REPOST--Pagano is a cafeteria historian
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >You never replied to my query:
> >> >When did the cleansing of the Temple occur in the timeline of Jesus'
> >> >ministry? Was it at the beginning (John 2:12-22) or at the end (Mt.
> >> >21:12-13, Mk. 11:15-17, Lk. 19:45-46)?
> >> >
> >> >(references to quotes is from the RSV)
> >>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> Don't have clue. And wouldn't even bother to check unless you explain
> >> the relevence to Genesis 1-3.
> >
> >First, I did not bring up John as a reference in determing if the Bible
> >is a work of history, you did (Lazarus, John 11).
> >
> >The relevence is to whether we can use those parts of the Bible that
> >refere to history as a history book. I have given an example of where
> >John and the Synoptics contradict each other in the placement of the
> >cleansing of the Temple. This is an extremely important event, and
> >almost certainly (within the ability of history to determine) refers to
> >an actual event. But John has it at the beginning of Jesus' ministry,
> >the Synoptics at the end. Thus it is a contradiction in the timelines.
>
> Pagano replies:
> The difference in timing between John and the Synoptic gospels doesn't
> alter the fact that the Church interprets the literal sense of those
> verses as historical. The event reported in John, Mathew, Mark and
> Luke corresponds substantially to what actually happened.
>
> Many Catholic exegetes opine that the cleansing of the temple by Jesus
> probably occurred at the end of His public life as the Synoptic
> authors relate. They also opine that John may have shifted this real
> actual event to the beginning of His public life as a necessary basis
> to bring out some matters of Faith.
Ah. So one of the writers (you say John and I agree) took a historical
event and re-arranged it in order to make a non-historical point.
Now you have said in reference to John 11:
"this means that we can and do take some
verses quite literally as history. How then is it exactly that you
know that the literal sense of Genesis 1-3 cannot also have historical
value?"
Your definition of literal was taking the immediate meaning of the
words. The immediate meaning of the words in this case are
contradictory as to when Jesus cleansed the temple.
John, within the rules of modern historical methods, is not history. He
intentially changed the order of events from what they were to make a
non-historical point. If John is not be history (under modern terms)
this would undercut your assertion, which I quoted above. Note that you
called the verses "history" and not historical.
One can forgive a historian for his perspective coloring his
interpretation of history-it is understood as part of human nature. One
will never forgive a historian for getting the events out of order.
> This is hardly the major
> difficulty that you make it out to be.
If the two versions are to be taken as literal history than one must be
wrong.
It is a difficulty if you read both the Synoptics and John as history
texts. Which you do with Genesis. Which you claim has the same level of
histoicity as John. Remember, it was you who proposed the historicity
of John as a support for the historicity of Genesis.
> Exactly how does this difference effect the historical value of the
> verses themselves or the historical value of any other verses.
> Specifically how does the differences in the cleansing story effect
> the PBC 1909 declaration concerning Genesis 1-3?
>
You just admitted that John is not history under modern historical
standards. (BTW, I don't claim that historians are not trying to give
as accurate a portrayal of events, only that the works they create are
colored by their perception) I have been saying all along that you
cannot use modern historical interpretive methods in interpreting the
verses in the Bible that refer to historical events. This is supported
by Humani Generis.
The historical value of Genesis is to tell us that God created the
universe, though in a time long before the recording of history. It
establishes our dependence on God. It gives a record of the fact that
God created the world. It does not give a historical record of God
creating the world.
--
macaddicted
"Time may be money, but your money won't buy more time"
James Taylor
Keith[bugeye]
"macaddicted" <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:150420021712231909%macaddicte...@fastmail.fm...
Beating Pags into submission with facts and reason is like slapping a fish
with a stick; moderatly amusing, but essentialy pointless.
Bill Pate
"Keith[bugeye]" says...
>
>
>"macaddicted" <macaddicte...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
>news:150420021712231909%macaddicte...@fastmail.fm...
