Historical Criticism and the Vatican

[buffalo]

The truth of the biblical texts, and of the Gospels in particular, is certainly not restricted to the narration of simple historical events or the statement of neutral facts, as historicist positivism would claim. (111) Beyond simple historical occurrence, the truth of the events which these texts relate lies rather in the meaning they have *in *and *for *the history of salvation. This truth is elaborated fully in the Church’s constant reading of these texts over the centuries, a reading which preserves intact their original meaning. There is a pressing need, therefore, that the relationship between fact and meaning, a relationship which constitutes the specific sense of history, be examined also from the philosophical point of view.

 

[Fidelis]

buffalo:

      Moreover, one should not underestimate the danger inherent in seeking to       derive the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method alone,       ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis which enables the       exegete, together with the whole Church, to arrive at the full sense of       the texts. Those who devote themselves to the study of Sacred Scripture       should always remember that the various hermeneutical approaches have       their own philosophical underpinnings, which need to be carefully       evaluated before they are applied to the sacred texts.

Looks like JPII was reading Pope Leo! (see above). Prophets the both of them.

What part of these papal statements do modern exegetes not understand??

 

[Penny_Plain]

Reminds me of the Woody Allen joke that scholars have determined that the Odyssey wasn’t written by Homer, but by another poet of the same name.

Why does it matter who wrote the gospels?

 

[buffalo]

Penny Plain:

Reminds me of the Woody Allen joke that scholars have determined that the Odyssey wasn’t written by Homer, but by another poet of the same name.

Why does it matter who wrote the gospels?

Because it validates the Bible itself.

 

[scriabin]

Edrazz, from the Catholic Answers Forum page, click on one of the topics. That takes you to the topics page which, on the top and bottom left, have a “new thread” button. Press that and type away to start a new thread.

 

[cialovesyou]

The Historical Critical method needs to be understood as a tool, not as a voice itself. It hopes to help to uncover more about the meaning of scripture by study.
This ridiculous claim that people who employ it are “modernists” or “heretics”, or in some way are plotting to bring down the church is nonsense. If you dont agree with someone in the church by the way, how about doing it in charity, instead of posting lengthy irrelevent extracts to try to besmirch them.
For example, you dont have to agree with everything Fr.Raymond Brown taught, but you need to recognise that he was on the Ponifical Biblical Commission at the request of the Congregation for Doctrine of the Faith. In other words, the Church listened to him, and he had something to contribute to the Church.

Let me quote something for you…
“The Historical Critical Method is the indespensible method for the study of the meaning of ancient texts”
Regarding its use in scripture…
“…its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method, but actually requires it”

Now, you might ask what ‘pack of modernists’ would make that claim? Both of those quotes are from “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church” put out by the PBC, under the approval of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith" (section I, A).

So at what point do we start to think that the method might be considered orthodox? The fact that this document is given to us with the preface written by Cardinal Ratzinger is not enough? What about when he says in that preface “I believe that this document is very helpful is very helpful for the important questions about the right wayof understanding Holy Scripture.”?

Who exactly are the arbiters of orthodoxy now? See, I was under the impression that the Congregation of the Doctrine for the faith might be a good place to start!

Having said that, there are some errant scholars in all disiplines. Some purporting to use the HC method have claimed all sorts of ridiculous things (I wont bore you by listing them here).Also, the HC method has its limits, it is not intended to be the final word, on the word of God.

However, there are some legitimate questions we need to ask to better understand scripture. Did Moses write the Pentateuch? Did he write parts of it? Was it the product of various schools of thought over time?

This is a conversation I would be happy to have with any of you who are interested, but we need to have it in charity.

Let me leave with a quote from Vatican II…
“He is not saved, however, who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity.”(LG14).

 

[patg]

Looks like JPII was reading Pope Leo! (see above). Prophets the both of them.

What part of these papal statements do modern exegetes not understand??

I’m not aware of any recognized modern exegetes who use one method alone. I have two comments to add:

1. 
   *]Ignoring historical criticism introduces a lie into any contemporary Christian faith that claims history as its basis. It is not acceptable to assert that one’s views are historically accurate and at the same time reject the standards and practices of historical method and historical criticism. Such a lie undermines Christian practice and spirituality which must have to do with the truth and the real.
   
   Appeals to New Testament canon as a timeless source of unchanging Truth obscure both the living processes of religious faith and practice, and suffocate human responsibility under the cloak of authoritarianism.
   
