I once upon a time used to think Pius XII allowed for believing Adam had physical ancestry.
No, Humani Generis only allowed for discussing that behind closed doors. The only reason why YEC or Old Earth Progressive Creationists should keep their arguments against this behind closed doors would be to hide from the faithful that this position existed. Given the secret no longer isn't one, this discretion can hardly hold any more. Nor have I found that Popes Michael I and II have imposed it on me.
I once used to think Pius XII, by promoting Old Earth in 1951 was promoting apostasy. But he was probably unaware of carbon dates, so, probably considered humanity was 5199 years old when Jesus was born. Given carbon dates and the relation between an old atmosphere and a high level of carbon 14 around the modern one, this has now become inconsistent, but as per 1909, it is not currently stamped as a heresy. One can argue that it should be, but it isn't. And I cannot prove Pius XII went beyond that position, the 5 billion years were 5 billion years before the creation of Adam and Eve, 6000—7500 years ago.
I also used to dread the idea that by promoting the study of literary forms in Divino Afflante Spiritu, he had prepared the idea alluded to in the title. Or at least promoted divisions of Johannine corpus or of Isaias or the Pentateuch into different authors. Which he didn't promote.
46. But this state of things is no reason why the Catholic commentator, inspired by an active and ardent love of his subject and sincerely devoted to Holy Mother Church, should in any way be deterred from grappling again and again with these difficult problems, hitherto unsolved, not only that he may refute the objections of the adversaries, but also may attempt to find a satisfactory solution, which will be in full accord with the doctrine of the Church, in particular with the traditional teaching regarding the inerrancy of Sacred Scripture, and which will at the same time satisfy the indubitable conclusion of profane sciences.
Key point: a conclusion of a profane science has to be indubitable before we are required to satisfy it.
Other key point, he actually welcomes what I have been doing.
First, geology means, either the Flood was laying down all or most layers, or it is very untraceable. Solution, the Flood is actually global, not just large regional. Which means, there is no geological basis for Old Earth (old = well beyond Biblical chronology, whether 40 000 or 4 000 000 000 years).
Second, Geocentrism means, there is no basis for the Distant Starlight problem.
Third, Palaeontology means, most well preserved fossils were buried in situ and for land biota, that means one layer.
Fourth, a rise in carbon 14 compared to carbon 12 is not just a theoretical possibility which can be used in a handwave or "we'll sort the details out later" answer to human remains carbon dated to 40 000 + years ago, but for many dates between the Flood and the Fall of Troy, adequate calibrations can already be made on a somewhat rough and amateuresque level.
Fifth, while I may be wrong about anchor points related to the Sojourn in Egypt and the Exodus ... I'm considering to replace some XIIIth dynasty Pharao with Amenhotep II which might make the Hyksos Hebrew rather than Amalekite ... I think I have a very firm reason to consider Genesis 14 occurred a little less than 2000 BC (more or less 1900 BC) and is carbon dated to 3500 BC, namely Asason Tamar = archaeology of Ein Gedi. I am nearly as firm about Babel of Genesis 11 being:
- most of the years from Noah's death to Peleg's birth (like 40 out of 51)
- and this being archaeologically in Tas-Tepeler
- though an older layer of Göbekli Tepe or an older and in size comparable complex, potentially a city, being able to dethrone the current carbon dates of Göbekli Tepe.
The least firm part of this being whether the Hebrew words that normally refer to bricks and bitumen can have meant sth else prior to certain technological changes. But there was a world wide near monoculture prior to this, and there were very marked splits in regional cultures after it, especially as to the signs that could be writing or sth similar. Tas Tepeler is (mostly) in Mesopotamia, which is probably meant by Shinar, and from any landing place of the Ark in the mountains of Armenia, the people going into Shinar there would have been removing literally from the East, the most normal translation of miqqedem.
47. Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church.
I think I merit this charity more than people who invent the "literary" category "mytho-history" in order to allege that while Genesis 1—11 are obviously true, they are not literally and factually true. Or who base this on the parallels with other Ancient Near East writings that we have the habit of classifying as myths, with no clear idea of what that word entails. I'm not sure whether Pius XII would have shared my views on Greek myths, probably not, but I am sure that he referred to the already then popular understanding of "mythology" as essentially fiction when he denied Genesis to contain myths, in Humani Generis.
Certain items in the Babylonian Flood Story are fraud, theological or political, tied to post-Flood Shuruppak or to a non-extant assignment of divine roles into "Enlil" and "Enki" the judge and the friend of men being opposed to each other in that false polytheism.
38. Hence the Catholic commentator, in order to comply with the present needs of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and in demonstrating and proving its immunity from all error, should also make a prudent use of this means, determine, that is, to what extent the manner of expression or the literary mode adopted by the sacred writer may lead to a correct and genuine interpretation; and let him be convinced that this part of his office cannot be neglected without serious detriment to Catholic exegesis. Not infrequently - to mention only one instance - when some persons reproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error or inaccuracy in the recording of facts, on closer examination it turns out to be nothing else than those customary modes of expression and narration peculiar to the ancients, which used to be employed in the mutual dealings of social life and which in fact were sanctioned by common usage.
It could be, on even closer inspection fewer and fewer of these appeals to customary modes of expression are required, and the literal fact can stand. Obviously, when Moses says the following, he is not talking of the subjective idea of people speaking of Bab-Ilu:
And therefore the name thereof was called Babel, because there the language of the whole earth was confounded: and from thence the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all countries
[Genesis 11:9]
But would Nimrod have spoken of Bab-Ilu, or would he have admitted a form of balal, confuse? Obviously, later Pagans didn't admit the confusion. Or only in a limited way. The "Lord of Aratta" alludes to it, but doesn't tell it's backstory in a way we find preserved, this text is also a fragment. Ancient Near East and even Greek, Roman, Celtic, Germanic, Hindu and perhaps also Persian paganisms have managed to forget this event. Like Homer probably managed to forget the Hittites, if Eratosthenes dated the war correctly. But like Bedřich Hrozný deciphered Hittite, though this be only indirectly related to Biblical Hittites, so Klaus Schmidt very arguably dug up Babel. And didn't know it.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Cyril of Alexandria
9.II.2026
[28.I] Alexandriae natalis sancti Cyrilli, ejusdem urbis Episcopi, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui, catholicae fidei praeclarissimus propugnator, doctrina et sanctitate illustris quievit in pace. Ejus tamen festivitas quinto Idus Februarii celebratur.
[9.II] Sancti Cyrilli, Episcopi Alexandrini, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, cujus dies natalis quinto Kalendas Februarii recensetur.
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire