Biblical criticism book recommendation?

[whosebob]

JMJ + OBT​

From the Journal of Semitic Studies by Otto Eissfeldt:

Eissfeldt states “But beyond this the Old Testament contains also a few unequivocal proofs that during the course of Israelite Jewish religious history there was a period when El or 'Elyon, who is identical with him, was an authority acknowledged by, and accordingly superior to, Yahweh. Two of these may be quoted. To begin with, Deut. xxxii. 8-9, i.e. the Song of Moses, says that at the time when 'Elyon allotted their possessions to the peoples, divided men up, and determined the territories of the nations according to the number of the gods, Yahweh received Israel as his share. 'Elyon, therefore, appears at the head of the gods deciding according to his own judgement the apportioning of the people to them and hence takes precedence over Yahweh.” El and Yahweh, Otto Eissfeldt, Journal of Semitic Studies 1 (1956), p. 29 (25-37) In relation to Ps. 82, and in conclusion to this section, Eissfeldt says: "Like the author of the Song of Moses, he recognizes El as the highest god, in accordance with cosmological and mythological tradition, but his practical religion is concerned only with Yahweh, who, although meanwhile still considered subordinate to El, is in fact already the authoritative power, and will soon take El’s place also in the theoretical Weltbild (world view) of the Israelite or Jewish religion.

Sounds like big-time heresy to me. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Anyone want to take a poke at this one?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

JMJ + OBT​

From the Journal of Semitic Studies by Otto Eissfeldt:

Sounds like big-time heresy to me. Perhaps I’m mistaken. Anyone want to take a poke at this one?

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

What dogma does that discussion upset ? (Nothing of the quotation was reproduced, unfortunately - quotes within quotations are not quoted in replies, unfortunately; all I have is your own post, but no Eissfeldt.)​

The consensus seems to be that Eissfeldt is in part at least wrong in his conclusions about the relation between Elyon and Yahweh - Deuteronomy 32.8f., and the relation between Elyon and JHWH, have been much discussed - but the discussion is itself entirely legitimate. It cannot be decided by dogma or by hasty dogmatism, but only by looking at the relevant bits of evidence. For every activity has its appropriate means - and trying to foreclose discussion by dogmas and the means proper to dogmatic theology or to Church governance, is not appropriate to the study of the fine detail of the OT or to the interpretation of Bronze Age texts from Canaan. Matters related to Biblical study have to be discussed by those competent to do so, the rest of us being amateurs, or not even that.

Bishops can’t pronounce on such matters; because they are not, as bishops, competent to do so - it’s not their calling. Any more than it is the calling of the bishops to write novels, cookery books, give advice on the growing of roses or orchids, or make cheese - that is for those of us laity to do who are proficient in such matters. They cannot decide these questions: even if some bishops may be competent in this sort of thing, their contribution is not as bishops, but as beings who are among the specialists in this particular field of learning.

But this & other questions cannot be decided by disciplinary measures, such as bishops are competent in using. That would be inappropriate as a method of coming to an decision on the merits of this or other questions which require learning. So bishops can stop Christians contributing to a discussion - but they cannot render a decision on a question. They can say something is orthodox or not, but they cannot invoke their authority as bishops to decide questions of the grammar of Ugaritic or Hebrew, or the history and origins of the gods of Canaan - or the history of Yahwism. If JHWH was originally a Kenite god, or if the El Elyon of the OT owes something to the Ugaritic gods El and Aliyan-Ba’al, then so be it. This may or may not be disturbing, but it is the sort of thing discussed in OT origins.

Intellectual matters cannot be decided by police methods - they must be decided, if at all, by means which are appropriate to them. And police methods, not being intellectual, are not fitted to be a means of study. And the sooner this is appreciated by all Catholics, the better for us all. Especially for Catholic Scholarship. So if a theory is mistaken, crying “heresy!” is no answer - that does not show what, if anything is wrong; the proper remedy for inadequate learning is not a heresy-hunt or a delation, but better learning and greater insight than that of the person whose solutions or ideas are deemed unsatisfactory. Inadequate knowledge of Canaanite is best expelled by sounder knowledge of Canaanite, poor exegesis by sound exegesis, poor accounts of early Yahwism by sounder accounts of early Yahwism - not by making accusations of unorthodoxy. ##

Hope that helps ##

 

[whosebob]

. . . Hope that helps.

JMJ + OBT​

Well . . . no, it doesn’t help that much actually.

Free, academic discussion is extraordinarily important in all fields, including Catholic philosophy and theology (yes, I actually believe that).

