Catholic Church and Textual Criticism

  • Thread starter Thread starter LACadien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LACadien

Guest
I am familiar with the work of Bart Ehrman and his more or less dismantling of the fundamentalist position through is pop textual criticism books. As a former reformed faith christian who feels as though he’s swimming upstream in the Tiber right now, I find these obvious problems with scripture troubling to my protestant view of sola scriptura (which I’m slowly abandoning).

What is the Catholic position on textual criticism? Are the problems with the scriptures not a problem for Catholics because of your beliefs about scripture (of which I’m still quite ignorant).

Basically my sola scripture ship is sinking and I’m looking for a life line.
 
Hi LACadien,

Well, if you’re trying to get an apology for sola scriptura, I think you might be in the wrong forum :p.

The Catholic Church permits and encourages textual criticism. The 1893 encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Providentissimus Deus, is clear that textual criticism is good permitted. The 1943 encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Divino Afflante Spiritu, is also very helpful, and as it notes, limited higher criticism is also permitted, provided that the infallibility and inerrancy of the text is held firmly de fide. The Dogmatic Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, would also be of some use.

Nonetheless, the Catholic Church firmly believes in the inerrancy and infalliblity of Scripture in all matters, at least in the original text. While the Church does not take every part of Scripture literally, it does take most it a such, and the points of Christ’s life are virtually dogmatic. That there was one person Adam, and one Eve is also virtually dogmatic.

I hope this was helpful,
Benedicat Deus,
Latinitas
 
This series may be of interest.

LESSON 23: April 2007
NEO-PATRISTIC EXEGESIS URGENTLY NEEDED
By Msgr. John F. McCarthy.
A common switch-over to neo-patristic exegesis is urgently needed. The word “exegesis” means “interpretation,” and refers especially to the scholarly and technical interpretation of Sacred Scripture. An “exegete” is an interpreter of Sacred Scripture. The method of interpretation known as “historical criticism” is now unfortunately being used in most of the teaching faculties within the Catholic Church, especially in the Western Church. This method has the approval of the Hierarchy of the Church, but it has many pitfalls that are confusing believers and doing harm within the Church. Why is this so? The historical-critical method has its origin in the so-called Enlightenment of the seventeenth century and the Rationalism of the eighteenth century, followed by the exegetical work in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries of liberal Protestant scholars. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, historical criticism has been characterized especially by a technique known in English as “form-criticism.” Very influential among the liberal Protestant originators of historical criticism are Hermann Gunkel, the founder of the form-criticism of the Old Testament, and Rudolf Bultmann, the most celebrated founder of the form-criticism of the New Testament. The problem for Catholics is that Catholic historical critics have not fully succeeded in rejecting the false elements in the historical-critical approach or in assimilating whatever true elements it may have into Catholic exegetical tradition.
rtforum.org/study/lesson23.html
 
Bart Ehrman doesn’t actually dismantle even Protestant Fundamentalism in his books. You think your ship is taking on water: it really isn’t, but Ehrman has convinced you, and other people, that it is. There are quite a few good books out there refuting his views generally (with no reference to Ehrman, but offering alternatives), and specifically (point-by-point with reference to Ehrman’s works).

Let me know which points of Ehrman’s many theses are bothering you (how do we know the canon? which books? which parts of which books? how was the canon determined? what about the “diversity” in early “Christianities”?, etc.), and I can recommend good resources that don’t necessarily involve retreating in to the “inspired King James Bible” version of King James Onlyism, or, alternately, crucifying your intellect on the altar of Church authority – Roman Catholics have as many problems with textual criticism as do liberal Protestants, but can fall back on “The Church has declared…”: if that is a satisfactory explanation to you, search no further. If it is not, there are good resources available to help understand and refute Ehrman’s poorly-formed house of cards arrayed in seeming scholarship (look at all of those footnotes!) at rhetorical prestidigitation. (Ehrman, coincidentally, takes a much different – and less iconoclastic – tack when speaking or writing to other academicians, as in his co-authorship of the newer versions of Metzger’s Text of the New Testament, because he knows he can’t get away with the sloppy garbage he spews forth in his more popular works on the subject.)

I think you’re experiencing the shock of your first exposure to quasi-academic historical and theological work touching on Christianity – the very shock that was a proximate cause of Ehrman’s apostasy, when he was not properly mentored in matters of the faith, and received none but glib answers if any at all. The shock is much like jumping in cold, but not freezing, water: it can be scary, but, equally, it can be swum, even if sometimes it may be swum only with difficulty, and may be uncomfortable.

For a refutation to his approach on the canon, see Canon Revisited by Kruger. For a refutation of his approach to early Christianity, see The Heresy of Orthodoxy by Kostenberger and Kruger. For a refutation of his approach to textual criticism, see: The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? by Bruce, The Canon of Scripture by Bruce, or, for a more popular treatment, Misquoting Jesus by Jones.

To hear it straight from the horse’s mouth, and see how, when the requirements of scholarship are higher, Ehrman abandons his own “popular” positions in favour of ones more conducive to orthodoxy, read the standard academic introductory textbook to textual criticism in English: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration by Metzger and Ehrman.

If you need additional help or have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me here in this thread, by PM, by email or Skype, if you wish to have a discussion of the subject. (My email and Skype handle are in my profile: I’m not sure if I am allowed to post it on the forums.) I do not check these forums recently as of late, being preoccupied with my studies, but will make a point to check this thread at least every other day until your problem is resolved. (I am in constant contact with both Skype and my e-mail.)
 
LACadien said:
I am familiar with the work of Bart Ehrman and his more or less dismantling of the fundamentalist position through is pop textual criticism books. As a former reformed faith christian who feels as though he’s swimming upstream in the Tiber right now, I find these obvious problems with scripture troubling to my protestant view of sola scriptura (which I’m slowly abandoning).

What is the Catholic position on textual criticism? Are the problems with the scriptures not a problem for Catholics because of your beliefs about scripture (of which I’m still quite ignorant).

Basically my sola scripture ship is sinking and I’m looking for a life line.
Click to expand...
Have you familiarised yourself with criticisms of Bart Ehrman’s work? It should do wonders do regain your faith. For eg benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/03/misanalyzing-text-criticism-bart.html

You can google the rest. After a bit of reading, Ehrman’s work seems to lack scholarly depth and smells more of work for popular appeal.

If we are not trained in the proper methods of establishing truths, it is easy to be “conned” into thinking there is something wrong with our faith. God bless the internet and those who share their wisdom. I lived in a remote part of this planet where access to serious scholarly work is limited. When I encountered biblical difficulties, internet and google is my friend. Catholic Answers, and numerous other sites is my place of learning. I have yet to be let down by these resources.
 
Scholarly issues are much less a problem for Catholics because our canon of Scripture is not based solely on historical and textual evidence, but is bound up in the authority of the Church. Therefore, we can have assurance our canon is correct without fearing we might need to remove book X or add book Y if new evidence emerges. My understanding is that historical scholarship is a determining factor tim the Lutheran view of canon (consider, for example, their New Testament “antilegomena”). On the other hand, the Reformed tradition, which you are from, seems to take for granted that the canon is self-evident to true believers. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches,

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
(WCF 1.5)

Such a view taken at face value does not stand up to scrutiny. If an exact canon were objectively certain in the experience of true Christians, why was there not an exact agreement on the canon in the early Church, especially not an agreement on the Protestant canon? So on one hand you place your rule of faith in the uncertain hands of the scholars, and on the other hand you have an irrational fideism. If Scripture alone is the rule of faith, than this is a problem. This is one reason why it is necessary that the word of God be interpreted through a living tradition imbued with true authority.

However, does that mean that we textual criticism is no concern to Catholics since the position of Scripture in Catholicism does not depend upon scholarship? No. Catholics believe that Scripture is without error and that it is a faithful witness to Christian doctrine. It is offensive to Catholic ears to say that Paul’s letters are Second-Century forgeries. These scholarly claims should not be accepted uncritically, and should be ignored by the faithful or actively rebutted.
 
QNDNNDQDCE said:
Scholarly issues are much less a problem for Catholics because our canon of Scripture is not based solely on historical and textual evidence, but is bound up in the authority of the Church. Therefore, we can have assurance our canon is correct without fearing we might need to remove book X or add book Y if new evidence emerges. My understanding is that historical scholarship is a determining factor tim the Lutheran view of canon (consider, for example, their New Testament “antilegomena”). On the other hand, the Reformed tradition, which you are from, seems to take for granted that the canon is self-evident to true believers. The Westminster Confession of Faith teaches,

We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.
(WCF 1.5)

Such a view taken at face value does not stand up to scrutiny. If an exact canon were objectively certain in the experience of true Christians, why was there not an exact agreement on the canon in the early Church, especially not an agreement on the Protestant canon? So on one hand you place your rule of faith in the uncertain hands of the scholars, and on the other hand you have an irrational fideism. If Scripture alone is the rule of faith, than this is a problem. This is one reason why it is necessary that the word of God be interpreted through a living tradition imbued with true authority.

However, does that mean that we textual criticism is no concern to Catholics since the position of Scripture in Catholicism does not depend upon scholarship? No. Catholics believe that Scripture is without error and that it is a faithful witness to Christian doctrine. It is offensive to Catholic ears to say that Paul’s letters are Second-Century forgeries. These scholarly claims should not be accepted uncritically, and should be ignored by the faithful or actively rebutted.
Click to expand...
👍 Hence why we say Tradition is equal to Scripture.
 
I think it does not disservice to Scripture at all to take them as literature. These are books that were written by men for the purpose of teaching the history and Faith of God’s people to those who would come after. But the simple fact that they were written for a purpose does bot make them true and it should come as not shock that a man, such as Bultmann, who begins with the assertion that there are no such things as miracles, would then arrive at the conclusion that the Bible is full of errors.

If you would take the time to familiarize yourself with the 18th and 19th C critics and with the problems of their methodologies then you would quickly find their same errors carried over into the writings of people like Ehrman. But all of these men began with the supposition that there were no miracles, no inspired writings and basically no God. And in the case of people like William James (who has had a great deal of influence of Ehrman) you would find an even more insidious error in their claims that truth and falsehood don’t matter so long as religion makes you happy, just so long as you don’t believe the mumbo jumbo of things like the resurrection.

Of course the problem is they are saying that truth claims don’t matter while at the same time making truth claims. In other words they are talking nonsense.

So do not be concerned about them. The Bible is reliable and (Yes I know I am Lutheran) the Catholic Church provides many excellent defenses of the Canon that can found with ease at any Catholic bookstore or online. I wish you happy reading and much peace.

God Bless
 
LACadien,
I am a bit confused about something. The Catholic Church does not believe in or teach Sola Scriptura, so why would you ask them to help you to maintain this belief? This makes sense if you have already decided to cross the Tiber and are looking for a way to “sink” this Protestant doctrine (which appears to be holding you back). If you are serious about wanting an answer to Bart Ehrman, I strongly recommend a couple of debates from a noted Protestant apologist. The first with Bart Ehrman (Does the Bible misquote Jesus) can be found here. The second, a debate with Robert Price (Is the Bible true), can be found here. It should be noted that even Bart Ehrman admits that the vast majority of the variants are nothing more than misspelled words, and over 90% of the New Testament has no textual variants at all! Furthermore, there is no doctrine of the Christian Church that is dependent upon a textual variant. If you are honestly seeking answers, you will find these debates very helpful

BTW - I left the Catholic Church primarily because I came to believe in Sola Scriptura!

Pax!
 
Cachonga said:
BTW - I left the Catholic Church primarily because I came to believe in Sola Scriptura!

Pax!
Click to expand...
I find this quite interesting Cachonga. My entire Jehovah Witness family, who left the Catholic Church, says the same exact thing. :hmmm: Are you a JW also?

Peace neighbor!!!
 
40.png
adf417:
I find this quite interesting Cachonga. My entire Jehovah Witness family, who left the Catholic Church, says the same exact thing. Are you a JW also?
Click to expand...
No. Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. I am currently a full, 5 point Calvinist and a member of a Reformed Baptist Church (thanks, in part to Tim Staples).
 
Cachonga said:
LACadien,
I am a bit confused about something. The Catholic Church does not believe in or teach Sola Scriptura, so why would you ask them to help you to maintain this belief?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church believes the Bible is the Word of God. Think about it, THE WORD OF GOD. Is this not enough for the Church to passionately defend the inerrancy and harmony of the bible?
 
Cachonga said:
No. Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. I am currently a full, 5 point Calvinist and a member of a Reformed Baptist Church (thanks, in part to Tim Staples).
Click to expand...
I agree with you - at least on the doctrine of the Trinity, but not because it is “clearly taught” in scripture. We believe this because of the council of Nicaea which came before the canonization of scripture. A very large portion of the early church prior to Nicaea was Arian. So, no, not because it is “clearly taught” in scripture.

To the OP, If Textual Criticism was supposed to be as important as it seems it is be to bible alone people, how will All variants be cleared for ALL people including the not so intelligent? 🤷

Peace!!!
 
Cachonga said:
No. Scripture clearly teaches the doctrine of the Trinity and the deity of Christ. I am currently a full, 5 point Calvinist and a member of a Reformed Baptist Church (thanks, in part to Tim Staples).
Click to expand...
My “religion” modifier on this forum keeps shifting more and more towards “Reformed tendencies”, so I have some sympathies here – and I am far from a Jehovah’s Witness or heretic of any variety, still and always holding firmly to the three ecumenical creeds. (I’m still an Orthodox and a paedobaptist, though, even if on sabbatical from the first, and not yet come to questioning the second. My kind of “Reformed” tends towards Lutheranism-cum-Presbyterianism, or, in the famous words of Springfield of the Simpsons, “Presbylutheranism”.) Van Til’s thought, especially transcendental presuppositionalism, had/has a great effect on my thought – as do things such as the Biblical canon held by the Roman church, the former (Van Til’s thought) exposing some of the problems with the latter.

To other poster:

The Reformed view of canon (self-authenticating) has received a great benefit, both in terms of theological underpinning and historical analysis, between Van Til (indirectly) and Kruger (directly). The canon was recognized – it was not defined. It was closed and complete as soon as St John the Theologian finished writing the Apocalypse: it was not recognized until later. The Bible can not be proved from outside of itself, or else you have set something else up as a higher authority than the Bible, for something that is capable of establishing the authority of something else is by definition a greater authority – one can not achieve infinity by adding every number in the set of finite numbers, in the phrasings of set theory. And – your mileage may vary – however many problems the Bible may have, I have found that any alternative source of authority, whether ecclesiastical or secular, has more, and has far less logical coherence (which can support, but not establish, the authority of the Bible) and evidence (ditto) in its favour.

But this now seems to be a digression, and neither here nor there. Tradition can never be a separate revelation, nor equal to, Scripture: it can possibly be conceived of as the traditional and normative interpretation of Scripture, which is materially sufficient (a view held by Benedict XVI), but I am coming more to doubt this in favour of outright formal sufficiency, with tradition playing the traditional role of norma normata to Scripture’s norma normans: that is, as a normed summation of Scripture teaching and those teachings posterior to it (nothing except for God is anterior to Scripture), necessarily and sufficiently deduced by reason from it, as in the teaching of the ecumeical creeds and Chalcedonian definition, respectively. (The Trinity, being taught by Scripture, demands the hypostatic union as taught by Chalcedon in order that we may be fully redeemed, body, spirit, soul, intellect, mind, emotion, and reason, and that we may understand how the God-man is a part of that Trinity: the hypostatic union is not taught by Scripture, but is a necessary consequence of beliefs that are taught in Scriptures, viz. the Trinity and the redemption of man.)
 
