Rewriting Scripture: Authorship, authority, and the elephant in the room

[Ani_Ibi]

The Authorial Intent method of critical analysis attempts toooooooo…AwwwwHeck…I’ll quote C Michael Patton’s blog where he explains it on Parchment and Pen:

Well, let’s see. In this corner wearing white trunks we have C Michael Patton with his Authorial Intent Hermeneutic! And in this corner wearing black trunks we have the incomprehensible but deeply endearing Derrida with his Deconstructivist booting-out of the Author’s presence from a text. And, waiting in the wings – or even way out in left field – we have Gadamer with his Merging of the Horizons and Traditions! Maybe he can be the referee.

Awwwhek…I’ll just quote Mark Goldblatt on Derrida:

…Despite its French popularizers, deconstruction is actually the bastard child of American New Criticism of the 1930s and 40s — in particular, the principle that the meaning of a text is not controlled by the artist’s intention.

(The belief that the author controls the meaning is called the Intentional Fallacy.)

The New Critics held that a text, once created, should be divorced from what’s known of its creator, and its meaning subsequently negotiated, as it were disembodied, by its critical audience. Yet the New Critics never doubted that a text was held together by a “voice,” perhaps non-authorial but still a unified presence, or that the text possessed a set of coherent meanings, or that it would sustain certain meanings and contradict others.

The deconstructionist wrinkle on New Criticism was the denial that a coherent meaning could ever be had. On the contrary, every reading was a misreading since language is always self-contradictory, unbound by any unified voice; hence, all efforts to pin down a meaning are doomed from the start… link

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

So now, before we kick the hapless but ever-endearing Derrida out the door, let us consider the notion of Logos again. Here I will merely point you to my signature. What Catholics have been saying for … well … a long time is that questions on the meaning of the Logos – or the Word – are asking the impossible. The questions needing to be asked are about the effect of the Logos. The effect is Personal. As we saw in John 6. The effect of logos – or the word (small w) – is no different. It is Personal.

As James White might say: God-breathed-ah! Yet so many choose analysis over relationship. How did that happen? (Ani scratches her head.)

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

To the rescue, the ever-lovely Gadamer:

Gadamer faults the Enlightenment on the hastiness with which it dismissed all notions of the authority of tradition. Although Gadamer thinks that the Enlightenment was somewhat justified in drawing a line of demarcation between “faith in authority” and the use of one’s own reason, a total dismissal of authority is like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Moreover, Gadamer insists that authority would not have earned itself its authoritative status in the first place unless it was recognized to be deserving of that status. In other words, Gadamer wants to emphasize that a text does not become authoritative arbitrarily. Rather, a text acquires its authoritative status thanks to its internal merit and the cumulative recognition of this merit…

Somewhat related to Gadamer’s notion of tradition is his concept of the “classical”… First, it has a descriptive significance whereby it is seen as a historical demarcation of a specific temporal context. On the other hand, it has a normative significance that highlights its enduring quality… This normative sense includes both descriptive and prescriptive elements since in it, the classical is seen as erecting a historical standard by which we judge ourselves as participants in history…

The classical possesses a trans-historical quality, namely: “preservation amid the ruins of time”… The enduring quality of the classical illustrates that the meaning of a text goes beyond its author.

This flies in the face of historicist notions that suggest that a text only has meaning for the time in which it was written… In Gadamer we see a shift from a hermeneutic of empathy, as in Schleiermacher, to a hermeneutic of content. The focus ceases to be a an attempt to enter into the life-world (lebenswelt) of the author, but rather to grasp the constitutional meaning of what the author says as an attempt to expound truth. link

Yikes! Gadamer agrees with Derrida! At least about the boundaries of authorial primacy.

continued…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Now I do apologize a thousand times for not having found the original documents on the internet for your reading pleasure. But such is reality. Bummer-ah! In any case, delivering second-hand texts is very pomo and thereby I honour Derrida and Gadamer. Besides Gadamer has to be read at a rate of no more than one word an hour and that takes a looooooong time.

