Posted on 10/09/2015 8:14:19 AM PDT by Salvation
The Bible has within its pages many literary forms: history, poetry, prayer, prose, theology, liturgical instruction, cosmology, genealogy, philosophy, parable, moral tale, and so forth. How exactly to read its pages and understand them is often a matter of understanding the genre.
The word genre comes directly from the French word meaning “kind” or “sort.” Further back, it stems from the Latin word genus and the Greek word genos (γένος). Genre is the term for a category of literature, art, or culture (e.g., music) based on a set of stylistic criteria.
Now someone might ask me, “Do you read the Bible literally?” That’s like someone asking, “Do you interpret the library literally?” I would respond by saying that it depends on what section I’m in. If I’m in the science or history section, I might well read a book there literally. But if I’m in the poetry, fiction, or children’s storybook section, I would not likely read a book there literally. In those sections I would understand that stories and images are being used to make a point rather than merely to present facts.
We know how to exercise some sophistication when it comes to the library, but many seem to lose this perspective when it comes to the Bible. Often we can fail to distinguish literary forms and thus try to force a book or passage to be what it is not.
In reading the Book of Genesis, especially the early chapters, many fail to appreciate the different literary forms. They want the creation stories to be science or exact history when in fact they are more poetic and theological than scientific. The stories advance the real and true point that God alone created everything there is out of nothing, and did so in an intentional and systematic way in which He was involved at every stage. This is the sacred and theological truth set forth by the Genesis accounts.
The text does not propose to be in the form of a science textbook. Consider, for example, the accounting of the “days” of creation. Although light is created on the first day, the Sun and Moon are not created until the fourth day. So what does it mean to speak of a “day” when the very sun by which we define the length of the day does not even exist yet? Further, the notion of light apart from the Sun, is a somewhat abstract concept.
If someone asks me if I read the account of creation literally I ask them, “Which one?” This usually leads to a puzzled look. But the fact is, Genesis sets forth two accounts of creation that are very different.
Hence, we have two very distinct versions of creation. In no way can they be harmonized, yet neither are they in absolute conflict. Each describes the same event, but from a different angle and with a different level of focus on detail. Neither account alone contains all the details. But together, they contain all God wants us to know about the creation of the cosmos.
If asked to describe the visit I made to the Holy Land I could start at the beginning and give a day-by-day account, or I could choose to start at the end and work backward. Or instead of responding chronologically, I could just present some highlights. I could also describe the trip according to themes (e.g., Old Testament sites and New Testament sites). I might select the method of presentation depending on the particular audience. Each of my responses would be true and yet they are all different. My response would depend on my purpose and the audience to whom I am presenting.
So then a little sophistication is required in dealing with the accounts of creation. If we take a literal and rigid notion of history, we can err by trying to make Genesis what it is not. It does not conform to the modern genre of historical writing, which tends to be comprehensive and strictly chronological. These Genesis accounts are quite willing to speak to us of creation poetically and selectively, even reversing the timeline. This is because their purpose is not to give us a blow-by-blow account of precisely how God created everything. Exact times and dates are not the point. The point is that God is the purposeful, sole, and sovereign Creator. God, who is present and active at every stage, is the point. Another important point is the dignity of the human person. The first account accomplishes this by making man the culmination of the creation story; he is created on the seventh day. The second account makes this point, but by beginning with man and having everything formed around him and for him.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of these accounts,
Among all the Scriptural texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation—its origin and its end in God, its order and goodness, the vocation of man, and finally the drama of sin and the hope of salvation. Read in the light of Christ, within the unity of Sacred Scripture and in the living Tradition of the Church, these texts remain the principal source for catechesis on the mysteries of the “beginning”: creation, fall, and promise of salvation (CCC # 289).
This all leads to an interesting question that I was asked recently by a parishioner: “How did Adam and Eve’s kids have kids?” The questioner seemed to imply that since only Cain and Abel were mentioned (no females) there couldn’t have been other kids. In other words, the premise seemed to be that Genesis represents an exact and fully inclusive history, like modern history texts. Since only Cain and Abel were mentioned, then only Cain and Abel existed. But this premise is flawed; Genesis is not meant to be a complete, seamless, chronological account. Just because daughters were not mentioned does not mean that they did not exist. Genesis 4:17 does mention the wife of Cain. Other women are mentioned in the genealogy that is in Genesis 4. (Note the problem of incest is too long to be addressed here and will be the subject of another post. It is wrapped up in the question of monogenism/polygenism.)
The fact is, Genesis does not propose to give us all the details or to answer all of our questions. Something is left to the reader: a sophistication that recognizes that Genesis is historical yet not written in the form of modern history texts. We cannot expect all the details and must presume the presence of other children (especially daughters born to Adam and Eve).
