- Status
A
Abu
Guest
**A condemnation by Cardinal Ratzinger of Scriptural views presented as credible **
In speeches in Paris and Lyon in 1983, the cardinal referred to hypotheses held by a majority of biblical scholars that are systematically presented as established and certain:
“The real Bible has disappeared in favour of the Bible as it is thought it ought to be. The same is true of Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospels is thought to have been transformed into a Christ of faith considerably altered by the requirements of dogma. Behind this reconstruction we are supposed to find the real Jesus of the logia, or sayings, or of some other supposed source. This ‘real’ Jesus neither says nor does anything else but what we want Him to do and say….The resurrection becomes nothing more than an ‘experience’ of the disciples through which Jesus, or, at any rate, His ‘presence’, continues. Events are not subject to examination; it is rather the consciousness of the disciples and of ‘the community’ that is subjected to examination. The certitude of faith is replaced by confidence in an historical hypothesis. This way of proceeding is most irritating….It seems to be congealed within the framework of a particular intellectual world which may no longer even exist.” The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Foreword by Bishop John Charles Thomas, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989].
This is what those who want to change Christ’s Church promote. Their views are nothing new, just the same parroting of old modernism. Only Christ’s Church can interpret Her Scriptures with fidelity to Christ.
As Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal’s warnings against the errors in Brown’s chosen method have been given in #24.
In speeches in Paris and Lyon in 1983, the cardinal referred to hypotheses held by a majority of biblical scholars that are systematically presented as established and certain:
“The real Bible has disappeared in favour of the Bible as it is thought it ought to be. The same is true of Jesus. The Jesus of the Gospels is thought to have been transformed into a Christ of faith considerably altered by the requirements of dogma. Behind this reconstruction we are supposed to find the real Jesus of the logia, or sayings, or of some other supposed source. This ‘real’ Jesus neither says nor does anything else but what we want Him to do and say….The resurrection becomes nothing more than an ‘experience’ of the disciples through which Jesus, or, at any rate, His ‘presence’, continues. Events are not subject to examination; it is rather the consciousness of the disciples and of ‘the community’ that is subjected to examination. The certitude of faith is replaced by confidence in an historical hypothesis. This way of proceeding is most irritating….It seems to be congealed within the framework of a particular intellectual world which may no longer even exist.” The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Foreword by Bishop John Charles Thomas, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989].
This is what those who want to change Christ’s Church promote. Their views are nothing new, just the same parroting of old modernism. Only Christ’s Church can interpret Her Scriptures with fidelity to Christ.
As Pope Benedict XVI, the former Cardinal’s warnings against the errors in Brown’s chosen method have been given in #24.
P
patg
Guest
Thanks for your opinions and for all the opinions you have presented in numerous quotes (mislabeled as facts). Fortunately, the Church has not labeled Brown or any of the other modern scholars we have mentioned as dissenters or heretics or false scholars. When the Church revokes their imprimaturs and nihil obstats and condemns their works we may have something more to talk about.
I see no dissent whatsoever in the writings of any of the Church’s modern scripture scholars we have mentioned (and neither has the Church) and I will continue to teach from their texts. I welcome their ideas, theories, and insights as important milestones on the path to understanding. I understand that challenging the fundamentalist literalism of the past can be painful and I thank God for the scholars who have done it under the full authority of documents such as Dei Verbum.
S
simspt
Guest
Pat, do you think these evangelists/gospel writers if not eyewitnesses did not receive any of their info from eyewitness? 30-60 years is a long time but definitely not so much so as to rule out possible eyewitness accounts even with discrepancies in their stories. To rule out any eyewitness possibility seems almost as extreme as trying to harmonize all the contradictions.
S
simspt
Guest
PAT,
I can appreciate the defensive attitude some might take towards your posts. The impression you give could be easily interpreted or misinterpreted as Christians do not have any historical reason to believe in the New Testament or patristic writings as historically reliable to the ministry of Jesus and therefore one’s belief must be acknowledged as being purely based on faith alone. After reading Brown and other excellent scholars I doubt this is your position. At the end of the day it does however boil down to faith. This is obviously not the same as dismissing the historical reliability of the New Testament documents and the traditions they are descended from.
P.S. thanks again for the book recommendations
A
Abu
Guest
Failure to see his multitudinous errors that distort Gospels
As we have seen the persistent error that the Gospels do not have eyewitness accounts is totally false (post #33), but the chimera continues among those so blinded. Similarly the falsehood that a lack of Magisterial naming must mean that there is no error has been exposed as the mirage it is (posts #34, 38). The explicit warnings and condemnation by Cardinal Ratzinger, and later as Pope Benedict XVI, (posts #24, 41) are ignored as the selfists appear immune to facts and truth – no acknowledgment whatsoever of Brown’s, and their, errors.