However, that being said let’s consider a few things:

(1) the originator of this thread asked for recommendations of a book for beginners in the field of biblical criticism. I think then it is highly appropriate that recommendations should reflect orthodoxy – not a few persons’ faith have been critically wounded by their taking seriously the writings of scholars who – though no doubt informed, creative, and inquisitive in the best academic sense – have published books, articles and essays for digestion by the unsuspecting populous with nary a care that their conclusions, even tentative ones, fly in the face of 2000 years of Catholic teaching and thought.

(2) nowhere, I mean nowhere, will you find one magisterial text that ever suggests that the God of the Hebrews went through some polytheistic paring down of “authorities” into the “One God” of the Israelites.

Consider the witness of Scripture itself:

Exodus 3:4-6,10-16:

When the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called to him out of the bush, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here am I.” Then he said, “Do not come near; put off your shoes from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground.” And he said, “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. Come, I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring forth my people, the sons of Israel, out of Egypt." But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and bring the sons of Israel out of Egypt?” He said, “But I will be with you; and this shall be the sign for you, that I have sent you: when you have brought forth the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God upon this mountain.” Then Moses said to God, “If I come to the people of Israel and say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you,' and they ask me, What is his name?’ what shall I say to them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And he said, "Say this to the people of Israel, I AM has sent me to you.'" God also said to Moses, "Say this to the people of Israel, The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you’: this is my name for ever, and thus I am to be remembered throughout all generations. Go and gather the elders of Israel together, and say to them, `The LORD, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, has appeared to me . . .

I contend that any Hebrew / Israelite / Jewish believer in the oral and written traditions that were and became the Old Testament Scriptures would have identified the YHWY of Ex 3 as God the Creator, God of Abraham, Issac and Joseph, God of Moses, God the Liberator of the Hebrew people, God who enveloped Mt. Sinai in fire and smoke, God of the Covenant, God who was present in the Ark of the Covenant, God present in the Tent of Meeting, God present in the Temple, the God of the kings and princes and warriors and common people of Judah and Israel, the God of the Prophets, etc., etc.

I also contend that all magisterial Catholic teaching supports the same belief in a doctrinal manner, likely even a dogmatic manner. And so I point back to (1) and feel confident in my label of heresy.

(3) even granted that free, academic discussion is important, relevant and inevitable within and without the Catholic Church, there are certain pillars upon which we lean when transitioning from matters of speculation to things we really “know” with the certainty of Faith.

For example, take the Theory of Evolution: I think it’s great if Catholics discuss it, develop it, and even write popular books about it. But, all “catholic literature” that makes a claim to representing the Catholic Church or authentic Catholic teaching and thought on the subject as a whole, should ultimately uphold the teachings of the Church as given, for example, in Humani Generis.: i.e. that even if one grants the human body to have evolved, the human soul did not along with it; at some point God chose two human animals, created souls for them ex nihilo, and from that original male and female pair all human persons genetically descend.

Nor should anyone feel bad about “anchoring” a discussion, even an academic one, in the aforesaid foregone conclusion simply because it is dogmatic.

Thank you for charitably giving me the opportunity to better qualify my “police action.”

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

whosebob:

JMJ + OBT​

Well . . . no, it doesn’t help that much actually.

Sorry to hear that​

Free, academic discussion is extraordinarily important in all fields, including Catholic philosophy and theology (yes, I actually believe that).

However, that being said let’s consider a few things:

(1) the originator of this thread asked for recommendations of a book for beginners in the field of biblical criticism. I think then it is highly appropriate that recommendations should reflect orthodoxy – not a few persons’ faith have been critically wounded by their taking seriously the writings of scholars who – though no doubt informed, creative, and inquisitive in the best academic sense – have published books, articles and essays for digestion by the unsuspecting populous with nary a care that their conclusions, even tentative ones, fly in the face of 2000 years of Catholic teaching and thought.

I have been through very similar turmoil myself. It is equally true that if Catholics go to places of higher education expecting Catholic or other lecturers to tell them only what fits in with a Fundamentalist view of the Bible, they are going to be painfully disillusioned. So I am trying to do something to lessen this possibility. The shock of the difference between Fundamentalism, & critical approaches, can be very disagreeable. It has caused, as you say, much suffering.​

(2) nowhere, I mean nowhere, will you find one magisterial text that ever suggests that the God of the Hebrews went through some polytheistic paring down of “authorities” into the “One God” of the Israelites.

