www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Calvinists delete Genesis

Joe,

Since I do not have an answer at the ready for these verses, I will have to do a little research on both of these situations. I will say that whether or not I am personally able to reconcile the passages is immaterial to the question, IMHO, although I will do my level best. It does not change what I have argued as a matter of principle.

God bless,

Gordo

As my Scripture professor used to say, "The Bible is true but not exact".
FDD

The Douay-Rheims reads "And he indeed hath possessed a field of the reward of iniquity, and being hanged, burst asunder in the midst: and all his bowels gushed out". So there's no discrepancy regarding the manner of how Judas died. As for the potters field, the emphasis appears to be on the words "reward of his iniquity" rather than the 30 pieces of silver.

The Douay Rheims is a translation from the Latin Vulgate, which is not the original Greek. I would be hesitant to take its rendering of the passage at face value. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Father Deacon,
And I agree. I have no problem saying that the Bible is true in all that it teaches. But this can include inexactitudes, discrepencies on matters of detail, various accounts of events, etc. peace in Christ,

Joe

Gordo,

Why couldn't the Holy Spirit permit two conflicting stories to both be present in the sacred canonical text if they both had something to teach?

Peace in Christ,
Joe

Joe,

I'm not convinced that the two are in fact "conflicting" accounts - they could be complimentary perspectives on the same event.

For instance - consider these:

The woman says Gordo is my husband. The woman says Gordo is my son. The woman says Gordo is my nephew. The woman says Gordo is my cousin.

How can all these statements be true? Are they contradictory?

The only proper way to interpret this is to understand the context in which these statements were made including their source or witness. Unless I am from West Virginia, the only possible way to reconcile these is to see that the "woman" refers to several women each with their own relational perspective. In court, several witnesses can see the same event while recalling different aspects of it. Often by reconciling the two eye witness accounts, we come up with a more complete picture of what transpired.

For instance, with the account of Judas, is it not possible that he in fact hanged himself from the tree and that either a branch or the rope broke and his decaying corpse fell to the ground, spilling its bowels? It is even more likely if he hung himself from a high place, such as over a cliff. Both statements would then be true, albeit different aspects of the events would be reflected in each account. Again, I need to research this but I use it as an example of how witnesses may approach the same event differently.

Also, timeframes and events are sometimes collapsed or telescoped in the sacred writings. These texts were not written according to modern journalistic standards! We also have to respect the fact that certain phrases or euphemisms might be used that do not in fact translate well into modern languages - not without some effort.

For instance - the account of Noah cursing Canaan. If you read the translated passage, you get the impression that Ham, Noah's son, went into Noah's tent after Noah had too much wine, uncovered his naked body and left him exposed for others to see and then went and bragged about it to his brothers. And for this, Noah woke up with a hangover, saw what Ham had done and then staggered out of the tent and cursed Ham's son, his grandson. (Hangovers cause people to say and do the damndest things...pun intended!)

Makes sense, right? Sure...um not!, unless depanting someone is grounds for having your seed cursed and it is a matter for semi-adolescent bragging in the post-deluvian world! (You could then say "Ham" was the forefather of High School gym antics, I suppose.)

The only way to make sense of this passage is to understand three key elements not related in the account: the garment of blessing, its association with primogeniture and the statement "uncovering his nakedness".

In the patriarchal period, the concept of "blessing" was more than a simple statement after someone sneezed - it represented the transfer of the priestly and patriarchal authority and power to govern the economia of family life, and was usually passed from the father to the firstborn son (usually through the spoken blessing invoking the name of God and the laying on of hands - we can make our own connections to the New Covenant "blessing" of ordination and the transfer of fatherly responsibility). This notion of blessing and primogeniture plays a pivotal role in the unfolding metanarrative of the whole Old Testament (e.g., Esau relinquishing the "blessing" of primogeniture to Isaac the second-born for a bowl of Campbell's soup, thus recapitulating the fall of Adam who lost his blessing to satisfy his appetite through eating - indicating something more is going on in the narrative).

The cloak, coat or "garment" was a symbol of this primogeniture, in the same sense that the garments of royalty are today. (Some of the rabbis, I am told, actually trace the origin of the patriarchal garment to Adam in the garden and the clothing god fashioned out of animal skins for Adam.) This also explains the jealousy of the brothers of Joseph over Jacob's blessing of a "coat of many colors"...were they really that fashion conscious? "Daddy - how come he gets to shop at Abercombie and I have to settle with the Gap?" OR was there something more going on in the narrative tied to the garment of blessing symbolizing that Joseph was to assume the power and authority to rule his brothers. The fact that their betrayal by selling him into slavery in Egypt in fact providentially fulfilled their obedience to Joseph and became a source of blessing for their family...which later ripened into a curse...shows the power of this blessing in the life of Israel.

So how does this relate to the story of Noah?

Ham, who is the second-born goes into his father's tent and "uncovers his nakedness" which is a euphemism that has multiple levels of meaning according to the rabbis.

