53
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
54
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
55
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.
56
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
57
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
58
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
If a Fundamentalist were to take this literally, he would believe in the true presence of the Eucharist, and this isn't the only passage that teaches this. Matthew 16 is another passage that Fundamentalists do not take literally. Here it is:
13
When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
14
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
20
Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
Once again another instance where Fundamentalists don't take the literal meaning that is right in front of them. Jesus spoke in parables and allegories all the time, but these instances are not examples of that.
Now that I've stated my problem with Fundamentalists, I want to look more closely at a strictly literal interpretation of Scripture. It is true that there is a literal sense of Scripture, but it is not the only sense. Hugh of St. Victor, a medieval author and teacher in the 1100s, in his Didascalicon laid out the three senses of Scripture. They are historical (or literal), allegorical, and tropological. The historical is essentially the meaning that is written on the page. The allegorical sense is that second meaning hidden behind the words, though sometimes it is quite evidently present. The tropological sense is simply anything that moves the morals. Not all of Scripture will contain all three senses. It is most common that it contains one or two of them. For example, Song of Songs does not partake in the historical sense. It is rather an allegory for the divine love God has for the Church. Jesus, once again, also spoke in many parables. These parables were allegories representing the Kingdom of God. These are rather obvious examples of the allegorical sense, but there are others. Revelations is a big one. Sometimes Scripture can be difficult to interpret. That is why we have the Magisterium to help us.
Hugh of St. Victor was a member the Augustinian Canon. This being so also says that he was a proponent of the Augustinian Soul, which I am a proponent of as well. Augustine held that the soul consisted of three parts: reason, understanding, and will. If man sticks to a solely literal interpretation of scripture, he is not using the three parts of his soul. Man must discipline his reason so that he can see that there is more than one sense of Scripture. He must then study these senses so that he may come to an understanding of their meaning. Through understanding, he must then use his freedom of will to accept them.
I must also state that I strongly dislike translations. I believe that they are open to human error creeping into the Scriptures. The Muslims say that if you have never read the Quran in the original text, you have never read the Quran. I believe something can be taken from this. I am not saying that we cannot read the Scriptures in English. I am saying that it would be best if we all had a working knowledge of the original languages. Something is always lost in translation, but some translations are better than others.
In my experience as a Journalism major, I have realized that there is a difference between fact and truth. A fact is that which can be verified. Truth is that which is good and beautiful. It is a fact that many people engage in sex outside of marriage, but these actions are not filled with truth. Certain movies, however inaccurate, may contain truth if they uphold the dignity of man. These same rules can be applied to Scripture.
If anyone has questions, feel free to comment.
Hey, Ryan,
ReplyDeleteIt's great to see you back with a new posting. Hope that the "Spring" (It doesn't seem that it will ever arrive, but, trust me, it will!) semester is going well.
Your latest entry has given me a lot to think about -- not to mention sending me to do some research. Hugh of St. Victor? Really? How do you know about him? Give me a couple of days to wrap my head around what you say. I'll get back to you either Sunday or Monday.
Have a great weekend and stay warm,
Tom
Hi, Ryan,
ReplyDeleteYou took my questions about Biblical literalness and inerrancy in a different direction than I expected. That's fine. Quite honestly, I never thought of the Miracle of the Transubstantiation in that light. I never viewed that part as NOT literal.You are, of course, correct. The citations you give are definitely not parables..
I was thinking more about Fundamentalists and the Old Testament -- Creation, Noah, Jonah, parting of the Red Sea. As I've mentioned, my friend believes that every one of those events happened exactly as written. Do you have a problem for instance, reconciling God's creations with science? For me, science is one of God's greatest gifts to man.
Do you really think that people will ever attain a "working knowledge of the original languages" in which the Scriptures are written? I agree that it would be nice, but, Ryan, it's not going to happen. Translations are a necessary evil. As you say, every translation opens the possibility of error. One of my old teachers once said that to expect some tired monk who's translated by candlelight to have gotten every word correct is foolhardy. My friend, on the other hand, believes that Divine Inspiration is at work whenever someone makes an honest attempt. I'm not buying it.
Thanks for introducing me to Hugh of St. Victor. I REALLY like his explanation of the three senses of Scripture. I did have to go to the dictionary to find "tropological," though I am going to have to do some more research on the Augustinian Soul. Can you, maybe, expand upon that?
Hope that you're doing well and that the crummy weather isn't affecting your life too much in Ohio. Hang in there. Spring is on the way. Promise!
The Old Testament is always very tricky. With the stories you mentioned, I think it is appropriate to address them as being both literal and allegorical. God is capable of miracles, and a requirement for a miracle is that it cannot be explained by science. All science however points to the beauty of God's creation. Many atheists try to use science to say that the world is random, but science constantly points to the fact that the world is carefully ordered. By the way, modern scientific theory was developed by the Church and the big bang theory was developed by a priest. I am open to God using a big bang. As for the story of Creation, I hold it to be primarily allegory. One thing we must remember is style. Genesis 1 is in the style of early jewish poetry likely written down by the priests under Moses. They heavily relied on allegory to explain things, in this instance certain aspects of the law as to why man rests on the seventh day and what the origin of sin is. It is not essentially meant to be taken as a literal depiction of creation. The Church however has no official ruling on this, so I say either belief has equal merit.
DeleteFundamentalists do not have a correct interpretation of what Divine Inspiration means. Saying that Scripture is Divinely Inspired is not the same as saying it is Divinely Dictated as Fundamentalists believe. Inspiration means that God places the idea or message into the head of the author who the translates the idea onto paper using his own words.
I agree with you that translations are a necessary evil. Is it possible that everyone can have a working knowledge of the original texts? Of course it is. Is it probable? No. This is why the Church relies on the Magisterium to have the authority to determine what Translations are most accurate and what the correct interpretation of Scripture should be.
As for the Augustinian Soul, this is a huge topic and will be the topic of my next major post. It was good hearing from you again.
Hey, Ryan,
ReplyDeleteHope things are going well for you.
It looks like we're in agreement on most points. I, too, have no problem with a "Big Bang" theory or the concept of Scriptural non-literalness. I do like the words "Divinely Dictated." That conjures up all sorts of mental images for me. "John, take a Gospel."
From some long-ago Theology class, I remember that the Magisterium is divided into solemn and common. As I recall, the common Magisterium is not held to be infallible while the solemn (Assumption, Immaculate Conception et al) is. Is that correct? Is that correct?
Though we agree, you're probably not surprised that I have a few questions for you.
1.) What was it that made you decide that much of the Old Testament was allegorical rather than literal? If you say about the depiction of creation that "either belief has equal merit," what was it that swung you to your belief.
2.) Can you explain a little about the characteristics of early Jewish poetry and how they influenced Genesis?
3.) When will winter end? Enough!!
If we don't connect before next Wednesday, have a blessed, meaningful Lenten season.
Stay well,
Tom