www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Pre-flood ages, centuries?

"I mean factual, because it's presented as fact. Unless there is a consistent methodology of distinguishing between factual truth and allegorical truth, it seems that we are all free to make up our own criteria. [/quote]

No, if we were Protestants, we would be free to make up our own criteria. Orthodox and Catholic Christians are supposed to read Scripture with the mind of the Church, which means among other things, Christologically. The OT stories should be read in light of Christ; hence, the story of Noah and the flood is about salvation from sin and death through water (Baptism) rather than a boat, animals, and a lot of rain. In light of this, the question of the flood account being fact vs. myth becomes very secondary at best. The story was intended to convey a spiritual truth, and it does so regardless of the fact vs. myth issue.

Gregg

So who defines which is the correct Chritological approach to distinguish facts from allegory? What if somebody with a Christological approach disagreed with you about whether or not a talking snake tempted Eve to eat a forbidden apple? Who would be correct?

I don't claim that the allegorical account of these things is incorrect. I am only looking to see a consistent basis that can be applied evenly to make the distinction responsibly. Thus far, it seems it boils down to a matter of opinion, with variable self-imposed restraints. If that's somebody's answer, that's fine, but let's not pretend there can be an objective answer based on it.

St. Basil, for one, seems to reject the idea of reading allegory into Genesis.

Hexaemeron (Homily 2) [newadvent.org]

Hexaemeron (Homily 9) [newadvent.org]

Again, when our very faith hinges on the physical and factual resurrection of Christ, it seems dangerous to me to so casually explain away "unnatural" things as allegory without a very exhaustive, cohesive, and consistent methodology for doing so. I believe one very probably exists, but unless I am ignorant, I see only subjective reasoning put forth here so far, which seems insufficient if not negligent.

jjp:

Christ is in our midst!!

We had a discussion about this sort of thing last evening in a Bible study and it occured to me that I might shed some light on your dilemna.

Remember that the Scripture was originally oral tradition(s) handed down within the Chosen People community. As such, we need to remember that oral traditions in the earliest times were not meant to be factually accurate as we might want them to be, given our 21st century, legal, measureable fact mindset. The stories were meant to be an "anamnesis," a "bringing back into living experience" of events in the immediate and/or long distant past to make the hearers understand that these events and people were part of their own experience, too. We tend to think of history as something of little importance or as something that is for experts or as having no value for us in our present lives. Not so. The events told orally and then committed to writing were meant to convey a sense of who we are, where we came from, and to explain the eternal questions that have always plagued us in this passing world.

The theme that runs through it all is that God created all of what we can see and all of what we cannot see. He keeps it in being through His act of will. The events described are ways for us to understand that He is not far off, but intimately involved with us, with His creation, and with our destiny. There are no mistakes, no cosmic accidents, and no uncertainty about all of this.

If I read that a man lived for 900 years, I wouldn't call the writer a liar or someone who exaggerates. It was a storyteller's way of stating that the man lived for an extemely long time--because God had things for him to do in carrying out the Divine Will. Me? I don't want to live for 900 years; got enough of age-related "slowdowns" to make me wonder if I'll make it another 10, but always willing to take whatever the Good Lord sends.

There seems to be archelogical evidence of the flood on Mt. Arrarat in Armenia and I've read articles that seem to confirm it, but I haven't seen it. On the other hand, I don't put a lot of faith in the attempts to debunk the Scriptures by so many scholars who seem to have lost their faith--become so smart they lost the reason for their study in the first place.

I look at the universe, look at the pictures coming back from the Hubbell telescope, considerr how small a speck I am in the whole picture, remember that the One Who keeps it all going is concerned about me (and wonder why), and let the nitpicking and parsing to others. As far as the Old Testament goes, it's there to remind me that, though I ahve no Jewish ancestors, these stories are my stories as an adopted part of the Chosen People, because I am now chosen by Baptism to be part of them in Christ. And "in Christ" is the most important concept I've come across in my life.

Bob

I'm with G.K. Chesterton - it's proud in the extreme to think that we can say much about pre-history aside from what God has revealed. At best it's a parlour game.

It relies on level after level of inductive reasoning, which can only be known with degrees of confidence, and it assumes that the laws of the physical world have been largely uniform between then and now ... to name a few problems.

For some reason, we feel the need to reconcile the Bible with current science. I don't know why. The most brilliant minds in the world used to think that salamanders were birthed in fire, and flies from dead bodies. Much of our knowledge will likely be equally hilarious in 1000 years.

Outside of leaving some margin for contemporary idiom, I presume the Bible is true, no more and no less. Those sections that use literary techniques are obvious and have been known forever - apocalyptic writing, poetry, song, and so on. Nothing in Genesis seems to indicate that it is anything other than historical writing, and I am unaware of any long-standing strain of thought in the Sensus Catholicus that it is anything but history ... before the brief hiccup that is the modern era.

(Edit - And I don't mean that because it is history there are not multiple layers of meaning. In fact, if those events didn't actually happen, what does that say about Christological and other meanings built on the events?)

And since whether the seven days of creation were literal or figurative has no bearing on my temporal well-being whatsoever, nor on applied science, I choose to take God at His word and leave it be.

When Chesterton wrote, that might have been the case (actually, it wasn't, but that's beside the point). Today, it's simply presumptuous to assume that God would deliberately go out of his way to deceive us by first giving us all these tools for locating and analyzing evidence, and then cooking the evidence.

In other words, time to come to grips with the words of the Troparion of the Transfiguration, and realize God reveals to us only so much as we are ready to behold.

