s sake, look at what you just wrote: There couldn’t have been any literalists in the Middle Ages, because the contradictions in the Bible are so obvious, you would have to be a literalist to not acknowledge them!

So thanks for writing that, even though you pulled your now familiar trick of taking what I said about pig farmers, and implying I was talking about scholars (whom I have repeatedly included in the small percentage of Christians who were even aware of the problems). It is a beautiful demonstration of how you would rather write complete nonsense, than concede a point.

Just by the way, if you believe that 19th-century literalism means the approach to the Bible you keep insisting on holding me to, why do you think there are still fundamentalists today? Why don’t their ministers, who have probably read the Bible more times than you have opened it, just shoot themselves when they read Genesis 2? How can they possibly insist that the Bible is literally true, if literalism does not permit them to reconcile separate verses into coherence?

I’ve explained what I mean by taking the Bible literally in several posts, and I’ve quoted Pope Leo on the subject. You can be excused for coming into this debate with your own bizarre definition of literalism in mind, one that forbids people to reconcile easily reconcilable Bible verses, but when I have explained, repeatedly, what I meant by the term, and even quoted a Pope saying EXACTLY what I mean, and you continue to argue as if I’m using YOUR definition, you are clearly not attempting to have a serious discussion; I really don’t know what your goal is.

Yes, I can just see those pig farmers bringing home their copious notes from July’s sermon, and comparing them with the notes they took in January. This is more nonsense, especially when survey after survey shows that even in the 21st century, with Bibles very freely available, the typical church-going Christian knows embarrassingly little about even its major themes, let alone minutia.

For Christ’s sake, I’ve already done that. I quoted the findings of the Inquisition in 1616, that the heliocentric theory was “…formally heretical since it explicitly contradicts in many places the sense of Holy Scripture, according to the literal meaning of the words…”. To be clear, that’s not me, that’s not Pope JPII or Pope Leo, that is the 1616 document itself.

For reference, the Enlightenment is often dated from the middle of the 18th century, and as far as I can find, never earlier than the middle of the 17th century. If you can find a credible reference that says it occurred before 1616, please cite it.

In fact, cite something. You keep asking for cites, without offering any yourself, and you keep moving the goalposts when I oblige. Literalism is confined to Protestant evangelicals? Here’s a Pope saying otherwise. Oh, but that Pope lived in the 19th century, so he’s disqualified. OK, here’s the Inquisition in 1616. Oh, but that’s still the Enlightenment. No it fucking isn’t. There were probably only a few thousand people who knew of Galileo’s work when he was condemned.

But OK, fine, I’ve even cited Augustine, showing that he was a young-earth creationist, and Leo cited him as laying down the principles of Biblical inerrancy, so I’m puzzled as to why you and that other fellow think the mere mention of his name (but notably, no direct quotes) is a refutation.

No, Augustine didn’t believe, as you apparently do, that the only two possible approaches to the Bible are either taking each sentence out of all context and insisting that anything it doesn’t mention didn’t happen, or just not worrying about whether a given passage is true or false at all. He believed, as he wrote and Leo said, that if you see an apparent contradiction, you look for a way to explain it. If verse A said Joe went to town, and verse B says Joe went to the field, then obviously, Joe went to both places. And if the Bible says that a day is like a thousand years to God, then you can assume that “day” is a period longer than 24 hours, if not assuming that causes problems.

If that’s not allowable by your definition of a literal interpretation, too bad. It’s how I define it; it’s how Leo and JPII and Augustine defined it (and all of them, and I, would say that your definition is too literal to be useful), and since there are still fundamentalists today, it’s even how many fundamentalists would define it.

But I’m flexible. If you are so hung up on my alleged misuse of “literalism” that you want me to call it something else, I’ll be glad to do it. Tell me what you want me to call it. I’ll call it “Leoism” or even “Tonyism” if you want. But for the love of god, please stop insisting that I am only allowed to use YOUR definition of literalism, and worse, basing your arguments on the fact that my assertions are incompatible with your definitions.

