Historical Criticism and the Vatican

[scriabin]

In a recent thread someone comments on the Bible footnotes stating John did not write the gospel named after him. After following the thread, only one respondent sided with modernist Bible scholars. I conclude that most readers here are, like me, in disagreement with the abuses of the historical critical method.

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!!

Now here’s my question.

Are we, as lay Catholic faithful, wrong? Or are modern Bible scholars wrong? And if the modernists are wrong, why would the Catholic bishops and Vatican higher-ups embrace and espouse their theories to us, the lay faithful?

I would appreciate all thoughts and comments. Love to you all.

 

[Aaron_I]

I think it’s safe to say that the OT shows a spiritual journey as the Jews progress in their understanding of God. By studying the developments the Jews made in their view on God, we can understand what ideas of theirs were faulty and which were good. By understanding the progress towards the fullness of truth, we can safeguard ourselves against making the same mistakes that plagued them on the way. This much at least everyone should be able to accept. The only question is whether or not the Jews would write their new ideas into preexisting books. For example, the last couple lines of the Miserere (Psalm 51) is completely against the context of the earlier parts. Also, the beginning of the story of Joseph has him taken by two different groups of foreigners and defended by two different brothers.

Ultimately the historical-critical method doesn’t bother me one way or the other. It’s certainly better to stick with the strictly literal approach than to flip out and treat the Bible as some ordinary secular book.

Here’s a quote taken from an article by Dave Armstrong:

I am not absolutely against (some form of) the theory per se (let alone historical processes in compiling OT books); rather, I am primarily opposed to widespread uses of this theory which are arbitrary (as I explained) and which mitigate against a theory of unified inspiration (in other words, those which smack of theological liberalism and dissent).

Hermeneutics and belief in biblical inspiration and revelation are two different things. If the Bible as we know it is inspired in its entirety, then contradictions in theology cannot occur. I am presupposing development when I state this (bear in mind). But the whole thing is harmonious. That follows from the nature of the case: if it is God-breathed," it cannot be contradictory (at least in the original manuscripts: another discussion again).

You have actually said things like (paraphrasing): “I doubt that God told Abraham to kill Isaac.” That would entail a denial of inspiration and the trustworthiness of the biblical record (even involving New Testament espousal of these events). That leads you far afield from merely the Documentary Hypothesis.

That’s basically how I see it too. Contradictions in scripture do not exist, but sometimes this had to wait upon a fuller understanding.

 

[scriabin]

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?

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

 

[Donald45]

scriabin:

Since the bishops…doubt John’s gospel as coming from John, should we as faithful Catholics join in on their ‘doubt?’

I don’t know that they positively “doubt” that the apostle John personally penned the gospel that bears his name, but they do allow for that possibility. Given that:

~ none of the four canonical gospels identifies its author by name,

~ John the apostle is specifically identified in the New Testament as having been illiterate (Ac. 4:13, where the Greek term agrammatos indicates an inability to write),

~ the NT gospels were written by highly educated and well trained authors (unlike the early disciples who were simple fishermen, etc.),

~ the disciples were Aramaic-speaking peasants from Galilee who evidently did not speak Greek, let alone know how to compose lengthy accounts (or even to read) in Greek,

one can see how allowing for the possibility that the apostle John did not directly author the gospel of John might be prudent.

Also, one might ask a related question of authorship: Who wrote the epistle to the Hebrews? Most biblical scholars (conservative as well as progressive) would concede that we just don’t know. But this lack of information doesn’t really bother us, and we consider Hebrews every bit the word of God as are Romans or Galatians. The situation seems similar regarding authorship of the gospels. It’s not something that can make or break our view of the four gospels as Scripture.

God bless,
Don

 

[buffalo]

Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations
and Approaches of Exegesis Today
**by
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
**

**
**

In Wladimir Solowjew’s History of the Antichrist, the eschatological enemy of the Redeemer recommended himself to believers, among other things, by the fact that he had earned his doctorate in theology at Tübingen and had written an exegetical work which was recognized as pioneering in the field. The Antichrist, a famous exegete! With this paradox Solowjew sought to shed light on the ambivalence inherent in biblical exegetical methodology for almost a hundred years now. To speak of the crisis of the historical-critical method today is practically a truism. This, despite the fact that it had gotten off to so optimistic a start.

more…

 

[scriabin]

Well said, Donald45.

If it were just a simple matter of authorship, I wouldn’t be troubled by the historical-critical method. There will always be disputes on issues not defined as dogma or doctrine.

But to further hone my problem: when the hisorical-critical method of Fr. Brown leads him to question the virgin birth, a dogma of the faith, then I conclude that his methods are faulty or he abused the method.

