PAGANISM IN RELIGION

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21084, 8 February 1934, Page 6

PAGANISM IN RELIGION

TO THE BDITOB Of THE PHESB. Sir—-Your correspondent "Peaceful" is rather aggressive. He certainly attacks Dr Mickle in no uncertain way. I also attacked Dr. Mickle, but for a different reason. I am in hearty accord with the statement that Genesis is not historically correct, and on the doctor s behalf, or in place of him, I shall put iorward some interesting information. The warden of St. Peter's College, Kingston, Jamaica, Lionel E. Entft. commenting on Genesis in A New Commentary on Holy Scripture, says: "The records of the prehistoric period ore based very largely on Babylonian tradition. They express the current Hebrew ideas on the creation of man and human origins; the facts of human nature, its limitations, habits, and institutions; and the distribution of mankind upon the earth Here, approaching the study of the Old Testametnt on the right lines, we should not expect, and we do not find, in the sphere of geology and ethnology, accuracy of facts as established by modern scienlific research. . . . The' Old Testament is not a treatise on physical science or a text! book on the history of mankind. It is a record of Divine Revelation in which we expect to find, and we do find, religious truth. All attempts to harmonise these earlier chapters of Genesis with the scientific knowledge of to-day start from a false premise, depend upon a forced and artificial interpretation, and satisfy no serious enquirer. . . . We know that the beginnings of the world and of mankind reach back to a remote antiquity immeasurably earlier than that indicated m the carefully-dated records of Genesis, that the order of creation described in Gen. 1 is not in accordance with geological fact, that different languages are due to diversities of race, and are the result, not the cause, of the distribution of mankind on the earth, as stated in Gen. 11, 1-9." Continuing, the commentator says: * common fallacy, which has faused much needless difficulty and fruitless discussion, to suppose that the wufiioua value of Genesis depends

upon its scientific and historical accuracy. This confusion of thought is due to a mistaken theory of inspiration which maintains that every word of Scripture, every statement contained in the Bible, is Divinttty inspired and is therefore to be accepted as literal truth. Such a theory . .. • is one which can only be maintained either by obstinately ignoring the established facts of science and history or by imposing a forced and artificial interpretation upon the) narratives of Genesis to try to reconcile them with scientific facts by extracting from them a meaning which they do not contain. Such a method of exegesis defeats the purpose it is intended to serve . . . and to try to force the plain meaning of Scripture to fit a preconceived theory of inspiration is simply to perpetuate the mistaken idea of a conflict between religion and science."

Scientific accuracy is not necessary for salvation, and does not call for Divine revelation, since it is within the scope of ordinary human knowledge. It would be stupid to expect the writers of Genesis to be in advance' of their affe in the sphere of scientific knowledge. "Truth, embodied in a tale, Shall enter in at lowly doors." And by means of the Eastern picture story God's great truths are shown.— Yours, etc., CATHOLIC READER. February 7, 1034.