Now, why don’t YOU cite something for a change, instead of just claiming you know more about Church history than the Vatican does?

If you’re so sure that there were hordes of medieval “scholars” (the scare quotes are because anyone who thought his discovery of the pitiful examples of contradictions you gave was original, when they had been reconciled by Jewish scholars centuries before, is not much of a scholar) thinking they had found irreconcilable contradictions, then cite some. Aquinas had a fair knowledge of the Bible, and wrote prolifically. Let’s see your cites where he says that either Genesis 1, or Genesis 2, or both, must be false. Let’s see your cites of ANY medieval Christian scholar saying something similar, who didn’t wind up in prison, or as the guest of honor at a barbecue.

Once again, let’s cut the bullshit, and just answer me, yes or no: did Augustine (who I hope is sufficiently pre-Enlightement) believe that Joseph took part in an Empire-wide census, and also fled to Egypt to avoid Herod’s slaughter? Because the claim that set all of this off, 200+posts ago, was that non-evangelical Christians don’t worry about whether either or both of those stories is true or false.

I think that Augustine undoubtedly accepted both stories as true, just as he accepted that mankind was less than 6000 years old. And that any Pope during the Middle Ages would have happily (or, to give them credit, reluctantly) condemned to the stake anyone who insisted that either story was false.

283

To save people a lot of time, please note I’m asking for “medieval Christian scholars.” Not ante-Nicene fathers like Irenaeus or Origen, who wrote before there was an orthodoxy, or even a settled canon. Not Jewish scholars like Maimonides, who were not bound by the teachings of the Catholic Church. Bonus points if you can show that whatever you find made any impact whatever on the thoughts of medieval peasants.

However, a quote from Irenaeus may be instructive. He was addressing a tomndebbish contradiction in Genesis, where God tells Adam that in the day he eats of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, he will surely die, and later we learn that Adam lives another 900+ years.

Like Augustine, Irenaeus resorts to 2 Peter 3:8 (or possibly Psalm 90:4) — that to God, a thousand years is like a day:

[QUOTE=Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:23:2]
And there are some, again, who relegate the death of Adam to the thousandth year; for since “a day of the Lord is as a thousand years,” he did not overstep the thousand years, but died within them, thus bearing out the sentence of his sin.
[/QUOTE]

So that’s what I mean by literalism. Irenaeus can certainly see that Adam didn’t die within 24 hours of eating the fruit, but he doesn’t conclude that the passage is merely allegorical. He accepts that everything happened exactly as described, word for word, but that God happened to use a word in a non-standard way.

My definition of literalism accords with Leo’s, but not that of 19th- (or 21st-) century fundamentalists. It doesn’t add things that aren’t there, like people who insist on six 24-hour days of creation, when Genesis says nothing about 24 hours. It allows for idioms and figures of speech, and for alternative meanings to common terms like “day,” as long as they too are supported by scripture. And of course it allows for layers of meaning — Adam can represent mankind as a whole, or an event may foreshadow a future event. It even allows that people can re-interpret a passage in the light of new secular knowledge, if it becomes clear that the traditional interpretation is obsolete, and the new interpretation still follows these principles.

But it does NOT allow you to say that the events described didn’t happen at all. It does NOT allow you to say that the writer has erred (although a copyist may have). It does NOT allow you to say that any part of the Bible is false, or even uninspired. It does NOT allow you to say that anything not clearly intended to be allegorical or metaphorical is solely allegorical or metaphorical.

For further information, reread the Providentissimus Deus, which according to Pope Leo XIII summarizes the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church.

284

Yo, Tony, why so angry?

285

Ohio State 42, Oregon 20. I’m angry, depressed, and the world makes no sense to me.

286

The truth is some human or humans said God inspired what he was teaching, so one believes that person. No one knows anything about any god, just their desire to believe.