I’m not an expert, nor am I particularly well-versed in historical crticism; but I *can * read, and I *can * make the logical assumption that theologians purporting heretical viewpoints should not be encouraged, let alone rewarded with gold medals.

So who’s right? All the tradition believing Catholics I hear on this website or the PhD’s who say we’re not sophisticated enough for the truth? I have had 2 nuns of 2 different orders on 2 seperate occasions say that Fr. Brown’s views are the real thing that the Church wants its faithful to believe.

Maybe this is a non-issue to some; but if the bishop’s want me to doubt tradition by authorizing modernist footnotes in officially accepted versions of scripture, I must decline.

Am I less of a Catholic? What’s the difference between we Catholics who reject the scholarly line the bishop’s want to feed us and the cafeteria Catholic who reject the moral line the bishop’s feed us on abortion?

Aren’t we acting like mini-protestants in a way when we reject this particular aspect of the Church’s teaching? After all, this is what they’re teaching our seminarians; and couldn’t we tradition loving Catholics be perceived as hindering the truth?

 

[BayCityRickL]

I checked Donald45’s reference to Acts 4:13 and it says that Peter and John were “perceived” to be uneducated men (NAB).

I don’t think that proves anything about John’s qualifications.

As to historical criticism, follow Fr. John Corapi’s advice and keep your Catechism close by when studying the Bible.

Fr. JC says every adult Catholic should read Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and the biblical encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII and the 1992 or 1993 Pont Bibl Commission guidelines on the interpretation of the Bible. And read paragraphs 41 to 151 about the Bible, to get the official church guidelines for studying the Bible.

Sorry, but all the rummaging in these forums is no substitute for reading those.

And, let’s not kid ourselves about Fr. Brown. He played this game: 1) The Church has made very few official statements about interpretation of scripture. So, 2) He’s not contradicting anything official if he (like the many others of that school who preceded him) says ANYTHING he want about the parts of the Bible that the Church has not given an official interpretation of.

YOUR mistake (“you” in general here) is giving Brown WAY TOO MUCH credit if you think he’s proven anything.

THE CHURCH (see Dei Verbum) says that you should well consider ALL the Church has said in its history and tradition and that anything ‘new’ must agree with it.

The need for the Catechism of the Catholic Church was identified by the Bishops as a response to all the bad ideas that have been floating around since Vat II, in particular. There are some pointed essays at the website of Catholic Apologetics International.

As I commented to R. Sungenis on the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, they can dress a donkey up in a tuxedo, but it’s still a donkey.

 

[Aaron_I]

BayCityRickL:

Fr. JC says every adult Catholic should read Vatican II’s Dei Verbum and the biblical encyclicals of Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII and the 1992 or 1993 Pont Bibl Commission guidelines on the interpretation of the Bible. And read paragraphs 41 to 151 about the Bible, to get the official church guidelines for studying the Bible.

found here

 

[scriabin]

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou!! Baycity, buffalo, and Aaron I., you have pointed me in the right direction. I *knew * some of the participants in this forum would know about this subject.

God bless all of you for taking the time to respond to this post.

You all are awesome!!

 

[Donald45]

BayCityRickL:

I checked Donald45’s reference to Acts 4:13 and it says that Peter and John were “perceived” to be uneducated men (NAB). I don’t think that proves anything about John’s qualifications.

According to Rienecker and Rogers, Linguistic Key to the Greek New Testament, the Greek term used here simply means “to grasp with the mind.” The NAB’s use of the English word “perceive” is perfectly fine, since to “perceive” something is simply “to grasp it with one’s mind.” It does not mean “to assume or suppose,” but rather “to understand or conclude.” This is why, for example, the NRSV renders the Greek: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John and realized [grasped with the mind] that they were uneducated [illiterate] and ordinary men, they were amazed and recognized them as companions of Jesus.” The NJB has this: “They were astonished at the fearlessness shown by Peter and John, considering that they were uneducated laymen; and they recognized them as associates of Jesus.”

It’s generally a good idea, when studying Scripture, to compare several different English translations in order to get a better grasp of the meaning (unless, of course, one knows Greek). Such a comparison is often quite revealing, as I think it is in this case.

God bless,
Don

 

[tjmiller]

Just because the Pope gives someone an award does not by any means imply that said Pontiff endorses said recipient’s ideas.

Heretics like Origen are honored as “Fathers of the Church”…

 

[SFH]

scriabin:

In a recent thread someone comments on the Bible footnotes stating John did not write the gospel named after him. After following the thread, only one respondent sided with modernist Bible scholars. I conclude that most readers here are, like me, in disagreement with the abuses of the historical critical method.
Now here’s my question. …

Are we, as lay Catholic faithful, wrong? Or are modern Bible scholars wrong? And if the modernists are wrong, why would the Catholic bishops and Vatican higher-ups embrace and espouse their theories to us, the lay faithful?

