Catholic Church and Textual Criticism

[Tony_the_mad]

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

Pax!

To believe in Sola Scriptura is not only to leave the Catholic Church but to leave ALL churches.

To be fair, even the Catholic Church, I believe, will accept Sola Scriptura if all you are interested in is merely to be saved. Paul says in Corinthians:

"By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as a wise builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should build with care. For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.

If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved–even though only as one escaping through the flames."

Scripture is that foundation which was laid by Christ, through Paul and others. All who build on it will be saved (if that is your only care). You can chose to build however you want by interpreting the scripture by whatever way you feel is correct. But I will build using the expertise gained by 2000 years of builders and using rock quarried by the Saints. I will buttress my walls with the Sacraments and strengthen my roof through sacred tradition.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

People need to read xkcd before talking about any textual criticism.

xkcd.com/451/

Even with the Bible as our foundation, all Christians have to build on that foundation. Textual critics try to pretend that they can find out to build a building using the foundation alone. But it is all smoke and mirrors; smoke and mirrors that can support nothing and contribute nothing but confusing those who employ them.

 

[Abu]

Cachonga #19
What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

#16
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

What makes you think you can assert “no Scriptural support” with impunity, as though that was the criterion, against the fact that Christ established his own Church – the Catholic Church to teach – and She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as a PART of His teaching?

 

[Khalid]

The Scriptures were given us by the Holy Spirit, and recognized by the United Church. No church, no congregation, no synagogue has the authority to define what is and is not Scripture, nor to add to nor subtract a single letter from what is Scripture. Scripture is recognized as Scripture through a complex process that is much debated, and not fully understood (although, as in previous posts, I note I am fond of Kruger’s model): however, it is undoubtedly certain that no church was ever given a collection of books, and said, “These are Scripture”, and thereby made the chosen books inspired and inerrant – inspired and inerrant books are inspired and inerrant before, and regardless of, ecclesiastical recognition.

Discussing canonical development with those whose knowledge comes from popular Roman apologetics is similar to attempting to debate the finer points of Trinitarian dogma with a man who has never heard of Nicaea. I apologize for putting too fine of a point on it, in the attempt to say: 'The model of canonical development that says, “Some church defined ‘Bible’ around AD 397 at III Carthage” is incredibly flawed, leaves several doors open to corridors no Christian wants to walk down, and has been generally rejected by all scholars, regardless of confessional affiliation, as untenable historically and theologically." The view was also held by few if any of the Fathers, especially of the Undivided Church. I say “few” because I know no Fathers that hold to it, but one or two probably did. Even look at Augustine’s famous dictum, “I’d not have believed the Bible if not testified to by the Church” in context (the context is found in his Against the Epistle of the Manichees Called “Fundamental” §4) and one will find rapidly that the Doctor of Grace meant, if anything, the opposite of the meaning ascribed to him.

I pass over the post attempting to proof-text magisterial (or specifically Petrine-Papal) infallibility from various unrelated texts (one being the restoration/confirmation of Peter in the apostolic office after he had apostatized by denying Christ thrice) as unrelated to the main line of argumentation, without conceding that the point has any validity, and at the same time pointing out to all that “partim-partim” (two sources of revelation, each containing “part” and “part” of the whole) has been decisively rejected even by the Roman church, coming dangerously close to being canonized as dogma at Trent (as shown by the first draft for the Decree Concerning Canonical Scripture produced by the Fourth Session).

 

[Khalid]

For an evaluation and overview of the Fourth Session of Trent and its rejection of “partim-partim”, and its possible intended rejection (in a vaguely-worded Decree) of a nebulous “Tradition” as revelatory in any sense whatsoever, I refer the reader to the Master’s thesis of Matthew Selby, The Relationship Between Scripture and Tradition According to the Council of Trent (St Paul, Minnesota: University of St Thomas, Unpublished, July 2013 – available from ProQuest).