Anyone can say God told them something, or inspired them, but that doesn’t make it a fact.

287

Makes perfect sense to me; we saw it all season: Phil could buy everything for the U of Nike but a defense. :stuck_out_tongue:

xoxo,

-andros-
(Portlandian Coug)

288

Are these the same units as in Matt 4:2 ? :dubious:

289

This is utter nonsense and demonstrates that you have been either not paying attention or putting your own weird spin on everything I have posted.

I clearly assert that NO ONE would have declared scripture false prior to the Galileo dust-up, (at which time only a very tiny number of people would have begun raising questions, not serious challenges), and that only subsequent to the Enlightenment shift in attitudes toward history and biography would there have been any serious questions or challenges put forth.
Demanding that I provide evidence for an event that I have declared would never happen demonstrates a serious lack of comprehension on your part.

As to Irenaeus, he was grabbing low-hanging fruit on a fairly simple question. The “day is as a thousand years” statement appears repeatedly in scripture and provides a quick rejoinder to one obvious contradiction. You have still failed to demonstrate that anyone prior to the Enlightenment actually worried about the multiple contradictions found in the scriptures of Jews, Christians, Ancient Greeks, or anyone else. You have not demonstrated that their acceptance of myths as “true” meant that they did so in a literal fashion.

So, while you claim to have an opinion that agrees with that of Pope Leo, what you really have is a separate definition that does not really accord with the meaning that Leo or anyone else uses when they use the word “literal.”

You continually dodge the question regarding the way that your definition avoids all the actual literal contradictions in scripture. The creation of humans after all other creatures or Adam before any other creature cannot be wished away as “allegory.” Whether the father of Joseph was Jacob or Heli is not a metaphor. They are flat out contradictions that were accepted by the people who followed Jewish and Christian scripture for several milennia as they regarded each variant as Story that did not have to be in strict accordance with other elements of Story. You have totally ignored that Jewish and Christian mythology was produced and followed in the same way that contemporaneous mythology was followed in other cultures, with contradictions such as one person having more than one father or mother being accepted in those traditions because separate, contradictory stories provided different messages.

You can try to make whatever rules you would like. I doubt that many of us are going to change our beliefs to match your rules.

290

Theclosest you came to that was, “The overwhelming majority almost certainly accepted them as true. However, they accepted them as true from the perspective of those eras that did not regard truth as a ‘literal’ manifestation.”

A “majority,” “almost certainly,” allowing only the tomndebb version of “truth” in which events portrayed as straight history didn’t necessarily happen, is a long way from saying NO ONE would have said they’re false. And using your definition of truth, it’s hard to see how any literary passage could be considered false, so your assertion is next to worthless.

My humble offering was a feeble attempt to summarize, in a very few lines, the lengthy encyclical of Leo’s. If my clumsy writing prevented you from seeing that they are equivalent, please ignore my unworthy definition, and just use Leo’s.

Not so. I gave a direct answer. I included citations, showing how alleged contradictions were dealt with very early in Church history in a manner that resolved the contradiction, maintained the literal truth of the passage, and settled the issue to the point that medieval scholars felt no need to revisit it. On the other hand, you continually dodge direct questions and requests for cites. Your only “evidence” is your firm belief that you know Church history better than the Vatican.

Which is why I explicitly said, (and provided a cite to prove) that Irenaeus did not resort to allegory – he believed that every word of the both Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 was true. And “true” in the sense that everything described actually happened, not in the bizarre tomndebb sense of “The stories are true, but the events in them didn’t really happen.”

You are simply wrong about this. It’s understandable that you don’t believe me when I say it; it’s very telling when you don’t believe me when I quote Papal encyclicals saying it.

But fuck it, I’ll try again. You’re saying pre-Enlightenment Christians didn’t worry about the name of Jesus’ grandfather (Matthew says Jacob; Luke says Heli), because the literal truth of the passages was not their concern. I’m saying that those who knew the Bible well enough to be aware of it absolutely tried to reconcile those verses in such a way that they were both literally true, and that they did it so early and so finally that medieval scholars felt no need to revisit the issue.

