Fr. Groeschel speaks out against Biblical skepticism

[psalm90]

In his weekly Sunday evening program on EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel spoke out about the widespread skepticism in the Church and elsewhere about the Bible.

He said that he doesn’t have time for the skepticism.

I think this is noteworthy, because it’s quite how I feel about the subject.

Today, Easter, 2005, that ex-Catholic priest who has a professorship at Catholic DePaul University said on one of the programs on the History Channel about religious subjects, that he doubts that there ever was a “last supper” meal. He said that it is all contrived.

For further insights into the swamp of skepticism, if you insist, go to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and read the section on “the historical Jesus.” The point there is that there is virtually no historical information about Jesus in the gospels, so that we really cannot know the historical Jesus. Once you swallow that, you “see” that the gospels are all contrived stories. In particular, the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown, as you may know, elsewhere expressed his personal convictions that the nativity of Jesus accounts in the gospels are completely fiction. To him, they are simply amalgamations of words to “fulfill” the prophecies in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

To me, digging into this skepticism distracts a Christian from reading the canonical scriptures. And, it is those that our Church highly recommends to all. Groeschel is right, God bless him.

 

[dcmac]

“Groeschel is right, God bless him.”

Amen to that! I concur 100%!!!

Your brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future priest,
Donnchadh

 

[Ghosty]

I saw that bit on the History Channel regarding the Last Supper as well, and I was disgusted. I didn’t know he was an ex-priest. At least the program followed up with “most scholars vehemently disagree”.

How can you just claim that the Last Supper must have come after the death of Jesus, made up by his disciples? The weird thing is that this guy claimed it was in order to bring together the concepts of the bread and wine (earthly life) and body and blood (heavenly life), but why would they even have that significance if they weren’t tied together by Jesus?! That’s the greatest thing about the Gospels: they talk about stuff that no right-thinking person would include when “making up” a religion. The Hebrew God comes as a human being and says “eat my flesh”? NO WAY would first century Jews just make something like that up, it’s too far outside their paradigm. The only rational reason they would include such a thing would be because they really believed God had said it. Heck, even they claimed they had a hard time accepting it at first!

Biblical skepticism is a silly, silly thing. There’s too much in there that a person “just making up a faith”, espescially in a Jewish context, wouldn’t even think of including.

 

[Psalm45_9]

This reminds me of the National Geographic special about the Davinci Code. There were “priests” on that show saying that it was possible the Jesus was married. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

 

[patg]

Psalm45:9:

This reminds me of the National Geographic special about the Davinci Code. There were “priests” on that show saying that it was possible the Jesus was married. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon13.gif

Well, Fr. John Meier writing under the imprimatur states that it is a real possibility. When you have no real knowledge of things, there are a lot of possibilities.

 

[Michael_C]

psalm90:

Today, Easter, 2005, that ex-Catholic priest who has a professorship at Catholic DePaul University said on one of the programs on the History Channel about religious subjects, that he doubts that there ever was a “last supper” meal. He said that it is all contrived.

.

I see this guy on all the secular documentaries. I want to know why they don’t ask someone like Fr.Groeschel? Maybe it’s because Fr.Groeschel isn’t telling them what they want to hear.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

psalm90:

In his weekly Sunday evening program on EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel spoke out about the widespread skepticism in the Church and elsewhere about the Bible.

He said that he doesn’t have time for the skepticism.

I think this is noteworthy, because it’s quite how I feel about the subject.

Today, Easter, 2005, that ex-Catholic priest who has a professorship at Catholic DePaul University said on one of the programs on the History Channel about religious subjects, that he doubts that there ever was a “last supper” meal. He said that it is all contrived.

For further insights into the swamp of skepticism, if you insist, go to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and read the section on “the historical Jesus.” The point there is that there is virtually no historical information about Jesus in the gospels, so that we really cannot know the historical Jesus. Once you swallow that, you “see” that the gospels are all contrived stories. In particular, the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown, as you may know, elsewhere expressed his personal convictions that the nativity of Jesus accounts in the gospels are completely fiction. To him, they are simply amalgamations of words to “fulfill” the prophecies in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

To me, digging into this skepticism distracts a Christian from reading the canonical scriptures. And, it is those that our Church highly recommends to all. Groeschel is right, God bless him.

And by “scepticism” he meant…what ?​

Scepticism is largely in the eye of the beholder. Which is one reason why it is next to impossible for Catholics who are doing no more than live out what the Church requires and encourages and allows in these matters, to convince some Catholics that they are not heretics or whatever.

That is why quoting Papal documents encouraging critical scholarship, or other unFundamentalist approaches to the Bible to Catholics, is a waste of time and effort.

