Catholic Bible commentary

[Axion]

The Historical-critical method is very subversive and faithless in my opinion. I am sure it destroys the faith of many people who do not understand that 90% of what it teaches are theories - and theories based on the assumption that there is no such thing as the miraculous, or divine revelation of Scripture. This is why it was condemned by many Popes.

Both the NAB and the NJB notes are based almost wholly on the Historical-critical method, however.

The Hist-Crit method, developed largely by German protestants assumes

1. That the Bible was NOT written by the Traditionally named Authors.
2. That it was actually put together from various sources by unknown editors.
3. That these editors pretended to be Moses, Jeremiah, Matthew, Luke etc, (and that therefore, the editors were dishonest.)
4. That these editors knowingly invented large chunks of what they wrote (and so were doubly dishonest, liars, and con-men)
5. It is assumed as a matter of fact that all Miraculous events in the Bible are false, and were placed in the narrative either as parables, legends or outright falsehoods, intended to strenghten the power of the text.
6. It is assumed that many narratives in the Bible, like the Nativity, conversion stories, miracles - are invented and mendaciously inserted into the text by these dishonest unnamed editors.
7. Any evidence of prophecy confirmed, (like the AD 70 destruction of the temple) is assumed to be a falsehood written after the event - hence the dating of the gospels to after AD 70 - despite internal evidence to the contrary.

The upshot of this is that the reader is told AS FACT (not theory) that many bible stories are false, the OT and gospels were made up by liars, and virtually nothing can be trusted. Often catholic teachings, apart from the most Liberal, are specifically rejected in the notes, and virtually never derived from the texts.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here are all my favorites litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Bible+Commentaries-Fathers+and+Doctors

 

[diggerdomer]

This is why it was condemned by many Popes.

The method was not condemned. Erroneous conclusions drawn by some who applied the method may have been condemned, just as error from any method are condemned. There’s a difference. See the quote I gave in post #9.