Here you go:

[QUOTE=Eusebius Pamphilius (born ca 260) ]
Chapter VII.—The Alleged Discrepancy in the Gospels in regard to the Genealogy of Christ.

  1. Matthew and Luke in their gospels have given us the genealogy of Christ differently, and many suppose that they are at variance with one another.** Since as a consequence every believer, in ignorance of the truth, has been zealous to invent some explanation which shall harmonize the two passages,** permit us to subjoin the account of the matter which has come down to us,107 and which is given by Africanus, who was mentioned by us just above, in his epistle to Aristides,108 where he discusses the harmony of the gospel genealogies. After refuting the opinions of others as forced and deceptive, he give the account which he had received from tradition109 in these words:

  2. "For whereas the names of the generations were reckoned in Israel either according to nature or according to law;—according to nature by the succession of legitimate offspring, and according to law whenever another raised up a child to the name of a brother dying childless;110 for because a clear hope of resurrection was not yet given they had a representation of the future promise by a kind of mortal resurrection, in order that the name of the one deceased might be perpetuated;—

  3. whereas then some of those who are inserted in this genealogical table succeeded by natural descent, the son to the father, while others, though born of one father, were ascribed by name to another, mention was made of both of those who were progenitors in fact and of those who were so only in name.

  4. Thus neither of the gospels is in error, for one reckons by nature, the other by law. For the line of descent from Solomon and that from Nathan111 were so involved, the one with the other, by the raising up of children to the childless and by second marriages, that the same persons are justly considered to belong at one time to one, at another time to another; that is, at one time to the reputed fathers, at another to the actual fathers. So that both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.
    [/QUOTE]

Emphasis mine. “Every believer” (probably an exaggeration) was concerned about the apparent contradiction. Forced and deceptive attempts at reconciliation were not accepted. But as Pope Leo said, the ancient and unchanging faith of the Church is that scripture cannot err, so the search continued, until scholars found a solution (evidently involving Levirate marriages, which explains why the explanation would not have occurred to non-scholarly Gentiles, hence their unsatisfactory forced attempts at reconciliation) that allowed them to conclude that “both of these accounts are strictly true.”

That settled the issue, and that is why medieval scholars didn’t waste their time on it. I would hope it’s obvious to any ten-year-old that if the early Church fathers DIDN’T think that apparent contradictions could be reconciled as above, with “both accounts strictly true,” then one or the other would not have made it into the canon.

You are welcome to your opinion that the reconciliation above is not satisfactory. As a matter of fact, I share it. I think that in both genealogies, the generations between Jesus and the Exile were just made up.

But it was evidently satisfactory to the Church, and in the face of abundant evidence to the contrary, you are not welcome to insist that most Christians throughout history have agreed with you, rather than with Leo. Again, on the off chance that the Vatican actually does know something about Church history, and since the magisterium of the Church is the final authority on scriptural interpretation, non-heretical Christians in western Europe BY DEFINITION believed in scriptural inerrancy, all through the Middle Ages.

You keep accusing me of imputing a 19th-century perspective to medieval peasants, but in fact, it is you who are imputing your own 21st-century perspective to them. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence, other than your unshakeable belief in your own wisdom, that medieval peasants didn’t believe that every word of the Bible was literally true, according to Leo’s (not my) definition.

Well, you’ve made it pretty clear that you’re not going to budge, no matter how many citations I give, so don’t bother responding. If you won’t accept cites from Popes and pre-Enlightenment councils, and even pre-pre-pre-Enlightement Church fathers and historians, you won’t accept anything. But I wrote this post for people who are willing to learn something.

As I said, that’s understandable. So if you can’t see that my rules and Leo’s rules are equivalent, just use Leo’s. Oh wait, you won’t do that, because as you said, he was wrong and you’re right. And here’s a complete list of your citations to prove it:

291

Another bait and switch like your citation of Irenaeus? No thanks.