The problem for the Church’s magisterium is that its teaching on the Bible has for some time been Fundamentalist - so there is a Fundamentalist tradition in Catholic teaching along side the teaching of the last 60 or so years. “Divino Afflante” in 1943 exhibits both tendencies, and may be the first magisterial document in which the fisrst stirrings of a non-Fundamentalist approach can be found. So far, the two tendencies have yet to reconciled or synthesised; they co-exist instead, rather uneasily. Which might explain why so many Catholics think of the Bible in a way which is compatible with Fundamentalism, even though the magisterium is in theory opposed to Fundamentalism.

Incidentally - the world of critical scholarship includes every shade of belief from denial of any and every dogma one cares to mention, to thoroughgoing Christological orthodoxy. Scholars have very various beliefs - plenty are not even Christians, but Jews: which is one of the reasons why a commonly-held hypothesis can be regarded as plausible. If someone who denies the existence of Christ, and someone who asserts all that the CCC says about Him, can agree that an hypothesis is plausible, then it probably is; their agreement in academic matters is not affected by the difference in theological faith. Whereas Fundamentalism has great difficult treating non-Fundamentalist scholarship seriously: both Catholic & Protestant Fundamentalisms have a long history of denouncing “liberals” passionately

BTW - once a priest, always a priest - even if one is defrocked. ##

 

[tuopaolo]

What is Father’s view of evolution? Someone please tell me without this turning into another evolution debate

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

psalm90:

In his weekly Sunday evening program on EWTN, Fr. Benedict Groeschel spoke out about the widespread skepticism in the Church and elsewhere about the Bible.

He said that he doesn’t have time for the skepticism.

I think this is noteworthy, because it’s quite how I feel about the subject.

Today, Easter, 2005, that ex-Catholic priest who has a professorship at Catholic DePaul University said on one of the programs on the History Channel about religious subjects, that he doubts that there ever was a “last supper” meal. He said that it is all contrived.

For further insights into the swamp of skepticism, if you insist, go to the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and read the section on “the historical Jesus.” The point there is that there is virtually no historical information about Jesus in the gospels, so that we really cannot know the historical Jesus. Once you swallow that, you “see” that the gospels are all contrived stories. In particular, the late Fr. Raymond E. Brown, as you may know, elsewhere expressed his personal convictions that the nativity of Jesus accounts in the gospels are completely fiction. To him, they are simply amalgamations of words to “fulfill” the prophecies in the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures.

To me, digging into this skepticism distracts a Christian from reading the canonical scriptures. And, it is those that our Church highly recommends to all. Groeschel is right, God bless him.

Some links to the different programmes would be gratefully received - if you know of any. TY​

 

[Fidelis]

## And by “scepticism” he meant…what ?

By skepticism is usually meant approaching the text with a presupposition that discounts the miraculous or the prophetic (in the limited sense that a prediction is made before something happens).

Scepticism is largely in the eye of the beholder.

As is “Fundamentalism” which in some circles of “progressive” scholarship means reading the Scriptures with the presumption that they actually mean what they say. Imagine that!

Scholars have very various beliefs - plenty are not even Christians, but Jews: which is one of the reasons why a commonly-held hypothesis can be regarded as plausible. If someone who denies the existence of Christ, and someone who asserts all that the CCC says about Him, can agree that an hypothesis is plausible, then it probably is…

Or, it could reflect a spirit of compromise or unwillingness to ruffle the feathers of ones professional peers. Scholarly consensus does not always (or usually) equal truth. The Magisterium has been tasked with interpreting the Scriptures. Always has, always will.

…their agreement in academic matters is not affected by the difference in theological faith.

Wanna buy a bridge?

BTW - once a priest, always a priest - even if one is defrocked. ##

At the risk of sounding obvious, when people point out that someone is an “ex-priest” they are not usually pointing out the fact that he is without sacramental faculties. The implication is that a person who has forsaken his vows may be legitimately suspected of having an axe to grind against the Church.

The current issue of This Rock magazine has an excellent article on this very issue.

 

[patg]

Fidelis:

By skepticism is usually meant approaching the text with a presupposition that discounts the miraculous or the prophetic…

Why do you say “a presupposition that discounts the miraculous or the prophetic”? There is a neutral ground. I think that a presupposition that assumes the miraculous or the prophetic is also the wrong way to go and not necesarily the opposite of skepticism…

As is “Fundamentalism” which in some circles of “progressive” scholarship means reading the Scriptures with the presumption that they actually mean what they say. Imagine that!

Yes, fundamentalism is pretty much associated with literalism. Presuming literalism is very poor scholarship, especially where first century authorship is concerned.

Or, it could reflect a spirit of compromise or unwillingness to ruffle the feathers of ones professional peers. Scholarly consensus does not always (or usually) equal truth. The Magisterium has been tasked with interpreting the Scriptures. Always has, always will.