   Tradition is not simply the unchanged materials handed down from the past; rather people living in the present decide on and indeed fight for what will constitute their true tradition. In doing so, they appropriate some elements of the past and reject others. Even the elements of the past that are kept take on new meanings by being deployed in new and changing contexts.
   *]The only way one can logically give true authority to the scriptures in through faith - faith that they represent the truth God has revealed. The traditions of authorship are just that - “traditions” - and you can find endless wonderful arguments for all points of view. If you believe the church requires you to believe that the apostle John wrote the gospel attributed to “John”, then it is only by faith that you can believe this - there is no tangible historical evidence that it is objectively true - all arguments eventually come down to faith. Belief in anything from the scriptures is primarily based on faith, not history.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Scriabin,

In a 2003 speech commemorating the 100th Anniversary of the Pontifical Biblical Commission, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger developped the following points :

1. A 1912 decision of the Consistorial Congregation condemned the so-called two-source theory on the Synoptic question, nowadays approved by practically everyone. This and other decisions left Catholic exegetes with the impression that their hands were tied when they tried to apply historical methods to the Scriptures, whereas their Protestant colleagues had a free hand.
2. Pius XII’s encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, introduced a new way of understanding the relationship between the Magisterium and scholarly demands of the historical reading of the Bible. But it was Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council that made the greatest contribution:

a) it broadened the horizon in which Bible interpretation could take place by placing the Bible within the wider context of Tradition, of which it is only a part

b) it emphasized the absolute necessity of the historical method as an essential part of the exegetical task.

1. Paul VI, in 1971 reformed the Pontifical Biblical Commission, so that it is no longer an organ of the Magisterium but a forum for the Magisterium and biblical scholars working together.

Cardinal Ratzinger ends his speech with a discussion of the limits of the historical method in interpreting the Bible. He states that, “It’s simply impossible to exclude all philosophy, or hermeneutic pre-comprehension.” (This means that, in using historical criteria to interpret the Bible we must take into account, even before we apply the method, the tenets of our faith.) The Cardinal then goes on to point out that the attitude of the Church on the relationship betwen faith and history has changed over the last 100 years and is still liable to change as progress is made within the frameworks already established.

For full text, see

tcrnews2.com/Exegesis3.html

Verbum

 

[Leeta]

It matters Penny Plain, because otherwise the early Christians and the Evangelists were liars. If the evangelists didn’t write them originally then why do they claim and their fellow eyewitnesses. Christians like Jesus are to be truthful.

My sons were taught Catholic religion in German schools. The historical critical method and its conclusions were taught as fact to these children and teenagers. Now when, most German kids are as ignorant of basic Catholic catechism and then they are taught to interpret scripture in the little exposure they have to it in school using the historical critical method… well it just about extinguishes any faith they may have managed to attain. Combine this with rampant impurity and you can see that it has been disastrous for the faith of that country.
Fr. Brown’s writings were well known to be heretical.

 

[cialovesyou]

Leeta, I think there is a misunderstanding that Historical Criticism is somehow a system of beliefs which people carry into exegesis.
It is not.
Whatever your experience with bad exegesis, and I accept you may have found some, the HC method is a tool to establish the “Sitz im Lebem” of the author and the text.
It is one of many tools of exegesis, but certainly important.
Getting to your question…Why would a book/epistle claim an author who wasnt really an author? Because that was common in the time and culture of the writing. And it would never of occured to them to be lying of misrepresentation. They were a “school” who preserved the traditions of say Moses, and they would put forth testimony, or oral traditions to the community which were Mosaic thought.

I am happy to discuss this more, but you have to drop the “Fr.Brown is a well known heretic” nonsense…has the church declared that? Or has someone you know expressed that view, who has no scriptural studies under his belt?
Fact is, the Church is very greatful to the contribution Raymond Brown made to the Catholic Church. Sure, I have my concerns with a couple of things he proposed…but welcome to theology.

 

[Cadellin]

In a recent thread someone comments on the Bible footnotes stating John did not write the gospel named after him.

The title ‘The Gospel According to John’ means that the gospel is a written record of what St John preached, written possibly by a follower of St John. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was written by St John himself. In other words, it is a version of the Good News that has St John’s stamp of authority (if not authorship). (I think St Luke’s was the only man who wrote his own gospel.)

 

[scriabin]

Verbum–Thankyou for the excellent link! Wow! Good stuff.

Cialovesyou–Mea culpa for my snotty sounding posts; it’s a personal fault of mine that I continue to struggle with daily.

I guess I’m just too ignorant of the HC method to really have an intelligent conversation about it.

