Historical Criticism, HELP!

[Aaron_I]

flamingsword:

As a theology student I am constantly being subjected to the ideas of Historical Criticism! Everything is being taught from that perspective. Does anyone have good articles against the usage of this? I realize that some historical criticism is ok, but when do they cross the line? What are the limits of this? How can talk with a professor who absolutely loves historical criticism and thinks that there are no limits to it?

The line becomes very blurred when every class you have focuses on this?!?!?!

Help me I am drowning in this.

I’m sorry I didn’t take the time to read all of the posts, but it is late and I will be going to sleep soon. Personally I have no problems with the historical critical method. I saw someone reference the official document and hopefully that can clarify some things for you. What are the limits of it? I’d say the major problem is that some people use it to “prove” that the Bible isn’t inspired. As long as you still stay true to Church teachings, there shouldn’t be any problems. I do find it to be a useful tool, however. For example, there are two contradictory passages in the OT regarding Joseph being sold into slavery. These events are narrated in Gen 37. Of particular interest is verse 28. Immediately after Joseph is sold to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver, some Midianite traders pass by and pull Joseph out of the cistern. Also of note is that Reuben and Judah alternately are given credit for speaking on Joseph’s behalf. This can be attributed to the different traditions and the locations from which they sprung. I find that understanding the different Biblical traditions is very valuable. By understanding why one tradition was replaced by another, one can see the faults in the previous tradition. While multiple scriptural traditions may seem like a novel claim, its effects are clearly noticeable in Jesus’ time where we can see the Pharisees and the Sadducees go at it. I should stress that changing traditions reflect a better understanding of the Jews with relation to God and not a change in God who is immutable.

Ultimately Historical-Critical is not for everyone. I had a great apologetics class last year where we spent equal time on Keating’s C&F, the Historical-Critical method, and science issues like intelligent design. While I soaked it all up and loved it (thank God for Catholic high school), several of my classmates were troubled with these ideas. If it leads you into doubt at all you probably shouldn’t consider it, but realize that its purpose is to answer challenges to the faith and not bring them up.

Sorry if I covered old ground, but again, I was too tired to read through all the posts.

 

[JimG]

JMJ + OBT​

One must be careful with that theological apparatus – that is, the distinction betwen Christ’s human and divine natures – as statements which take it into account need always to be qualified by the complimentary truth that Jesus is ONE divine person.

Everything you say is true and I agree with it. Jesus is one Person who has both a Divine nature and a human nature.

Yet, his human nature is not a mere accessory. Otherwise, we could not say that he is truly man. As a human being, he really did have to grow and learn, using human reasoning and human knowledge gained through study and experience.

Yet he was not a split personality. He is but one Person, and that Person is the Second Person of the Trinity.

The only analogy I can think of for what happened in the Incarnation is this: Suppose I loved dogs so much that I wanted to help them through a great crisis which they could not otherwise survive. Suppose I were somehow able to take my personhood, that in me which says I, and insert it into a dog, without losing my humanity.

Could my entire humanity be squeezed into doghood? What would I have to learn and experience as a dog? As a dog, I could only act as a dog. As a man, I could act as a man.

Not a good analogy, because there is far greater distance between the infinite and the finite than there is between human and dog.

When speaking of Christ, there is either a temptation to emphasize his divinity at the expense of his humanity, or to emphasize his humanity and forget his divinity. He was 100% both man and God.

My point was simply that in his human knowledge, he was limited to what a human being could know. And having a human nature means that he was a human being.

 

[whosebob]

JimG:

My point was simply that in his human knowledge, he was limited to what a human being could know.

JMJ + OBT​

I really enjoyed your post, and agree wholeheartedly with most of it.

But your statement quoted above is flatly wrong.

See the quote from the teachings of Pope St. Gregory the Great in my previous post in this thread – there are things Jesus knew in His human nature that he did not know and could not have known from His human nature. And in a general sense, the Fathers and the Magisterium teach us that what Jesus knew in His divine mind, He also knew in His human mind. The mystery is that this in no way affected the ability and necessity of Jesus to learn things in his human mind in a truly human manner as a human being.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[JimG]

JMJ + OBT​

I really enjoyed your post, and agree wholeheartedly with most of it.

But your statement quoted above is flatly wrong.