Such an attitude is typically Brownian for Fr Brown’s arrogance is well-known, except perhaps to his myopic admirers:
On being challenged to square his theories with Catholic teaching, these are typical responses of Fr Raymond Brown:
When he was asked at lecture about statements from Fr John Hardon’s Catholic Catechism, Fr Brown’s reply was: “That book is a disaster, his is pre-1910 theology.” The questioner persisted: “But Father, Cardinal Wright has written a preface for the book”. His answer was: “His is a pre-1910 theology, too.” (National Catholic Register, Nov 30, 1975, p4).
When asked in a letter about his assertion that when Matthew wrote the “Thou art Peter” passage it was really an interpolation of a redactor and not a real saying of Jesus, as against Pius XII’s proclamation of the validity of all four Gospels, Brown’s answer was that Pius XII had lived long before Vatican II. But, get this, Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu is used frequently by Brown to justify his own “freedom” in exegesis! (Julia Grimes of Pennsylvania, July 6, 1980, p 4, National Catholic Register).
These exposures are regarded as evidence of “fundamentalism” and “vigilantism” in some “scholarly” circles, echoed in this thread (post #42) – typical.
“Fr Brown never fully nor objectively reports the content or portent of Vatican documents. A good case in point is his frequent use of the 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission *The Historical Truth of the Gospels *to ‘prove’ that Rome endorses modern exegesis without qualification.”
In counseling exegetes and teachers of biblical studies the Commission states: “Let him always obey the Magisterium of the Church.” Brown omits this and much else from his summary of the Instruction in his *Crises Facing the Church *(1975).
[Refer: *The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].
So much for the much-vaunted “scholarship”!
As we have seen the persistent error that the Gospels do not have eyewitness accounts is totally false (post #33), but the chimera continues among those so blinded. Similarly the falsehood that a lack of Magisterial naming must mean that there is no error has been exposed as the mirage it is (posts #34, 38). The explicit warnings and condemnation by Cardinal Ratzinger, and later as Pope Benedict XVI, (posts #24, 41) are ignored as the selfists appear immune to facts and truth – no acknowledgment whatsoever of Brown’s, and their, errors.
Such an attitude is typically Brownian for Fr Brown’s arrogance is well-known, except perhaps to his myopic admirers:
On being challenged to square his theories with Catholic teaching, these are typical responses of Fr Raymond Brown:
When he was asked at lecture about statements from Fr John Hardon’s Catholic Catechism, Fr Brown’s reply was: “That book is a disaster, his is pre-1910 theology.” The questioner persisted: “But Father, Cardinal Wright has written a preface for the book”. His answer was: “His is a pre-1910 theology, too.” (National Catholic Register, Nov 30, 1975, p4).
When asked in a letter about his assertion that when Matthew wrote the “Thou art Peter” passage it was really an interpolation of a redactor and not a real saying of Jesus, as against Pius XII’s proclamation of the validity of all four Gospels, Brown’s answer was that Pius XII had lived long before Vatican II. But, get this, Pius XII’s encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu is used frequently by Brown to justify his own “freedom” in exegesis! (Julia Grimes of Pennsylvania, July 6, 1980, p 4, National Catholic Register).
These exposures are regarded as evidence of “fundamentalism” and “vigilantism” in some “scholarly” circles, echoed in this thread (post #42) – typical.
“Fr Brown never fully nor objectively reports the content or portent of Vatican documents. A good case in point is his frequent use of the 1964 Instruction of the Pontifical Biblical Commission *The Historical Truth of the Gospels *to ‘prove’ that Rome endorses modern exegesis without qualification.”
In counseling exegetes and teachers of biblical studies the Commission states: “Let him always obey the Magisterium of the Church.” Brown omits this and much else from his summary of the Instruction in his *Crises Facing the Church *(1975).
[Refer: *The New Biblical Theorists, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].
So much for the much-vaunted “scholarship”!
S
simspt
Guest
, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, p 134-5, 141].
So much for the much-vaunted “scholarship”!
