Scott Hahn and "Prima Scriptura"?

[WBB]

+veritas+:

Does anyone have any thoughts on this issue? Can anyone give me any Church documents referencing the use of non-Christian books in teaching religion?

+veritas+

St. Paul referenced pagan writers frequently in his teachings…one example…the poet Epimenides penned “In him we live and move and have our being.” (Acts 17:28). Epimenides lived in the 6th century B.C. In the letter to Titus 1:12 he quotes Epimenides again, “It was one of themselves, one of their own prophets, who said, ‘Cretans were never anything but liars, dangerous animals, all greed and laziness’; and that is a true statement.” So to say that Dr. Hahn is wrong in teaching using Jewish texts would go against Apostolic Tradition in teaching. I agree with what others have said; it appears your friend had a personal issue with Dr. Hahn. I am sure, from my own reading of Dr. Hahn’s works, that he was using the Jewish texts to show how to appropriately read or interpret some passage of scripture.

 

[bengal_fan]

Peg:

I want to comment to bengal-fan about which came first, tradition or scripture. It seems very obvious to me that the apostles taught, preached and had Sunday services for years before anything was ever written. Otherwise we would have something written during the years 34-40 AD and I am sure that none of the NT was written before that time.

When do you suppose the first book of the NT was written?

it’s not about the new testament books (even though some of the letters have been dated as early at 40a.d.), but the fact that the early church still had scripture (and Jesus’ interpretation of it) guiding them. the old testament is still scripture. as for the argument, “then what about the jewish people before moses wrote the law?”. this is a good question. even though it was passed down by word of mouth, it was still scripture, it is the interpretation of the scripture and the guidelines for implementing it that makes up Tradition. all tradition though, comes from scripture in some shape or form (i.e. it is explicitly stated, prophesied, or a logical conclusion).

 

[bengal_fan]

The Dead Bishop:

thank you for your kind and humble advice, but as for me and mine…we shall follow the Lord.

wow, so does scott hahn and his family. that must mean you are protestant just like you say he is. following the Lord means loving one another and your judgements about your brother are not following the Lord.

 

[sparkle]

+veritas+:

I was at a friend’s for lunch today, and I made the mistake of mentioning Dr. Scott Hahn’s name… To our collective surprise, my friend reacted both violently and vocally (?!). He is a graduate of Steubenville (both BA and Masters in Theology), and apparently had Dr. Hahn as a professor in the early 90s. He has some very harsh things to say about him, both personally and “professionally”…! :nope:

One of his most vehement claims is that Dr. Hahn teaches “prima scriptura”, explaining this to us as a belief that Scripture is a “higher” authority than Tradition. My friend says that because of this, Dr. Hahn is heretical and goes against the teachings of the Church, and that when he called Dr. Hahn on it in class, he was ignored.

My question is, does anyone here actually know whether or not Dr. Hahn really teaches this currently (or even whether he ever taught this?)?

I have read and enjoyed everything I have ever read by Dr. Hahn, and have never gotten the impression from what I have read that he was trying to teach me that Scripture is primary over all else–rather, I always thought he reenforced for me my understanding of the equal importance of living Tradition, in that Tradition is what was passed down to us before the written canon of Scripture was established–Tradition is also the teaching of God, and Scripture is the unchaning revelation of the word to be used in conjunction with it. Tradition explains Scripture, and Scripture explains Tradition.

I have never taken Dr. Hahn’s classes, yet my friend did and claims to “know Dr. Hahn very well”. Even so, I will not accept what my friend has said to me against Dr. Hahn unconditionally–the fruits of Dr. Hahn’s work seem clear to me, and I myself have seen no problems in his writing. On top of this, my friend seems to have other “issues” with Dr. Hahn personally, and I fear that this is clouding his judgement…

Can anyone else shed any light on this or point me towards anything that addresses this concern of “prima scriptura”??

Thanks

+veritas+

Your friend might have had Dr. Hahn in his pre-catholic era. DO some research. WHY does it matter to you so much anyway?
You think what you think about books,like we all do…

 

[crazyage3]

I dont understand that b/c Scott Han is one of the many people that helped me deepen my faith within the Catholic Church! I learned not to go by scripture alone by him!Besides wasnt he a protestant before he was catholic?

 

[Kazige2007]

it’s not about the new testament books (even though some of the letters have been dated as early at 40a.d.), but the fact that the early church still had scripture (and Jesus’ interpretation of it) guiding them. the old testament is still scripture. as for the argument, “then what about the jewish people before moses wrote the law?”. this is a good question. even though it was passed down by word of mouth, it was still scripture, it is the interpretation of the scripture and the guidelines for implementing it that makes up Tradition. all tradition though, comes from scripture in some shape or form (i.e. it is explicitly stated, prophesied, or a logical conclusion).

bengal_fan,
The word “scripture”, in simple terms, means sacred writings. And we are told that the composition of the whole OT was a process that took about 1000 years. It took took many years after Moses died before the books of Moses were actually written . The Word of God was transmitted orally first- for generations- before they were put in writing. My understanding regarding this matter is that there was Sacred Tradition ( faithful transmission of the Word of God, so to speak) before the OT books were written: Sacred Tradition gave birth to Sacred Scripture. My conclusion here, obviously, is: Tradition predates Scripture.
I recommend The Jerusalem Biblical Commentary, by Raymond Brown, SS etc. especially the topic of Canonicity. But I am also ready to learn if my consideration is wrong .