>> In article <3mj1buc5d6clnc7gu...@4ax.com>, A Pagano
>> <anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
Bill
A Pagano
>> Pagano replies:
>> The difference in timing between John and the Synoptic gospels doesn't
>> alter the fact that the Church interprets the literal sense of those
>> verses as historical. The event reported in John, Mathew, Mark and
>> Luke corresponds substantially to what actually happened.
>>
>> Many Catholic exegetes opine that the cleansing of the temple by Jesus
>> probably occurred at the end of His public life as the Synoptic
>> authors relate. They also opine that John may have shifted this real
>> actual event to the beginning of His public life as a necessary basis
>> to bring out some matters of Faith.
>
>Ah. So one of the writers (you say John and I agree) took a historical
>event and re-arranged it in order to make a non-historical point.
Pagano replies:
I never claimed that Scripture was a history book. However, from the
fact that Scripture is not a history book it does not follow that
Scripture does not (and cannot) contain statements of historical fact.
The Church does not doubt the historical fact of the "cleansing" event
and exegetes are reasonably sure that John used the historical fact
out of chronological order to bring out something else of importance.
This is not the "mountain" of difficulty that macaddicted imagines it
to be. And how this applies to the historicity of parts of Genesis
1-3 is not addressed.
Macaddicted has repeatedly argued something like this: Genesis
doesn't meet the standards of the modern historian and is not a
history book, and therefore it cannot contain statements of historical
fact. But then he admits that John 11: 1-45 contains historical fact.
To believe in both at the same time is, in a word: irrational.
One wonders how much longer macaddicted will stand trapped in the
corner banging his head against the wall. It's beginning to get
embarrassing and a tad tedious. As a result, with charity in mind, I
shall for the moment leave macaddicted to his own devices and move on
to other problems. I think I have given other Catholics an idea that
macaddicted doesn't accurately and faithfully represent the Catholic
position. That is, the position of the Church.
My work here is done.
Regards,
T Pagano
David Sienkiewicz
news:sirpbu8p9bs564pf7...@4ax.com...
>
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> The difference in timing between John and the Synoptic gospels doesn't
> >> alter the fact that the Church interprets the literal sense of those
> >> verses as historical. The event reported in John, Mathew, Mark and
> >> Luke corresponds substantially to what actually happened.
> >>
> >> Many Catholic exegetes opine that the cleansing of the temple by Jesus
> >> probably occurred at the end of His public life as the Synoptic
> >> authors relate. They also opine that John may have shifted this real
> >> actual event to the beginning of His public life as a necessary basis
> >> to bring out some matters of Faith.
> >
> >Ah. So one of the writers (you say John and I agree) took a historical
> >event and re-arranged it in order to make a non-historical point.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed that Scripture was a history book.
< snip >
What follows, Tony, is you simply restating your misrepresentation of
macaddicted's position and arguments and simply repeating yourself, with
this as the finale:
> My work here is done.
You're just one cliche after another, aren't you?
But no, your "work" isn't done (unless your work was to make yourself look
petty, dishonest and foolish).
First of all, there is no new information, so as one of the "non Catholics"
for whom you were trying to "clear the air," I will say that you failed and
lost the debate - AGAIN.
Secondly, I'm still waiting for you to tell us this evidence you say
creationists have for the Flood.
You STILL haven't "delivered the goods," Tony - on ANYTHING.
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano
>
Mike Dunford
[snip]
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed that Scripture was a history book.
> However, from the fact that Scripture is not a history book
> it does not follow that Scripture does not (and cannot)
> contain statements of historical fact.
That is true. And, to my knowledge, in recent discussions on
this group, nobody has claimed that was the case. *You* have
claimed that others have made such statements, but you have
never supported that claim.
The point that macaddicted and I (as well as others) have been
trying to make is that the correct meaning (including both the
literal and spiritual senses) of each passage of scripture can
only be determined on its own merits, through careful exegesis
which must include consideration of the literary forms. In this,
we are thoroughly supported by Catholic doctrine as expressed in
many different documents.