The point is that – even though I can’t scrape up another quote – Patton and Wallace imho say they are doing Authorial Intent Hermeneutics, but are they? First of all AIH sets up an impossible expectation for scientific impartiality which we know in the Age of Quantum Physics to be a road going nowhere.

If you will recall, Derrida says that “a text, once created, should be divorced from what’s known of its creator, and its meaning subsequently negotiated, as it were disembodied, by its critical audience.” I do believe that divorcing the author is a bit extreme and needless and indeed counterproductive. But negotiated… is Wallace negotiating the removal of the currently un-cool passages from the Bible? When the volumes of ornate verbiage are sifted through like wheat, it looks like the removal of those passage is a done-deal to me. What do you all think?

Second, because the meaning of the presence of those passages – if not the passages themselves – is not negotiated but marketed – not by the author, but by the reader – Wallace may appeal to an Authorial Fallacy but ends up achieving a Reader-Response Fallacy. Hobson’s Choice. And hereby theology becomes a shell game.

Apart from the impossibility of authorial primacy in exegesis, the text has a ‘being’ of its own – a voice – a unified presence. So some degree of formalism is warranted. Moreover not only meaning but encounter – or participation – is distributed among a plurality of readers – not just some claiming scholarly ‘authority’.

Author, text, reader: all three are happening. In this way the horizons are merged. Community includes author, reader, and text as a personal participants. Hereby God speaks to us through His Church.

 

[rciadan]

Could you be more specific–are you talking like the Johnnine Comma (sp)?

Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), chapter 24 - 16 less verses in the NAB than the Douay-Rheims. St. Jeromes’s Latin Vulgate has 47 as well.

Matthew 24:28 has been changed very significantly from St. Jerome and the DR.

Eleven verses were removed from Sirach, Chapter 1, in the NAB.

Keep in mind that it was St. Jeromes’s Latin Vulgate that was pronounced as the Canon of Scripture. A question: How can these passages be pronounced part of the Canon of Scripture and then later, “Oops, no they aren’t!”?

These are but a few examples that are glaring. There are more that I have run across just in the course of reading the daily Mass readings; but, I don’t have time to seek them out now. I have also stuck to the “Catholic” bibles, as it is no surprise when reading a bible that was created by and for Protestants and then “modified” to encourage Catholic consumers to buy it.

 

[JoeyWarren]

As in cultify them?

That would be the end result if left unchecked. A Pastor that is good in manipulating people by homing in on and honing on certain passages and ignoring others will create a cult in due time IMHO.

 

[Teflon93]

That would be the end result if left unchecked. A Pastor that is good in manipulating people by homing in on and honing on certain passages and ignoring others will create a cult in due time IMHO.

We see this in such things as The Word of Faith movement’s notion of “speaking” prosperity. It was a small step from Kenneth Copeland to Oprah’s Book Club selection “The Secret”.

 

[JoeyWarren]

If that’s so, I don’t know why they would acquiesce to challenges to textual integrity by excising that which some may question. That seems like surrender and certainly doesn’t bolster the notion that Scripture is “sacred.”

**i·so·late **to set or place apart; detach or separate so as to be alone.

in·su·late To prevent the passage of heat, electricity, or sound into or out of, especially by surrounding with a nonconducting material. And I can logically add to this: To prevent the passage of information.

Think about this.

Mark 16.9-20 and John 7.53-8.11 Mark deals with Jesus appearing Mary Magdalene first then Peter. Some don’t like this bit of information. It tends to lead some support to the “Da Vinci Code” John deals with this issue of the Death Penalty. In order for the Death Penalty to be legit, the Judges will have to be without sin and the executioners have to be without sin as well. A sinner cannot pass judgement and execution upon another sinner.

A fair number of non-catholics whom have scholarly training will point out that these verses are not in some of the manuscripts because they don’t like these passages. They will say everything about these verses short of saying “They are not inspired” because they believe they are a latter addition.

So let us set up the situation that the world is two rooms. The christians to be isolated are taken out of room 1 and placed in room 2. We have met the requirement of the definition of ISOLATION. But we have not met the requirement of the definition of INSULATION.