New traditions are “discovered” by Church authority, in reality, meaning that “tradition” is a claim that the Church is inspired and able to produce new revelations to add to the deposit of faith, which, rhetorical legerdemain aside, is essentially the thesis of Newman in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine – in any case, all “tradition” boils down to and rests on the authority and infallibility of the Church (George Salmon, Infallibility of the Church, Lecture VI), as no man could use “tradition” on his own, nor has it ever been codified, written, nor defined. Take for an example Purgatory. It was unknown in the earliest Christian centuries; Augustine admits that it is possible, and even probable, but is unsure of the details or much anything about it. Later theologians become increasingly more certain. Actual tradition does not gain detail and accuracy with further transmission – it loses it, and accretes legendary and mythical material, as all storytelling does. (For a non-Christian example, one can view the ahadith and sirat of Muhammad, the ostensible founder of Islam – his earliest contemporaries knew nothing of the traditions later ascribed to him, just as the earliest Fathers knew nothing of the traditions later accepted by the Church.) Roman tradition is, in fact, the claim to advanced revelation.

I use Purgatory as an example because prayers for the dead were established early in the Church, and the concept of “purgatory” itself occurred in theological speculation before the Great Schism (as an outgrowth of the early post-apostolic division of the Christian dead in to the classes of “martyrs” and “everyone else”*, cf. Peter Brown, The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity), and, indeed, was acknowledged by one of the Four Latin Doctors**: it is a relatively certain and sure example. Other dogmata such as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility have absolutely no early testimony either in practice (liturgy) or in theory.

*I am here distinguishing the proto-purgatory of Augustine from the “cleansing flame” leading to apokatastasis (universal restoration of all men and angels to peace with God) of Origen. Augustine’s stream of the doctrine eventually morphed in to the dogma of Purgatory as understood by Rome; Origen’s stream of the doctrine eventually morphed in to universalism, metempsychosis, and a “spiritual resurrection” as condemned by II Constantinople in 553.

**Augustine, De civ. Dei. 11:26.

 

[Khalid]

References for the last post:

From Salmon: “In like manner, when Augustine hears the idea suggested that, as the sins of good men cause them suffering in this world, so they may also to a certain degree in the next, he says that he will not venture that nothing of the kind can occur, for perhaps it may … *f the idea of purgatory had not got beyond a ‘perhaps’ at the beginning of the fifth century, we are safe in saying that it was not by tradition that the later Church arrived at certainty on the subject; for, if the Church had had any tradition [of Purgatory] in the time of Augustine, that great Father could not have helped knowing it.” (Kindle Loc. 2377)

Augustine on Purgatory: De civitate Dei. 21:26.

Note that all of the above is directly related to the question of the Roman Catholic Church and textual criticism, because the relation of the church to textual criticism is inextricably bound up in the tradition and authority of the church, and its ostensible infallibility in applying both tradition and authority.*

 

[Augustine3]

“Some church defined ‘Bible’ around AD 397 at III Carthage” is incredibly flawed, leaves several doors open to corridors no Christian wants to walk down, and has been generally rejected by all scholars, regardless of confessional affiliation, as untenable historically and theologically."

Pope Innocent I’s letter to Exsuperius was an affirmation of the councils of Rome, Hippo and Carthage.

**Pope Innocent I, Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse 6, 7, 13 (AD 405) **
“A short annotation shows what books are to be accepted as canonical. As you wished to be informed specifically, they are as follows: The five books of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; and Jesus Nave, one of Judges, four of Kingdoms, and also Ruth, sixteen books of Prophets, five books of Solomon, the Psalter. Likewise, of histories, one book of Job, one book of Tobias, one of Esther, one of Judith, two of Maccabees, two of Esdras, two books of Paralipomenon. Likewise, of the New Testament: four books of Gospels, fourteen Epistles of Paul, three Epistles of John, two Epistles of Peter, the Epistle of Jude, the Epistle of James, the Acts of the Apostles, the Apocalypse of John.

Even look at Augustine’s famous dictum, “I’d not have believed the Bible if not testified to by the Church” in context (the context is found in his Against the Epistle of the Manichees Called “Fundamental” §4) and one will find rapidly that the Doctor of Grace meant, if anything, the opposite of the meaning ascribed to him.

Ok let’s read it in context:

I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe thegospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Hence why we say Tradition is equal to Scripture.

Well, I wouldn’t agree that they are “equal” in the sense they are the same. They are both authoritative in their own ways and we couldn’t have one without the other. I am afraid that saying they are “equal” gives undue occasion for strawman arguments from Protestants. This is already enough of a problem without us giving them further occasion.