> The Church does not
> doubt the historical fact of the "cleansing" event and
> exegetes are reasonably sure that John used the historical
> fact out of chronological order to bring out something else
> of importance. This is not the "mountain" of difficulty
> that macaddicted imagines it to be. And how this applies
> to the historicity of parts of Genesis 1-3 is not
> addressed.
>
> Macaddicted has repeatedly argued something like this:
> Genesis doesn't meet the standards of the modern historian
> and is not a history book, and therefore it cannot contain
> statements of historical fact. But then he admits that
> John 11: 1-45 contains historical fact. To believe in both
> at the same time is, in a word: irrational.
No. The only irrationality is your insistance that the two books
-- Genesis and John -- must be treated as the same type of
writing despite the centuries that elapsed between the writing
of each. It is true that neither is history in the modern sense
of the word, but that does not mean that they are identical. The
documents were written at different times by different people of
different cultures for different purposes.
John, as you have pointed out, recast the order of certain
events to make certain theological points clearer. That is
certainly something that is not done in modern historical texts,
and therefore justifies the statement that John is not history
in the modern sense. That does not reflect on whether or not the
events took place, but only on the method in which they are
reported.
Genesis was written, according to the Pontifical Biblical
Commission and Pope Pius XII, to relate the facts of creation in
simple and figurative language suited to the culture of the
people when the book was written. A figurative telling of events
is also not history in the modern sense, but it is also not a
sophisticated, 1st century philosophical/theological document.
Because Genesis and John are different documents of different
genres, the historical content must be evaluated differently. To
do otherwise would itself be irrational.
> One wonders how much longer macaddicted will stand trapped
> in the corner banging his head against the wall.
Probably as long as you continue to pontificate on theological
topics in this fashion. I know that if you had made a strawman
out of as many of my recent arguments as you have his, I'd be
banging my head.
>It's beginning to get embarrassing and a tad tedious.
Yes, your responses, or lack thereof (I note that although you
commented somewhat on my analysis of the 1909 PBC document, you
ignored the Miller clarification I discussed in the same post)
have grown tedious and embarassing.
> As a
> result, with charity in mind, I shall for the moment leave
> macaddicted to his own devices and move on to other
> problems.
<sarcasm>How extrordinarily generous of you, to so gracefully
leave the discussion at this particular point.</sarcasm>
>I think I have given other Catholics an idea
> that macaddicted doesn't accurately and faithfully
> represent the Catholic position. That is, the position of
> the Church.
I sincerely hope that macaddicted and I have successfully shown
that your positions share very few similarities with any modern
Church positions. In particular, your interpretation of Genesis
1 as essentially history in the modern sense (that is, creation
over six days and nights of 24 hours in the order outlined,
having taken place recently), which is clearly at odds with the
Church's position on the books (simple, figurative language, not
scientifically accurate, etc.)
> My work here is done.
Ah, yes. This is such a common tactic on this group that it no
longer amuses me the way it used to: declare victory and run. Go
ahead. The actual situation is obvious, and I will remember the
questions you left unanswered shoul^C^C^C^C^C when you repeat
the claim at a later time as if none of this had happened.
--Mike Dunford
macaddicted
<anthony...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> The difference in timing between John and the Synoptic gospels doesn't
> >> alter the fact that the Church interprets the literal sense of those
> >> verses as historical. The event reported in John, Mathew, Mark and
> >> Luke corresponds substantially to what actually happened.
> >>
> >> Many Catholic exegetes opine that the cleansing of the temple by Jesus
> >> probably occurred at the end of His public life as the Synoptic
> >> authors relate. They also opine that John may have shifted this real
> >> actual event to the beginning of His public life as a necessary basis
> >> to bring out some matters of Faith.
> >
> >Ah. So one of the writers (you say John and I agree) took a historical
> >event and re-arranged it in order to make a non-historical point.
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed that Scripture was a history book.
No, you just said that the parts that use the historical motif can be
read like a history book.
> However, from the
> fact that Scripture is not a history book it does not follow that
> Scripture does not (and cannot) contain statements of historical fact.