I would appreciate all thoughts and comments. Love to you all.

If the historical method helps you lead a holier life, then you should use it. Does it make you love God more? Does it help you participate at Mass? Does it help you avoid sin?

If the historical method does not help you save your soul, then why use it or worry about it? It is worthless. If it causes you to doubt your Faith, then you should shun it.

I think that may be what St. Paul was getting at when he cautioned against vain philosophy.

 

[edrazz]

“Watch out for false prophets … By their fruit you will recognize them.” Today, we are living through one of the greatest declines in the church’s history (see statistics below). This is not being caused by an external attack on the church. The enemy is within the church. I hope this makes the answer to your first two questions obvious.

Now, why don’t the bishops respond accordingly? Leadership requires the ability to know what you believe and not be unduely influenced by the opinion of others. I think the bishops have been influenced by modernism and are more concerned about what others might think (intellectual elites) rather than what God thinks.

Some statistics - from Pat Buchanan’s Index of Catholicism’s decline:

PRIESTS While the number of priests in the United States more than doubled to 58,000, between 1930 and 1965, since then that number has fallen to 45,000. By 2020, there will be only 31,000 priests left, and more than half of these priests will be over 70.

ORDINATIONS – In 1965, 1,575 new priests were ordained in the United States. In 2002, the number was 450. In 1965, only 1 percent of U.S. parishes were without a priest. Today, there are 3,000 priestless parishes, 15 percent of all U.S. parishes.

SEMINARIANS – Between 1965 and 2002, the number of seminarians dropped from 49,000 to 4,700, a decline of over 90 percent. Two-thirds of the 600 seminaries that were operating in 1965 have now closed.

SISTERS – In 1965, there were 180,000 Catholic nuns. By 2002, that had fallen to 75,000 and the average age of a Catholic nun is today 68. In 1965, there were 104,000 teaching nuns. Today, there are 8,200, a decline of 94 percent since the end of Vatican II.

RELIGIOUS ORDERS – For religious orders in America, the end is in sight. In 1965, 3,559 young men were studying to become Jesuit priests. In 2000, the figure was 389. With the Christian Brothers, the situation is even more dire. Their number has shrunk by two-thirds, with the number of seminarians falling 99 percent. In 1965, there were 912 seminarians in the Christian Brothers. In 2000, there were only seven.

The number of young men studying to become Franciscan and Redemptorist priests fell from 3,379 in 1965 to 84 in 2000.

CATHOLIC SCHOOLS – Almost half of all Catholic high schools in the United States have closed since 1965. The student population has fallen from 700,000 to 386,000. Parochial schools suffered an even greater decline. Some 4,000 have disappeared, and the number of pupils attending has fallen below 2 million – from 4.5 million.

Though the number of U.S. Catholics has risen by 20 million since 1965, Jones’ statistics show that the power of Catholic belief and devotion to the Faith are not nearly what they were.

CATHOLIC MARRIAGE – Catholic marriages have fallen in number by one-third since 1965, while the annual number of annulments has soared from 338 in 1968 to 50,000 in 2002.

ATTENDANCE AT MASS – A 1958 Gallup Poll reported that three in four Catholics attended church on Sundays. A ecent study by the University of Notre Dame found that only one in four now attend.

Only 10 percent of lay religious teachers now accept Church teaching on contraception. Fifty-three percent believe a Catholic can have an abortion and remain a good Catholic. Sixty-five percent believe that Catholics may divorce and remarry.

Seventy-seven percent believe one can be a good Catholic ithout going to Mass on Sundays.

By one New York Times poll, 70 percent of all Catholics in the age group 18 to 44 believe the Eucharist is merely a “symbolic reminder” of Jesus.

 

[tjmiller]

Error cannot bring one closer to God!

Is Mr. Buchanan really a Catholic?

 

[edrazz]

tjmiller:

Error cannot bring one closer to God!
Is Mr. Buchanan really a Catholic?

I agree and yes to question 2.

By the way, my post wasn’t intended directly at you - rather I was trying to start another thread from the top. I’m not sure how to do this - without taking a quote from a person.