The Scriptures were given us by the Holy Spirit, and recognized by the United Church. No church, no congregation, no synagogue has the authority to define what is and is not Scripture, nor to add to nor subtract a single letter from what is Scripture. Scripture is recognized as Scripture through a complex process that is much debated, and not fully understood (although, as in previous posts, I note I am fond of Kruger’s model): however, it is undoubtedly certain that no church was ever given a collection of books, and said, “These are Scripture”, and thereby made the chosen books inspired and inerrant – inspired and inerrant books are inspired and inerrant before, and regardless of, ecclesiastical recognition.

You are starting by setting up a strawman position by equating the Catholic Church “deciding the canon” with the Catholic Church being the source of the inspiration of Scripture. A canon is a rule and it is the Church’s job to make rules for the faithful so when we say the Church “decided the canon,” it means that the Church by rightful authority made the rule for the faithful to follow, regardless of whether one is of the opinion that there could have been any other rule or not. If Augustine’s opinion means anything (you brought him up), he binds up the authority of Scripture and the authority of the Church together. As our own Augustine3 quoted from the source you referenced.

But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe thegospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me.

The only objection I have seen Protestant apologist throw out is that Augustine said, “far be it that I should not believe the gospel.” Augustine says that he believes the Gospel. So what? He did not say, “I believe the Gospel regardless of the authority of the Catholic Church,” which is contrary to the entire argument of that chapter. We can turn to other writings of Augustine where he says the same thing. For example, in On Christian Doctrine:

Now, in regard to the canonical Scriptures, he must follow the judgment of the greater number of Catholic churches; and among these, of course, a high place must be given to such as have been thought worthy to be the seat of an apostle and to receive epistles. Accordingly, among the canonical Scriptures he will judge according to the following standard: to prefer those that are received by all the Catholic churches to those which some do not receive. Among those, again, which are not received by all, he will prefer such as have the sanction of the greater number and those of greater authority, to such as are held by the smaller number and those of less authority. If, however, he shall find that some books are held by the greater number of churches, and others by the churches of greater authority (though this is not a very likely thing to happen), I think that in such a case the authority on the two sides is to be looked upon as equal.
(Book II, Chapter 8)
newadvent.org/fathers/12022.htm

What is important is that he tells the student of Scripture that in determining which writings are canonical, he must follow follow the judgment of the Church. Contrast this with the Westminster Confession of Faith, which I quoted earlier. The argument of the Calvinists seems to be that the canon of Scripture is “abundantly” obvious to true believers from just reading the text. If that is so, tell me how Esther reads as a more inspired text than Wisdom of Solomon? Then the WCF says that our “full persuasion and assurance” is alone from the inward work of the Holy Spirit (sounds kind of like what the Mormons say…). So, if the WCF is correct, does this mean that those who disagree from the WCF’s canon of Scripture do not have the Holy Spirit working in them or the Word in their hearts? The canon Augustine gives is in the preceding source (which appears to agree with the Catholic canon of Scripture) is certainly at variance with the WCF, including those books the WCF says are “of no authority in the Church of God.” What is the earliest patristic citation which gives a canon identical to the Protestant canon? Not for hundreds of years after Christ. Did the early Christians in this time just not have the Holy Spirit at work in them in order to bring them to a correct knowledge of the canon?

I don’t know about you, but it bothers me to think that the earliest Christians were so either so stupid or so deluded (depending on what sense you believe the canon to be “self-authenticating”) that they were not even able to figure out what their own rule of faith is if that rule of faith is supposed to be as obvious as Protestants would have us believe. It bothers me even more when modern-day Protestants say that it should not bother us that the early Christians were full of errors like disagreements on the canon and regeneration through baptism “we know more today than they did back then.”

 

[adf417]

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.)

Greetings Khalid. I assume I am “the other poster” so forgive me if I’m not.

I have not gone back to see what I actually wrote and if I did say “the Catholic Church defined scripture” then I was wrong, at least in the sense you describe. However, there is a term or phrase, insert here______________, the church did when it purposely, authoritatively, and proactively decided what books would be, or more objectively, not be, in the canon. And to tie this to the OP, this can only be done if and only if these people could have been able to properly interpret God’s word and differentiate between His word and those books that were not. Without this Sacred Tradition not only would we be floundering over textural variants of original documents that no longer exist, we would be doing circus tricks to justify many other books in our bibles.