See the quote from the teachings of Pope St. Gregory the Great in my previous post in this thread – there are things Jesus knew in His human nature that he did not know and could not have known from His human nature. And in a general sense, the Fathers and the Magisterium teach us that what Jesus knew in His divine mind, He also knew in His human mind. The mystery is that this in no way affected the ability and necessity of Jesus to learn things in his human mind in a truly human manner as a human being.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

Well, I won’t flatly disagree with either you or any Church Fathers. Trying to analyze the mind of Christ is speculative, and probably beyond human ability. But to quote from your previous post, “the finite cannot contain the infinite.”
I presume that this would apply even to the human mind of Christ. When an infinite Person steps into a finite—human—nature, can all of what is in the infinite divine mind of the Divine Word fit into a human mind? Just food for thought.

 

[whosebob]

JimG:

Trying to analyze the mind of Christ is speculative, and probably beyond human ability. But to quote from your previous post, “the finite cannot contain the infinite.” I presume that this would apply even to the human mind of Christ. When an infinite Person steps into a finite—human—nature, can all of what is in the infinite divine mind of the Divine Word fit into a human mind? Just food for thought.

Yes, it is quite a mystery. Here is how Fr. William Most summed things up in the last paragraph of his book, The Consciousness of Christ:

The result is obvious: reason concurs with what the documents of revelation and the Church have taught us, namely, that the human soul and mind of Jesus, from the first instant of its existence, enjoyed the Vision of God. In it Jesus could not help but see His own divinity, and have all knowledge available to Him, as it related to any matter to which He turned His attention. His consciousness was, therefore, fully in keeping with His two natures-human and divine-in one Divine Person.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[JimG]

Fr. William Most:

The result is obvious: reason concurs with what the documents of revelation and the Church have taught us, namely, that the human soul and mind of Jesus, from the first instant of its existence, enjoyed the Vision of God. In it Jesus could not help but see His own divinity, and have all knowledge available to Him, as it related to any matter to which He turned His attention. His consciousness was, therefore, fully in keeping with His two natures-human and divine-in one Divine Person.

I really don’t disagree with Fr. Most. I’m just speculating about how his summary of Jesus’ consciousness of his two natures might have worked out in practice. It goes without saying, of course, that Jesus enjoyed the Beatific Vision, even as man, throughout his life on earth, since in his divine nature, he IS the beatific vision. He must have experienced the beatific vision even on the cross. Yet, humanly, this did not mitigate his sufferings.

Theologians used to use the phrases, “Jesus as God,” and “Jesus as Man” when speaking of him acting in his divine or his human nature. But the phrases, while accurate, apparently seemed to give the impression of a split personality, which is not at all what they were meant to convey, and I have not seen them used much recently.

When Jesus grew in human knowledge, from infancy to adulthood, I don’t think that did it simply by tapping into his divine nature. Taking on a human nature, and being fully human, means making full use of that human nature—using the human mind, intellect, and will. (That’s one reason we don’t give much credence those apocryphal gospels which purport to show Jesus making miraculous uses of his divine nature as an infant or a child.) In any case, I’d better not speculate any further.

 

[TOME]

That question about Christ, in his humanity, self knowledge of his divinity is ultimately a mystery, however, I have a question for those who hold that Christ’s self awareness of His Divinity was complete.

My question is how can we reconcile Jesus’ being omniscient with Jesus’ own words in Matthew 24 vs 36?

 

[JimG]

TOME:

That question about Christ, in his humanity, self knowledge of his divinity is ultimately a mystery, however, I have a question for those who hold that Christ’s self awareness of His Divinity was complete.

My question is how can we reconcile Jesus’ being omniscient with Jesus’ own words in Matthew 24 vs 36?

“As for the exact day or hour, no one knows it, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”
I would have to go back to the old usage and say that, as man, he did not know the day or hour; but as God, he does know. Jesus has both a human mind, (in his human nature) and as the second Person of the Trinity, a divine omniscient mind. I conclude that he was speaking as man here. From a Trinitarian standpoint, Jesus himself is the Word—the outpouring of the Father’s knowledge of himself.

 

[TEME525]

JimG, yes I agree with you but my question was directed especially to those who hold that Christ knowledge, even from the view point of His human nature was such that He knew all, even the English language.

I again I ask for those who believe this, how can this be reconciled with Matthew 24 vs 36?

 

[whosebob]

TEME525:

I again I ask for those who believe this, how can this be reconciled with Matthew 24 vs 36?

JMJ + OBT​

As an attempt at answering your question (see my posts in this thread from the last day or so for other attempts), I offer you the follow excerpt from Chapter 6 of The Consciousness of Christ:

. . . The most acute part of the problem comes from two synoptic tests; Lk 2:52 asserts that Jesus grew in age and wisdom and grace, while Mk 13:32 [Matt 24:36] has Him say: “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”

The Fathers, not being Semitic, wanted to know how to reconcile these two texts with their scripturally based belief in His divinity. But before they had time to give unbiased study to the question, the Arian and Apollinarist heresies arose. The practical need to combat these, of course, came first. It was so easy, and almost necessary, to say to the Arians that these “lowly sayings” referred to His human nature-otherwise the Arians would refer them to the Word, and so deny the divinity of the Word. Similarly, when Apollinaris denied that Jesus had a human rational soul, it was temptingly easy to assert that the “lowly sayings” proved He did have a human rational soul-for Apollinaris would not dare to refer these sayings to the divinity. So, not surprisingly, some Fathers did say that humanly Jesus could grow, and humanly did not know the day and hour of the end.

Eulogius, writing around 600 A.D., labelled assertions that attributed ignorance to His humanity as tactics in the controversies, tactics that should be discounted. His view does seem at least plausible, for the situation, as we said, was tempting, almost compelling. We have further evidence for his view in the fact that eight Fathers clearly, and two others less clearly, beginning with St. Athanasius, and running as late as the Venerable Bede, said that humanly Jesus might grow or not know the day; yet they also made other statements clearly holding for no ignorance and no growth at all-a pattern that reminds us of the seemingly contradictory pairs in the Bible.

But these seemingly opposite statements found in patristic writings were not mere tactics. The Fathers seem to have recognized that both statements were strictly true. And they are true, if the proper distinctions are made, even though it took some time before the Fathers saw how to that the needed distinctions. They succeeded rather early in their resolution of Lk 2:52 (Jesus’ growth in wisdom). Already for St. Athanasius that growth was only a growth in manifestation. (Thus He would be said not to know something when He did not manifest it; while He really did know it). It was only later that they discovered the complete answer to the problem of Mk 13:32 (ignorance of the day of the parousia). That full explanation came with Eulogius and Pope St. Gregory the Great; they explained how Jesus could know the day in His humanity but not from His humanity. However, long before that, beginning explicitly in St. Basil, we find the statement, which is correct, that His avowal of ignorance was only feigned ignorance as part of His oikonomia-His adaptation to human conditions. A bit earlier, St. Athanasius, though he does not actually use the words feigning or oikonomia, seems to have the same ideas in mind.

The Fathers, then, deserve great credit for struggling hard to find ways of presenting the truth even before they found all the needed distinctions. They did far better than many modern scholars who shockingly ignore all that has been learned during centuries of patristic labor. Instead, they insist simplistically: Mk 13:32 and Lk 2:52 (along with other texts whose problems the Fathers solved readily) do say He was ignorant; so one had better believe it. Scripture says so. Such simple-mindedness reminds one of the fundamentalists, especially of some of the “Jesus people” who demand that teenagers actually hate their parents because Jesus said (Lk 14:26): “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters…he cannot be my disciple.”

[emphasis mine]

You really should consider reading the entire book. It won’t take you that long, and I can’t imagine you won’t benefit from doing so.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[TEME525]

Whosebob,
First, if you see a post by Teme525 or Tome, they are both the same person, me, I am using two seperate names not to fool anyone, it just depends on the computer I am using at the time.

Reading the post from this Thread, I think the recent discussions go to the heart of the original question of the thread, namely the use of modern literary science in studying the bible so even if it seems we may be off the subject I believe we are addressing the heart of the matter.

It has been a long time since I have studied the Church Fathers in ernest, however, I still find one particular problem. Many of their conclusion are based on philosophical reasoning more than scriptural context.

One of the rules of modern scriptural scholars, and I admit I am stating this in very simplistic terms, is that if we find a saying of Jesus which is out of line of our conception of what Christ should be saying then there is a reasonable proprability that these were the actual words, or close to them, of Christ. and I think the question we have been discussing is a great illustration of this, we find Jesus in Matthew 24 vs 36 admitting ignorance - something most of us have difficulty understanding given Chist Divine Nature. But we cannot deny that this admission is there and there is good reason to believe He actually sais it.

Also, from modern scriptural studies, it would be totally out of character of Jesus to feign anything especially considering His assistance that His followers be so pure and straight foreward, I’m thinking now about the passage where Jesus instructs His followers not to take oaths or swear to God or the heavens - our words must be enough in themselves, when we say “Yes” we mean yes and nothing else.

Luke has been sighted in his passage of where he states that Jesus grew in His knowledge but many fail to see that what this passage says is that He grew in wisdom, it does not say anything about knowledge, in the sense of knowing everything, such as in science or math. In the Scriptural sense, Wisdom is to to have understanding of the Will of God and to act on it, not to have the knowledge that come from the senses or what we would equate with human knowledge.

Jesus was fully human and had a rational soul but reason is based on sense experience it is not immediate as is the intellect’s knowledge. So if we acknowledge that Jesus in his humainity knowledge was based on reason, which is sensed based, is it unreasonable to think there were things that Jesus, not having that sense experience that the reason is dependent on, could be and was ignorant at times, just as He claimed to be?

I am sure by now you can see my starting point (and I stress only a starting point) is from a low theology or better a low Christology. And I do acknowledge that the answer to what we are discussing can never be fully understood, it is a mystery.

The question

 

[whosebob]

TEME525:

Reading the post from this Thread, I think the recent discussions go to the heart of the original question of the thread, namely the use of modern literary science in studying the bible so even if it seems we may be off the subject I believe we are addressing the heart of the matter. It has been a long time since I have studied the Church Fathers in ernest, however, I still find one particular problem. Many of their conclusion are based on philosophical reasoning more than scriptural context.

JMJ + OBT​

Teme525, thank you. I appreciate your point of view, and am grateful for the time you’ve sacrificed and effort you’ve made to offer such a thoughtful reflection.

One aspect of the “attitude” exhibited by many (but not all) modern Scripture scholars that really bothers me (and a great many other Christians) is the tendency to separate modern exegesis from Fathers+Magisterium (not to mention Medieval exegesis) as if they inhabited entirely different realities. It is one thing to to employ them, or allow them to “operate,” in separate spheres of inquiry, and this for practical purposes. But their seems to be a subtle, sometimes even explicit, antagonism on the part of many scholars towards Fathers+Magisterium. Or if no antagonism is present, there seems to be a resignation to the fact that these two “tools” inevitably must collide and offer interpretations that are impossible to reconcile.

The reason I am a fan of the work of the late Fr. William Most (and others like him) is that he recognized this “attitude” for what is was/is – on some persons’ parts it is a seeming immaturity; on others’ parts it is owed to their embracing a broader world view that is not compatible with the Catholic understanding of reality; on the parts of others’ it is serious misunderstandings about the teachings and the teaching authority of the Catholic Church such that they are not valued properly. Fr. Most “calls them out” in no uncertain terms, while at the same time embracing the real value that modern exegesis can have when used properly.

And what would “using it properly” involve? As I said, modern tools in Scripture studies sometimes need to operate in separate spheres of inquiry for practical purposes. But when trying to piece it all together, all of the tools and the insights they offer need to be layed out on the same table together with the Fathers+Magisterium, and full respect must be given to the teaching authority of the Church. The result will always be – when one trusts the Holy Spirit, and does not discount human creativity – concordance and synthesis. Sometimes this process may involve efforts extended over long periods of time, fraught with uncertainty and difficulty, but that’s true of most genuine human efforts, even and especially those that are done in correspondence with God’s graces. Fr. Most’s collected works are, I think, a good example of this method employed fruitfully and faithfully.

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA

 

[BayCityRickL]

Historical criticism is a tool of the historian, some might say it is the central tool.

My little experience in studying history leads me to believe that most history is tainted, in significant ways. Some would say that the tainting is more properly called bias.

Applying historical criticism to scripture is one thing, which leads to endless discussion.

But, how about its application to the various private revelations in the Church? Some people, for example, would have us believe that Mary is giving us all kinds of messages, and that she has appeared thousands of times since 1980 alone.

I am even skeptical about the so-called “approved” revelations. I think Cardinal Arinze said that it is up to the individual to hold beliefs in the alleged apparations at Fatima and Lourdes, not to mention the almost limitless images that are seen in water stains, oil slicks, bagels, etc. I’m not surprised at how gullible people are, but I am surprised that the Church does not show more leadership in stemming the proliferation of rumors like that. It seems that the Church should impose some historical criticism in that area.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Fidelis:

I would never argue against the personal experience of anyone; you know best what works for you. In my experience, and that of most other Catholics I’ve spoken to personally about it, there is a distaste for historical criticism because, more often than not,* it seems to suck the life out of the Scriptures*. Because of it’s apparent anti-supernatural presumption

That, is based on a misunderstanding​

or it’s oft employed “hermenuetic of suspicion,” many people walk away from it wondering why they should bother to read the Scriptures at all. Let me give you an example from the NAB:

So the clear inference is that rather than sacred history that possibly really reflects reality, the events described are relegated to the status of ancient mythology–and borrowed mythology at that.

So what? If this is just regarded as ivory tower scholarly speculation or a drawing of parallels between other ancient texts, so be it. Scholars tend to write for each other, not the rest of us.

I can’t comment usefully, if I don’t know what is being referred to. Do you think that Psalm 89 is history ? Surely not. One can’t expect every one to appreciate, or to want to appreciate, the mythological background to (say) Elijah’s career as described in Kings - but that doesn’t mean it’s not in the text, if one has the eyes to see it.​

But what value does it have for the average Catholic reading the Bible for devotional reasons or as a way to draw practical applications to his or her life? In my experience, as I said, it leaves most people COLD.

That depends on the average Catholic - we are all individuals, after all. Different sorts of book - different sorts of commentary, indeed - have different uses. Some people’s religious practice is more intellectual, that of others, is more affective. Some people are very liturgically minded. So some people will profit by praying the Liturgy of the Hours, others will use the rosary, other will use neither or both, others will be more intellectual. It would be very unkind to force someone with a love of metaphysics to pray the rosary when he had no attraction to it. And the same goes for the HCM - some people find it very nourishing, even though we can’t all do so. The dislike of some for it, is no reason to let it be misrepresented: the answer is to try to clear misunderstandings away, for the good of all.​

Doesn’t it matter that we should understand the Bible in its context ? I think it does, a great deal. If the scholars see what the non-specialist can’t - why is that held against them ? One might as well protest against astronomers for not letting us laymen carry on with the ideas of the 1930s. ##

So what’s a poor Catholic who wants to delve into the Scriptures to do? Why, out of desperation, he’ll pick up a Protestant study Bible, or go to a Protestant Bible study group. Next thing you know he or she is out of the Church. Unfortunately, I’ve seen it more times than I care to relate.

I sympathise - what I’ve not yet seen, is any appreciation by those uneasy about critical methods that the use of them has helped people to avoid just what you mention. What bothers me is that if people are brought up to regard them as somehow evil, they will find studying theology very painful. The shock of the collision between a very “conservative” view of the Bible, and a “critical” view, can be very traumatic: so the more that shock can be softened, the better. And one way to do that, is to let the HCM be explained, rather than derided for reasons which have nothing to do with it.​

What I don’t understand, is why those for whom something else is more congenial, have to belittle what works for others. I’ve not read a page of Scott Hahn, but I’m not going to belittle him; a lot of people seem to get a good deal out of him. Besides, to criticise his work I would have to know something about it. Yet the same courtesy appears not to be extended to those who employ the HCM and related methods.

I can quite believe the HCM leaves most people cold - what interests us, what we find profitable, intellectually, devotionally, as the diffeent people we are, will differ. Why is that surprising ? ##

Meanwhile, the h.c.scholars sit in their ivory towers writing 8-inch thick Bible commentaries for each other. Sad.

Not just for each other - for interested members of the public too. They would hardly write these books, if there were no readers. Besides, exactly the same could be said of anything that is an academic discipline. Do you know any one who reads grammars of Old Norse, or commentaries on Vergil ? Neither do I. Yet all these subjects are as fit for study as more attractive or more popular ones. There are probably far more Biblical scholars than there are students of Sumerian - yet the grammars of Sumerian still sell. Why should we limit others by our own limitations ?​

 

[Aaron_I]

Good post, Gottle of Geer.

We should all remember that there are four transcendentals: One, True, Good, Beautiful. God is the perfection of each of these and has them to the full, but we do not. We seek God through the method towards which we are best suited. I tend to seek for truth and to a lesser extent unity. There is nothing wrong with seeking God with any of these in mind, just be sure to do the one best for you. Sure, the HCM may not be the best for the “average” Catholic, but for a seeker of the truth, it truly does grant greater appreciation for the way God works.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

BayCityRickL:

Historical criticism is a tool of the historian, some might say it is the central tool.

My little experience in studying history leads me to believe that most history is tainted, in significant ways. Some would say that the tainting is more properly called bias.

It’s because the historical record is biassed or incompletely studied or ill-documented or open to more than one interpretation that there is no such thing as perfectly truthful historiography. Quite apart from the biasses we bring to it in studying it, there are too many connections between the data studied possible for historical data ever to be set out in a perfectly unambiguous way.​

Applying historical criticism to scripture is one thing, which leads to endless discussion.

But, how about its application to the various private revelations in the Church?

I think it is essential for them to be properly studied from all angles - but that might be even more controversial than studying the Bible; because it seems a safe guess that many people more have a lively interest in these matters than think about the fine detail of Biblical scholarship - apparitions are probably of much more vital & personal interest to more Catholics than thinking about the PBC or its decisions & documents. Study of them could be unsettling - and not everyone is good at being unsettled: I doubt there will be any end to pamphlets telling how Our Lady gave the Rosary to St. Dominic for a while yet.​

The trouble is, that with the Internet, one has access to far more information, and so, to more things to worry about. Once, only those with well-developed theological interests would have had access to time to concern themselves with Biblical criticism - now anyone at all can read about it, and fret about it & what is said by others about it. So with discussion of apparitions. ##

Some people, for example, would have us believe that Mary is giving us all kinds of messages, and that she has appeared thousands of times since 1980 alone.

I am even skeptical about the so-called “approved” revelations. I think Cardinal Arinze said that it is up to the individual to hold beliefs in the alleged apparations at Fatima and Lourdes, not to mention the almost limitless images that are seen in water stains, oil slicks, bagels, etc.

I’ve seen a picture of what is alleged to be the miraculously present Face of Jesus on a boiled egg.​

It is - or was, not many years ago - a principle in discernment of apparitions that if it was trivial (as with this), it was not an authentic apparition. The trouble with all these daft apparitions is, that they cast discredit on those which might be genuine. ##

I’m not surprised at how gullible people are, but I am surprised that the Church does not show more leadership in stemming the proliferation of rumors like that. It seems that the Church should impose some historical criticism in that area.

 

[OriginalJS]

Why do all these threads always focus on Father Brown ? Talking about him alone is as sensible as treating Thomas Jefferson as the only USA President who had ever done or said anything - as though neither of the Roosevelts, or Hoover, or Washington, or Jackson, or Polk, had ever done or said anything.​

Poor Raymond Brown! He is widely acknowledged by many Catholic and Protestant scholars as one of the great bible researchers. What is interesting is that some of the protestant scholars believe Brown is intellectually dishonest because he hews to closely to Catholic doctrine while, as shown here, some of the Catholics attack him as well.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

flamingsword:

As a theology student I am constantly being subjected to the ideas of Historical Criticism! Everything is being taught from that perspective. Does anyone have good articles against the usage of this? I realize that some historical criticism is ok, but when do they cross the line? What are the limits of this? How can talk with a professor who absolutely loves historical criticism and thinks that there are no limits to it?

The line becomes very blurred when every class you have focuses on this?!?!?!

Help me I am drowning in this.

From C.S. Lewis…

Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism
by C.S. Lewis
lrc.edu/rel/blosser/Lewis_on_Biblical_Criticism.htm

 

[itsjustdave1988]

You might also consider reading this article critical of the historical critical method, by Pope Benedict XVI written while still a cardinal.

***Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: On the Question of the Foundations and Approaches of Exegesis Today
***by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5989

 

[whosebob]

OriginalJS:

Poor Raymond Brown! He is widely acknowledged by many Catholic and Protestant scholars as one of the great bible researchers. What is interesting is that some of the protestant scholars believe Brown is intellectually dishonest because he hews to closely to Catholic doctrine while, as shown here, some of the Catholics attack him as well.

JMJ + OBT​

By some of those who knew him personally, such as Fr. Benedict Groeschel, he was/is praised and pointedly criticized. Fr. Groeschel has, for example, pointed out that Fr. Brown was impeccable and a model of charity in his priestly ministry. At the same time, Fr. Groeschel “lets him have it” when it comes to Fr. Brown moving beyond academic speculation into the advancement of heterodox if not borderline-heretical (and sometimes hust “hair-brained”) ideas into popular Catholic media.

One classic example is that Fr. Brown asserted in the St. Anthony’s Messenger magazine that Jesus suffered from superstition!

I do not believe the demons inhabit desert places or the upper air, as Jesus and Paul thought . . . I see no way to get around the difficulty except by saying that Jesus and Paul were wrong on this point. They accepted the beliefs of their times about demons, but those beliefs were superstitious. (R. Brown, St. Anthony’s Messenger, May 1971, 47-48.)

The reason that the late Fr. Brown (Eternal Rest grant unto him, O Lord) receives such sharp criticism from some Catholics is rather simple – he deserves it. He may not deserve all of it, but still . . .

In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

IC XC NIKA