Biblical criticism book recommendation?

[jcc]

Can anyone recommend a good introductory book to biblical textual criticism, something similar to “Historical Reliability of the Gospels” by Craig Blomberg, but from a Catholic perspective?

I’m looking for something as a gift for my mother who is fascinated by the Da Vinci code controversy and would like an intro to the study of scriptural composition, dating, and acceptance into the canon.

My local parish bookstore sells a book called “How the Bible Came to Be: Exploring the Narrative and Message” by John W. Miller, but the author doesn’t seem to be Catholic. Perhaps it’s not important that the author be writing from a Catholic perspective, but I’m curious to know if such a book exists.

Thanks

 

[patg]

jcc:

Can anyone recommend a good introductory book to biblical textual criticism, something similar to “Historical Reliability of the Gospels” by Craig Blomberg, but from a Catholic perspective?Thanks

An excellent book to start with is “And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” by Margaret Ralph (secretary of educational ministries for the Roman Catholic diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, and director of the masters degree programs for Roman Catholics at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is the author of eight books on Scripture and has given workshops on Scripture throughout the U.S. and in Canada.
) published by Paulist Press.

I have no connection with the author other than taking one of her classes.

 

[serendipity]

I’ve been looking for something about the history of books composition too, and the best I have been able to find is:Introduction to the New Testament (Anchor Bible Reference Library) by Raymond Brown at Amazon.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear jcc,

Beware of Catholic authors Ralph and the late Fr. Brown: the academic positions they embrace and have fostered among Catholic students and teachers are not entirely compatible with Catholic teaching, though many will claim until they are blue in the face that this is not true.

First of all, purchase your mother a large-print edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You can buy one through Amazon.com if you so wish. There is much relevant and authoritative teaching regarding Scripture and its interpretation and ciriticism in the CCC.

Also, I would purchase her the four gospels published individually as part of the larger Ignatius Study Bible, which as a whole is still in the making:

The Gospel of Matthew

The Gospel of Mark

The Gospel of Luke

The Gospel of John

Those editions have copious notes and interesting to read introductory and in-line essays – and all of the information is 100% orthodox Catholic thought, consonant with 2000 years of Church tradition and teaching.

Also, you and/or your mother might find helpful the following website which was put together by Dr. John Gresham of Kenrick-Glennon Seminary & Paul VI Institute in St. Louis, MO:

Catholic Biblical Interpretation

Finally, I also recommend the collected on-line works of the late Fr. William Most, a wonderful and trustworthy Catholic priest, Scripture scholar and theologian of the latter half of 20th century:

The MOST Theological Collection

Note well the columns on the “Browse the Complete Works” page labeled type and publication information. Fr. Most basically donated to the pre-cursor of CatholicCulture.org (which was called PetersNet) all of the Scripture scholarship related notes, articles, essays, etc. he’d authored, and the rights to those documents, which were stored on his personal computer. (He made the donation a few years prior to his death.)

Those documents which are categorized as “Article” and “Printed” and such are rather well polished works. But quite a few, e.g. those labeled “Notes,” are really pretty brisk and in a kind of literary “shorthand,” and that has to be kept in mind when reading them.

By the way, Fr. Most’s stuff is not exactly “light reading” for the most part, but extremely educational.

I highly recommend the following work by Fr. Most:

Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars

Finally, take a look at this essay too:

Intellectual Poison How Thomas Hobbes Ruined Biblical Studies, by Benjamin D. Wiker

I hope this helps.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

From Dr. Gresham’s site:

Catholic Biblical Study a bibliography by Dr. Scott Hahn

And here is a book I enjoyed put out by Hahn and crew’s St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology which might be helpful to you and/or your mother:

Pathways in Scripture: A Book-By-Book Guide to the Spiritual Riches of the Bible

And here are two books linked to from Hahn’s site (linked to above) that appear to be entirely applicable to your mother’s line of inquiry:

The Bible, the Church, and Authority: The Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology

Catholic Principles for Interpreting Scripture

 

[serendipity]

I would not recommend Pathways in Scripture, if you want historical information about the Bible, in that aspet it is useless. i purchased it a few days ago for my Bible study, and it is more concerned with pursuing very borad themes of typology, which can be interesting, but was not particularly what I wanted.Nor does it go into much depth on developling themses. I don’t understand why it is so highly recommended; maybe it’s a “safe” book becuase it does nto talk about much on any level. Regardless of how longthe Biblical book is he analyses, the cahapter referring to it is not longer than roughly six pages and often shorter.

I already read Scot Hahn’s books A Father Keeps His Promises and Scripture Matters which prusue similar lines of study in greater depth, but the first book only covers the issue of covenants, and the second book is a compilations of essays that get repetitive about ways to approach scripture study. The Father book is longer and in more detail, but does tend to talk to the reader as if you are an absolute moron, and makes snide comments at times that are not needed.