If you are only ISOLATING, the passage of information is still possible. NOW if you INSULATE the room 2 against room 1 the passage of information is prevented.

Also, some scholars believe that Matthew 16 (which is crucial to the papacy) is a latter addition.

Do you see now the need to INSULATE against these scriptures?

 

[JoeyWarren]

Elimnating those scriptures that are support Catholic Doctrine and creating a new Bible, IMHO would bring on the “Great Apostasy”

Reasoning?

If a large enough group of well known, well respected and important Protestant Theologians decided to create a new bible without those selected passages and claimed they never were inspired and were a tradition of men and they could prove it, what would the more intellectual person think?

IMHO, they would think, “Wow the Bible has been a lie all these centuries” Movies and Books like “The Davici Code” would come back home to roost in the mind with the accusations put forth about scripture being rewritten earlier in history was a fact instead of a fiction.

It would cause an avalanche of Apostacy.

 

[st_felicity]

Keep in mind that it was St. Jeromes’s Latin Vulgate that was pronounced as the Canon of Scripture. A question: How can these passages be pronounced part of the Canon of Scripture and then later, “Oops, no they aren’t!”?

I actually just posted a lengthy comment on the Parch and Pen blog referenced in the OP on this very topic concerning the Vulgate and Trent’s statement. I will repost it here:

Dr. Wallace:
There are two issues, basically, that I see in your post—one is the question of what exactly is Sacred Scripture, and the other is issues concerning specific manuscripts. I believe that an understanding of what Catholics consider Sacred Scripture will go far to answer your particular concerns.

***From DW:
If it’s [Amiatinus] missing Baruch, how could it be the basis for the dogma of Trent? Wouldn’t that particular manuscript itself be condemned?

REPLY:
I knew when I posted that worded that way and couldn’t go back and edit this would be what I would have to write. When I offered the Amiatinus as the “basis for Trent’s Dogmatic statement” I overstated and over simplified in an attempt to give you the material you are interested in. Trent is very clear, and hence I supplied the link to the document. The section concerning what texts are Holy Scripture is short and answers most of your points concerning my personal error in representing it. Go to SESSION THE FOURTH: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/trentall.html

If Trent had meant THAT particular collection of books in the Amiatinus—that paper and ink—it would have said so. Rather, the “Scriptures” are the writings themselves—the essence that is recorded on paper in ink. Trent said “the old Latin vulgate edition” not “the Vulgate housed at the Vatican” or any “particular” manuscript. The Amiatinus is the oldest example of the codified Scriptures, but to understand Sacred Scripture as some book somewhere under lock and key that is to be venerated as the one supposed perfect Word of God itself, is to view the book itself as the Logos and take that title from Jesus Christ—it would be idolatry.

One thing that is important to understand concerning the Catholic view of what is authoritative teaching is that three things work in tandem to produce what most perfectly conveys what God has revealed: Sacred Oral Tradition, the Holy Scriptures, and the Magisterium. In other words—Catholics do not put all their eggs in a “printed” text, but rather the Scriptures, and Tradition, and the means to understand them clearly and cogently, are provided for in the Catholic faith.

Ultimately, the New Covenant Revelation was entrusted to a particular group of men and given them through experience with the God-Man and through the words He spoke to them. The “actual” Revelation of God can only be conveyed imperfectly through various testimony (as Paul explains: “in a mirror dimly”). However, all Christians have faith that the testimony they receive is incorrupt in that, though it is not our individual re-experiencing of the actual Revelation given only to the Apostles, it is the most accurate representation of that experience possible and that the essence is inerrant and infallible. That testimony comes to us FIRST through the Apostles themselves—then through their oral teaching, and then through the written word. To the Catholic—that testimony is equally conveyed through Sacred Oral Tradition and Sacred Written Tradition—the latter being what is known as Sacred Scripture.
…CONTINUED

 

[st_felicity]

***From DW:
And since it has demonstrable errors, does that also remove it as a reliable copy of inspired scripture?

REPLY:
To understand your position better, Are you saying should strive to find THE one single text that has all the books of Scripture bound together and without any humanly imposed errors such as a misplaced letter or a slip in spelling in order for you to consider it “reliable?” That rigidity is likely what led the author of the book you discussed in your opening to lose his FAITH.