But the magesterium very rarely makes definitive statements on any specific interpretations. We are quite free to believe that there is a very big difference between biblical truth and historical, literal, fundamentalist truth. So “always have, always will” carries very little significance and based on the recent vatican documents on interpretations carries less and less importance.

At the risk of sounding obvious, when people point out that someone is an “ex-priest” they are not usually pointing out the fact that he is without sacramental faculties. The implication is that a person who has forsaken his vows may be legitimately suspected of having an axe to grind against the Church.

I’m glad you said "may". I tend to leave out the ex-priests also - unless they are very highly regarded in their field (Geza Vermes comes to mind). Also, there are plenty of non-ex-priests who are skeptical enough to keep the fundamentalists honest (John Meier, for example).

 

[Ghosty]

Why do you say “a presupposition that discounts the miraculous or the prophetic”? There is a neutral ground. I think that a presupposition that assumes the miraculous or the prophetic is also the wrong way to go and not necesarily the opposite of skepticism…

He’s talking about what is meant by the term in this particular usage, not in general. Yes, there is neutral ground, and I don’t think that’s necessarily what is being attacked. “Biblical Skeptics” generally does not refer to those who are neutrally skeptical.

 

[Fidelis]

patg:

Why do you say “a presupposition that discounts the miraculous or the prophetic”? There is a neutral ground. I think that a presupposition that assumes the miraculous or the prophetic is also the wrong way to go and not necesarily the opposite of skepticism…

I, on the other hand see no reason to avoid a presupposition that assumes the miraculous or the prophetic. The burden of proof is on the head of the skeptic.

Yes, fundamentalism is pretty much associated with literalism. Presuming literalism is very poor scholarship, especially where first century authorship is concerned.

A literal understanding of Scripture is not equal to “fundamentalism” as it commonly and perjoratively understood. In fact it is the teaching of the Church that the literal sense of Scripture is the primary one, and all interpretations are to be based on the literal meaning.

But the magesterium very rarely makes definitive statements on any specific interpretations.

The scarcity or frequency of such interpretations is not at issue. The fact is it is not theologians or scholars that interpret Scripture, it is the Magisterium.

We are quite free to believe that there is a very big difference between biblical truth and historical, literal, fundamentalist truth.

Of course, that is a false dichotomy, especially when lumped together with a perjorative like “fundamentalist.” Biblical truth includes historical, literal truth.

So “always have, always will” carries very little significance and based on the recent vatican documents on interpretations carries less and less importance.

As the dichotomy was false, so is the conclusion based upon it. “Recent Vatican documents” imply no such thing.

I’m glad you said "may". I tend to leave out the ex-priests also - unless they are very highly regarded in their field (Geza Vermes comes to mind). Also, there are plenty of non-ex-priests who are skeptical enough to keep the fundamentalists honest (John Meier, for example).

How highly a scholar is regarded has no bearing on their faithfulness to Church teaching. It is not the role of the theologian or scholar to speak for the teaching office of the Church – which is the position many put themselves in. I doubt if the John Meier-types keep anyone “honest,” as he and his ilk of “scholarship” is slipping slowly but surely into well-deserved irrelevance.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I too believe the burden of proof is on the “last 60 years” of criticism, compared to the first 1900+ years of bible studies.

C.S. Lewis’ words come to mind…

“The undermining of the old orthodoxy has been mainly the work of divines engaged in New Testament criticism. The authority of experts in that discipline is the authority in deference to whom we are asked to give up a huge mass of beliefs shared in common by the early church…”

(C.S. Lewis, “Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism,” Chapter 31)

The exegetical “genius” of the Jesus Seminar is a great example of the fanciful scholarship of these “divines” that Lewis shows rather reasonable skepticism towards. These Protestant “scholars” claim the following: “the scholarship represented by the Fellows of the Jesus Seminar is the kind that has come to prevail in all the great universities of the world.”

Have you read their conclusions? They’ve concluded that Jesus is dead and likely to have been eaten by dogs, and that the resurrection and all miracles are just parables. They contend, "We now know the nature miracles of Christ (walking on water, multiplying loaves and fishes, etc.) are not to be taken as literal events. They are instead parables told in dramatic form by the evangelist to make a spiritual point about Jesus."

G.K. Chesteron’s words are aptly applied to the commentary of the modern biblical critics:

“Though St. John the Evangelist saw many strange monsters in his vision, he saw no creature so wild as one of his own commentators.”

 

[psalm90]

Fidelis:

I, on the other hand see no reason to avoid a presupposition that assumes the miraculous or the prophetic. The burden of proof is on the head of the skeptic.

That’s a good point and I agree with it. The late Fr. Raymond Brown dismisses that point of view [cf, The New Jerome Biblical Commentary]. . When he has a reason to doubt the historicity of a text (which is a large part of Fr. Groeschel’s meaning of skepticism), Brown says the burden of proof falls on the claimant to historicity.