The genealogy question involves the long list of ancestors with significant differences in those lists. Levirite marriages and adoptions and such got them past those hurdles, but they don’t address the different names for the father of Joseph that is simply accepted. Note that no mention reconciling Jacob and Heli appears in your citation. Just as your appeal to Irenaeus handling the day-like-a-thousand years avoids addressing the clear error in the order of creation that he accepted without comment.

292

You’re unbelievable. Literally.

The cite reconciles (at least, to Church satisfaction) the different names in the genealogies, but since it didn’t list every name that was different (and therefore reconciled), it’s no good?

I give up, for the last time. I concede that by your definition, nobody has ever taken the Bible literally.

293

Not because it did not reconcile every name, but because it made no effort to address the specific name.
(Any word on reconciling the wrong order of Creation?)

You are “conceding” something I have not said (while still making a serious effort to avoid addressing what I have said). No biggy.

294

I thought I was done with this, but with a DVR it’s easy to post and watch football at the same time – I just wait until there’s a big cheer, and then back it up to see the play. So for anyone interested, I have some more references for you to peruse, and for tomndebb to ridicule.

I am through with tomndebb, because he writes stuff like this:

The cite from Eusebius says, “neither of the gospels is in error… both these accounts are strictly true and come down to Joseph with considerable intricacy indeed, yet quite accurately.”

How anyone can think a genealogy can “come down to Joseph” without passing through the previous generation is beyond me. Eusebius didn’t explicitly mention Heli because it’s obvious to everyone but tomndebb that Heli is included in his reconciliation.

More to the point, my goal was not to find a reconciliation that would satisfy tomndebb (a feat which is evidently beyond the greatest scholars of Christendom); my goal was to refute his assertion that early Christians didn’t even attempt a reconciliation, because they didn’t worry about the literal truth of the passages. And the cite clearly does refute that.

If that’s not enough, here’s Aquinas (13th century) going through the six days of the Genesis creation account, almost verse by verse (see parts 65-74), answering all kinds of challenges and objections. It’s way too long to post, but I defy anyone to find him violating the principles espoused by Leo’s encyclical. He clearly believes that every word is true, and that everything happened as described, and attempts to refute anyone who thinks otherwise. He shows respect for Augustine’s theory of the “days” of creation having a non-standard meaning, but notes that it is contrary to the consensus of other expositors, and rejects it.

Several posts back, I opined that the “sophisticated” approach to Biblical interpretation was the flip side of 19th century Protestant fundamentalism. They were both reactions to the scientific progress that threatened a literal interpretation of the Bible. As I said, the fundamentalists dug their heels in, and the sophisticates pretended that it didn’t matter.

I’ve found support for that opinion. In its article on the Hexaemeron (the six days of Creation), the Catholic encyclopedia summarizes different approaches to interpretation. One is quite close to tomndebb’s, i.e. sourcing the creation account to Hebrew folklore (Story) regarding the creation of the world, divinely freed of errors and/or things contrary to God’s nature, until it is a perfected version of the ancient Hebrew cosmology. It is (the theory goes) not intended as history in the modern sense; it is recorded because it is instructive to our conception of God as Creator.

Here’s what they have to say about that theory:

