Pope Benedict: Bible Cannot Be Taken Literally
#35
My apologies to those who thought they would hear no more from me. I intended to bow out of this argument, but I couldn't resist this.
(11-20-2010, 03:22 AM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(11-20-2010, 01:56 AM)Grasshopper Wrote: Matthew 1:16 -- "And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."

Luke 3:23 -- "And Jesus himself ... being (as it was supposed) the son of Joseph, who was of Heli, ..."

I see nothing in there about the genealogy of Mary. One says Jacob was the father of Joseph; the other says Joseph was the son of Heli. Either they contradict each other or at least one of them is to be taken non-literally. Make your choice -- you can't have it both ways.

We are not Protestants. Catholics do not believe in Sola Scriptura, the Bible alone. Catholics believe in tradition along with the Bible. The word of God is both written and oral.

Gee, that's what I've been saying all along. You're the one who insists on an absolutely literal reading (which I would expect from fundamentalist Protestants; Catholics are supposed to be more reasonable). It's really not fair to keep changing the rules as you go. By the way, "tradition" includes the teaching of the current Pope, who says we are not required to read the Bible literally. Read the title of the thread.
Quote:Heli was the father of Mary. The Hebrew name Heli has also be translated as Joacim or Joachim, which we in the English world, know as St. Joachim, the father of Mary. The following commentary explains it all:


Fr. George Leo Haydock
Haydock's New Testament Commentary
Luke 3


"That St. Luke does not always speak of a son properly called, and by way of generation, appears from the first and last he names; for Jesus was only the putative son of Joseph, because Joseph was the spouse of Mary, the mother of Christ; and Adam was only the son of God by creation. This being observed, we must acknowledge in the genealogy in St. Luke, two sons improperly so called, that is, two sons-in-law, instead of sons. As among the Hebrews, the women entered not into the genealogy, when a house finished by a daughter, instead of naming the daughter in the genealogy, they named the son-in-law, who had for father-in-law the father of his wife. The two sons-in-law mentioned in St. Luke are Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli, and Salathiel, the son-in-law of Neri. This remarks clears up the difficulty. Joseph, the son of Jacob, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Heli, in St. Luke; and Salathiel, the son of Jechonias, in St. Matthew, was the son-in-law of Neri, in St. Luke. Mary was the daughter of Heli, Eliacim, or Joacim, or Joachim. Joseph, the son of Jacob, and Mary, the daughter of Heli, had a common origin; both descending from Zorobabel, Joseph by Abiud the eldest, and Mary by Resa, the younger brother. Joseph descended from the royal branch of David, of which Solomon was the chief; and Mary from the other branch, of which Nathan was the chief. by Salathiel, the father of Zorobabel, and son of Jechonias, Joseph and Mary descended from Solomon, the son and heir of David. And by the wife of Salathiel, the mother of Zorobabel, and daughter of Neri, of which Neri Salathiel was the son-in-law, Joseph and Mary descended from Nathan, the other son of David, so that Joseph and Mary re-united in themselves all the blood of David. St. Matthew carries up the genealogy of Jesus to Abraham; this was the promise of the Messias, made to the Jews; St. Luke carries it up to Adam, the promise of the Messias, made to all men."

Sorry, but I'm not buyin' it. There are numerous holes in this argument. (1) This is not some abstract theological treatise that requires a lot of exegesis. It's a genealogy. That's about as simple as it gets. If Luke meant Mary, why didn't he just say Mary? (2) The two genealogies are pretty much the same before David, totally different after that. Okay, one goes through Solomon and the other through Nathan. Fair enough. But what is Zorobabel (the same Zorobabel, according to Fr. Haydock) doing in the middle of both branches? (3) I got curious about Zorobabel, and did a little searching. He shows up in 1 Chronicles. Sure enough there is a Salathiel (although he is given there as the uncle of Zorobabel, not his father), but here are Zorobabel's children, according to 1 Chronicles 3:

"19 ... Zorobabel begot Mosollam, Hananias, and Salomith their sister: 20 Hasaba also, and Ohol, and Barachias, and Hasadias, Josabhesed, five."

No mention of any Abiud or Reza. So now we have three different genealogies which do not agree with each other. They cannot possibly all be literal truth. (4) Matthew's genealogy has 16 generations between David and Zorobabel, plus 10 between Zorobabel and Joseph, for a total of 26 generations (although Matthew, who doesn't count so good, claims 27); Luke's genealogy has 22 generations between David and Zorobabel, and 19 between Zorobabel and Joseph, for a total of 41 generations. That's a pretty big difference. It means Solomon's line were having children at an average age of 38 or thereabouts, compared to 24 or so for Nathan's line (assuming roughly 1000 years between David and Joseph). I don't find that plausible. One person might wait until he or she is 38 to have children, but not an entire line of descent through 26 generations -- unless that was the norm in that society. But then it's equally implausible that everyone in another line, through 41 generations, would be jumping the gun by 14 years. (5) If "women entered not into the genealogy," what is Joanna doing in Luke's genealogy (Luke 3:27 "Who was of Joanna, who was of Reza, who was of Zorobabel, ...")? Was Joanna a man's name back then?

Instead of trying to swallow that whole batch of contradictions and inconsistencies and implausibilities, why not just admit that there are some errors in the Bible? In any case, no matter how you spin it, you have to sacrifice the "literal truth" hypothesis, that every word of the Bible means exactly what it says -- because it says that Salathiel was both Zorobabel's father and his uncle, and that Jacob and Heli were both the father of Joseph, and my mind doesn't jump through those hoops. If yours does, you're checking your brain at the door, regardless of any claims to the contrary.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: Pope Benedict: Bible Cannot Be Taken Literally - by Grasshopper - 11-21-2010, 02:39 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)