I’m just a person-in-the-pew who hears this kind of stuff in homilies:

(About Jesus walking on water)–“What the writer of Mark was trying to say was…”----which immediately leaves me with the impressions…

(a) Don’t believe what’s printed in our Bibles–we really don’t know where in the heck this stuff comes from.

(b) Don’t believe what’s printed in our Bibles–those “miracles” were just made up “myths” to make an ulterior point.

Maybe someone could suggest a good starting text of the HC method for us suspicious catholics-in-the-pews.

 

[puzzleannie]

In .

I’ve read a book by Fr. Brown who states that the virgin birth and bodily resurrection weren’t necessarily so. This is as flagrant an abuse as you could have; but he and his ilk are completely accepted at the Pontifical Bible Commission. Pope John Paul II gave the man *a gold medal for crying out loud *for his scholarly contributions!!

you all.

I have also read several of Fr. Raymond Brown’s books and was privileged to hear him teach and speak. While he is not my favorite biblical scholar, he is up there. What I actually read and heard is that it is the conclusion of many scholars through historical criticism that there is no objective historical proof for either the virgin birth or the Resurrection (or other points of doctrine he mentions). This by the way is true. It is hard to think of a way simply from conventional history we could prove the virgin birth.

What he went on to say, many times in many ways, clearly and emphatically that what we believe we believe through faith, because the Catholic Church teaches it, that we know it is true because the Catholic Church teaches it, because the Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and can only teach the truth, and that he accepts, holds and teaches as doctrine all that the Catholic Church holds and teaches. He says further that faith that needs facts and confirmation from science and history is not faith at all.

He also says, and I still have it in my notes (since at the time I heard him speak I was working on an MA in history), in instructing on the uses and limitations of the historical critical method, that it is a resource to be used for understanding the context in which the Scripture was recorded, preserved and handed on, but that by itself “history” can and sometimes does lie or fail to record the actual truth.

 

[buffalo]

The title ‘The Gospel According to John’ means that the gospel is a written record of what St John preached, written possibly by a follower of St John. It doesn’t necessarily mean it was written by St John himself. In other words, it is a version of the Good News that has St John’s stamp of authority (if not authorship). (I think St Luke’s was the only man who wrote his own gospel.)

The Authors of the Gospel

• Historical evidence and modern literary evidence, both point to Peter giving a series of talks during which he alternatively quoted from both Gospels while adding reminiscences of his own. In this way he was authorising the work of Luke (a non-eyewitness Apostle).+ The words of Peter, as recorded by Mark in shorthand, were distributed to those who made requests. This explains the apparent poor Greek of Mark. His Gospel was not composed in literary Greek, but was an unedited verbatim record of the spoken words of Peter, for whom Greek was not his native tongue.
  + By Peter supporting distribution of Mark`s transcript, he was granting it authorisation as an official Gospel.
  + This vindication of the reliability of the historical records makes them a reliable and firm authority for accepting that John the Apostle wrote the fourth Gospel.
  + The Clementine Tradition brings the ancient historical records and the latest literary analysis together in perfect agreement.

 

[TOME]

When I read a thread like this and the usual spectrum of opinions my thoughts turn immediately to the writings of our Holy Father. I strongly suggest all to read his writings from Theology to Christology through Ecclesiology and Mariology and I think one cannot help but see the easy our Holy Father has always been able to use the best of Biblical Scholarship (and yes Historical Criticism and once in a while he even quotes Fr Brown) in each of his presentations Sometimes he writes with such acceptance that he use of modern scholarship can be it can be easily missed - immdeiately what comes to mind is his acceptance that Paul may not have been the author of all the Pauline letters or his acceptance that the Book of Genesis does contain several different traditions.

My point is, read Pope Benedict’s works and expose oneself to the proper use of biblical scholarship.

 

[cialovesyou]

(About Jesus walking on water)–“What the writer of Mark was trying to say was…”----which immediately leaves me with the impressions…

(a) Don’t believe what’s printed in our Bibles–we really don’t know where in the heck this stuff comes from.

(b) Don’t believe what’s printed in our Bibles–those “miracles” were just made up “myths” to make an ulterior point.
.

As for point (a) we know that it comes from the Holy Spirit!
“Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings (5) for the sake of salvation.”(DV 11)

Point (b)…Yup, you are going to get all sorts of interpretations from some quarters, and the one you have there is in my opinion, nonsense. I absolutely believe Jesus performed his miracles.

It may help to realise that Historical Criticism, such as trying to establish the author of the book is extremly helpful, but not the final word.

