Bible scholar rips pope's book, warns of chilling effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter didymus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone has to take a breath here…

First…the Pope made it clear in the book that he was writing a scholarly work that could be ‘disagreed’ with to a certain extent. He made sure everyone knew that this book was not an encyclical…it didn’t come from ‘the chair’ so to speak.

Second…the other scholar in question is pointing out what he sees as deficiencies with the scholarship.

This isn’t about the fact that NCR reported it…John Allen reports on a great deal of Catholic news around the globe…and this is a very important conference he is at.
 
Namesake said:
I began reading this book and had to quit because very early on I realized that there were serious errors. I do know that the Pope made some basic errors that make the book far below a scholarly work, and it probably wasn’t intended to be one. My opinion is worth very little or maybe nothing at all, but I don’t think this Pope is a Bible scholar.
Click to expand...
What kind of errors? I haven’t noticed anything in his book but a careful analysis of what the words of Scripture actually mean.
 
Namesake said:
I began reading this book and had to quit because very early on I realized that there were serious errors. I know nothing about the Nat’l Catholic Reporter but I do know that the Pope made some basic errors that make the book far below a scholarly work, and it probably wasn’t intended to be one. My opinion is worth very little or maybe nothing at all, but I don’t think this Pope is a Bible scholar.
Click to expand...
Well, you may very well be correct in your assessment of the value of your opinion on the matter, but unless you’re willing to offer some specific criticisms, it all seems rather pointless, doesn’t it?
 
Biblical scholars are almost funny. They make speculations about who Christ was while ignoring the words of Christ and then when someone disagrees with them they say ‘he is not a biblical scholar and doesn’t know classical languages.’ The fact is that Benedict is one of the greatest biblical scholars. The problem this guy has is that Benedict actually believes what the Scriptures says.
 
A lot of biblical scholarship reminds me of researching literary works while I was in college. Some author would write a notable book or poem. Then endless commentaries would follow by “scholars” who would interpret what the author wrote. Sometimes the commentators would insist on their interpretations despite the author’s denial that he meant anything of the sort.

The Bible is subject to endless interpretations, as the permutations on the theme that are Protestantism amply prove. The Church “produced” the Bible. It is a product of the Faith, not the other way around. Those who use it to contradict the Faith are, to me, just like those literary scholars who find something in a literary work that is contrary to the intention and meaning of the author.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Are you describing Allen or Vermes? If Allen is the biblical scholar and exegete you’re talking about, then perhaps he is. But if you’re talking about Vermes himself, he has obviously lost his faith, whatever his quifications might otherwise be. No greater attention should be paid to his opinions than to those of a Muslim scholar holding forth on the nature of Jesus. He’s not a Christian any more than a Muslim is. He a…a…Vermicelli?😛
Click to expand...
no I am speaking in the first paragraph of Allen, the reporter, and in the 2nd paragraph of Benedict which I should have stated. a sentence got chopped when I edited my reply, sorry. to claim he is not a bible scholar and exegete is ludicrous.
 
Geza Vermes was at one time a Jewish child who was saved from the death camps by Catholics and subsequently converted to Catholicism and was ordained a priest. He left the priesthood and reverted to Judaism. He is a noted Scholar of Biblical Historywho teaches or taught at Oxford and seems to have dedicated his life to proving that Jesus was not God. Considering his personal history what else would anyone expect him to do?
 
rwoehmke said:
Geza Vermes was at one time a Jewish child who was saved from the death camps by Catholics and subsequently converted to Catholicism and was ordained a priest. He left the priesthood and reverted to Judaism. He is a noted Scholar of Biblical Historywho teaches or taught at Oxford and seems to have dedicated his life to proving that Jesus was not God. Considering his personal history what else would anyone expect him to do?
Click to expand...
That explains a lot. It sounds like the 2 Jews who were* experts *on the Sistine Chapel…
…
 
Well, everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion. Right now nobody seems to be able to prove with reasonable certainty the date of Jesus birth; scholars seem to argue even over the year Jesus was born, there are conflicts in the Gospels about where Jesus grew up: did Joseph take him to Egypt until Herod died or did he stay in Nazareth where his parents took him to the temple every year; there are conflicts in his genealogy in the scriptures. Much of what is believed to be fact is tradition and a matter of faith. So, what difference does it make if a critic “rips” the book? Answer, None.
 
CapaxDei said:
Well, you may very well be correct in your assessment of the value of your opinion on the matter, but unless you’re willing to offer some specific criticisms, it all seems rather pointless, doesn’t it?
Click to expand...
If you think individual opinion is pointless then of course you are correct. I am not at all interested in debating the value of the book. I was simply offering my opinion. Take it for whatever you will. I do not believe that the book is a very good effort scholastically. Good read, maybe. But not biblically very well done.

That doesn’t subtract from this guy’s importance or the importance of the book. He seems to be an OK Pope, but this work is lacking in scholarly merit. But it’s good in a popular sense. Nothing wrong with that at all. It’s a very interesting and maybe even a commercial success. That’s OK with me. Just don’t automatically call it a scholarly effort just because he is Pope and because he is a scholar in past work!
 
Namesake said:
That’s OK with me. Just don’t automatically call it a scholarly effort just because he is Pope and because he is a scholar in past work!
Click to expand...
Can you give us an example of some of his errors?
 