Hi Abu
I guess I fall into the category of a Brownian myopic admirer. I have found his NT INTRO and The churches Paul left behind to be very helpful and a launching pad for further study with an excellent bibliography. In that particular book (NT INTRO) he seems to be very honest about the limitations of the historical critical method. I am interested in biblical scholarship particularly catholic scholarship. Do you have some recommendations in addition to the one already mentioned? From what I understand there is a spectrum of Catholic scholarship ranging from liberal to conservative and Brown falls somewhere in the middle overall. My interest is from the centrist to the conservative range of that spectrum. Again any book recommendations would be appreciated.
A
Abu
Guest
First, I suggest, we need to look for the best scholarship based on faith, truth and reason – “liberal”, “centrist” or “conservative” cannot apply to truth, only to a manipulation of truth.
Readily available on the ‘net are:
The articles of Living Tradition, in which Msgr John F McCarthy & Fr Brian Harrison give cogent reasons for their analyses at: rtforum.org/lt/index.html
The study program of The Roman Theological Forum (28 lessons) are almost all on the New Testament
at: rtforum.org/study/index.html
You can find *A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory *by Msgr George A Kelly at:
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=8154
The New Biblical Theorists – Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books, 1983, is outstanding. None other than Hans Urs von Balthasar wrote about it: “Msgr Kelly’s book appears to me, by its basic intention as by the richness of its documentation, to be a contribution of the first order to guarantee the honesty of the historico-critical method… Not without reason did the aged Karl Barth put Catholic exegetes on guard. ‘Do not do,’ he told them, ‘the same stupidity that we did a hundred years ago’ “.
Free From All Error, Fr William G Most, Prow Books, 1985. On authorship, inerrancy, historicity of Scripture, Church teaching, and modern Scripture scholars. Most helpful.
For Scripture as well as the whole Catholic faith, Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Sheehan/Joseph, Saint Austin Press, 2001, is a seminal work. There may be an update.
The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”
In Reasons For Hope, Christendom College Press, 1982, ed Dr Jeff Mirus, *The Authenticity of the New Testament *(Chap 4), by William H Marshner, is very useful.
This may be of interest from rtforum.org/study/lesson22.html
- Historical method. Very much emphasized in Catholic theology today is the use of an historical method that is called “scientific,” but which actually is not, because it is based upon false presuppositions of the “historical-critical school” that was fostered by rationalist Protestant scholars in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The Forum aims to promote the use of truly scientific historical method in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, and to help to develop a theory of history that is rooted in reality and founded on solid historical principles. For instance, it does not exclude the historical truth of supernatural events reported in Sacred Scripture merely on the ground that there could not be any truly supernatural events, as rationalist scholars do. But the RTF does favor the use of all of the contemporary methods of historical research that are truly scientific. By keeping in mind the whole of reality, both natural and supernatural, the RTF reexamines the accepted conclusions of historical-critical Scripture scholars in an attempt to correct mistakes that might be due to faulty method or narrowness of outlook.
- The whole truth of Sacred Scripture. The Fathers of the Church brilliantly brought out the complementary senses of Sacred Scripture, the literal sense and the three spiritual senses indicated already in the Gospels and in other books of the New Testament. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church *(nos. 115-119) teaches that these four senses are to be recognized in interpreting Sacred Scripture. But in our time most interpreters of the Bible have lost sight of the spiritual senses, even as clearly identified by St. Thomas and other great theologians. The Roman Theological Forum is fostering the neo-patristic approach to Sacred Scripture, which is a return to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church through a framework that includes all of the truly scientific methods of historical research.
“At the conclusion of this second Extraordinary Synod (1985) we must first of all give great thanks to the benevolence of God, who deigned to lead the Sovereign Pontiff to convoke this Synod. We are also grateful to the Holy Father John Paul II, who called us to this twentieth anniversary celebration of the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council.
“For this Constitution Dei Verbum], too, it is necessary to avoid a partial reading. In particular, the exegesis of the original meaning of Sacred Scripture most highly recommended by the Council, (cf. DV 12) cannot be separated from the living tradition of the Church (cf. DV 10).”
J
juliamajor
Guest
I will continue to read and use Fitzmeyer, Brown ,Mackenzie et alia when and until the Church declares them unfit.opinions of private individuals do not count .
H
Huiou_Theou
Guest
Julia, I met a rather brilliant priest yesterday and, although pleasant, I am paying for it health wise; eg: I take medication for anxiety – and the positive and negative excitement made a mess of my day today, esp; as he was curt with me; although he apologized afterward – none the less the delayed effect hit me this morning really hard.
So, I am not able to enter into much of a discussion, but I am curious about the emotional defiance, 2nd dictionary definition, that you are seemingly portraying.