Yes, if you define "historical fact" as the written portrayal being
based in, but not a direct representation of, an actual event.
> The Church does not doubt the historical fact of the "cleansing" event
> and exegetes are reasonably sure that John used the historical fact
> out of chronological order to bring out something else of importance.
Which makes John a pretty poor historian, from a modern perspective.
Which is why we cannot read the historical texts of the Bible using
modern historical methods. But still you continue to read him so.
> This is not the "mountain" of difficulty that macaddicted imagines it
> to be.
Oh really? Then somewhere between writing John 2 and John 11 the author
suddenly got enlightenment on historical methods?
> And how this applies to the historicity of parts of Genesis
> 1-3 is not addressed.
Because it is you that claimed (this has got to be the third of fourth
time I have written this) that the "literal history" of John 11 can be
uesd to support the "literal history" of Gen 1-3
> Macaddicted has repeatedly argued something like this: Genesis
> doesn't meet the standards of the modern historian and is not a
> history book, and therefore it cannot contain statements of historical
> fact.
Sock Puppet alert. Tony has just characterized the conversation he had
with the macaddicted sock puppet.
Tony, if you were as careful in your reading as you demand of those you
correspond with you would know this is false. It is you who has claimed
that John 11 and Gen 1-3 are "literal history," and have somehow
managed in your mind to characterize my statements as support for
yours.
I can only infer from your definiton of literal (as being able to
derive the meaning of the text directly from the text) that when you
say "literal history" you mean that you can read biblical texts that
contain historical references in the same manner as a modern history
text. Being able to derive historical information directly the text is
an aspect of modern (and Graeco/Roman) historical methods. This type of
reading was disallowed in Humani Generis.
> But then he admits that John 11: 1-45 contains historical fact.
Sock Puppet alert.
> To believe in both at the same time is, in a word: irrational.
Ha. He says John 11 is "literal history." But then he says John 2
isn't. But he says historicity of John is a support for the historicity
of Genesis. So the question arises, which part of John is "literal
history" and which is not?
Then he calls me "irrational."
BTW, I have never said that John 11 contains historical fact. A typical
mischaracterization by Pagano. What I said was that the events
portrayed are based on, or correspond to , or in some other way relate
to actual events. Just because something is written about an event in
history does not mean that the writing is itself history (ever seen a
docu-drama?).
The intent of the author was not to give a blow-by-blow retelling of
what happened. This is an aspect (though not the only one) of modern
historical methods. John's intent was to make use of an event in order
to provide a theological lesson. Just as he does in John 2 when
portraying the cleansing of the Temple. It is you who believe that
writing in John 11 is history (as evidenced by your statements above)
in obvious disregard for Humani Generis. I believe that both events
relate to actual events, but that what John wrote is not history from a
modern perspective. A subtle point, and one you cannot seem to grasp.
> One wonders how much longer macaddicted will stand trapped in the
> corner banging his head against the wall.
That wasn't me banging my head. It was me knocking on your door, trying
to give you entry into enlightenment.
> It's beginning to get
> embarrassing and a tad tedious. As a result, with charity in mind, I
> shall for the moment leave macaddicted to his own devices and move on
> to other problems.
Actually he will probably be back once he reads my title for this
article.
> I think I have given other Catholics an idea that
> macaddicted doesn't accurately and faithfully represent the Catholic
> position.
I think Mike Dunford would have something to say about that. I don't
know who is Catholic in this group, but I would just LOVE to ask them
who they agree with.
> That is, the position of the Church.
As defined by his eminence, Pagano.
>
Well, this is what I expected. Notice, if you go back through the
thread(s) that he has never answered the question of the differences in
the timing of Jesus' cleansing of the Temple. He did admit that John
rearranged things, and then jumped back to John 11. He seems untroubled
by the discontinuity he admits in the historicity of John 2 (cleansing
of the Temple) versus John 11. Nor has he dealt, at least in recent
times, with the differences in the creation stories in Gen 1 and 2.