Fr. Raymond Brown’s book is the best one for the history of the books developments, or analysis of the New Testament books in general. It has the most detail and digs very deeply into issues. IU suppose the mroe you say about an interpretation, the more vulnerable you will be to attack form others who share a different interpretation. It is written from a Catholic perspective. Too bad there are so many people who think that they have a monopoly on interpreting what is or is not Catholic belief.

The cathechism has very litle information on the background of the gospels.

 

[patg]

Beware of Catholic authors William Most, Wiker, Gresham, and especially Luke Johnson: the “academic” positions they embrace are not entirely compatible with Catholic teaching, though many will claim until they are blue in the face that this is not true.

I second the comment that the catechism is pretty worthless if you are interested in historical background.

Johnson and Most are very bad about providing extended polemics but little information.

 

[whosebob]

serendipity:

I would not recommend Pathways in Scripture, if you want historical information about the Bible, in that aspet it is useless. i purchased it a few days ago for my Bible study, and it is more concerned with pursuing very borad themes of typology . . .

JMJ + OBT​

I agree, the Pathways book is not a good resource for pursuing a Bible study in the historical-critical vein. Given the particulars of jcc’s request, I probably should have left it out of my recommendations.

But, I do think it helps one develop a particularly Catholic sense of the unity of the Scriptures.

 

[jcc]

Thanks to everyone for your kind and helpful replies. I will certainly take up the recommendations.

BTW, does anyone have comments on the books by Miller and Blomberg that I mentioned? I doubt they have imprimaturs, but Catholic Answers recommends Blomberg and my local parish sells Miller, so perhaps they cannot be entirely unorthodox.

 

[whosebob]

patg:

Beware of Catholic authors William Most, Wiker, Gresham, and especially Luke Johnson: the “academic” positions they embrace are not entirely compatible with Catholic teaching, though many will claim until they are blue in the face that this is not true.

JMJ + OBT​

Touche.

In charity, I challenge you with the following: I will suggest a few instances in which Brown and Ralph contradict Catholic teaching, and you can suggest two instances in which Most (or one of the other authors) does so.

(1) Brown charges that Jesus suffered from human ignorance, which cuts to the quick of the Catholic dogma of the hypostatic union, and its consequence that from the very first moment of his conception, Jesus beheld in his human mind the fullness of the beatific vision.

(2) Brown charges Our Lord Jesus with holding superstitious views regarding demons.

(3) Ralph has made the argument in several contexts (articles, books, etc.) that the Bible does not teach homosexuality is sinful as the Catholic Church understands it to do so.

(4) Ralph suggests that Jesus’ “miracles” as recorded in the Gospels should rather be understood as literary devices of the authors or should in some other way be understood to refer to non-supernatural phenomenon, e.g. the multiplication of the loaves and fishes was not a miracle, but rather the crowd was moved by Jesus’ message to generously share among one another the resources they already had at hand.

I second the comment that the catechism is pretty worthless if you are interested in historical background.

I recommend for patg and serendipity, and all viewers of this thread, to read the following excellent essay:

The Use of Scripture in the Catechism of the Catholic Church by William S. Kurz and Kevin E. Miller

Now, the CCC does clearly defend official Catholic teaching that the four Gospels are historical, reliable and accurate accounts of the life and teachings of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. If your suggestion that “the catechism is pretty worthless if you are interested in historical background” can be translated to mean that you believe the Gospels are not “historical, accurate . . .” then what can I say? you’ve sided with the scholars and not the Magisterium.

Johnson and Most are very bad about providing extended polemics but little information.

Demonstrate the previous statement through a quote of or link to the author’s work where there is “extended polemic but little information.” If one reads Most, for example, there is experienced almost a tidal wave of solid research and reasoning.

Thanks for the dialogue.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[patg]

whosebob:

Demonstrate the previous statement through a quote of or link to the author’s work where there is “extended polemic but little information.” If one reads Most, for example, there is experienced almost a tidal wave of hard, solid research and reasoning.

The first item I examined in Free From All Error: Authorship, Inerrancy, Historicity of Scripture, Church Teaching, and Modern Scripture Scholars" was Chapter 7: Scriptural Inerrancy in Science and Religion since that area is what most of our discussions have been focused on.

What I see is that there is not a single reference to anything scientific in this chapter - it consists totally of a criticism of Raymond Brown and a discussion of whether the story of Job indicates the belief in an afterlife! I don’t see any hard, solid research much less a discussion of anything scientific. That is what I am referring to. Maybe the online version is missing the meat (or is this all there is)?