EG: another reason I won’t get into a deeper discussion – I would like to know, however, do you intend by your statement to universally accept EVERYTHING these authors have said is reasonable (private individuals as they are) in spite of my earlier comments? eg: do you firmly hold that it is logically established that the gospels (excluding Mark) could not have been written before 70AD? and that therefore logical interpolations, communities, and various other theories are probable?
I know you have a wide reading, and expect you are familiar with Flavius Josephus’ accounts of the events from 30-70AD leading to the destruction of Jerusalem; and can evaluate for yourself what data was available about Rome ordering the destruction of Jerusalem in light of building military messiah fever. EG: about the fate of Jerusalem given that Rome had spelled out it’s intent long before 70, only delaying based on happenstance, and especially in light of the expected military messiah was not a military messiah and had already abandoned Jerusalem, killer of the Prophets?
I’m sorry if I don’t answer or get into the spirit of the discussion, I look forward to reading your perspective whenever I wake up/settle down in the next two days.
May the Holy Spirit guide your spirituality, breathe life into your prayer, and guide your relationships with others.
Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.
J
juliamajor
Guest
Take care of yourself first-we can argue later
Julia, I met a rather brilliant priest yesterday and, although pleasant, I am paying for it health wise; eg: I take medication for anxiety – and the positive and negative excitement made a mess of my day today, esp; as he was curt with me; although he apologized afterward – none the less the delayed effect hit me this morning really hard.
So, I am not able to enter into much of a discussion, but I am curious about the emotional defiance, 2nd dictionary definition, that you are seemingly portraying.
EG: another reason I won’t get into a deeper discussion – I would like to know, however, do you intend by your statement to universally accept EVERYTHING these authors have said is reasonable (private individuals as they are) in spite of my earlier comments? eg: do you firmly hold that it is logically established that the gospels (excluding Mark) could not have been written before 70AD? and that therefore logical interpolations, communities, and various other theories are probable?
I know you have a wide reading, and expect you are familiar with Flavius Josephus’ accounts of the events from 30-70AD leading to the destruction of Jerusalem; and can evaluate for yourself what data was available about Rome ordering the destruction of Jerusalem in light of building military messiah fever. EG: about the fate of Jerusalem given that Rome had spelled out it’s intent long before 70, only delaying based on happenstance, and especially in light of the expected military messiah was not a military messiah and had already abandoned Jerusalem, killer of the Prophets?
I’m sorry if I don’t answer or get into the spirit of the discussion, I look forward to reading your perspective whenever I wake up/settle down in the next two days.
May the Holy Spirit guide your spirituality, breathe life into your prayer, and guide your relationships with others.
Your brother in Christ,
–Andrew.
I know how anxiety can effect you mentally and physically.I take Xanax
once in a blue moon to aid me. Just relax-breathe deeply and don’t worry about anything or anybody. In Christ-Julie
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
Aren’t those authors private individuals? It’s good to hear you declare their opinions void.
J
juliamajor
Guest
I think that’s my point?Aren’t those authors private individuals? It’s good to hear you declare their opinions void.
They are private.I think I just get cheesed off by folks declaring that their point of view is the only good, and right and orthodox one. the implication is that you are disloyal, heterodox if you read these folks.The thing is that I never use one source or one author to weigh anything.I research, dig and compare(-I’ve got a nice size biblical library- with authors of many stripes.)that help me discern.Do I take anything and everything any author says as “gospel”? heck no! my mind is open.But not so open that my brains plop out!. Yes stubborness plays a part(a big part) but don’t treat me like I’m a fool or an idiot-or disloyal.you just get me mad 
.Again disloyalty and heterodoxy is not mine to sight or correct-it doesn’t fall under "civilian"authority. What authors of various leanings do do for you is help you to define what you really believe .
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
May the dew of heavenly blessings be upon thee as the snow doth falleth.I think that’s my point?
J
juliamajor
Guest
amen!:d:d
P
patg
Guest
No, I never attempted to rule out the very real possibility that some (or even most) of the gospel accounts have as their basis some form of eyewitness testimony. My main point has, and continues to be, that for someone to be expected to believe the unbelievable (from a human experience perspective), there must be some pretty serious independent evidence such as eyewitnesses or references to independent reports. The quality of eyewitness - ness we have is questionable (as we have seen) and the quantity of independent attestation to the events is zero. Without these, it HAS to be a matter of faith.
