Jobar

There has been some discussion in GRD concerning how literally the early Catholic church treated the scriptures.

I'm aware that some of the early Catholic thinkers weren't literalists, in the sense of believing all the Biblical tales were history. However, I do know that the Church definitely affirmed a literal 6-day creation, up until fairly recently. Was it considered heresy to doubt that Noah lived through the Flood, or that there was an actual Tower of Babel? Would it be fair to say that the early Church was literalistic in its approach to the scriptures?

Would the scholars here please expound on this topic, or link me to threads where it's been discussed?

S.C.Carlson

Though more geared to antiquity than the middle ages, Robert Bradshaw has an on-line chapter with a charting showing which theologians thought the days of creation were literal, figurative, or unclear. Opinions did vary.

Doug Shaver

A better place to ask that question probably would be about.com's Catholicism forum.

I don't know what you consider "fairly recently," but I believe the Roman Catholic Church had abandoned a literal interpretation of Genesis by Darwin's time. Historically, that particular variety of scriptural inerrantism has been more characteristic of Protestants than Catholics.

Chili

Hi Jobar, regardless of what scholars think, lets first remember that Catholicism is a mystery religion because the answer to the mystery of faith is known to them but is purposely kept from the believer so it may come first hand to them in real life.

Jobar

Ah, I'm not sure that the Pope sees it that way, Amos.

But that's not what I'm getting at here. I know that literalism is a fundamental Protestant phenomenon, by and large; but I'm curious about the early church and its view of the Biblical stories we skeptics see as obviously mythical and nonhistorical.

GakuseiDon

Origen, in the Third Century CE, wrote:

16. It was not only, however, with the (Scriptures composed) before the advent (of Christ) that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same Spirit, and (proceeding) from the one God, He did the same thing both with the evangelists and the apostles, as even these do not contain throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed according to the letter, but which did not actually occur.

Nor even do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also without a sky?

And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east, and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history having taken place in appearance, and not literally. Cain also, when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him.

And what need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having occurred, but which did not literally take place?

Nay, the Gospels themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; e.g., the devil leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show him from thence the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not condemn those who think that with the eye of the body--which requires a lofty height in order that the parts lying (immediately) under and adjacent may be seen--the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their princes are glorified among men?

And the attentive reader may notice in the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded, circumstances that did not occur are inserted.

Eusebius of Caesarea wrote:

Now you may find in the Hebrew Scriptures also thousands of such passages concerning God as though He were jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or subject to any other human passions, which passages are adopted for the benefit of those who need this mode of instruction.

Jobar

I knew that passage from Origen, and it was one of the ones I was thinking of when I mentioned that some of the early Christian writers weren't literalists.

I'm more interested in the stance of the church from, say, 500-1500. During the time of the Inquisition, were there any who were declared heretics because they, oh, denied that there was a Flood? I know that there were plenty who were condemned for their theology, like Meister Eckhart; but were any condemned for their views on what parts of the scriptures were historical, and what not?

Chili

The distinction is made very easy Jobar. Catholics are not Christians and all self proclaimed Christians will be literalist whether this was the early church, medieval or reformation church. They are what later became known as protestants who now rightfully claim to have apostolic tradition all the way back to Peter. Of course they do have apostolic tradition but from a Catholic perspective this will be on the anathema side of the Church that Jesus had promised to built. The first ones were identified in Jn.6:66 and will be the manna consumers or bible students as we call them today.

It was easy for the Inquisitor to identify heretics because they will gladly boast about their own salvation including their sinful past.

I agree that not all popes may see it that way but that is why the Church exists beyond their power and they just occupy the seat. Don't they have a permanent constitution in place that is not easily moved because truth itself will not allow that?

Chili

. . . and there is nothing wrong with boasting about your own salvation including your sinful past as long as it does not continue for 40 years and still die in the end.

The point here is that purgatory is the transition period between heaven and earth and that should last 40 months instead of 40 years (Jn.6). Purgatory must end with the death of the ego and that is signified by the stigmata that was foreshadowed by the transfiguration which is the first physical sign that resurrection (or Easter) is sure to follow. Transfiguration is the consequence of the beatific vision wherein Magdalene (or Eve) is short circuited and Mary, or the woman, becomes the direct source of our insight (and never Gabriel who is an illusive roamer in Eden).

Persistent literalism is evidence that a catfight exists between the woman and Eve, or Mary and Magdalene, in the mind of the believer because the lesser serpent that is called the "great dragon" in Rev.13:2 refused to "give its own power and throne together with great authority" just because it had "taken up its place by the shore of the sea" (Rev.12:17) in the minds of those who will be forced to keep the commandments and give witness to Jesus.

Please note that in verse 4 the dragon (Magdalene) is admired for yielding its authority that is required to give rise to freedom on earth as it is in heaven.

Solo

This view would still be considered heretical in the Catholicism of XX. century. Pope Pius' X. encyclica "Pascendi" (1907) disowned the heresy of "modernism", label for a conscious attempt of some Catholic intellectuals to reconcile theology with modern rationalism. The Church, in repudiating Loisy, specifically denied any discord existed between Jesus of history and the Christ of faith. Origen's claim that these events did not "actually" occur would have still constituted a direct challenge to the dogma. Plus ca change.....

Jiri