How has Higher Criticism effected your faith in scripture?

[Contarini]

I’d say at times they are downright maliciously heretical with the level of gullibility breathtaking in its stupidity.

The Church plays the long game. It doesn’t get into slanging matches with poorly thought out forms of thought if it can help it. The Church knows that the latest rebellious group-think bubble based on clear illogic, no matter how well supported, has a limited shelf life.
.

You’re telling me that the explanatory notes in the standard American Catholic translation of the Bible, which thus shape how most ordinary Catholics perceive the meaning of Scripture, are somehow beneath the Church’s notice?

You’re telling me that the USCCB has “maliciously heretical” notes on their website, implying that they are reliable guides to the interpretation of Scripture, and the Vatican doesn’t bother to intervene?

I don’t buy it.

There’s a deep level of denial on this forum about how much the Catholic Church de facto accepts historical criticism today.

Edwin

 

[CHRISTINE77]

There are more arguments about the Bible than just who wrote it and when it was written. Christians believe that the Old Testament is full of allusions to the New Testament, but Jewish people do not at all, so they interpret the Torah much differently than we do. I’m sure this is true of Muslims too, but I don’t know much about their teachings.

 

[po18guy]

That doesn’t have anything to do with the supernatural.

You say so.

Young women from small villages can be poets without the supernatural being involved, even if it’s unusual in a “patriarchal” culture.

And sometimes, just sometimes, they can also be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

The NAB notes take quite a beating on these forums, but the USCCB has them on its website as a resource for understanding Scripture. The notes have never, as far as I know, been condemned or censured.

That doesn’t mean that everything in them is right. I think that the notes lean too far at times in the direction of conformity to conventional secular/liberal higher criticism. But the view that they are unorthodox is the private view of some Catholics. The bishops whose job it is to discipline heresy do not appear to share this view, at least not as a whole.

Edwin

Surprisingly, (perhaps amazingly (to both of us) I agree! It is the “seemingly” relentless naturalization of a supernatural message that bothers me. Mary, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, cannot speak the words which the Spirit gives her? Must we really entertain the assertion that Luke fabricated the Magnificat - thus inserting a form of deception into the Gospels? This strikes me as cynical and secular.

As to the USCCB, it is an independent 501c3 organization that exactly none of us must obey. I choose to obey my local Ordinary, even through I may disagree with him. For those who care to inquire into USCCB issues, here is a link.

Those notes rightly take a beating in these forums! They introduce doubt, and that is one of the primary tools of the evil one. We ignore this at our peril.

Higher criticism downplays (or dismisses) the Apostolic Tradition. This is the precise reason that the Greek Orthodox rightly rejected the advances made by Philipp Melanchthon and fellow reformers in the 16th century.

If I am delusional or otherwise completely off-base, it seems that I have a fair amount of company.

 

[Novocastrian]

You say so.
And sometimes, just sometimes, they can also be inspired by the Holy Spirit.
Surprisingly, (perhaps amazingly (to both of us) I agree! It is the “seemingly” relentless naturalization of a supernatural message that bothers me. Mary, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, cannot speak the words which the Spirit gives her? Must we really entertain the assertion that Luke fabricated the Magnificat - thus inserting a form of deception into the Gospels? This strikes me as cynical and secular.

Why the dichotomy? If Luke wrote it, it could (would!) still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Novocastrian]

Higher criticism drove me in the direction of the traditional school of thought. Higher criticism in my opinion is a mix of arrogant religious acedemia and agnosticism. I feel it brings more doubt and can be a stumbling block.

Do you have an argument to back these assertions up?

(A genuinely friendly question; not a jibe)

 

[Contarini]

It is the “seemingly” relentless naturalization of a supernatural message that bothers me. Mary, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, cannot speak the words which the Spirit gives her? Must we really entertain the assertion that Luke fabricated the Magnificat - thus inserting a form of deception into the Gospels? This strikes me as cynical and secular.

I don’t think there is any deception involved if St. Luke did this. Putting speeches in people’s mouths was a well-attested literary device.

Who knows–maybe she did say it. I’m not taking a position on this, and I think you’re right to ask critical questions about possible secular assumptions behind these kinds of critical judgments.

As to the USCCB, it is an independent 501c3 organization that exactly none of us must obey.

Those notes rightly take a beating in these forums! They introduce doubt, and that is one of the primary tools of the evil one. We ignore this at our peril.

In my experience, triumphalist confidence is a far more common, and far deadlier, tool of the evil one. Christian history is littered with souls and bodies that have been ruined by idolatrous conviction. Doubt is a minor annoyance by comparison–a flea compared to cancer.

Higher criticism downplays (or dismisses) the Apostolic Tradition. This is the precise reason that the Greek Orthodox rightly rejected the advances made by Philipp Melanchthon and fellow reformers in the 16th century.

Philip Melanchthon was not a practitioner of higher criticism, which had not yet been invented (and was, in part, invented by Catholic scholars trying to debunk sola scriptura, though to be fair the Magisterium disapproved of this approach).

If I am delusional or otherwise completely off-base, it seems that I have a fair amount of company.

Of course you do. These forums are always at risk of becoming echo chambers for indefensible opinions, because a lot of the people who congregate here share the same biases and reinforce each other.

Edwin

 

[abucs]

By your definition the majority of Catholic biblical scholarship is or is near heresy. The NABRE, the Jerusalem Bible, the NewJerusalem Bible, the Christian Community Bible, the New Jerome Bible Commentary, the Collegeville Bible Commentary, portions of the Navarre Bible (documentary theory), and a great many Catholic Universities who teach historical-criticism in their theology classes.???

Perhaps you should read my post more carefully. If I had said all biblical criticism is heretical then you would have a point. That is not what was said though.

I have said the pursuit of biblical criticism has made me lose my faith in academia. It is SOMETIMES downright heretical and breathtakingly stupid.

Very fair comment.

 

[abucs]

You’re telling me that the explanatory notes in the standard American Catholic translation of the Bible, which thus shape how most ordinary Catholics perceive the meaning of Scripture, are somehow beneath the Church’s notice?

Edwin

Please show me where I said this.

You’re telling me that the USCCB has “maliciously heretical” notes on their website, implying that they are reliable guides to the interpretation of Scripture, and the Vatican doesn’t bother to intervene?

I don’t buy it.

Edwin

Before you decide to buy or not buy anything of your choosing, please show me where I said this.

There’s a deep level of denial on this forum about how much the Catholic Church de facto accepts historical criticism today.

Edwin

There is a very enlightened view across much of the Catholic Church today on the past mis-use of biblical criticism in our universities in the pursuit of a range of weak and fading ideologies such as feminism. unitarianism. materialism etc.

Such enlightenment comes from many of us going through Theology courses and witnessing the madness (and I do mean madness) of the assumptions and ideologically driven reasonings of the closed minded anti-Catholic professors trying to pretend biblical criticism supports their own ideology.

Such mis-uses has made the academics who pursued this course a complete intellectual embarrassment.

As has already been stated, the Church plays the long game. Such intellectual embarressments fade with time, as the underlying ideologies which shaped them move from being hip and modern to dated and incoherent.

If you want me to document some of the madness of my local Catholic theology course and the ongoing fight they have had with both the Bishop and the local Catholic Education board then I will happily do so.

Having gone through both a science degree and an education degree (which included theology) then comparing the theology to the science I can honestly say the progressive mis-use of biblical criticism is without doubt, breathtakingly stupid and brings discredit to the field of academia.

 

[CalCatholic]

Perhaps you should read my post more carefully. If I had said all biblical criticism is heretical then you would have a point. That is not what was said though.

I have said the pursuit of biblical criticism has made me lose my faith in academia. It is SOMETIMES downright heretical and breathtakingly stupid.

Very fair comment.

If you believe that some of the NABRE notes are heretical, I suggest that you e-mail the USCCB and let them know, they are the authority for the publication of the NABRE and it’s notes!

 

[abucs]

If you believe that some of the NABRE notes are heretical, I suggest that you e-mail the USCCB and let them know, they are the authority for the publication of the NABRE and it’s notes!

There is no need. As I have said more than once, the Church plays the long game. The Church has been split because, in part there was a take-over of religious education in our universities. We know the church was split, we accept it, and we know that the modernist, secular, feminist etc theology that mis-uses biblical criticism is fading fast.

Like the Vatican waiting for the American heretical nuns to run out of steam and youth before launching an official investigation with a purpose of correction, this too can wait.

Unfortunately like the heretical nuns, in the short time the mis-use of biblical criticism has led some astray. But the best way to destroy ridiculous thinking is to let it try to stand on its own two feet. In time. everyone sees stupidity and incoherence for what it is and it destroys itself without a fight.

The self destruction of the socialist utopia of communism is a perfect example of this.

 

[po18guy]

Why the dichotomy? If Luke wrote it, it could (would!) still be inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Luke wrote it as actually occurring. If it, in fact, did not occur, then how could God inspire that? Quite another spirit would have to incite the writing of something objectively untrue. The NT is neither parable nor poetry, though it contains some of each.

 

[po18guy]

I don’t think there is any deception involved if St. Luke did this. Putting speeches in people’s mouths was a well-attested literary device.

Who knows–maybe she did say it. I’m not taking a position on this, and I think you’re right to ask critical questions about possible secular assumptions behind these kinds of critical judgments.

As to the USCCB, it is an independent 501c3 organization that exactly none of us must obey.

 

[Augustine3]

How has Higher Criticism effected your faith in scripture?

I am reading my first book on the Documentary Hypothesis and it brings me to such a better understanding, but now life became so much more complicated. Honestly, I don’t know how I’m going to put all this together.

Muslims used to hammer me with arguments concerning higher textual criticism. For a while it caused me to distance myself from Christ. Later careful study of higher textual criticism has renewed and strengthened my faith more than ever!

 

[Novocastrian]

Luke wrote it as actually occurring. If it, in fact, did not occur, then how could God inspire that? Quite another spirit would have to incite the writing of something objectively untrue. The NT is neither parable nor poetry, though it contains some of each.

Yeah, but he claims to be writing a Hellenistic διηγησις. It’d be perfectly normal for an educated historian to put speeches in the mouths of his subjects; accuracy of character and substance was considered far more important (and attainable) than accuracy in terms of reporting someone’s ipsissima verba.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think that St. Luke probably got his information from Mary. I don’t think that Mary just made things up. I think that after getting this information that St. Luke probably prayed and asked the Holy Spirit if her information should be included in his gospel account. I think that after praying that maybe St. Luke thought her account to be credible.

I’m not saying that St. Luke was a dictation machine–I’m saying he listened to Mary and prayed to the Holy Spirit.

I don’t think anything was made up and I don’t think that anyone lied.

I think the gospel accounts are true. I think that saints across the centuries believe them to be true. I think that St. Thomas Aquinas would say that they were true.

It is quite sensible to believe in the truthfulness of the gospel accounts.

 

[COPLAND_3]

Do you have an argument to back these assertions up?

(A genuinely friendly question; not a jibe)

As far as being a stumbling block, I know that from not only my own exerience but from so many others who have shared their own thoughts. Whenever a so-called Catholic Bible claims that the writings are intentionally misleading by claiming authorship of someone who isnt the author, and that prophetic writings wrote after events and pretends to have written before in order to trick the readers of following generations, among tons more similar acts of deception, then yes that’s a stumbling block. if i actually believed that was what really happened then i would not believe anything the Bible said, nor would I submit my life to Jesus or the Church that He established, if the most important book of Christianity was a pseudipagrapha fairy tale book.

 

[po18guy]

One last cheap shot and I am pulling the rip cord. Faith in scripture has affected my view of higher criticism.

 

[Abu]

Not at all, because I see how mistaken such poor scholarship has been.
In 1978, R. H. Fuller, one of the chief form critics, wrote in the Catholic Biblical Quarterly, “It is ironic that just at the time when the limitations of the historical-critical method are being discovered in Protestantism, Roman Catholic scholars should be bent on pursuing that method so relentlessly.” By 1980, the same R. H. Fuller considered the method they followed so relentlessly to be “bankrupt.” [See Fr William G Most, *Catholic Apologetics Today, TAN, 1986, p 237].

Brown alleges that the priesthood is not intended by Christ or found in the NT: “Cultic priesthood is never presented as a Christian institution in the New Testament.” Further, that the ordained priest is “commissioned by the whole Church, including the people.” (See Emmanuel, June 1980, pp 314-322).

Rene Laurentin, a peritus at Vatican II, who once referred to Brown as “an exegete of great importance”, comments on Brown’s Birth of the Messiah:

1. Historico-Criticism is a limited method
2. Brown’s method leads him to an ambiguous position toward doctrine
3. Brown’s assumptions are dubious
4. Brown’s ecumenical dialogue is defective
5. The Catholic faith is damaged by irresponsible biblical speculation

The New Biblical Theorists Raymond E Brown and Beyond, Msgr George A Kelly, Servant Books 1983, p 8, 64-67].

 

[juliamajor]

Are we then to read the scriptures like fundamentalist? What degree of interpretation and what kind of biblical exegesis is allowed? People have discussed,interpreted, taken apart and have put scripture together for centuries. There is not just one reading of scripture. varying techniques of biblical interpretation have taken place over thousands of years
.
When we get into the “Enlightenment” period of history and centuries thereafter scripture was looked upon in a more scientific,more challenging to the believer.true some of these people looked at scripture with a jaundiced eye,& were non believers. Shouldn’t we be up to the challenge of some of these folks and not just run away hide or put one’s head in the sand?
everyone benefits from scholarly interpretation and points of view…Historical- critical , sociological way and other points of scholarship can make the scripture so alive and so relevant, but discernment should be used. Would I take Bart Erhman at face value? He has made a lot of money and a lot of waves from using his knowledge to create trashy academics using publicity inducing titles and acting like no one has ever ‘dared’ to be so bold in there assessment of scripture. what nonsense. He is good at creating publicity for himself.Nothing that he writes about is as original and daring as he pretends it is. He is the king of regurgitation of ideas and publicity hack. He had elements of brilliance but fame is corrupting.

That the higher criticism methodology is being criticized and tested is a positive. academia should be challenged. The Documentary hypothesis held sway for a long time.Most exegetes believe in differing source materials , very view hold the same view as the DH.
Many say there were sources but who and what and how much is up for grabs.

In my studies I’ve used many different methodologies. If you use commonsense and don’t take academics so seriously you’ll be fine. there is a chance that scripture can become an intellectual exercise and nothing more. But that is more on your shoulders than the fault of the materials. I know because, at one time it was an academic exercise. Now it is head, heart, spirit, breath of life& my salvation. Scripture , to me, is the most fulfilling way to experience God’s innermost being. My life would have gone on in it’s merry ,unthinking way until I died- if I had not be drawn, by Him , to meet Him heart to heart in His Word.

I embrace the use of all Catholic Biblical scholars. If they are not condemned or censured, feel free to use them. Your intellect and your spirit are part of the whole person. Don’t try to separate them-that will just rip you in twain.
God Bless
Keep Praying and keep thinking!

 

[CalCatholic]

Are we then to read the scriptures like fundamentalist? What degree of interpretation and what kind of biblical exegesis is allowed? People have discussed,interpreted, taken apart and have put scripture together for centuries. There is not just one reading of scripture. varying techniques of biblical interpretation have taken place over thousands of years
.
When we get into the “Enlightenment” period of history and centuries thereafter scripture was looked upon in a more scientific,more challenging to the believer.true some of these people looked at scripture with a jaundiced eye,& were non believers. Shouldn’t we be up to the challenge of some of these folks and not just run away hide or put one’s head in the sand?
everyone benefits from scholarly interpretation and points of view…Historical- critical , sociological way and other points of scholarship can make the scripture so alive and so relevant, but discernment should be used. Would I take Bart Erhman at face value? He has made a lot of money and a lot of waves from using his knowledge to create trashy academics using publicity inducing titles and acting like no one has ever ‘dared’ to be so bold in there assessment of scripture. what nonsense. He is good at creating publicity for himself.Nothing that he writes about is as original and daring as he pretends it is. He is the king of regurgitation of ideas and publicity hack. He had elements of brilliance but fame is corrupting.

That the higher criticism methodology is being criticized and tested is a positive. academia should be challenged. The Documentary hypothesis held sway for a long time.Most exegetes believe in differing source materials , very view hold the same view as the DH.
Many say there were sources but who and what and how much is up for grabs.

In my studies I’ve used many different methodologies. If you use commonsense and don’t take academics so seriously you’ll be fine. there is a chance that scripture can become an intellectual exercise and nothing more. But that is more on your shoulders than the fault of the materials. I know because, at one time it was an academic exercise. Now it is head, heart, spirit, breath of life& my salvation. Scripture , to me, is the most fulfilling way to experience God’s innermost being. My life would have gone on in it’s merry ,unthinking way until I died- if I had not be drawn, by Him , to meet Him heart to heart in His Word.

I embrace the use of all Catholic Biblical scholars. If they are not condemned or censured, feel free to use them. Your intellect and your spirit are part of the whole person. Don’t try to separate them-that will just rip you in twain.
God Bless
Keep Praying and keep thinking!

Well said!