40.png
Augustine3:
The Catholic Church believes the Bible is the Word of God. Think about it, THE WORD OF GOD. Is this not enough for the Church to passionately defend the inerrancy and harmony of the bible?
Click to expand...
Here’s what was said -
40.png
LACadien:
I am familiar with the work of Bart Ehrman and his more or less dismantling of the fundamentalist position through is pop textual criticism books. As a former reformed faith christian who feels as though he’s swimming upstream in the Tiber right now, I find these obvious problems with scripture troubling to my protestant view of sola scriptura (which I’m slowly abandoning).

What is the Catholic position on textual criticism? Are the problems with the scriptures not a problem for Catholics because of your beliefs about scripture (of which I’m still quite ignorant).

Basically my sola scripture ship is sinking and I’m looking for a life line
Click to expand...
Notice the references to Sola Scriptura? That’s what I was responding to. There’s no question that the Catholic Church consideres the Bible to be the inerrant, written word of God. However, the Catholic Church ALSO holds “Sacred Tradition” as being equal to Sacred Scripture. That’s what allows the Catholic Church to declare things like the bodily assumption of Mary as a dogma of the church, even though there is no Scriptural support (even the Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, admits this).
 
40.png
adf417:
I agree with you - at least on the doctrine of the Trinity, but not because it is “clearly taught” in scripture. We believe this because of the council of Nicaea which came before the canonization of scripture. A very large portion of the early church prior to Nicaea was Arian. So, no, not because it is “clearly taught” in scripture.
Click to expand...
I’ve been through this before, and it’s not the topic of this thread. Suffice it to say I find the doctrine of the Trinity clearly demonstrated in Scripture, which is confirmed by many churches (not just the Catholic Church).
 
Cachonga #16
However, the Catholic Church ALSO holds “Sacred Tradition” as being equal to Sacred Scripture. That’s what allows the Catholic Church to declare things like the bodily assumption of Mary as a dogma of the church, even though there is no Scriptural support
Click to expand...
You would not have any Bible if the Catholic Church had not assembled and defined what writings actually are the Inspired Word of God, the N.T. written by Her members.

God Himself created the Catholic Church with His authority to teach His truths.
Christ wrote nothing for posterity and used quotes from the OT, as He established His Church and explicitly made four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later also to the Twelve]

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

“And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.’ (Jn 21:25).
 
40.png
Abu:
You would not have any Bible if the Catholic Church had not assembled and defined what writings actually are the Inspired Word of God, the N.T. written by Her members
Click to expand...
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?
 
Cachonga said:
Here’s what was said -

Notice the references to Sola Scriptura? That’s what I was responding to. There’s no question that the Catholic Church consideres the Bible to be the inerrant, written word of God. However, the Catholic Church ALSO holds “Sacred Tradition” as being equal to Sacred Scripture. That’s what allows the Catholic Church to declare things like the bodily assumption of Mary as a dogma of the church, even though there is no Scriptural support (even the Catholic scholar, Ludwig Ott, admits this).
Click to expand...
Yes but the OP was addressing what the Catholic position on textual criticism was. You gave the impression we were not competent enough to respond to attacks from Bart Ehrman. My apologies if I misunderstood you.

Whether you hold to the principle of Solar Scriptura or not does not make a difference. It does not change the fact we believe the bible is the word of Almighty God. The Catholic religion is incomplete without the bible and it cannot stand on just sacred Tradition and the Magisterium. It’s like a mother losing her child and then with a simple shrug of her shoulders she says “oh well I have two other children, life goes on”. No, it doesn’t work that way (it certainly wouldn’t for a devoted mother or our devoted Mother Church). This passion of ours shows we are clearly competent of defending the bible. We have many fine bible scholars such as Dr. Scott Hahn, Dr. Robert Fastiggi etc. not to mention 2000 years of bible scholarship within the Catholic Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top