While being in the minority is not evidence of wrongness, it would sure get me thinking if what I believed was near heretical is used in parishes throughout the country with approval. I don’t understand this determination to form the church in your own image. It shows to me a grave misunderstanding of the history of the Church.
That’s a very important question to wonder about.
Dr. Hahn’s position is Professor of Theology and Scripture. I think that makes him BOTH a Biblical scholar AND a theologian.
The Truth [as revealed by God and passed down through the ages by man with word and letter] is in the message of the passage…it does not matter the genre…
Hear, hear. In my humble opinion, Fr. Boadt hardly calls the Old Testament ‘fiction.’
But lawyer, he did not say the “entire OT” either. It WAS claimed that some of the OT is fiction, or myth, or whatever word you like, and that claim DOES mean that Jesus is the fulfillment or derivative of those legends/myths.
And the Greek myths were imminently important to the priests of Zeus and Apollo and so forth. That doesn’t make those gods real. We need something else to make them real. We need history.
There is a medium point between the extreme of “this didn’t really happen” and being a fundie.
No no, you misunderstand. He is unquestionably exactly what you said, and is most excellent as far as I am aware. What he is though is an apologist…no pejorative meaning whatsoever intended…The academic biblical scholar/theologian may be an apologist, a “pure” scholar, or a mixture of the two. All writers are expected to state their “lenses” at the beginning of any work they publish. All have their different responsibilities and place within academia and the Church.Dr. Hahn’s position is Professor of Theology and Scripture. I think that makes him BOTH a Biblical scholar AND a theologian.
I have read both Hahn and Boadt…I do not consider Boadt’s book a secularist tome…
Dr. Hahn seems to be first and foremost a scripture scholar. He was a scripture scholar before he became Catholic and all of his major written works are works of scripture analysis. My favorite being A Father Who Keeps His Promises. I would consider him much more a scholar than an evangelist. Most of his work is directed toward Catholics while the work of an apologist is primarily directed to those outside the faith.
I am not sure where this opinion is coming from. My college students are taught that it is the reader’s responsibility to identify the point of view of the writer in order to be conscious of any biases that slip through. Even my own kids (middle school) are starting to learn this.
Nice nice post.
I have read both Hahn and Boadt…I do not consider Boadt’s book a secularist tome…
Have you read Father Boadt’s book?
Why did Jesus used parables to teach? The NT writers recorded these ‘stories’…Jesus used them…is it not possible to recognzise God’s inspiration while at the same time recognizing the genesis of the writings…
Do Christians give up reason for faith? No…have you read the encyclical “Fides et Ratio” [On Faith and reason]?
Do you subscribe to the science of Genesis [7 - 24 hour days] creation as some bible literalists do?
Or is Genesis a story of our relationship with God [our creator]? A story that answers the longing of man for God…and why sin is active in the world…
Many societies have flood stories…the story presented in Jewish tradition answers the ‘why’ and the ‘what now’ which are a unigue telling…
I believe that you mis - undertand the purpose of “Reading the Old Testament” Boadt is not denying God, Biblical Inspiration or promoting secularism…
Odd indeed. I was taught by 2 theologians trained in Belgium which has as I understand the worlds best theological school. In any case they explained, and every paper I ever wrote contained a statement of who I was, what my tradition was, what type of theology I was writing from, what tools I considered valid, what assumptions I started with, what I wished to prove, and what I thought I had proved. Why a reader should have to “figure this out” would seem silly to me and dishonest in a sense.Dr. Hahn seems to be first and foremost a scripture scholar. He was a scripture scholar before he became Catholic and all of his major written works are works of scripture analysis. My favorite being A Father Who Keeps His Promises. I would consider him much more a scholar than an evangelist. Most of his work is directed toward Catholics while the work of an apologist is primarily directed to those outside the faith.
While I haven’t read all his books, those with which I am familiar are very clear what his position is and the angle from which he is approaching the topic.
I defer to you. I have only perused his work, and have never read anything in full. I look at a few things very quickly and can usually assess where a person is coming from. Perhaps I was in error. I cannot refute your conclusions.
I am not sure where this opinion is coming from. My college students are taught that it is the reader’s responsibility to identify the point of view of the writer in order to be conscious of any biases that slip through. Even my own kids (middle school) are starting to learn this.
Jeff–who said faith is supposed to be easy? Facts are facts and faith is to be tested by fire. Personally I find the opposite to be true–if I read the OT as a history book I lose faith. Genesis chapter 1 and Genesis chapter 2 are enough to make any literalist an atheist. They did me for a number of years (well atleast not Christian maybe not so far as atheist) until I found an explanation that made sense and let me CHOOSE to have faith again—that I did not have to believe contradictions with history and science literally. Faith is a choice.
Agreed. My faith was delayed for years just over this silly stuff. I believed all Christians believed in YEC and I found that as a functional human being obsurd, so I never gave Christianity a chance. It was not until a Catholic explained that this was not Church teaching that I went and investigated, found it was true, and was enrolled in the next RCIA class that year.
What pagans and their gods are you referring to? I’m rather confused. I’m sure you don’t mean your fellow Catholics? We don’t leave stuff alone because we believe we have much to learn from our ancestors. We seek to understand their world view, their God view, and to learn from them. Truth always illuminates the path of learning. We can never deterimine truth accurately unless we examine thoroughly, openly, and carefully.
As Pope John Paul 11 has said, there is truth in all faiths , as in concentric circles and our own Catholic Faith being the fullness of same ; would it not be better to see the truths in other faiths as having originated from God’s Truth to the Chosen people and got distorted , in other cultures ( and even marvel at how much of it they still got right ) instead of assuming that it was the other way around - that even some of the O.T was adopted from mythology of the pagan cultures around !
Kinda like family baggage eh?
It would be fine either way I’m sure. Biblical hermeneutics atempts to learn the truth. I can’t imagine anyone caring who borrowed from who. I’m sure often it was a two-way street. People tend to learn from each other and build on the work of others. We early realized that re-inventing the wheel delayed progress.
