Date: 1994-07-04,01:00
From: [seminarian] Jonathan Guidry
To: Karl Keating
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
In a message dated 29 Jun 94 20:57:00, Karl Keating wrote:
KK> I hope you haven’t fallen into the trap of thinking little or nothing
KK> in Scripture is to be taken literally. In fact, nearly everything is,
KK> and the parts that aren’t, such as allegory, poetry, and parables, are
KK> pretty obvious. A grave injustice is done to many seminarians by
KK> making them think that Scripture is mainly metaphorical.
I believe certain things in Scripture are meant to be taken literally, and some are meant as a metaphor (just as the Catholic Church teaches.) Stuff like “This is My Body . . . This is My Blood” was meant literally. Parables and other things in the Bible were meant to convey a greater meaning than was written down. I’m not falling into the trap that thinking little or nothing in Scripture is to be taken literally. 🙂
KK> The problem with your Fundamentalist friend isn’t that he takes parts
KK> of Scripture literally, but that he takes parts in isolation and takes
KK> other parts metaphorically when he SHOULD take them literally.
Bingo.
KK> These verses, by themselves, may be susceptible to multiple
KK> interpretations, and Fundamentalists choose just one. But if the verses
KK> were seen not just in immediate context, but in relation to verses
KK> elsewhere in Scripture, the available interpretations would dwindle,
KK> often to only one and often to one Fundamentalists don’t take.
I’ve done this.. he’s thrown Scripture at me, and I’ve thrown it back with the previous/after verses and said “Hey dude . . . look at this . . . this explains the thing you quoted. Don’t just look at that specific verse. Look at the ones around it.” That’s the one thing he didn’t reply back to.
KK> A good example of this is the verses referring to the “brothers” of
KK> the Lord. In Scripture the word “brothers” is susceptible to two
KK> chief meanings: uterine brothers or close relatives. (A third meaning is
KK> used by Fundamentalists in their own churches: Any fellow Christian is
KK> a “brother,” which is why the minister refers to “Brother Smith” and
KK> “Brother Jones,” even though Smith and Jones aren’t related by KK> blood.)
Yup. He tried to cite an example of that–that Jesus has brothers (flesh and blood ones) in a specific verse. I don’t remember which one–but I asked him to read around the verse to see if it had a greater meaning. That’s an example of him taking one verse, revolving his whole interest around it, and taking it literally.
KK> The Fundamentalist takes these “brothers” verses in the first sense and
KK> lets it go at that. But if he investigated other verses concerning Mary’s
KK> perpetual virginity (or alleged lack of it), he would see that “brothers”
KK> in the narrow, uterine sense is an interpretation that won’t work.
That’s what I basically told him. We’re all “brothers” in Christ. Just being a “brother” in Christ doesn’t mean I’m related to him by any means.
KK> Jonathan, it sounds to me that you might be falling into a trap. By
KK> distancing yourself from your Fundamentalist friend’s position, you
KK> might be tempted to adopt a position popular among Catholics,
KK> position of effective skepticism regarding the historicity of Scripture.
I’m not distancing myself. I believe in Scripture and take certain things literally and certain things metaphorically (that convey a greater meaning), like any devout Catholic should do. I’m not doubting the historicity of Scripture by any means. I just don’t know how to express myself sometimes, and it came out wrong. 🙂
KK> The hitch is that both positions are wrong, but you may have to
KK> discover this for yourself. It might be the case that you will not
KK> find trustworthy exegesis in your seminary. (I know of many seminaries
KK> in which this is so.) This means you will have to search on your own.
I know . . . Just like you stated, I think some things are metaphors (parables, etc.) and some things were meant to be taken literally. I’m sorry I expressed myself wrong. Things like that happen when you get distracted and tired. 🙂
But, I still don’t like his position: “If it’s in the Bible, you have to take it literally, or you will go to hell.” You need to take things in the context they were written. If it’s literal by the Church’s belief, take it literally. If it’s a metaphor of faith, take it as such, as it conveys a greater meaning.
I’ve gotten to a point where all I do is pray for him. Personally, though I’m not supposed to judge; his new girlfriend got him involved.
KK> If you wish to understand your Fundamentalist friend’s viewpoint and
KK> the proper Catholic response to it–including the question of Mary’s
KK> perpetual virginity–I can refer you to my “Catholicism and
KK> Fundamentalism” (Ignatius, 1988), which covers the whole field.
