Interestingly enough the mainstream view of traditional Jewish theological
thought regarding evolutionary theory is very close to that of the Catholic
Church.
This is from: Jewish creationism, Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_creationism
The medieval philosophical rationalists, such as Maimonides held that it was
ignorant to read Genesis literally.
In this view, one was obligated to understand Torah in a way that was
compatible with the findings of science . Indeed, Maimonides, one of the
great rabbis of the Middle Ages, wrote that if science and Torah were
misaligned, it was either because science was not understood or the Torah
was misinterpreted. Maimonides argued that if science proved a point, then
the finding should be accepted and scripture should be interpreted
accordingly. Rabbi Yitzchak of Akko (a 12th century student of Maimonides,
agreed with this view. Even Nachmanides, often critical of the rationalist
views of Maimonides, pointed out (in his commentary to Genesis) several
non-sequitors stemming from a literal translation of the Bible's account of
Creation, and stated that the account actually symbolically refers to
spiritual concepts. He quoted the Mishnah in Tractate Chagigah which states
that the actual meaning of the Creation account, mystical in nature, was
traditionally transmitted from teachers to advanced scholars in a private
setting.
A literal interpretation of the biblical Creation story among classic
rabbinic commentators is uncommon (yet there is universal agreement
regarding the literal understanding of the time of the creation of Adam).
One of several notable exceptions may be the Tosafist commentary on Tractate
Rosh Hashanah, where there seems to be an allusion to the age of creation
according to a literal reading of Genesis. The non-literal approach is
widely accepted within Modern Orthodox Judaism and some segments of Haredi
Judaism.
By the way, these same arguments were evoked for the acceptance of the
heliocentric solar system by both the Catholic Church and by Rabbinical
authorities.
The high tolerance of the most traditional religious institutions for
scientific developments relative to more modern developments in European
religious practice suggests the need for a more penetrating analysis of the
development of post-medieval religious institutions than most I've read.
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Farmelant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 07, 2005 15:34
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Catholic Church admits fallibility of Bible!
As the discussions of this article on Marxmail and LBO-Talk
pointed out, none of this really very new. In fact
one of the defining issues in the Protestant Reformation
was the insistence by many Protestants that it was
the Bible, taken literally, that ought to be the authority
on religious issues as opposed to the Catholic
insistence that authority concerning religious
teachings is shared between Holy Scripture
and the traditions of the Church, with the
Vatican having the power to decide what teachings
were to be accepted and which to be rejected.
The Catholic Church has never insisted upon
biblical literalism, holding to the contrary that
many parts of the Bible have to be taken metaphorically.
Over the years, the Catholic Church has had much
less trouble with Darwinism than have Protestant
fundamentalists. The Church is quite willing to live with
the idea that humans may have evolved from apes,
provided that one believes that God intervened to
give these primates immortal souls.
Years ago, Pope Pius XII issued a statement that
said that evolution was compatible with Catholicism,
but stopping short of fully endorsing neo-Darwinism,
on the grounds that it could be interpreted as excluding
divine teleology from our understanding of creation.
The last pontiff, John Paul II, went further in endorsing
the compatibility of neo-Darwinism with Catholicism
but warning against those who would interpret
neo-Darwinism as supporting an atheistic materialism
(presumably, the Pope had people like Richard
Dawkins in mind).
On Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:28:02 -0400 "Charles Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
But not of the Pope ?
CB
^^^^
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html
Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