The problem I continue to have is not so much "is the modern English translation of Genesis and Exodus 100% literal fact" but, if we are going to say that some of it is myth that is a deeper truth which is slowly being revealed by God in His perfect time, and some of it actually *IS* actual history, by what specific set of criteria are we separating the two? I never seem to get a logical answer to that question.

You can even go post flood. Was there actually a real historical figure named Abraham? If so, did he really live to 175? It one suggests he did not, then is not any other aspect of his account similarly in doubt?

My original question in regard to the official position of the Roman and Eastern churches, although I realize that you can't really avoid theologoumenon when discussing this.

The answer is it requires both intense study and prayerful discernment. There is no hard and fast rule, nor could there ever be one.

That, of course, makes much sense.

Has the Church, Eastern or otherwise, come to any popular or official conclusions or traditions in the manner you describe, or is every man for himself here?

God doesn't "cook" evidence, but we don't know what knowledge we lack, and never will.

The current view of pre-history is based upon recently observed phenomena then extrapolated backwards through largely inductive reasoning about processes that cannot be duplicated in experimentation.

1: Observation does not have the certitude of revelation.
2: Current phenomena may or may not act as they did in pre-history.
3: Inductive reasoning does not have the certitude of deductive reasoning.
3: We can't verify the results with duplication, as is normative with the scientific method.

So I'm not exactly arguing that the seven days were seven literal days, but I am saying that it is prudent to hold any opinion based on science extremely lightly. There is nothing to "come to grips" with.

And frankly, God hasn't given us the "tools for locating and analyzing evidence" for pre-history to any real degree. This isn't like figuring out how the seasons work, or inventing the light bulb. When a time machine is invented, I will concede my point.

And I further posit that it is more in keeping with the Eastern theological method to allow faith to admire in silence what is beyond us, rather than to scholastically deconstruct it.

Even revelation requires understanding and interpretation.


All evidence says it did. Remember that human prehistory is but the blink of an eye in cosmic history.


Science and history are both inductive and deductive. Deduction by itself is as weak as induction by itself. Or, as the geeks say, "Garbage in, garbage out".


Let's call this one (4), and say that while this is true, it is also irrelevant.


And I would say, just as science should not write metaphysical checks it cannot cash, so theology should not attempt to mandate physical laws of nature. Both have their proper sphere, into which the other should trespass lightly.


Except that the Byzantines, as heirs of both the classical patrimony of Greece and the empiricism of the Romans, simply did not believe this or act in this way. What you describe is a post-Byzantine reactionism of the Great Church in captivity.

You are implying that observation and revelation are of equal weight to you. Is that correct?


Oh really? Have you dropped an object in the first seven days of creation to see if it accelerated at 9.8 meters per second squared? Did you measure the specific gravity of copper before the dawn of man? The evidence is not remotely provable.


You can't blame the deductive method for the "garbage in." You're setting up a straw man here.


Thank you for your humbly stated fraternal correction; however, I actually meant to label that point #, but forgot to hold down the shift key.

And you're only dismissing my point as irrelevant because you can't refute it. It is the very heart of my position.


Either you're not reading what I am writing, or you're putting words in my mouth, I will presume accidentally. This is not representative of what I said at all.


What I inductively reason from this last paragraph and its relation to the former ones is that you believe that modern Eastern theology is currently captive to an intellectual fad, yet modern science is not. Please let me know if I am misinterpreting.

I am saying that observation and revelation are mutually dependent: revelation must be interpreted in light of observation, and observation must be interpreted in light of observation.


Human prehistory, thanks. As for cosmic history, I find no reason to doubt or deny the physical laws by which God established the universe. Modern astrophysics tend to confirm the broad outlines of the Genesis creation story, rather than contradicting it. To say that they are in conflict is to create a false dichotomy. Interesting that both atheists and biblical literalists want to do just that


Not really. To the extent they gave it a thought at all, the writers of the Old Testament were geocentrists. All their deductions flowed from that basic assumption, which we know is false.


At the end of the day, you are saying that science is not trustworthy when it contradicts revelation, so it is what you are doing. It also raises the question of whose interpretation of revealed truth, which the Fathers never answered, and on which the Church has never ruled.


On the contrary--"modern" Eastern theology has repudiated both the pseudomorphosis of latinized categories and methods, and the immobilism that characterized Orthodox theology between the Fall of Constantinople and the Russian Revolution. "Modern" Orthodox theology is a return to authentic Byzantine roots, and that entails an open-eyed appreciation for science and history alike, which in turn affects how certain events in Scripture are interpreted. Divine revelation provides us with the Who and the Why, but science can provide us with the details of What and How.

While I don't agree with what Booth is saying, I am glad he got you to this point, because it ties in nicely with my original question.

What exactly is the "modern" Eastern theology in this regard, especially in contrast to the "official" Roman Catholic Church's position?

I know that the Catholic Church has come to view the Big Bang as not incongruent with the idea of an Intelligent Designer and hence the book of Genesis... no need for another Galileo ordeal.

But I am really interested in what modern Eastern/Orthodox thought is in this regard, not so much in terms of creation but really pre-flood human "history", if you will.

Stuart,

One last thing - you're still blaming the deductive method for the "garbage in," not looking at deduction versus induction of themselves.

That said, I am frustrated with you. I have been trying to defend intellectual humility, and not any given interpretations, yet you continue to paint me differently.

So I tap out. You win. Congratulations.

Please also see my forthcoming private message.