S
simspt
Guest
PAT
I’m curious about your thoughts on a response that refutes the claim that there is zero independent attestation to the events. I came across this particular philosopher being referenced by Raymond Brown in his Intro to Christology book.
reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=7047
A
Abu
Guest
The Magisterial teaching that there were eyewitnesses to the Gospel events is ridiculed by some who are unable to produce any facts but who rely on the poor scholarship which misuses the historical critical method.
But, Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2. See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].
As a companion of Christ, Saint John wrote: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by on, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).
What the Brownian theological theories oppose is the theology of Christ’s Church. Although the faith of the early Church in Jesus is a fact, they are unable to admit that the historical Jesus must have been so like the Christ of faith that He was authentic to the masses who knew Him. Since only a community can shape and adapt the tradition, why is there a Catholic community in the first place?
Obviously, the Resurrection of Jesus is the key, as the existence and faith of the Catholic communities is not self-explanatory, but dependent on the fact of the spectacular historical Jesus and the fact of His Resurrection.
As these facts are considered only “interpretations” which became plausible only to a select group of His disciples after His death, the Brownians utterly fail to explain the facts that
[See *Reasons for Hope, “The Authenticity of the New Testament”, p 77-82, William H Marshner, Christendom College Press, 1982].
But, Quadratus writes (circa 123 A.D.) that in his day there were still persons around who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus – prime witnesses. [Eusebius, *Church History, 4.3, 1.2. See Free From All Error, Fr W. Most, p 12].
As a companion of Christ, Saint John wrote: “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by on, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).
What the Brownian theological theories oppose is the theology of Christ’s Church. Although the faith of the early Church in Jesus is a fact, they are unable to admit that the historical Jesus must have been so like the Christ of faith that He was authentic to the masses who knew Him. Since only a community can shape and adapt the tradition, why is there a Catholic community in the first place?
Obviously, the Resurrection of Jesus is the key, as the existence and faith of the Catholic communities is not self-explanatory, but dependent on the fact of the spectacular historical Jesus and the fact of His Resurrection.
As these facts are considered only “interpretations” which became plausible only to a select group of His disciples after His death, the Brownians utterly fail to explain the facts that
- a much larger group of His disciples, who did not see the resurrected Jesus, did not immediately reject the claims of His Resurrection
- the apostles were able to immediately constitute this Christian community as it’s leaders
[See *Reasons for Hope, “The Authenticity of the New Testament”, p 77-82, William H Marshner, Christendom College Press, 1982].
A
AmbroseSJ
Guest
I believe your difficulty has to do with your own post-modern hermeneutic. Of course Faith is critical to understanding the Scriptures, but rational human credibility is also required, not only by today’s believers, but the ancient primitive Christian believers as well.
What I mean is, what you are making such scholarly articles of importance in modern critical/historical analysis, was just as important (although undefined) in the Ancient world. Therefore the quality of the eyewitnesses, and the independent evidence was plentiful and convincing for them. If you deny this, then you are basically claiming that the Ancient world was populated by simpletons that would believe anything. But we know that is not the case. They required strong evidences and reliable witness reports just as much as we still do today.
That is why it is unreal to claim that there are none, and that today we are entirely convinced through Faith. No. That’s missing the forest for the trees.
P
patg
Guest
I think that is a very superficial analysis that ignores the most significant points. “Independent attestations” have to be more than third hand accounts made only by the “insiders” - those who already followed Jesus.
Suppose you read a variety of “independent” reports by a tobacco company that all praised cigarettes as having no harmful effects whatsoever. Would you take that as the believable independent attestation or would want to see what people who were outsiders to the companies had to say?
Empty tombs don’t prove anything, except to insiders. Nor do reports of appearances of risen leaders. In the gospels the risen Jesus appears only to those who already believe in him. Those who see him after his resurrection are those who followed him during his lifetime. John’s gospel originally ended with a blessing for those who believe in Jesus without needing to see him firsthand. John’s implication is that it takes little faith to believe when one has seen the risen Lord in person. Most would probably agree.
Matthew, however, does not agree. At the very end of Matthew’s gospel is a fascinating and unexpected statement. He reports that even some of the apostles who personally encountered the risen Jesus had their doubts. Just before Jesus sent forth the Eleven with the Great Commission, they prostrated themselves before Jesus, “but some doubted” (28:17). This gospel thus closes with a cryptic admission that even some of these ultimate insiders were not convinced by a face-to-face encounter with the risen Lord. Matthew’s abrupt comment comes as a complete surprise and its precise meaning is puzzling. But this much at least is clear: Whatever else the gospels may teach about the resurrection, faith in the risen Jesus requires more than stories about him, no matter how convincing these stories may be to some insiders.
- Status