[QUOTE=Catholic Encyclopedia]
In this case, the first chapter of Genesis would not be supernaturally revealed in the strictest sense of the word, but it would be an infallible record of an ancient belief, current among the Hebrews, as to the origin of the world. The sacred writer would have left us an inspired report of a Hebrew tradition just as other inspired writers have left us inspired accounts of certain historical documents. In itself, such a view of Genesis 1 does not seem impossible; but, taking the Hexaemeron in the light of Christian tradition, its folk-lore theory of origin seems to be inadmissible. The Fathers, the early ecclesiastical writers, the Scholastics, and the more recent commentators would have been wrong in their endeavours to explain each sentence and even every word of Genesis 1 in the same strict way in which they interpret the most sacred passages of Scripture. Their occasional recourse to figure and allegory only shows their conviction that the Hexaemeron contains not only inspired but also strictly revealed truth. A Catholic interpreter can hardly surrender such an uninterrupted Christian tradition** in order to make room for a theory which sprang up only towards the end of the nineteenth century.** Nor can it be urged that every sentence and every word of the Hebrew tradition concerning the origin of the universe, purified and infallibly preserved to us by inspiration, are equivalent to the strictly revealed passages of Scripture. Such an assumption concerning a profane ancient tradition implies the admission of a greater miracle than is demanded by a supernatural revelation in the strict sense of the word.
[/QUOTE]

In all quotes, emphasis mine.

Note that this article does not necessarily advocate literalism. It was written around 1913, by which time literalism was going out of fashion, and it covers several different approaches to interpretation, and explicitly says it’s OK to use allegory or figures of speech to explain why science may conflict with the Bible. As I said in a previous post, the more science was proved to be right, the less tenable a literal approach became, and the Church grudgingly yielded. You can see that in this article. They lay down five principles of Biblical interpretation, and they should make tomndebb very happy:

[QUOTE=Catholic Encyclopedia]
(1) Where the Fathers and Doctors differ in their interpretation, without handing down anything as certain and defined,** it is lawful, saving the judgment of the Church and preserving the analogy of faith, for everybody to follow and defend his own prudently adopted opinion.** (2) When the expressions themselves manifestly appear to be used improperly, either metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when either reason prohibits our holding the proper sense, or necessity compels us to set it aside, it is lawful to depart from the proper sense of the words and phrases in the above-mentioned chapters. (3) In the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church herself, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some parts of the said chapters may be wisely and usefully employed. (4) In interpreting the first chapter of Genesis we need not always look for the precision of scientific language, since the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the intimate constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but to give his people a proper notion according to the common mode of expression of the time. (5) In the denomination and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis the word yôm (day) can be taken either in its proper sense, as a natural day, or in an improper sense, for a period of time, and discussion on this point among exegetes is legitimate.
[/QUOTE]

So there you go. A modern, liberal method of Biblical interpretation that even tomndebb can accept, endorsed by a Papal commission. He therefore does not have the excuse that the authors of this article were mired in 19th-century thinking.

And yet, they seem to agree with Leo that before the Enlightenment, literalism was the consensus approach. The excerpt I quoted above says that it was the “uninterrupted Christian tradition,” exemplified by the Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, and Scholastics, “to explain each sentence and even every word of Genesis 1 in the same strict way in which they interpret the most sacred passages of Scripture.”

[QUOTE=Catholic Encyclopedia]
we find patrons of** the literal interpretation of Genesis 1** in such writers as Ephraem (Opp., ed. Rome, 1737, I), Jacob of Edessa (ibid., p. 116), Diodorus of Tarsus (P.G., XXXIII, 1561 sqq.), Theodore of Mopsuestia (P.G., LXVI, 636 sqq.), St. Basil (P.G., XXIX, 17), Gregory of Nyssa (“Hexaemeron” in P.G., XLIV, 68), Philoponus (“De mundi creatione”; ed. Corderius, Vienna, 1730), Gregory the Great (“Mor.” in Job, xl, 10, in P.L. LXXVI, 644 sqq.), the Venerable Bede (“Hexaemeron” in P.L., XCI, 10 sqq.), Rabanus Maurus (“Comm. in Gen.” in P.L., CVII, 439), Walafried (“Gloss ord.” in P.L., XCIII, 67), Hugh of St. Victor (“Annot. in pentateuch”; “De sacram. fidei” in P.L., CLXXV, 29, and CLXXVI, 173), and other authors of minor importance. During the Scholastic age, too, the literal interpretation of the Hexaemeron was the prevalent one, as may be seen in the great works of Peter Lombard (Sent., II), Bl. Albertus Magnus (Summ. theol., II, tract. XI), and St. Thomas (Summa, I, Q. lxv sqq.). Most of the subsequent commentators urged the literal sense of the Hexaemeron; this is true even of the early Protestant writers who were always insisting on the primitive text of Scripture. The scientific difficulties implied in the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 were explained mainly by recourse to miracle, a method occasionally employed even down to our own day by some theological writers. We call these interpreters non- Concordist, not because they do not explain the difficulties in an absolutely possible way, but because they have no regard for the harmony between the inspired record and the laws of nature.
[/QUOTE]