Consider the witness of Scripture itself:

Exodus 3:4-6,10-16:

I contend that any Hebrew / Israelite / Jewish believer in the oral and written traditions that were and became the Old Testament Scriptures would have identified the YHWY of Ex 3 as God the Creator, God of Abraham, Issac and Joseph, God of Moses, God the Liberator of the Hebrew people, God who enveloped Mt. Sinai in fire and smoke, God of the Covenant, God who was present in the Ark of the Covenant, God present in the Tent of Meeting, God present in the Temple, the God of the kings and princes and warriors and common people of Judah and Israel, the God of the Prophets, etc., etc.

I will deal with this in detail at some other time, if you wish.​

I also contend that all magisterial Catholic teaching supports the same belief in a doctrinal manner, likely even a dogmatic manner. And so I point back to (1) and feel confident in my label of heresy.

(3) even granted that free, academic discussion is important, relevant and inevitable within and without the Catholic Church, there are certain pillars upon which we lean when transitioning from matters of speculation to things we really “know” with the certainty of Faith.

For example, take the Theory of Evolution: I think it’s great if Catholics discuss it, develop it, and even write popular books about it. But, all “catholic literature” that makes a claim to representing the Catholic Church or authentic Catholic teaching and thought on the subject as a whole, should ultimately uphold the teachings of the Church as given, for example, in Humani Generis.: i.e. that even if one grants the human body to have evolved, the human soul did not along with it; at some point God chose two human animals, created souls for them ex nihilo, and from that original male and female pair all human persons genetically descend.

Nor should anyone feel bad about “anchoring” a discussion, even an academic one, in the aforesaid foregone conclusion simply because it is dogmatic.

Thank you for charitably giving me the opportunity to better qualify my “police action.”

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

[continue…]​

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

[cont’d, ended]

LOL. It wouldn’t occur to me to suppose the soul could evolve - I definitely believe in evolution. (JP2 spoke on the subject in 1996, I believe.)​

My gripe is with the inappropriate use of authority - Dogma is fine in itself, but but it is not fine in everything: in some things, it has no place at all. So other means need to be used than dogma - I’m sensitive about matters of academic freedom, because no one else seemed to be, and because people seem to think that anyone can interprewyt the Bible provided he is a bishop: reality is more complicated than that.

As to the problem we were discussing - it has cropped up far too recently for the Magisterium to have bother with it. And I can still see no reason to think of that idea as heresy, or as in any way theologically objectionable. The texts you quote are the product of editing over the course of centuries - as are the many passages used to support the validity of the theory in question. Fortunately, the texts from Ugarit rather suggest, when compared with the OT, that the Israelite idea of God underwent considerable shifts - one is not theorising in the dark; far from it.

Like you, I don’t want to wander too far from the topic of this thread. ##

 

[whosebob]

Gottle of Geer:

. . . if Catholics go to places of higher education expecting Catholic or other lecturers to tell them only what fits in with a Fundamentalist view of the Bible, they are going to be painfully disillusioned. So I am trying to do something to lessen this possibility. The shock of the difference between Fundamentalism, & critical approaches, can be very disagreeable.

JMJ + OBT​

Fundamentalism is disagreeable to me as well. I don’t think writers like Fr. Most deserve the label of “fundamentalist,” though. Do you? If so, why?

In fact, I would hope that over the next hundred years or so, the balanced, clear, common sense and orthordox writings of theologians and Scripture scholars like Fr. Most, Hahn, etc. will begin to permeate the consciousness of your average Catholic parish priest and deacon, and that of the laity too. Then heresies on both ends of the spectrum will have far less impact when encountered unexpectedly for the first time.

Until that time, i.e. until such solid “meat and potatoes” is heard in your average Catholic parish during the Sunday homily, we need to work extra hard to promote such materials in print or electronic form.

And we must be careful to point the unitiated in the right direction, lest we fail in our duty to encourage them and they lose heart.

As a basic litmus test, I propose that if a book, essay, etc. on Biblical criticism makes claims outright that contradict the interpretation and teachings about Scripture as contained in the Catechism, then it is no good suggesting it, especially unqualified, to a “beginner.”

 

[whosebob]

Gottle of Geer:

. . . It wouldn’t occur to me to suppose the soul could evolve - I definitely believe in evolution. (JP2 spoke on the subject in 1996, I believe.)