Spirithound said:
Can you give us an example of some of his errors?
Click to expand...
Yes I could. But, I haven’t the time and I haven’t the inclination. This isn’t and shouldn’t become a debate about the merits of the book.

I simply offered my opinion and if you don’t agree then fine with me.

One point. When the Pope states that no man can look upon the face of God and then later he says that Moses has a face to face encounter with God. In that statement the Pope contradicts himself. It’s a minor problem and one that is very understandable. Good editing should have caught that. But it’s not a really big deal. Just an indicator that this book isn’t very well done.
 
One point. When the Pope states that no man can look upon the face of God and then later he says that Moses has a face to face encounter with God. In that statement the Pope contradicts himself. It’s a minor problem and one that is very understandable. Good editing should have caught that. But it’s not a really big deal. Just an indicator that this book isn’t very well done.
Click to expand...
Ahem. I beg to differ, and since I have my copy of the book in question right at hand, I note that you are actually in error in your ‘noted’ example.

BTW, the Pope is speaking of the face to face encounter on pages 3-4; this appears to be ‘earlier’ than him speaking of 'no man looking upon the face of God. (So it’s your error; you have it ‘backwards’) Actually, Deuteronomy 34:10 says "And there has not arisen a prophet since in Israel like Moses whom the Lord knew face to face."

Ex.**33:11 **also says the Lord spoke to Moses face to face. (as a man speaks to his friend).

It is AFTER, on page 5, that he says, "we need to recall another remarkable story that the book of Exodus recounts concerning Moses’ relationship with God. There we are told that Moses asked God, Ex. 33:28. God refuses this request, Ex. 33:20. Moses is placed near God in the cleft and sees the Lord from the back.

But why are you complaining of Benedict’s 'poor scholarship?"

For it is Scripture itself that says, FIRST, as we see above, that Moses ‘spoke face to face with God’ yet LATER, God says “you cannot see my face.”

Obviously ‘talking face to face’ does not necessarily mean gazing upon a person’s face. “Face to face” could refer to the relationship being that of, not equals, but more a king and vizier, or trusted advisor.

Looks like you’ll have to look further for BENEDICT’S errors.
 
Namesake said:
Yes I could. But, I haven’t the time and I haven’t the inclination. This isn’t and shouldn’t become a debate about the merits of the book.

I simply offered my opinion and if you don’t agree then fine with me.

One point. When the Pope states that no man can look upon the face of God and then later he says that Moses has a face to face encounter with God. In that statement the Pope contradicts himself. It’s a minor problem and one that is very understandable. Good editing should have caught that. But it’s not a really big deal. Just an indicator that this book isn’t very well done.
Click to expand...
I’m curious as to your own qualifications. Are you a Biblical scholar? If so, could you please direct us to some of your scholarship for review? I’d be curious to have a look at the work of a man who claims to be better suited to Biblical study than the man who has been called “the Mozart of theology”.

** "Joseph Ratzinger is a genius, a world-class intellectual. Proof of this fact abounds in his immense body of writings and his amazing list of academic honors. Scores of people can attest to the gigantic dimensions of his memory.

He has been called “the Mozart of theology” not only for the clarity and simplicity of his prose, even while expounding on the most difficult subjects, but also for the fact that he tends to write and publish in a single draft.

It is said Mozart routinely had whole operas completely composed in his head and then merely wrote them down, in a clean, nearly flawless manuscript. Ratzinger does the same with books."
**
The longer article is here:

ncregister.com/site/article/14679
 
Eden said:
I’m curious as to your own qualifications. Are you a Biblical scholar? If so, could you please direct us to some of your scholarship for review? I’d be curious to have a look at the work of a man who claims to be better suited to Biblical study than the man who has been called “the Mozart of theology”.

** "Joseph Ratzinger is a genius, a world-class intellectual. Proof of this fact abounds in his immense body of writings and his amazing list of academic honors. Scores of people can attest to the gigantic dimensions of his memory.

He has been called “the Mozart of theology” not only for the clarity and simplicity of his prose, even while expounding on the most difficult subjects, but also for the fact that he tends to write and publish in a single draft.

It is said Mozart routinely had whole operas completely composed in his head and then merely wrote them down, in a clean, nearly flawless manuscript. Ratzinger does the same with books."
**
The longer article is here:

ncregister.com/site/article/14679
Click to expand...
Theology is different that Biblical scholarship. I know that you know that.
 
Namesake said:
Theology is different that Biblical scholarship. I know that you know that.
Click to expand...
Indeed, but I think it speaks volumes as to his intellect and abilities. And your response doesn’t answer my question as to your own authority as a Biblical scholar.
 
Namesake, about your question on the ‘face-to-face’:
As I showed you, not only did Scripture, in Exodus 33, first say that Moses spoke with God ‘face to face’ and later in the same chapter note that God said “you may not see my face”, this was exactly the order in which Pope Benedict noted the passages. . .not your ‘reverse’ order, on pages 3-5.

If Scripture noted it, and you do not question the inerrancy of Scripture, why are you questioning Pope Benedict noting and quoting Scripture (in correct order)?
 
What can you expect from the National Catholic (?) Reporter?
The more I read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, the more I am lead to Christ.
 
bcuster said:
What can you expect from the National Catholic (?) Reporter?
The more I read the writings of Pope Benedict XVI, the more I am lead to Christ.
Click to expand...
The same if true for me. Pope John Paul II opened our hearts and Pope Benedict XVI fills them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top