The only possible conclusion (for anyone whose rationality has not been short-circuited by indoctrination) from these cites is that even among scholars and theologians, let alone pig farmers, a literal interpretation of the Bible was the standard before the Enlightenment, and that the assertion that most Christians didn’t care about the literal truth of historical passages until the 19th century is itself a 20th-century invention.

It is a testimony to the incredible power of indoctrination that intelligent, educated people continue to deny the obvious, no matter how many citations are given.

295

Take especial note of what Aquinas does NOT do, (as I have noted no one else has done): In the entire essay using Aristotelian principles to defend the philosophical order of the poetic description of Creation from Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 2:4, he does not at any time make any reference to the fact that Genesis 1:26 is directly contradicted by Genesis 2:7 and Genesis 2:22. That contradiction was simply not important to him or the way of thinking that pre-Enlightenment people brought to Story.

In all quotes, emphasis mine.

Note that this article does not necessarily advocate literalism. It was written around 1913, by which time literalism was going out of fashion, and it covers several different approaches to interpretation, and explicitly says it’s OK to use allegory or figures of speech to explain why science may conflict with the Bible. As I said in a previous post, the more science was proved to be right, the less tenable a literal approach became, and the Church grudgingly yielded. You can see that in this article. They lay down five principles of Biblical interpretation, and they should make tomndebb very happy:

[QUOTE=Catholic Encyclopedia]
(1) Where the Fathers and Doctors differ in their interpretation, without handing down anything as certain and defined,** it is lawful, saving the judgment of the Church and preserving the analogy of faith, for everybody to follow and defend his own prudently adopted opinion.** (2) When the expressions themselves manifestly appear to be used improperly, either metaphorically or anthropomorphically, and when either reason prohibits our holding the proper sense, or necessity compels us to set it aside, it is lawful to depart from the proper sense of the words and phrases in the above-mentioned chapters. (3) In the light of the example of the holy Fathers and of the Church herself, presupposing the literal and historical sense, the allegorical and prophetical interpretation of some parts of the said chapters may be wisely and usefully employed. (4) In interpreting the first chapter of Genesis we need not always look for the precision of scientific language, since the sacred writer did not intend to teach in a scientific manner the intimate constitution of visible things and the complete order of creation, but to give his people a proper notion according to the common mode of expression of the time. (5) In the denomination and distinction of the six days mentioned in the first chapter of Genesis the word yôm (day) can be taken either in its proper sense, as a natural day, or in an improper sense, for a period of time, and discussion on this point among exegetes is legitimate.
[/QUOTE]

So there you go. A modern, liberal method of Biblical interpretation that even tomndebb can accept, endorsed by a Papal commission. He therefore does not have the excuse that the authors of this article were mired in 19th-century thinking.
[/quote]
Sorry. Claiming that a 1913 date automatically removes it from thought patterns that originated in, (but were not confined to), the previous century is not tenable. Thought patterns and beliefs do not begin and end on years ending in 00 or 01.

The literalism of the anti-Modernists was part of a struggle that went on for decades and the views of people writing in the early twentieth century are going to reflect those struggles, but without the understanding that was only introduced as Malinowski, Boas, Levi-Strauss, Eliade, Campbell, and others began to re-examine pre-Enlightenment Story of Western society in the light of knowledge gained studying non-Western cultures.