And when you read this Tony. Don't worry. I will still be here to
challenge your characterizations of Catholic theology.
I will leave it to the group to decide who leaves this discussion
embarrased. For myself, it would be the person who abandons a
discussion before answering the challenges placed before him.
So long Tony. I walk away head held high. But you had better stay away
from that door, because if I sense you anywhere near it I will start
knocking on it again. You might find enlightenment yet.
(cue Sienkiewicz's- among others- sarcastic comment. Come on, I gave
you an easy one.)
Steven J.
> >> Pagano replies:
> >> The difference in timing between John and the Synoptic gospels doesn't
> >> alter the fact that the Church interprets the literal sense of those
> >> verses as historical. The event reported in John, Mathew, Mark and
> >> Luke corresponds substantially to what actually happened.
> >>
> >> Many Catholic exegetes opine that the cleansing of the temple by Jesus
> >> probably occurred at the end of His public life as the Synoptic
> >> authors relate. They also opine that John may have shifted this real
> >> actual event to the beginning of His public life as a necessary basis
> >> to bring out some matters of Faith.
> >
> >Ah. So one of the writers (you say John and I agree) took a historical
> >event and re-arranged it in order to make a non-historical point.
>
> Pagano replies:
> I never claimed that Scripture was a history book. However, from the
> fact that Scripture is not a history book it does not follow that
> Scripture does not (and cannot) contain statements of historical fact.
> The Church does not doubt the historical fact of the "cleansing" event
> and exegetes are reasonably sure that John used the historical fact
> out of chronological order to bring out something else of importance.
> This is not the "mountain" of difficulty that macaddicted imagines it
> to be. And how this applies to the historicity of parts of Genesis
> 1-3 is not addressed.
>
If the Bible can state historical facts with no regard for their
actual time and sequence (even if, superficially, the text seems to
provide a chronology for them) isn't that just a *tad* inconvenient
for those who, on the basis of Genesis, insist on a six-day creation?
>
> Macaddicted has repeatedly argued something like this: Genesis
> doesn't meet the standards of the modern historian and is not a
> history book, and therefore it cannot contain statements of historical
> fact. But then he admits that John 11: 1-45 contains historical fact.
> To believe in both at the same time is, in a word: irrational.
>
Well, I'll concede that you are very experienced in irrational thought
processes, and might well be considered an expert on them. However, I
do not recall the macaddicted has actually stated that Genesis
*cannot* contain statements of historical fact, or even that it *does
not* contain such statements. However, you seem to be arguing not
merely with him, but with a host of Catholic geologists, astronomers,
and biologists, and with the Church's Magisterium itself, when you
insist that the opening chapters of Genesis provide some sort of
chronology of the origin of the universe, Earth, and life. You are
forced to resort to the defense that the Church *allows* such an
interpretation. It most likely allows a geocentrist interpretation of
passages referring to the movement of the sun. That seems an
insufficient reason to accept such a reading, and surely it cannot be
justified by empirical data.
>
> One wonders how much longer macaddicted will stand trapped in the
> corner banging his head against the wall. It's beginning to get
> embarrassing and a tad tedious. As a result, with charity in mind, I
> shall for the moment leave macaddicted to his own devices and move on
> to other problems. I think I have given other Catholics an idea that
> macaddicted doesn't accurately and faithfully represent the Catholic
> position. That is, the position of the Church.
>
I welcome your decision to move on to other problems. If you are
taking suggestions, may I suggest a response to my claims that
eyewitness accounts do not differ materially from other sources of
data as evidence for reconstructing events in the past? If you're not
taking suggestions, oh well. Since I'm not a Catholic, I'm in a poor
position to judge what impression you have given them, but I suspect
(for reasons listed in other posts) that you aren't giving a very
accurate summary of the Church's position yourself.
>
> My work here is done.
>
Weren't those Jesus's last words on the cross? Surely you don't
confuse our attempts to engage, dissect, clarify, and correct your
ideas with crucifixion?
>
> Regards,
> T Pagano