Because Catholics can rely on the Church as well as the Traditional Scriptures, our faith is not bound to being able to point to the “perfect” written word and are rather free to worship the Perfect Word—as in Jesus. Again, Scripture is not the Logos—Jesus is. He revealed Himself to the Apostles, and they took Him to the whole world before anything was written of the New Covenant.

***From DW:
Who would have access to it? The pronouncement of Trent was still awaiting a decent printedcopy of the Vulgate. And the church would have to wait for centuries before one came along. What were Christians to use until that time? Not too many could travel to Florence to see Amiatinus, and even if they could, most would not be allowed into the Biblioteca Laurenziana to look over this copy of scripture. So, for all practical purposes, Amiatinus is off-limits.

REPLY:
To me… raising a “printed” copy to this level of adoration seems idolatrous.
The Amiatinus is merely a book—not God—nor in and of itself THE One Holy Bible. It is merely a representation—as all Bibles are—of what God has given man. Even if Jerome’s original text was found in perfect condition—it would still be a mere “copy” of the Sacred Scriptures. We cannot get our hand on the very letter of Paul to the Romans—it is lost to antiquity—and if we could, would that letter have no errors? I doubt it, Paul even remarks about his lousy handwriting! Further, the Revelation given Paul was experienced only by Paul on his journey to Damascus. We cannot experience God’s actual revelation as Paul did—we can know it only by his authoritative testimony to it. If you seek THE one piece of literature written by God’s very hand, you will have to find the ark of the covenant and locate those tablets from Mount Sinai. Traditional Scripture is the essence of God’s word—not God’s Word—that Word is Jesus, the God-Man.

***From DW:
Here’s the problem: If Amiatinus is king as far as the true manuscripts are concerned, then the entire Church for nearly 1500 years has had to rest their faith on inferior manuscripts.

REPLY:
That is only if the Scriptures are the manuscripts—they are not. They are the essence of what has been revealed and then taught through Sacred Tradition—the manuscripts are the means to know that revelation, but they are merely paper and ink and that is why Sacred Tradition is so “Sacred”—Jesus gave to His Apostles a weighty duty, but He provided them with the Advocate at Pentecost—Jesus DID NOT give His Apostles a manuscript imbued with His Glory.

***From DW:
(and again, I suspect I am wrong here in how you read the statement from Trent; but your quoting of Rev 22.18-19 with the emphasis on words being added to or subtracted from scripture suggests that this is how you view Trentine dogma),

REPLY:
That is correct, and I hope my above admission of overstatement and the link to Trent clarifies.

***From DW:
To this point in history we are left with no definitive Bible that can escape the scowl of Trent.

REPLY:
Because you are looking for ONE printed manuscript and Scripture is the testimony contained in texts that were codified—not the books or paper and ink themselves.
The history you convey of the printing of manuscripts is as accurate as I am aware, but again…Catholic belief concerning Scripture is not so rigid as apparently your position is and it is likely because we rely on Sacred Tradition in conjunction with the Sacred Scriptures. People are people—even popes and cardinals and bishops—error occur in the mundane minutia of human life. Human error of “printing” does not corrupt the testimony of the Apostles to the Revelation entrusted to them by God.

…continued

 

[st_felicity]

***From DW:
I don’t recall anything in the Trent document that says the editors of the Vulgate had to be Catholics (I strongly suspect it’s there; I just didn’t see it). But if it’s OK to be a Protestant and work on a Bible translation that could get papal imprimatur, then why didn’t the Wordsworth-White Vulgate get it?

REPLY:
Did the WW-Vulgate have what Catholics call the Deuterocanonical books and what Protestants call the Apocrypha? I’m certain there was much tension in the Church concerning what Luther and some others had done to the unity of the Church and I don’t doubt there was hesitancy to extend any sort of legitimacy to what is viewed as a heretical schism. however…your continued speculation on more modern bias is really just speculation and not particularly fair, in my opinion. Perhaps the Stuttgart (1969) isn’t used because it lacks punctuation and uses classic spellings and the purpose of “vulgate” is to have the text in the common language for ease of reading by the masses.