 

[whosebob]

patg:

The first item I examined . . . was Chapter 7: Scriptural Inerrancy in Science and Religion since that area is what most of our discussions have been focused on.

JMJ + OBT​

Which discussions? The ones in your class? I’m unsure of the context of your statement.

What I see is that there is not a single reference to anything scientific in this chapter - it consists totally of a criticism of Raymond Brown and a discussion of whether the story of Job indicates the belief in an afterlife!

Fr. Most does concentrate in Chapter 7 and in the following chapters principally upon the charges by various modern scholars that the Bible contains religious and historical errors. Charges of scientific errors are treated more lightly (see Chapter 11), but I hardly think this detracts from Most’s text. Perhaps Ch. 7 could have been labeled better, on the other hand, if the entire text is read one gets a good feel for how charges of Scriptural error can and should be addressed in general.

Which scientific errors did you have in mind, by the way?

 

[whosebob]

jcc:

Thanks to everyone for your kind and helpful replies. I will certainly take up the recommendations.

JMJ + OBT​

BTW, does anyone have comments on the books by Miller and Blomberg that I mentioned? . . . my local parish sells Miller, so perhaps they cannot be entirely unorthodox.

JMJ + OBT​

If Catholic Answers recommends the Blomberg book, then it’s almost certainly going to be a trustworthy resource, perhaps with the caveat that he isn’t Catholic and so in certain areas his thought will reflect Evangelical or Protestant, or whatever, beliefs.

From Amazon.com concerning Miller:

About the Author
John W. Miller is Professor Emeritus at Conrad Grebel University College/University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, and an ordained minister in the Mennonite church.

Given what I said above, the fact that Miller is a Mennonite doesn’t in any way disqualify him from having good or even great insights and things to say.

BUT, in this case you’re not getting a CA “stamp of approval.” My local parish has quite unorthodox books available in its bookstore and library, so I would first ask the person in charge of the store whether or not “orthodoxy” is a criteria for what books are offered there.

Also, realize that the Catholic “big picture” concerning the Bible differs considerably from many Protestant ones. In that case, the Pathways book may be a better option or perhaps the The Bible, the Church, and Authority: The Canon of the Christian Bible in History and Theology book linked to below.

Make sure to take a look too at salvationhistory.com, as there are many excellent books and electronic resources there that may be of great use to you and/or your mother.

 

[serendipity]

In regards to the Patways in Scripture book, I, in no means, meant to denounce it as useless, because it has helped me glean greater depths from the Bible, with its analogies. I only meant it lacked information about historical dates for the books compilation, and might not provide the information that was being sought. Does Antonio Fuentes book have such information (regarding dates)?

As for the innerrancy of the scriptures, the cathechism says it is inerrant in that “the books of scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach the truth that God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred scriptures.”

I suppose this wonderful quote is open to interpretation as well, but in it I read that it does not necessarily mean that the Bible is a literal truth, but that as a whole it provides concepts that help us understand more about our faith and the path to heaven.

Personally, I don’t believe that the exact dates matter much, but I am interested in knowing them to help understand the socio-cultural situation in which the words were written. Or at least having a better idea of them for a framework. This inofrmation is only part of the criteria I like to consider when reading the scripture, because I believe (in comformance with the cathechism’s recommendations on the Bible ), it is only one of the four senses with which a person should approach the Bible.

 

[whosebob]

serendipity:

In regards to the Patways in Scripture book, I, in no means, meant to denounce it as useless, because it has helped me glean greater depths from the Bible, with its analogies. I only meant it lacked information about historical dates for the books compilation, and might not provide the information that was being sought. Does Antonio Fuentes book have such information (regarding dates)?

JMJ + OBT​

I’m not sure about Fuentes. Thanks for the clarification regarding Pathways.

. . . the cathechism says it is inerrant in that “the books of scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach the truth that God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the sacred scriptures.” I suppose this wonderful quote is open to interpretation as well, but in it I read that it does not necessarily mean that the Bible is a literal truth, but that as a whole it provides concepts that help us understand more about our faith and the path to heaven.

I think we’re both on the same page but I would note the following:

As Fr. Most argues, one can believe that the Bible is indeed “free from all error” and yet not be forced to adopt a strictly literal interpretation, e.g. the position taken by many Fundamentalist Protestants.

In fact, the essay of Most’s that I linked to above is all about (1) that this is in fact the solemn teaching of the Church, and (2) how to go about dismantling the arguments of some modern scholars that favor a minimalist interpretation of the the teaching of Vatican II (as quoted in the Catechism) that the Bible is free of errors, i.e. that this statement pertains to matters related strictly to final salvation. In other words, the Bible is inerrant in teaching me how to get to Heaven, but otherwise it may contain errors.