I’ll go to the Rosary House and see if they can get it for me.
Thanks!
Jonathan
Date: 1994-07-09,16:33
From: Karl Keating
To: Jonathan Guidry
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
Jonathan:
You said of your Fundamentalist friend,
JG> I’ve done this . . . He’s thrown Scripture at me, and I’ve thrown it back with the
JG> previous/after verses and said “Hey dude . . . look at this . . . This explains the
JG> thing you quoted. Don’t just look at that specific verse. Look at the ones
JG> around it.” That’s the one thing he didn’t reply back to.
Actually, to understand the import of a verse we need to examine not just those around it (the immediate context), but perhaps verses far removed that don’t seem to have anything to do with the issue.
For instance, in pondering the relation of the “brethren of the Lord” to Mary (were they her sons and daughters or more distant relatives?), we need to be able to stand far enough back to see that while the sacred writers refer to Jesus as the “son of Mary,” never once are these “brethren” referred to as the sons or daughters of Mary.
This bifurcation is striking because it is abnormal. Writers tend to keep the same style throughout a work. Why refer to only one child in a family as the son of the mother?
Why not refer to all of the children as the sons and daughters of the mother? Why relegate the other children to a status in which they are not ever referred to as Mary’s children, but only as brothers and sisters of Jesus? (And, no, it’s no answer to say, “Because Jesus is more important than Mary”–which is true, but irrelevant to the issue.)
As I mention in my lectures and writings, this odd usage by the sacred writers, taken by itself, does not argue toward the fact that these “brethren” are Mary’s children, but to the opposite. (A little thought will show this, I think.)
But these verses do not appear in the immediate context of the “brethren of the Lord” verses, which means that if you stick only to the immediate context, even if it is extended to include the ten verses before and after the verse in question, you’ll still miss a fact that needs to be considered. Context is important, but it’s not necessarily enough.
Karl
Date: 1994-07-01,10:53
From: James White [director of Alpha and Omega Ministries]
To: Karl Keating
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
Karl was saying to Jonathan on 29 Jun 94 20:57:19:
KK> These verses, by themselves, may be susceptible to multiple
KK> interpretations, and Fundamentalists choose just one. But if the verses
KK> were seen not just in immediate context, but in relation to verses
KK> elsewhere in Scripture, the available interpretations would dwindle,
KK> often to only one and often to one Fundamentalists don’t take.
KK> A good example of this is those verses referring to the “brothers” of
KK> the Lord. In Scripture the word “brothers” is susceptible to two chief
KK> meanings: uterine brothers or close relatives. (A third meaning is used
KK> by Fundamentalists in their own churches: Any fellow Christian is a
KK> “brother,” which is why the minister refers to “Brother Smith” and
KK> “Brother Jones,” even though Smith and Jones aren’t related by blood.)
KK> The Fundamentalist takes these “brothers” verses in the first sense and
KK> lets it go at that. But if he investigated other verses concerning
KK> Mary’s perpetual virginity (or alleged lack of it), he would see that
KK> “brothers” in the narrow, uterine sense is an interpretation that won’t
KK> work.
Why won’t it work, Karl?
And could not the same thing be said to you with reference to your interpretation of passages regarding the flesh and blood of Christ?
KK> I said that Fundamentalists also err in not being literal ENOUGH. Take
KK> John 6 for example. Catholics take it literally, so we believe in the
KK> Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But Fundamentalists take this
KK> chapter metaphorically. WE are the literalists, and THEY are the
KK> non-literalists.
You said that taking adelphos in its normal meaning in the NT doesn’t “work.” And yet taking your viewpoint of John 6 creates numerous contradictions, as I pointed out in debating Dr. Pacwa on the topic of the Mass in San Diego in January of 1991. Are you being consistent, Karl?
KK> If you wish to understand your Fundamentalist’s friend viewpoint and the
KK> proper Catholic response to it–including the question of Mary’s
KK> perpetual virginity–I can refer you to my “Catholicism and
KK> Fundamentalism” (Ignatius, 1988), which covers the whole field.
The whole field, Karl? If I were to tell someone that “to understand the Roman Catholic viewpoint, see my book . . .” I would most certainly be reminded that it would be best to read a Roman Catholic as well as my own works.
For example, I would find it rather strange for someone to say, “To understand the Reformed perspective, read James Akin’s article in “This Rock . . .” Be that as it may, do you really feel your work covers “the whole field,” since, I would allege, it ignores the best historical Protestant apologetics (Calvin, Salmon, etc.), and responds almost exclusively to an Arminian viewpoint?
