The video is interesting, but I think it fails to solve the problem. Undeniably the Bible, particularly de OT, is made up of works that belong to different genres. The problem is to determine what is historical and what is not. It is clear that –for instance- Job is not. But what about the Pentateuch, or Judges. Fr. Barron states that 1st and 2nd Samuel are probably historical. But we probably owe that assertion to the fact that in recent years there have been some archeological findings that bear independent witness to a historical David. Before those findings, Fr. Barron would probably have consigned both Samuels to legend. And know, assuming Fr. Barron concedes the Pentateuch is mostly legend, if Moses is legend, what to make of Jesus referring to him and his deeds. Are those Jesus’ real words, or are they a late addition by the "community"?. Was Jesus pretending to believe in a historical Moses, for the sake of his audience faith, while He knew perfectly well it was legend?. Or was Jesus just a product of His time- -with no prophetic powers whatsoever- and he believed in a historical Moses?. The whole matter is far from having been solved by Fr. Barron.
1 comment:
The video is interesting, but I think it fails to solve the problem. Undeniably the Bible, particularly de OT, is made up of works that belong to different genres. The problem is to determine what is historical and what is not. It is clear that –for instance- Job is not. But what about the Pentateuch, or Judges. Fr. Barron states that 1st and 2nd Samuel are probably historical. But we probably owe that assertion to the fact that in recent years there have been some archeological findings that bear independent witness to a historical David. Before those findings, Fr. Barron would probably have consigned both Samuels to legend. And know, assuming Fr. Barron concedes the Pentateuch is mostly legend, if Moses is legend, what to make of Jesus referring to him and his deeds. Are those Jesus’ real words, or are they a late addition by the "community"?. Was Jesus pretending to believe in a historical Moses, for the sake of his audience faith, while He knew perfectly well it was legend?. Or was Jesus just a product of His time- -with no prophetic powers whatsoever- and he believed in a historical Moses?. The whole matter is far from having been solved by Fr. Barron.
Javier
Argentina
Post a Comment