***From DW:
So, either critically-reconstructed texts cannot be considered all bad or else this pope doesn’t represent the magisterium. Can you help me, here, Felicity? This is so confusing to me, it’s hard to know what Vulgate text I should be reading.

REPLY:
Perhaps looking to what Scripture is, rather than to an individual manuscript, would be of benefit. And, perhaps reconsidering the means of God’s revelation in your life would be of benefit. God didn’t leave you with this mess of manuscripts—He gave you the Logos and He gave you a teaching authority protected by the Advocate—the Scriptures are the written form of that revelation, but not a “single” specific manuscript. The Tradition that underpins Scripture testifies to its authenticity—and concerning such passages in Mark you are personally willing to relegate to a footnote—the early Church Fathers have testified to their authenticity by their use of the text as profitable for teaching and instruction. Whereas you seem to only rely on what can be pointed to in a “particular text,” the Catholic Church “stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught…either by our spoken word or by our letter.” 2Thes 2:15 .

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…Do you see now the need to INSULATE against these scriptures?

Very helpful insights, Joey. I now see more clearly the connection between ‘insulate’ and ‘cult.’ The next question is ‘how’?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Elimnating those scriptures that are support Catholic Doctrine and creating a new Bible, IMHO would bring on the “Great Apostasy” …

Pretty reasoning. Can you elaborate on ‘Great Apostasy’ please? Thank you.

 

[st_felicity]

JoeyWarren:
Do you see now the need to INSULATE against these scriptures?
Yes I do. I tend to assume good will first, and sometimes that is a fault. In the blog of the OP, the Mark text was addressed concerning its statement that baptism is necessary and that was called into question and challenged, so I can see how protestants might want to “insulate” their members from that Truth. I hate seeing the evil side of the disunity Luther brought. It makes me so sad for those truly well intentioned Christ loving Protestants who are denied access to the fullness by the corrupted teaching of their ecclesial communities.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Very helpful insights, Joey. I now see more clearly the connection between ‘insulate’ and ‘cult.’ The next question is ‘how’?

That, I don’t have a clue …maybe with help of the anti-christ?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

…I can see how protestants might want to “insulate” their members from that Truth. I hate seeing the evil side of the disunity Luther brought. It makes me so sad for those truly well intentioned Christ loving Protestants who are denied access to the fullness by the corrupted teaching of their ecclesial communities.

I do too. In fact, as you know, it has made me heartsick. Yet the evils which are a matter of historical record are not going to go away because we ignore them. That is the ‘elephant in the room’ part of this thread.

We are talking about insulating folks. We cannot insulate folks from the truth. Those who truly cannot withstand hearing the truth will simply not hear the truth regardless of how loudly we shout it from the rooftops. That is their choice.

But we cannot take away the freedom of folks to choose by taking away the information they need in order to be free to choose. That would be bearing false witness.

Needs be some struggle to find a charitable way to articulate an ugy truth, I will admit that.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Yes I do. I tend to assume good will first, and sometimes that is a fault. In the blog of the OP, the Mark text was addressed concerning its statement that baptism is necessary and that was called into question and challenged, so I can see how protestants might want to “insulate” their members from that Truth.** I hate seeing the evil side of the disunity Luther brought. It makes me so sad for those truly well intentioned Christ loving Protestants who are denied access to the fullness by the corrupted teaching of their ecclesial communities**.

You and me both!

 

[st_felicity]

You and me both!

Hey–I checked your profile–I’m a former Baptist too. Swam Tiber in 88 and nearly drowned so I treaded water a Looooooong time–kissed the Blessed Banks about 7 years ago.

 

[JoeyWarren]

Pretty reasoning. Can you elaborate on ‘Great Apostasy’ please? Thank you.

Bible prophecy says there will be a great turning away from God, more commonly called “The Great Apostasy”.

Something is going to happen to trigger a massive turning away from God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Apostasy