James
Date: 1994-07-09,16:23
From: Karl Keating
To: James White
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
JW> You said that taking adelphos in its normal meaning in the NT doesn’t
JW> “work.” And yet taking your viewpoint of John 6 creates numerous
JW> contradictions, as I pointed out in debating Dr. Pacwa on the topic of the
JW> Mass in San Diego in January of 1991. Are you being consistent, Karl?
Yes, I am, James. As you know, when the Jews referred to “brother,” the use of the term was ambiguous because of the limitations of Hebrew and Aramaic (each deficient in words for close relations, “brother” being used instead).
My point in “Catholicism and Fundamentalism” is that we can’t draw any conclusion, one way or the other, about the relation of the “brothers” to Christ if we restrict ourselves to the “brothers” verses.
We must act as detectives and see if there are other verses, often far removed from these, that indicate something about Mary’s relation to these people.
My argument is that there are multiple verses that are incompatible with her being their mother. While no one verse is adequate to prove the matter, all of them taken together provide a high level of confidence, approaching certainty, I think.
Beyond that Scripture is silent on the issue. There is no verse that states explicitly that the “brothers” were or were not Mary’s children, and we must make do with whatever other evidence we can gather.
(I abstract here, of course, from relying on authority, the Church having authority to determine this matter, even if Scripture were to say nothing about it.)
JW> KK> If you wish to understand your Fundamentalist’s friend viewpoint
JW> KK> and the proper Catholic response to it–including the question of
JW> KK> Mary’s perpetual virginity–I can refer you to my “Catholicism and
JW> KK> Fundamentalism” (Ignatius, 1988), which covers the whole field.
JW> The whole field, Karl? If I were to tell someone that “to understand the
JW> Roman Catholic viewpoint, see my book . . .” I would most certainly be
JW> reminded that it would be best to read a Roman Catholic as well as my own
JW> works.
By “the whole field” I was referring to the standard arguments brought up by Fundamentalists against Catholics. My book contains all the chief ones, or at least enough of them to keep my correspondent busy.
Karl
Date: 1994-07-17,21:47
From: Karl Keating
To: James White
Subject: Re: Fundamentalists
[Referring to a lengthy message by James White in which he quoted numerous scriptural verses in defense of his understanding of “brethren of the Lord”]:
James:
You’re covering ground I’ve covered at greater length in “Catholicism and Fundamentalism,” and I see no need to retype those paragraphs for your benefit. You have my book, so you can look up the argument again.
But I will make one point that you neglect to allude to: You rightly note that James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude are in one verse named as Jesus’ “brothers.”
You ignore that two of them are elsewhere named as the sons of Mary, wife of Cleophas, not of Mary, wife of Joseph. Since they can’t have had two biological mothers, they must not be children of Jesus’ mother and therefore must not be Jesus’ blood brothers. I mention this in my book, plus many other arguments.
I really don’t know why you persist in your argument, James, about the scope of the term “brother” in the Gospels. Most Protestant scholars, so far as I can tell, acknowledge that the term is ambiguous and can’t be used to settle the issue one way or the other.
JW> Yes, but the high level of confidence, approaching certainty, is
JW> opposed to the doctrine developed centuries later that controls your
JW> exegesis, Karl. If you had no pre-existing belief in the perpetual
JW> virginity of Mary, you would never come to the conclusions you do
JW> based solely on the text.
I suppose if I had no pre-existing belief in many Christian doctrines I wouldn’t come to them solely through a reading of Scripture–and neither would you. At least I know that many people have been unable to do so. The divinity of the Holy Spirit is a doctrine that pops to mind.
It’s not at all clear from Scripture that the Holy Spirit is of the Godhead. (If it were clear, we would not have seen the pneumatomachian heresies of the early centuries.)
One could argue, I suppose–and so people did argue–that the “clear” sense of Scripture is that the Holy Spirit is God’s force or influence, but is not a Person, or at least not a divine Person.
It’s the sola scriptura advocate who, historically, had a problem with the Holy Spirit verses. Those recognizing Church authority had no problem, because they knew how the verses were to be understood. Karl
Editor’s note: These exchanges are taken from the “ecumen” forum on the Catholic Information Service, a bulletin board run by Michael and Sharon Mollerus of San Diego, California. CIN’s messages are distributed nightly to many buletin boards throughout the country.