Peace be with you!!!

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

It also must be acknowledged that the Church did give us the Scriptures since they were written by members of the Church in the first place.

 

[Cachonga]

Augustine3:

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.

Excuse me, didn’t you read where I said,

Cachonga:

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.

I don’t see how this would imply that I didn’t feel competent enough to respond to Bart (I think this statement clearly shows I do have an informed response). I pointed LACadien to some debates that I believe will give more info and insight into the topic.

Augustine3:

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.

I don’t believe I said anything specifically against the Catholic Church’s view on Scripture (other than to point out they do not teach Sola Scriptura). If you believe otherwise, please give a specific example from anything I’ve said in this thread.

Abu:

What makes you think you can assert “no Scriptural support” with impunity, as though that was the criterion, against the fact that Christ established his own Church – the Catholic Church to teach – and She gave us the Sacred Scriptures as a PART of His teaching?

First of all, I was quoting the CATHOLIC Scholar, Ludwig Ott (this is from his book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, which is available in the CA bookstore), so I wasn’t making an assertion “with impunity”

Secondly, what does the rest of your statement have to do with the topic of this thread? That LACadien even posted a question indicates (I would assert) that Catholics have a valid concern with textual critical issues of the Scriptures. That the Catholic Church has a right to be heard on the issue is not in question. When and how the Catholic Church was founded is irrelevant to the discussion (unless maybe you want to use the argument, “Because the Church says so!”). Please stay on topic!

 

[COPLAND_3]

Textual criticism is good but those who replace Church authority with scholars ‘positions of the moment’ and depend on them for things that they lack authority for is where it gets spiritually dangerous.

 

[LACadien]

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?

Sorry that I wasn’t more clear. When I said “I’m looking for a life line” I meant for me, not for sola scriptura. Since most of my faith has been built on the scriptures, having them undermined by things like textual criticism is a bit of a blow. However, I’ve read some of the information here that counters Bart’s work so I’m still in a state of flux and processing.

 

[Augustine3]

Excuse me, didn’t you read where I said,
I don’t see how this would imply that I didn’t feel competent enough to respond to Bart (I think this statement clearly shows I do have an informed response). I pointed LACadien to some debates that I believe will give more info and insight into the topic.

I don’t believe I said anything specifically against the Catholic Church’s view on Scripture (other than to point out they do not teach Sola Scriptura). If you believe otherwise, please give a specific example from anything I’ve said in this thread.

My apologies if I misunderstood you.

I guess you must have missed the apology I had already made

 

[Augustine3]

Textual criticism is good but those who replace Church authority with scholars ‘positions of the moment’ and depend on them for things that they lack authority for is where it gets spiritually dangerous.

 

[Cachonga]

LACadien,
Thanks for the clarification. I would still recommend you listen to the debate between James White and Bart Ehrman. As far as Bart’s arguments against the Scriptures, he gives a very simplistic (and completely fictional) account of how they were written and passed on (like “the telephone game”, where you get a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, and if every copy made a change, that would make the most recent copy completely unreliable). The evidence indicates that each original was copied many times, and distributed widely among believers. Furthermore, many of these were letters written to Churches, and so were read to the people (as well as copied and passed along), so any changes would be easy to spot. In fact, that is one reason we can be sure we have the original words (there may be discussion about which word is original, but we do have them represented within the various manuscripts).

To assert that a scribe made a change on purpose is to pretend to be psychic There are reasons for changes that do not require the ability to read the mind of an unknown scribe centuries after his death. We know these things happen, and can trace these errors. I have great confidence that the Scriptures we have are accurate and complete, and that the translations are sufficient for for the Church to use (of course, there are some bad translations out there, but that is the fault of the translators, not the underlying Greek and Hebrew).

Augustine3:

I guess you must have missed the apology I had already made

My bad!

 

[Augustine3]

My bad!

All good brother

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

If there are manuscript differences (which is what textual criticism analyses) The Catholic Church defaults, at least for liturgical purposes, to the Nova Vulgata Editio, which is the current revision of the Latin Vulgate. You can refer to Liturgiam Authenticam, para. 37., a copy of which can be found here:

adoremus.org/liturgiamauthenticam.html.