JMJ + OBT​

The following quote is from the section of the text of Humani Generis (encyclical of Pope Pius XII) which I had in mind:

1. It remains for Us now to speak about those questions which, although they pertain to the positive sciences, are nevertheless more or less connected with the truths of the Christian faith. In fact, not a few insistently demand that the Catholic religion take these sciences into account as much as possible. This certainly would be praiseworthy in the case of clearly proved facts; but caution must be used when there is rather question of hypotheses, having some sort of scientific foundation, in which the doctrine contained in Sacred Scripture or in Tradition is involved. If such conjectural opinions are directly or indirectly opposed to the doctrine revealed by God, then the demand that they be recognized can in no way be admitted.

1. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question . . .

(continued below)

 

[whosebob]

(continued from above)

1. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]

1. Just as in the biological and anthropological sciences, so also in the historical sciences there are those who boldly transgress the limits and safeguards established by the Church. In a particular way must be deplored a certain too free interpretation of the historical books of the Old Testament. Those who favor this system, in order to defend their cause, wrongly refer to the Letter which was sent not long ago to the Archbishop of Paris by the Pontifical Commission on Biblical Studies.[13] This letter, in fact, clearly points out that the first eleven chapters of Genesis, although properly speaking not conforming to the historical method used by the best Greek and Latin writers or by competent authors of our time, do nevertheless pertain to history in a true sense, which however must be further studied and determined by exegetes; the same chapters, (the Letter points out), in simple and metaphorical language adapted to the mentality of a people but little cultured, both state the principal truths which are fundamental for our salvation, and also give a popular description of the origin of the human race and the chosen people. If, however, the ancient sacred writers have taken anything from popular narrations (and this may be conceded), it must never be forgotten that they did so with the help of divine inspiration, through which they were rendered immune from any error in selecting and evaluating those documents.

1. Therefore, whatever of the popular narrations have been inserted into the Sacred Scriptures must in no way be considered on a par with myths or other such things, which are more the product of an extravagant imagination than of that striving for truth and simplicity which in the Sacred Books, also of the Old Testament, is so apparent that our ancient sacred writers must be admitted to be clearly superior to the ancient profane writers.

1. Truly, we are aware that the majority of Catholic doctors, the fruit of whose studies is being gathered in universities, in seminaries and in the colleges of religious, are far removed from those errors which today, whether through a desire for novelty or through a certain immoderate zeal for the apostolate, are being spread either openly or covertly. But we know also that such new opinions can entice the incautious; and therefore we prefer to withstand the very beginnings rather than to administer the medicine after the disease has grown inveterate.

1. For this reason, after mature reflexion and consideration before God, that We may not be wanting in Our sacred duty, We charge the Bishops and the Superiors General of Religious Orders, binding them most seriously in conscience, to take most diligent care that such opinions be not advanced in schools, in conferences or in writings of any kind, and that they be not taught in any manner whatsoever to the clergy or the faithful.

 

[whosebob]

Gottle of Geer:

. . . My gripe is with the inappropriate use of authority - Dogma is fine in itself, but but it is not fine in everything: in some things, it has no place at all. So other means need to be used than dogma - I’m sensitive about matters of academic freedom, because no one else seemed to be, and because people seem to think that anyone can interprewyt the Bible provided he is a bishop: reality is more complicated than that.

I agree with you for the most part. In general, I think the Catholic faithful need to develop a better sense of what qualifies for authentic Catholic interpretation of the Scriptures – what is compatible with the Deposit of Faith and what is not.
Gottle of Geer:

As to the problem we were discussing - it has cropped up far too recently for the Magisterium to have bother with it.

I hope the next Pope will be keenly interested in bothering with it, or will re-invigorate attention to these questions at high levels within the Curial teaching organs.
Gottle of Geer:

And I can still see no reason to think of that idea as heresy, or as in any way theologically objectionable. The texts you quote are the product of editing over the course of centuries

Well . . . maybe we’re coming at this from different angles. Hmmmmm . . . to me the “inerrancy attribute” of the texts in question helps me to conlude that in the context of the historical realities and events which the same texts teach us about, that conclusions along the lines of those I advanced in my previous post (regarding “God of . . . God of . . .”) do in fact hold up. I would have to develop this idea A LOT more in order to make a direct contrast with Dr. Otto, but I hope the kernel of it makes sense anyway.
Gottle of Geer:

Like you, I don’t want to wander too far from the topic of this thread. ##

Yes, I’m certainly in danger of pushing us in that direction with all the evolution stuff, but if you carefully read Pius XII’s letter, I think you’ll find it relevant in a broad sense to this discussion.

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut and thoughtful responses.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA