Is this an accurate statement?

[NHInsider]

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church.

Strictly speaking we cannot speak of “Scripture” and “Tradition” as two different things - because the Bible is part of Tradition. The Magesterium determined which of the several-hundred NT era documents were authoritative, based on their being consistent with Apostolic teaching, as it had been passed down.

Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology? Your point about Bibles being scarce only lends credibility toward the option of having the select few, namely Catholic Church, provide theology, rather then a common methodology for the Bible so that all can gain Biblical theology, not just from the church.

Your friend’s original reference to “elite” ecclesiastics is very telling, given the common connotations of “elite” in modern usage. “Literate” would be more accurate.

The lack of availability of Bibles was not a result of Church restrictions, it was a result of the cost, in time and money, required to make a manuscript copy of the Bible. Only institutions could afford to own them.

The very first book off Gutenberg’s printing press was a Catholic Bible. Even with movable type it took 3 years to complete the first press run of 180 copies. To suggest that a “methodological framework” would have made “Biblical theology” available to “all” reveals an appalling lack of understanding of the era of which he writes.

If he is serious about the “methods” in which “Biblical theology” was made accessible to “all” he should be writing about market crosses, church paintings, stained glass, and poetic and dramatic retellings of Scripture.

It shows the Bible functioning in a ecclesiastical, rather then a methodological framework.

To suggest that the Bible would/could even EXIST in the medieval world, apart from the Church, is simply laughable. Every grammar school, every library, every university was an ecclesiastical institution. Europe was Christendom. Despite your friend’s “educated sounding” writing, he is revealing a truly abject ignorance of the facts.

 

[clmowry]

“Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium are all equal, to the Catholic Church. Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology? Your point about Bibles being scarce only lends credibility toward the option of having the select few, namely Catholic Church, provide theology, rather then a common methodology for the Bible so that all can gain Biblical theology, not just from the church. It shows the Bible functioning in a ecclesiastical, rather then a methodological framework.”

Any suggestions on how to respond?

Your friend is trying to apply the principle of Sola Scriptura in a world where it would not only be a heretical and completely foreign concept but also a completely impractical one.

The rampant “success” of this particular heresy is dependent upon the availability of low cost bibles to a literate but poorly catechized populace.

These conditions wouldn’t exist until long after a “select few” well educated heretics taught their heresies to the masses in their churches with the aid of powerful political leaders.

Their novel theologies were not some synthesis of the shared understanding of the bible developed by the masses.

These were the thinking’s of a very small number of theologians that propagated their new concepts to the masses in direct opposition to the historical understanding of the Scriptures handed down by the Church fathers from the apostles.

The Guttenberg Bible may have been printed ~1455 but it is believed that only about 180 copies were ever printed.

The literacy rate at the time was something less than 1%. By around 1700 literacy rates for Europeans grew to maybe 35% for men and 15% for women. By the late 1800s you were looking at more like 70% for men and 50% for women. This of course varied dramatically from one geographical region to another. “Literate” in most of these older “studies” was defined as someone who could sign their own name!

Despite any dreams to the contrary, until very recently the ability of the common man to even attempt to derive their theology directly from the bible was simply a practical impossibility.

Even today the vast majority of Christians do not develop theology from scripture. They know what they have been taught by others. Usually one of the “select few” pastors who were taught what they pass on about what the bible says by a “select few” at universities who trace their theories back to folks like Calvin and Martin Luther.

You are going to have to look far and wide for anyone who has developed their own theologies by reading the bible alone.

I’m guessing you’ve got a better chance of winning the lottery than finding one person who has actually done so.

Chuck

 

[WJL]

Okay, here is the discussion so far (My responses are quoted twice, his are quoted one):

It seems that you are under the impression that the Bible was considered less important to the Church in the Middle Ages. This is not the case. I don’t want to assume, but from your previous responses this seems like the case. If this isn’t your intent, please let me know otherwise. First, the following facts must be considered: The Bible wasn’t assembled and codified until the 4th century. And, even then, the Church had to go through over 300 documents to end up with the 27 that are in the New Testament. The Magesterium determined which of the several-hundred New Testament-era documents were authoritative, based on their being consistent with Apostolic teaching, as it had been passed down. Until the 1800’s or so, the vast majority of the world’s population was illiterate. Those who could read and write still may not have had the full capacity for accurately understanding the Bible. It is cautioned that one must be careful not to interpret the Bible by themselves, because, as is often the case, a person may not understand the full context of a passage and wined up with a false interpretation. The history of the Church is littered with heresies that ignored the ‘methodology’ of the Church.

No I do not consider the Bible less important to the Church in the Middle Ages. I consider a different approach towards it.

Your original reference to “elite” ecclesiastics isn’t really correct, given the common connotations of “elite” in modern usage. “Literate” would be more accurate. The lack of availability of Bibles was not a result of Church restrictions, it was a result of the cost, in time and money, required to make a manuscript copy of the Bible. Only institutions could afford to own them. The very first book off Gutenberg’s printing press was a Catholic Bible. Even with movable type it took 3 years to complete the first press run of 180 copies.

I do not think the lack of availability was a result of Church restrictions.

To suggest that a “methodological framework” would have made Biblical theology available to all reveals a lack of understanding about the era which you’re writing about (I mean no offense by that). The methods in which Biblical theology was made accessible to all were market crosses, church paintings, stained glass windows, and poetic and dramatic retellings of Scripture. Further, Bibles were available for (literate) people to read privately in churches, as previously mentioned. To suggest that the Bible would/could even exist in the medieval world, apart from the Church, is simply untenable. At that time, Europe was Christendom. Every grammar school, library, and university was an ecclesiastical institution.

I am not saying that a methodological framework would of made Biblical theology available to all during the Middle Ages, I am saying it wasn’t until after the Middle Ages, or really until the 19th and 20th Centuries to be honest. It was then when the Bible was sufficiently diffused throughout the world to a degree far more then previous centuries that a biblical theology began to emerge. I think your perception of my lack of understanding is actually your lack of wanting to know where I stand.

John 21:25 says that not everything Jesus did or taught is in the Bible. Yet, in Matthew 28:20 , Jesus commanded the Apostles (and by extension, their successors), to go forth and teach everything that He had taught them. There’s a gap there if you believe that the Christian faith is dependent upon the Bible alone. The gap is covered by Sacred Tradition which St. Paul speaks of as being equal to Written Tradition (Scripture) in 2_Thessalonians 2:15 . Without an authentic interpreter, you end up with constant, never-ending splintering and schism and tens of thousands of denominations, all disagreeing on their personal interpretation of Scripture and all claiming to be led by the Holy Spirit in their contradictory interpretations of Scripture. Catholics believe that the authentic interpreter of Christ’s truths is the Magesterium of the Catholic Church. 1_Timothy 3:15 says that the Church is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Nowhere does it say the individual personally interpreting Scripture is anything of the sort. In fact, 2_Peter 1:20 talks against this sort of “personal” approach.

I am not saying the individual should interpret it personally, in fact the majority of my edits [on this wiki] the past few months in exegesis should prove that. And the methodology I allude to does not allow personal interpretation, it doesn’t even allow Sacred Tradition. It is a Biblical theology which allows the Bible to speak on its own terms through the most critical, logical and scientific way, namely the historical-critical/grammatical method.

The reason Sacred Tradition is often infused in Biblical study is that they both support each other—Sacred Tradition offers a timeline of historical implications of what the Bible has to say. Catholics don’t believe in Sola Scriptura. Both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are used for interpretation. The Church does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition is accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.

You are reaching for Church dogma that is within Sacred Tradition that does not deal explicitly only with the Bible to supplant theology, that is not Biblical theology, that is reading in something external into the text.

 

[WJL]

Any ideas on how to respond?

 

[WJL]

…

 

[NHInsider]

Okay, here is the discussion so far (My responses are quoted twice, his are quoted one):
I am not saying that a methodological framework would of made Biblical theology available to all during the Middle Ages, I am saying it wasn’t until after the Middle Ages, or really until the 19th and 20th Centuries to be honest. It was then when the Bible was sufficiently diffused throughout the world to a degree far more then previous centuries that a biblical theology began to emerge.

. . . the methodology I allude to does not allow personal interpretation, it doesn’t even allow Sacred Tradition. It is a Biblical theology which allows the Bible to speak on its own terms through the most critical, logical and scientific way, namely the historical-critical/grammatical method.

okay, so now he’s changed the subject (or perhaps we misunderstood the subject from the beginning, but given the original quote

“It is considered that the Bible during the Middle Ages functioned in an elite ecclesiastical framework, more so as a dogma tool to support particular theological traditions. There was no separation of study of the church and study of the Bible, the church instead of the Bible was the sole source for theology.”

I don’t think so.

“It is considered”? (By whom? This is a meaningless waffle-phrase that is being used to avoid saying “I think” . . . and make it seem like he’s citing some genuine authority.)

“more so as a dogma tool to support particular theological traditions.” Well, yes and no, I suppose. The theological tradition says that the Bible is the Word of God - not the only Word of God or even the pre-eminent Word of God - that would, obviously, be Jesus. But having accepted the tradition that the Bible is inspired and worthy for teaching, it then became, in fact, “a tool for dogma” - as it is, I’m sure, for him.

“the church instead of the Bible was the sole source for theology.” As previously noted, you cannot have the Bible apart from the Church - and particularly could not in the Medieval era.

But let’s take him at his word and accept that he wasn’t trying to suggest that the Church was nefariously preventing “all” from having access to Biblical theology (despite this suggestive statement

Did the Catholic Church support a methodology for all to derive Biblical theology?

Let’s pretend that it would be possible for someone to sit down and study the Bible without being influenced by 1500 or 1800 or 1900 years of the development of Christian doctrine (well, except for the Tradition of which books are in the Bible – we’ll even grant him that impossibility).

So this person is going to figure out, by studying the Bible all by himself, what the nature of the Incarnation is, and the relationship between Jesus and the Father, and the role of the Holy Spirit? And how grace is received and how it is expressed, and what Jesus meant by “obey all that I commanded,” and what baptism is and what it does, and . . . and . . . and. And how does he know that the Bible he is reading is accurate, by the way? What if the Bible he happens to pick up in his vacuum is the New World Translation, so he logically concludes that Jesus is just one of many demi-gods?

And then our hypothetical virgin reader encounters texts like 2 Peter 1:20 (no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of private interpretation) and the warning that “some of Paul’s letters are difficult to understand, and unlearned people distort them, to their own destruction.” Or Paul’s repeated warnings and reminders that the faithful “stand firm and hold to the teachings you received, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thes. 1:15, 1 Cor. 11:2, etc.) And of course John’s warnings against false teachers, notably in his second epistle, and Paul’s stern “even if an angel preaches a different gospel” in Galatians. But the gospels themselves tell us that not all of Jesus’ teachings are written down. So how is our hypothetical theologian supposed to discern rightly?

By the historical/critical/grammatical method?

Really? The ordinary people of the world are supposed to read Scripture guided not by the teaching of the Church but by reference to the history, literature and other knowledge of the time and place, the setting and genre, the ancient languages and usages of the original writers? That’s the “methodology” that is going to make “Biblical Theology” accessible to “all”?

Balderdash.

 

[WJL]

Thanks for the response, NHInsider.

 

[WJL]

I’m interested in seeing how others would respond to these particular statements, as this whole area of discussion (“methodology”, etc.) isn’t really in my realm of knowledge:

I am not saying that a methodological framework would of made Biblical theology available to all during the Middle Ages, I am saying it wasn’t until after the Middle Ages, or really until the 19th and 20th Centuries to be honest. It was then when the Bible was sufficiently diffused throughout the world to a degree far more then previous centuries that a biblical theology began to emerge. I think your perception of my lack of understanding is actually your lack of wanting to know where I stand.

I am not saying the individual should interpret it personally. And the methodology I allude to does not allow personal interpretation, it doesn’t even allow Sacred Tradition. It is a Biblical theology which allows the Bible to speak on its own terms through the most critical, logical and scientific way, namely the historical-critical/grammatical method.

You are reaching for Church dogma that is within Sacred Tradition that does not deal explicitly only with the Bible to supplant theology, that is not Biblical theology, that is reading in something external into the text.

Also, this is how he reworded the original statement mentioned in the OP:

There is a type of historical division to be highlighted if taking into account earlier attempts of theological deduction from the Bible. It is considered that the Bible during the Middle Ages functioned in an ecclesiastical framework, more so as a means of support for particular theological traditions. The institutional Catholic Church created an intellectual and therefore cultural atmosphere where there was no separation of what the Church prescribed to as theology and what a common methodology could reasonably interpret through the Bible. The Catholic Church was, instead of the Biblical text, considered the sole source of theology.

(Charles H.H. Scobie, “New Directions in Biblical Theology,” Themelios 17.2 (January/February 1992): 4-8; Oxford The Reformation A Very Short Introduction pg. 11. By Peter Marshall; Biblical theology of the Old and New Testaments; Theological Reflection of the Christian Bible By Geerhardus Vos. 1946. Fortress Press Edition, 1993)

 

[WJL]

…

 

[NHInsider]

Also, this is how he reworded the original statement mentioned in the OP:

Well - if anyone notices the credit, at least this ponts out that the “by whom?” in “it is considered” is the authors of a book and article (I think?) about the Reformation, published almost 20 years ago by a Protestant publisher:

the ministry of publishing within the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America.

So not an entirely unbiased opinion.

Not that I’m convinced it possible to have/be entirely unbiased, since we all bring our own beliefs to the table.

 

[WJL]

Any ideas on how to respond, specifically, to these statements?:

I am not saying the individual should interpret it personally, in fact the majority of my edits the past few months in exegesis should prove that. And the methodology I allude to does not allow personal interpretation, it doesn’t even allow Sacred Tradition. It is a Biblical theology which allows the Bible to speak on its own terms through the most critical, logical and scientific way, namely the historical-critical/grammatical method.

You are reaching for Church dogma that is within Sacred Tradition that does not deal explicitly only with the Bible to supplant theology, that is not Biblical theology, that is reading in something external into the text.

 

[NHInsider]

Ask him to give very specific examples of the “bible speaking to the bible” without reference to sacred tradition.

And ask him how we know the Bible is God’s Word, without reference to sacred tradition?

 

[WJL]

bump

 

[WJL]

Thanks for your help, NHInsider. I appreciate it and plan on using several of the points you made in response to him (as I haven’t responded to him yet) but, I’d like to see what others on here could suggest regarding how to respond to these two statements he made, particularly the last:

I am not saying the individual should interpret it personally, in fact the majority of my edits the past few months in exegesis should prove that. And the methodology I allude to does not allow personal interpretation, it doesn’t even allow Sacred Tradition. It is a Biblical theology which allows the Bible to speak on its own terms through the most critical, logical and scientific way, namely the historical-critical/grammatical method.

You are reaching for Church dogma that is within Sacred Tradition that does not deal explicitly only with the Bible to supplant theology, that is not Biblical theology, that is reading in something external into the text.