A good exegesis of scripture will look at these things, and others…
A) Historical Criticism -What is the Historical context in which the author is writing?
B) Patristic Criticism -what did the Patristics say about this section of scripture?
C) Structure -What is the structre of this piece of scripture?
D) Imagery -What literary features does the author use ?
E)Medevil Interpretation- What is the Church through the middle ages saying about this piece of scripture.
F)Dogmatic Criticism - Is there any Dogma’s of the Church which are relevent to this scripture?

My point is that some might indicate that the HC is the only way we should look at it, the final word. I dont agree with that view. I would propose that the HC method is essential, but so are other ways of looking at it if we are going to understand as much as we can.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Thanks for the very good thoughts, Aaron I.
More specifically though, I guess you could rephrase my question as:
Since the bishops in their approved modernist footnotes doubt John’s gospel as coming from John, should we as faithful Catholics join in on their ‘doubt?’ Oh, excuse me, their ‘superior biblical scholarship?’
or:
Since the Pope gave Fr. Brown a gold medal for achievement in biblical scholarship, shouldn’t we as faithful Catholics be praising Fr. Brown’s historical criticism instead of berating it as I’ve read here on this website? Even when Brown’s conclusions are patently contrary to Church tradition?

You are aware that Father Brown affirmed the Resurrection ? Good.​

What is not quite clear, is whether the objection is to the historical method as such, or, to (some of ?) its results. FWIW, I don’t see why we need to have any opinion on the matter; there’s a lot to be said for ignoring what is not one’s immediate business. ##

I’m all for using our heads to study Scripture; but my heart cries out that the abuses of historical criticism are hurting some people’s understanding of the faith. But this method of studying Scripture is approved by our Pope. Should we throw away our more traditional beliefs

Does “beliefs” refer to traditional academic positions - or to more strictly doctrinal assertions ? One can perfectly well believe in the inspiration of the NT writings, while not regarding St. Paul as the author of Hebrews or the three Pastoral Letters.​

and join the bandwagon

What “bandwagon” is that ? People don’t conclude that St.Paul is unlikely to be the author of Hebrews, or Moses of Deuteronomy, or Solomon of Ecclesiastes, “for the hell of it”; they do so because there are good reasons to do so: because that is where “their hearts & heads” lead them.​

Conservatism in scholarly opinion is a perfectly respectable position, of itself - but it’s one thing to maintain that Ezekiel all, or almost all, the book that bears his name; & something very different, to go back to maintaining that there was a world-wide flood. The only way to believe the latter, is to be a Fundamentalist - and the Church is no longer Fundamentalist in its approach to the Bible. If believing that there was a worldwide Flood is an essential item in being conservative, in that sense, the CC is not conservative. It is because “liberal” & “conservative” are both relative terms, rather than denoting fixed entities, that they are so unhelpful. ##

so that we are in union with the Church’s more scholarly theologians? Even if our hearts (and heads) tell us no?

That still doesn’t show whether that (set of)methods is itself objectionable - or whether (some of ?) its conclusions are the problem.​

Suppose - for the sake of argument - that no Catholic scholar used it (& I mean by “Catholic scholar” any Catholic (in the canonical sense of the word) who has an academic interest in the Bible - not someone who is a Catholic in some refined sense that excludes all those who come to conclusions other Catholics might not care for). Supposing this to be so - what happens then ? Quite likely, a lot of such Catholics would leave the Church. This would affect the Church throughout the world, wherever there are university faculties; it would affect many thousands of priests. At a stroke, the Church would be turning its back on generations of Biblical, theological, & liturgical scholarship. What complicates matters now, is that the Church would be rejecting something which in 1993 it called “indispensable” - there is a difference between adopting an approach to the Bible (say) that has been rejected; &, rejecting it after it has become part of the standard approach to the Bible.

“But people have lost their faith because of this method” It would be surprising if nobody had - but that does not make this method bad or unChristian. People have also lost their faith because they have had no approach but the pre-critical one. If it was not in need of change - why did it change ? Because it was no longer an intellectually adequate position. The man who believes in an universal flood in 2000, is not in the same position as the man who believes this in 1700, because the man of 1700’s belief does not involve rejecting what has been learned about the Earth since 1700. The belief of the believer in an universal flood who lives in 2000, involves rejecting all sorts of things which the man of 1700 had no opportunity to hear of. The Christian of 1840, is not rejecting the archaeological finds of 1850-1990; the scholar living in 2000, would be. Is it honest to ignore what one knows ?