 

[Fidelis]

This is what Pope Leo XIII had to say about so-called “higher criticism” about 100 years ago in his encyclical about the study of Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus. More prophetic words were never said:

There has arisen, to the great detriment of religion, an inept method, dignified by the name of the “higher criticism,” which pretends to judge of the origin, integrity and authority of each Book from internal indications alone. It is clear, on the other hand, that in historical questions, such as the origin and the handing down of writings, the witness of history is of primary importance, and that historical investigation should be made with the utmost care; and that in this matter internal evidence is seldom of great value, except as confirmation. To look upon it in any other light will be to open the door to many evil consequences. It will make the enemies of religion much more bold and confident in attacking and mangling the Sacred Books; and this vaunted “higher criticism” will resolve itself into the reflection of the bias and the prejudice of the critics. It will not throw on the Scripture the light which is sought, or prove of any advantage to doctrine; it will only give rise to disagreement and dissension, those sure notes of error, which the critics in question so plentifully exhibit in their own persons; and seeing that most of them are tainted with false philosophy and rationalism, it must lead to the elimination from the sacred writings of all prophecy and miracle, and of everything else that is outside the natural order.
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13provi.htm

 

[Zooey]

Fidelis:

This is what Pope Leo XIII had to say about so-called “higher criticism” about 100 years ago in his encyclical about the study of Sacred Scripture, Providentissimus Deus. More prophetic words were never said:

My Baronius Douay/Challoner has the full text of this encyclical reproduced in it. (Also 2 other encyclicals). I read it when I first got the Bible, & thought the same thing!

 

[buffalo]

SFH:

If the historical method helps you lead a holier life, then you should use it. Does it make you love God more? Does it help you participate at Mass? Does it help you avoid sin?

If the historical method does not help you save your soul, then why use it or worry about it? It is worthless. If it causes you to doubt your Faith, then you should shun it.

I think that may be what St. Paul was getting at when he cautioned against vain philosophy.

UH NO! If its wrong then one should avoid it. One should not intepret the Bible without philosophy.

Pope John Paul II

ENCYCLICAL LETTER
***FIDES ET RATIO ***
OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
JOHN PAUL II
TO THE BISHOPS
OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON

Yet history shows that philosophy—especially modern philosophy—has taken wrong turns and fallen into error. It is neither the task nor the competence of the Magisterium to intervene in order to make good the lacunas of deficient philosophical discourse. Rather, it is the Magisterium’s duty to respond clearly and strongly when controversial philosophical opinions threaten right understanding of what has been revealed, and when false and partial theories which sow the seed of serious error, confusing the pure and simple faith of the People of God, begin to spread more widely.
…
There are also signs of a resurgence of fideism, which fails to recognize the importance of rational knowledge and philosophical discourse for the understanding of faith, indeed for the very possibility of belief in God. One currently widespread symptom of this fideistic tendency is a “biblicism” which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition,(73) the Constitution *Dei Verbum *continues emphatically: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single sacred deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church. Embracing this deposit and united with their pastors, the People of God remain always faithful to the teaching of the Apostles”.(74) Scripture, therefore, is not the Church’s sole point of reference. The “supreme rule of her faith” (75) derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others.(76)
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.

 

[buffalo]

1. In the light of these considerations, the relationship between theology and philosophy is best construed as a circle. Theology’s source and starting-point must always be the word of God revealed in history, while its final goal will be an understanding of that word which increases with each passing generation. Yet, since God’s word is Truth (cf. *Jn *17:17), the human search for truth—philosophy, pursued in keeping with its own rules—can only help to understand God’s word better. It is not just a question of theological discourse using this or that concept or element of a philosophical construct; what matters most is that the believer’s reason use its powers of reflection in the search for truth which moves from the word of God towards a better understanding of it. It is as if, moving between the twin poles of God’s word and a better understanding of it, reason is offered guidance and is warned against paths which would lead it to stray from revealed Truth and to stray in the end from the truth pure and simple. Instead, reason is stirred to explore paths which of itself it would not even have suspected it could take. This circular relationship with the word of God leaves philosophy enriched, because reason discovers new and unsuspected horizons.

 

[buffalo]

1. Eclecticism is an error of method, but lying hidden within it can also be the claims of historicism. To understand a doctrine from the past correctly, it is necessary to set it within its proper historical and cultural context. The fundamental claim of historicism, however, is that the truth of a philosophy is determined on the basis of its appropriateness to a certain period and a certain historical purpose. At least implicitly, therefore, the enduring validity of truth is denied. What was true in one period, historicists claim, may not be true in another. Thus for them the history of thought becomes little more than an archeological resource useful for illustrating positions once held, but for the most part outmoded and meaningless now. On the contrary, it should not be forgotten that, even if a formulation is bound in some way by time and culture, the truth or the error which it expresses can invariably be identified and evaluated as such despite the distance of space and time.
   

     In theological enquiry, historicism tends to appear for the most part       under the guise of “modernism”. Rightly concerned to make       theological discourse relevant and understandable to our time, some       theologians use only the most recent opinions and philosophical language,       ignoring the critical evaluation which ought to be made of them in the       light of the tradition. By exchanging relevance for truth, this form of       modernism shows itself incapable of satisfying the demands of truth to       which theology is called to respond.