Speaking only for myself, I look at scripture as virtual reality, if nothing else. I agree with Fr. Groeschel, to paraphrase, “I don’t know, I wasn’t there.” There are those who doubt that the supernatural things in scripture ever occurred. I say, “yeah, that is different, isn’t it?” I tend to think that “something happened” and it is recounted as told in the Bible. And, I accept that book as inspired – it is God’s message, not the messages of men.

For sure, the writer of Genesis could simply not have been a witness to the things that are reported there. Or, who is the witness of Christ’s agony in the garden, if the three disciples that were there, were sleeping? I’ve seen a large book in the reference section of the library containing the “difficulties” with the text of the Bible. There are a lot of “difficulties” with the text of the Bible. You know what? I really don’t care. Like Groeschel says, I don’t have time for that.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fidelis:

I, on the other hand see no reason to avoid a presupposition that assumes the miraculous or the prophetic. The burden of proof is on the head of the skeptic.

I’ll get back to you ASAP - FWIW, I agree whole-heartedly with patg in seeing a need for properly critical scholarship instead of Fundamentalism (which does have a settled core of meaning - read James Barr for a particularly good analysis of Fundamentalism); even though I doubt he & I would agree on all matters. We don’t need to - Biblical scholarship is not a religion or an orthodoxy, any more than Classical scholarship is, or archaeology. All three of these overlap, which is one reason why critical scholarship can’t be abandoned - it is inseparable from other sorts of learning, so that what happens in one, affects others.​

Insist (for example) that Darius the Mede ruled in Babylon, and one makes a hash not only of Babylonian and Jewish history, but of Persian as well. The “Biblical world” is an abstraction - it’s the world and time of various ancient cultures, all of which have histories of their own, which are deformed if the historical character of the Bible is exaggerated so that it is treated as perfectly accurate as history even when it does not aspire to be. Many Fundamentalists don’t bother about ancient Babylonia or Rome - some of us cannot afford to be quite so one-sidedly determined to “prove the Bible true” no matter what happens. Happily for the world at large, Churches included, some people have a much more catholic understanding of the cultures of the time, and don’t distort antiquity in order to stuff it into a Bible-shaped mould.

BTW, critical methods do not imply any bias against miracles - it is very dull to see this old fiction being dragged up yet again. (If they did imply any such thing - why would Pius XII and JP2 encourage such methods ? People who don’t know what they are attacking or why, ought to devote their energies to something constructive they do know something about. ##

 

[patg]

Fidelis:

The scarcity or frequency of such interpretations is not at issue. The fact is it is not theologians or scholars that interpret Scripture, it is the Magisterium.

But the “fact” also is that they very seldom do it.

And therein lies one of the main problems in this area. The magesterium (the pope and bishops) are in such a position primarily because they are good administrators, diplomats, and managers - NOT because they are experts in biblical scholarship.

Of course, that is a false dichotomy, especially when lumped together with a perjorative like “fundamentalist.” Biblical truth includes historical, literal truth.

At times it may. But since it isn’t a history or science book, that is irrelevant.

As the dichotomy was false, so is the conclusion based upon it. “Recent Vatican documents” imply no such thing.

The recent documents (post 1943) on sciptural interpretation strongly encourage moving away from the literal sense.

I doubt if the John Meier-types keep anyone “honest,” as he and his ilk of “scholarship” is slipping slowly but surely into well-deserved irrelevance.

You are welcome to believe that but I believe it is the denial of the importance of such modern scholarship that is causing the traditional church to slip quickly into a well-deserved irrelevance.

 

[Fidelis]

You are welcome to believe that but I believe it is the denial of the importance of such modern scholarship that is causing the traditional church to slip quickly into a well-deserved irrelevance.

We’ll see

 

[Ghosty]

The recent documents (post 1943) on sciptural interpretation strongly encourage moving away from the literal sense.

No, they encourage moving away from a “literalist only” approach, which is WAY different. There are definite literalist truths in the Bible, and that must be understood. Jesus being crucified is a very real, literal truth, attested to outside of Scripture. To simply abandon literal reading entirely would be laughable.

 

[patg]

Ghosty:

No, they encourage moving away from a “literalist only” approach, which is WAY different. There are definite literalist truths in the Bible, and that must be understood. Jesus being crucified is a very real, literal truth, attested to outside of Scripture. To simply abandon literal reading entirely would be laughable.

I agree - the term you used - “literalist only” - is a much better way to say it. Yes Jesus was born and was crucified but the details in the descriptions of these events are not necessarily literal history. There is also a wide range - from the almost no history of the infancy narratives to the mostly history of the passion.