The only possible conclusion (for anyone whose rationality has not been short-circuited by indoctrination) from these cites is that even among scholars and theologians, let alone pig farmers, a literal interpretation of the Bible was the standard before the Enlightenment, and that the assertion that most Christians didn’t care about the literal truth of historical passages until the 19th century is itself a 20th-century invention.
[/quote]
Actually, no.
The discussions of Genesis 1:1 - Genesis 2:4 were philosophical examinations of the first six days of creation. They certainly looked upon that tract as being true. And yet, you have provided no evidence that they challenged the contradictory passages of Genesis 2:5 - Genesis 2:25–which they also regarded as true.

If you have a citation for any believers struggling to reconcile the first two chapters of Genesis, or denying Genesis 2 in light of Genesis 1, I have not seen it.
The two passages are contradictory. Citing Aquinas examining the first while providing no evidence that he had any trouble accepting the second indicates that you are really missing the point. If he regarded those passages as “literal” in whatever sense you wish to use the term, then he had to take the time to reconcile them–an effort in which he did not engage. He cited passages from Genesis 2:5 - 2:25 on several occasions in the Summa, yet he never once spent any effort to show that those similarly literally true passages could be reconciled. The acceptance of both passages as true demonstrates the difference between the pre- and post-Enlightenment approaches to scripture, (history, and biography).
That you would rather avoid the actual point of my observations, trying to cherry pick your supporting arguments while avoiding their obvious irrelevance is not due to any indoctrination. (Again, you ascribe my position to “indoctrination” in a current religious viewpoint when I have applied my observations equally to literature in which I do believe and literature in which I have no belief with examples that you have resolutely avoided addressing.)

296

tomndebb, before I try wading through those previous dense posts, I want to again refer to Matt 4:2 where it says Jesus fasted 40 days and nights.

Is it your position that a peasant in France in the year 999, upon hearing a sermon on this verse, would:

a): believe it
b): disbelieve it
c): somehow be so incoherent as to do both or neither.

I understand you as saying c). And I gather that the reason you think this is that there are no writings from such authors writing that either they a) or b)., which there surely would be if either a) or b).

Is that right?

297

Wow. I’m apparently reading some very different posts. I’m not seeing where tom~ is saying anything of the sort.

298

You’re asking for rationality from someone who has pretty clearly had his rationality sabotaged by his indoctrination, to the point where it’s very difficult to see what he thinks a “believer” believes in.

Worse, his incessant whining about a trivial “contradiction” reminds me of the Creationists I’ve long since ignored. If they can’t understand how an eye could evolve, then it couldn’t have evolved! And if tomndebb can’t understand how a contradiction can be resolved, then it can’t be resolved!

It took me about five seconds to come up with a reconciliation for his allegedly insoluble contradiction, and I imagine it would have taken Aquinas about a millisecond. One of the few things Aquinas and I have in common is that we both think it’s too trivial to comment on, just as I wouldn’t bother answering a Creationist who triumphantly posted that he had proven evolution false, because it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

If large swaths of the Hebrew Bible are allegorical, if the historical parts of even the NT are not necessarily true, if the miracles didn’t necessarily happen — in short, if there is no need to take any given passage literally — then why would anyone believe the promises of eternal life aren’t just metaphors for inner peace or something?

299

Really? Then why did you not post it? You have done some hand-waving, (along with misusing the words “metaphor” and “allegory”), but you have refused to actually address the issue.

As noted, (and ignored), previously. The belief comes first. Story is used to support it. As belief changes, the understanding of Story changes, as well.

Anyone looking at scriptures from the outside may believe whatever they choose.
No one is compelled to believe the scriptures; that is a literalist position.
Anyone looking at scripture from within the group of believers will understand scripture to say what the group believes, using Story to reinforce belief.

300

As a nontheist humanist and interested thread observer, you do your argument no favors by being insulting. Just sayin’.