Consider the phrase “for the sake of our salvation” in your quote from the CCC, paragraph 107:

Some scholars, like Ralph and Brown, would give an explanation along the following lines: “this means that the Bible is free from errors insofar as it contains no mistakes in teaching us how to become and be saved.”

Fr. Most and many conservative/traditional scholars would argue: “this phrase is not a qualifier on the truthfulness of the text and teachings in Scripture; rather it explains God’s motive for giving them to use: to lead us in the way of salvation.”

Am I making sense at all? Your feedback is appreciated.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[serendipity]

Perfect sense…to me at least:yup:. It is not good to pick and choose passages as a part of the whole, but should be read from the perspective of its entirety. Much richer that way. Much less prone to misinterpretations too.

Like if I were to define all the words and dispositions of the apostles only by the quote Acts 2:13 Some, however, laughed it off. “They have been drinking too much new wine, they said.”

But there still seems to be very few Catholic scholars who discuss the times in which the books of the Bible may have been written, which frustrates me. This is the main benefit I get from Brown’s complilations, and I don’t certainly consider them to be inerrant.

By the way, your web site is fabulous. :tiphat: Lots of great place I have not seen yet, and I thought I had exhausted the available resources. I particurlarly feel that I will be using scripture catholic much in the future. The top ten list (for passages to discuss with Protestants) was especially helpful.

 

[Pug]

whosebob:

Fr. Most and many conservative/traditional scholars would argue: “this phrase is not a qualifier on the truthfulness of the text and teachings in Scripture; rather it explains God’s motive for giving them to use: to lead us in the way of salvation.”

Am I making sense at all? Your feedback is appreciated.

Here is another part of the CCC:

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

I feel this is related to CCC107 and expressly points to saving truth. Also, CCC 107 itself, even if one removes the part mentioned, still reads as:

The inspired books teach the truth. “Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God …] wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.” [a portion removed]

This still sounds like there is some set of truth that God wished to see put in the scriptures. What to you see that set to be?

 

[patg]

whosebob:

Which discussions? The ones in your class? I’m unsure of the context of your statement.

Discussions here on these forums. There have been many -, such as Does the bible contain errors? and Is Noah’s Ark historical?, along with several about the birth stories, adam and eve, etc.

Fr. Most does concentrate in Chapter 7 and in the following chapters principally upon the charges by various modern scholars that the Bible contains religious and historical errors. Charges of scientific errors are treated more lightly (see Chapter 11), but I hardly think this detracts from Most’s text. Perhaps Ch. 7 could have been labeled better, on the other hand, if the entire text is read one gets a good feel for how charges of Scriptural error can and should be addressed in general.

My main concern is that there be a balance in any critical investigation of the bible. The church doesn’t help much in that one can read both Dei Verbum and Divino Afflante Spiritu and come away with either of the following ideas:

1. All scripture is absolutely literally accurate in all fields - history, science, and morality.
2. One must interpret using the literary form of the writing and consider the author’s intent, culture, and worldview. This naturally requires one to acknowledge that many writings are not meant to be history even though they may sound like they are.

Fr. Most and others seek to explain how everything is accurate history, even when that is very difficult, and ignore the literary forms. This is especially evident in his analysis of the Infancy Narratives which does not even mention that this form of writing is a well known non-historical genre from that time.

As both of us have stated, there are very strong and vocal groups on both sides of this issue (both supportable within the church). I feel strongly that catholic readers should have a balanced view - which is why I strive to present sources such as Dr. Ralph’s very readable and very Catholic book. I feel it is just as bad to ignore historical-critical analysis as it is to ignore spiritual analysis - both are required for full understanding.

 

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

Dear Pug and patg,

I hope to write what I hope are some interesting responses to your recent posts. But since yesterday afternoon I have been quite occupied helping my grandmother transition back from the rehabilitation hospital (she fell and broke her spine two months ago) to her own home.

Hopefully, I will be able to jump back into this thread sometime over the weekend.

I enjoy the debate/dialogue. Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

patg:

An excellent book to start with is “And God Said What?: An Introduction to Biblical Literary Forms” by Margaret Ralph (secretary of educational ministries for the Roman Catholic diocese of Lexington, Kentucky, and director of the masters degree programs for Roman Catholics at Lexington Theological Seminary. She is the author of eight books on Scripture and has given workshops on Scripture throughout the U.S. and in Canada.
) published by Paulist Press.

I have no connection with the author other than taking one of her classes.

I would like to recommend “Old Testament: An Introduction”, by Otto Eissfeldt. Despite its date (1965) it is an excellent overall introduction. I have no idea whether he was a Catholic or not.​