So, in the end, there must be some sophistication used in understanding of Scripture. Genesis is neither a scientific account nor was it written in the way of a modern history text. It does speak of historical facts, but in a selective and poetic manner. Accepting this distinction is critical, lest we go down all sorts of rabbit holes, expecting Genesis to provide a complete and seamless account that it does not propose to give in the first place.
Monsignor Pope Ping!
Perhaps the author needs to read the book of Revelation (22:5) which explains that God can provide his own light apart from the Sun and Moon. Further, Exodus 20 makes it pretty clear that the 6 days of creation were literal 24 hour days.
The article also introduces the false notion that the accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 aren’t reconcilable.
Certainly, the accounts begin at different points and focus on different things, but there are no contradictions, so they are completely reconcilable.
I’d also love to hear the author try to explain why, if the early chapters of Genesis are not historical, are they so replete with genealogies? If we look at the rest of the Bible besides Genesis, we can see that genealogies aren’t included in the prophetic, or poetic sections, but in the historical sections.
The Torah reading for this week is Berishit, “In the
beginning”. I wonder if msgr Pope chose to write about
about it this week for this reason.
So Catholics don’t believe God created it all in six 24 hour days??
Those who symbolize Genesis will eventually symbolize commands against sexual immorality. Rot from the inside.
As the Msgr has just discovered the greek perhaps he needs to begin Hebrew as well.
Jesus said, “You search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.” (John 5:39-40)
Taken for its plain, clear, natural meaning, Jesus’ words mean that the entire Old Testament is about Him. From the very first verses of Genesis onward, all must be read in the light of His being the center and focus of all of it.
Now this does not mean that Genesis 1-2 are not a true and accurate account of the creation of the world. They are. And one should not resort to setting literary form against literal meaning, as if the two were irreconcilable. They are not.
The problem is that Monsignor Pope is reading those first chapters as if they were more akin to other ancient Near Eastern literary types and forms, and not unique in that they have, as said above, their purpose and focus in Christ. They are, in other words, both utterly unique and yet, at the same time, not entirely dissimilar from other such forms of literature. They are unique also in this that their author is God, who is thus the Guarantor of their accuracy. This also is something about which Christ and His apostles had much to say.
Finally, there are not two different creation accounts. That is such an old, tired, overworked theory of higher critical scholarship, a scholarship which has as its purpose the denial of divine authorship. The difference between the two, Genesis 1:1-2:4a and Genesis 2:4b, has to do firstly with their different perspectives, on the material creation in the former and in the latter on man directly, for whom all things were created (oh, how that must grate on the ears of those in the thrall of modern godless, man-as-dispensible environmental ideology - itself simply neopaganism). Secondly, there are clear literary markers that show Moses to be more the divinely inspired author/editor of previously existent materials than the divinely inspired author only. In this he would be no different than, for example, Luke. For which see Luke 1:1-4.
Jesus certainly didn’t see the first chapters of Genesis as just poetic and allegorical.
Indeed. Some people think they know the Bible better than Him, I guess.
One of the many problems with the rcc is they don’t get the beginning right.
So of course a so-called "conservative" Catholic FReeper simply has to post an attack on the historicity of Genesis written by another so-called "conservative" Catholic.
This is exactly why your church is collapsing, and why it deserves to.
Of course they don't. What do you think they are, inbred redneck snake-handlers?[/sarcasm]
That is precisely the case. The leftist revolution in the Catholic Church comes from the rejection of the historical facticity of Genesis. But try to get them to see that. They never will.
Catholics seem to hate Genesis as much as Hitler (yimach shemo vezikhro!) hated the Jewish People.
I understand the use of hyperbole but that goes too far and it trivializes the Holocaust by suggesting that MOST Catholics give more than a flip about Genesis. CLUE: The overwhelming majority of Catholics would be hard pressed to find Genesis, much less care about it enough to form an opinion on it.
Also you're supposed to translate non-English words/phrases for the benefit of your FRiends here. Heaven knows we Catholics get enough hassle out of Latin phrases and abbreviations
I happen to believe, based on the Hebrew, they are six 24 hour days. Is God not capable of doing so??
They will also begin to symbolize other things as well like Mary being the new ark, or the queen of heaven, etc.
Whether it is a literal 24 hours or not, we can know His Calendar commemorates His Creative and Redemptive Work in a set pattern given in His Word.
He gave the plain template in Ezekiel 46:1.
1 New Moon Day
6 Work Days
1 Sabbath
Math wizards will notice that adds to 8, not 7.
Rome (and the world) ignores one of His ‘Days’ and may not even know it. Or care..
But times and laws were going to be changed, per Daniel 7:25..
1 New Moon Day
6 Work Days
1 Sabbath
Math wizards will notice that adds to 8, not 7.
A new moon day can be on a Sabbath. Why do you post such nonsense?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.