It could mean: stealing the garment of blessing, castration and sleeping with his wife. All three of these acts would symbolize an attempt to usurp the power of his father, Noah, who had the right and authority to rule. Again, a recapitulation of the Fall. (The more things change, the more they remain the same!) It is quite possible that Ham did all three, but the more likely version is that he did at least two: stole the garment and slept with Noah's wife (aka his mother) which would explain the "curse" of Canaan - the fruit of that incestuous union. Sleeping with the wife of a man (especially a king) was a way to claim power over him, just as David slept with Uriah's wife and his son in his act of rebellion and revolution against his father slept with David's concubines.This explains one of the reasons why the kings of the past have taken umbrage at any of their subjects sleeping with the queen. It was equally an act of rebellion/revolt/treason against the crown.

Ham then went to his brothers - not to "giggle" about the prank that he played on dear old dad - but rather to assert his power over them - "I'm the one in charge, now!". They, of course, promptly quelled the rebellion against their father and restored the garment of blessing to its rightful owner.

The events surrounding Noah's realization of what Ham had done and his eventual curse of the offspring could reflect a telescoped chronology of events - or it could simply be a true prophecy spoken by Noah. All of this, of course, must be seen in the light of the Exodus event (this is being recounted to Israel, after all) and one sees in this account the origin of a people - the canaanites. Any Israelite reading this account would immediately make that connection - from the "cursed seed" of Ham to the usurpers and interlopers in the land of promise who still practice the sinful behaviors of their great, great great, etc etc grandfather!!

My point in relating all of this? Oftentimes biblical narratives present historical events in ways that are both "veiled" in language and do not reflect a chronology of historical events in a way that we would expect from an article in the New York Times (although lately thanks to the NYT's "creative re-writing" of historical events, That probably is not the best example!) Sometimes we have to unpack the meaning of the story that is related to us in the context of the broader narrative, understanding the author's purpose, perspective, use of language, etc etc. Where two accounts are given (for instance the two creation accounts in Genesis and the two acccounts of Saul's death) these principles must be applied to properly reconcile or reconstruct a chronology, although even the chronology of events as related by the author serves the narrative's broader purpose (as seen in the Gospels, including the geneologies of Jesus). This does not change the event character of what occured, but we should not expect that the author is writing like a journalist either.

But I'll research the two accounts you gave me.

Peace,

Gordo

Thanks, Deacon Diak,

Exactly!

Eric, I appreciate this. Doesn't make any historical sense, but it does show how far some will go to make a point! Anyway, just in case someone who may simply lurk a while with us and takes the dinosaur=dragon idea seriously let me reassure them (am an ex-teacher of ancient and medieval history)>> There were no dinosaurs in Ancient Rome nor in the Middle Ages...just mythical dragons depicted in works of art and told in tall tales. Creatures of legend but not fact.

Porter

Well, again Porter, it depends on what one means by "exact". To say that the "sun rises and sets" is "true" insofar as it reflects what one observes in the sky and so long as you are not trying to assert anything scientific, in which case it would be "inexact".

It appears that you have some interest in this topic. Do you intend to engage in an actual dialogue on the issues or desire to have others make the arguments for you?

Gordo

Gordo, just read back and found this. Was surprised it was addressed to me in particular. If so...I don't really disagree with what you are expressing here but in my support of Joe's remarks if it seems so..so be it, and I surely did not deny the approach of the Church Fathers, in fact, deeply appreciate them!

I guess I just have a tough time with Protestants who take the bible literally to the point of not searching out what it once meant in order to really understand what it now means and that is the fundamentalist approach I meant.

But... I think you are discussing this mainly with Joe and others...and see it did continue.

I'll leave it at that.

I always appreciate what you have to say.

Respectfully.

Porter

Porter,

Not a problem! These conversations are always multi-directional anyway, especially when the dialogue gets going.

And, BTW, I was just being playful with you in my comments above. I did not intend it to be as sharp a "jab" as it came across! Apologies if I offended!

Blessings,

Gordo

Absolutely no offense. I have enjoyed sort of poking my nose into this one. And, no not entering the dialogue..mainly because what I want to say has been said already..just giving a little support here and there when something rings true.

Peace and blessings,

Mary Jo

Good point, Joe.

I brought this up several times as the reason why there can exist several rites with their own theologies. There are those who wish to combine all of them into one mega-rite (like Tatian's Diatessaron) or choose one over the rest (like Marcion).

Biblical stories also "develop" over time when used again in a different book. Even our Divine Liturgy makes a few changes to the texts used in the Thrice Holy Hymn.

See: https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000004

Joe

Joe,

Interesting points. One could say that there might be certain accretions to the original inspired writings (including the insertion of margin notes), or that the writings themselves developed with multiple authors and sources contributing to the text. I certainly would not argue that the text was plunked down from on high intact and in the King James English, no less!

But I would also argue that your anaology needs to be qualified and has limited application. As the principle of non-contradiction states, something cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same manner. In matters of theology, things cannot be "true" for one ritual tradition and "false" for another in the same communio. Hence the search for reconciling what may be only apparent opposites based on emphasis, as has been done with the Copts and Armenians, I believe.

In the matter of Sacred Scripture that which is divinely revealed cannot both be true and not true at the same time and in the same manner. (Of course, one also needs to discern precisely what is being asserted as true and factual. I know that there are some who even want to assert that the parables of Jesus are historical events, which is absurd!) And often, as with theological approaches, contradictions are only apparent and not actual. The one difference - and this is essential - is that the writings of SS are divinely "inspired". The dogma of inspiration is a distinct category of a much higher order, exercising a primacy within the context of Christian Tradition.

God bless,

Gordo