The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

 

[Joe_5859]

bengal_fan,
The word “scripture”, in simple terms, means sacred writings. And we are told that the composition of the whole OT was a process that took about 1000 years. It took took many years after Moses died before the books of Moses were actually written . The Word of God was transmitted orally first- for generations- before they were put in writing. My understanding regarding this matter is that there was Sacred Tradition ( faithful transmission of the Word of God, so to speak) before the OT books were written: Sacred Tradition gave birth to Sacred Scripture. My conclusion here, obviously, is: Tradition predates Scripture.
I recommend The Jerusalem Biblical Commentary, by Raymond Brown, SS etc. especially the topic of Canonicity. But I am also ready to learn if my consideration is wrong .

The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

Just FYI, this thread is almost 4 years old, so don’t be surprised if Bengal fan doesn’t reply back to you.

Also, although Raymond Brown is greatly respected by many, there are some that have serious problems with his biblical scholarship. Click here if you’re interested in any articles that comment on the potentially problematic parts of Brown’s scholarship.

 

[BRB]

Hahn fully accepts Tradition of church … and says so on his tapes, etc. He also says if he is ever accused of teaching err … he will gladly refine his teachings to ‘better conform’ with Church directives.

 

[juliamajor]

bengal_fan,
The word “scripture”, in simple terms, means sacred writings. And we are told that the composition of the whole OT was a process that took about 1000 years. It took took many years after Moses died before the books of Moses were actually written . The Word of God was transmitted orally first- for generations- before they were put in writing. My understanding regarding this matter is that there was Sacred Tradition ( faithful transmission of the Word of God, so to speak) before the OT books were written: Sacred Tradition gave birth to Sacred Scripture. My conclusion here, obviously, is: Tradition predates Scripture.
I recommend The Jerusalem Biblical Commentary, by Raymond Brown, SS etc. especially the topic of Canonicity. But I am also ready to learn if my consideration is wrong .

The peace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you!

It’s"Jerome or New Jerome Biblical Commentary" And Brown is only one of many scholars contributing.- use it all the time- great stuff.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

I have and study the whole series of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible (the ones that have been published so far), with Introduction, Commentary, and Notes by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch. Nowhere in these books have I seen anything except good catholic teaching on the Holy Scripture.

They all have the *Nihil obstat *and Imprimatur. One of the Imprimaturs is from William Levada, at the time the Archbishop of San Francisco and now the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith at the Vatican.

Scott Hahn, with his love and knowledge of Holy Scripture, is a great blessing to the Catholic Church and to all the faithful he has helped to gain a better understanding of their faith.

 

[peary]

I agree with most of what bengal_fan says except I would not say that traditions don’t change. Some traditions do in fact change along a timeline and this is the reason for measuring tradition with scripture. If there is a contradiction between the two, scripture is right.

Tom

But tradition (with small ‘t’) isn’t at issue here; it’s whether Sacred Tradition (capital ‘S’ capital ‘T’) is something that can be changed, and the answer to that is an emphatic ‘no’.

 

[Katholish]

Wow! Someone dug up this old debate. Cool. I actually wrote my 60+ page thesis because of this debate.

 

[Lock_Down]

Can anyone else shed any light on this or point me towards anything that addresses this concern of “prima scriptura”??

Thanks

+veritas+

I think this is it.

books.google.com/books?id=laaQV4_2QLQC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=%27scott+hahn%27+%27prima+scriptura%27&source=bl&ots=Cnw3nOS4me&sig=cDpazfzfTq_tdRkWvSwdAc-mVzU&hl=en&ei=DiJISsfmHIa2M8PFqKIB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

It covers several pages. In one footnote, it says “It should be noted that prima scriptura does not imply the superiority of Scripture, but rather, its relative primacy for Catholic theology.”

After reading the actual text, though, I got a slightly different impression. I mean, the footnote’s not a lie, but that alone doesn’t bracket Hahn squarely within the Roman Catholic position in this case. (So I say…feel free to correct that. I’m not 100% satisfied with my own assessment here). I’m no expert on Orthodox Christianity by any means, and I’m only going off of what a friend told me about it, but it sounds like Hahn’s view of the Scripture-Tradition relationship is closer to an Orthodox one than to a Roman Catholic one.

I read through some of the information on Hahn’s “conversion,” and it looks like he did give strong consideration to the OC as well as the CC. He has several reasons for favoring the CC, including the filoque clause, ethnic divisions, the Pope, and a few others. Nevertheless, it looks like there is a bit of an Orthodox flavor to some of his beliefs. That’s what I’m tasting on this one, anyway.

Even if that’s what it is, though, the CC is relatively cool with the OC, right? Bear in mind that the Orthodox position on the Pope was one of the primary factors driving Hahn to swim the Tiber instead of the…is it the Volga? I don’t think it’s really cool to call Orthodox Christians heretics, and far less to say the same of a formal Catholic in full submission to the Pope just because of something that maybe (or maybe does not) have Orthodox flavor.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think this is it.

books.google.com/books?id=laaQV4_2QLQC&pg=PA180&lpg=PA180&dq=%27scott+hahn%27+%27prima+scriptura%27&source=bl&ots=Cnw3nOS4me&sig=cDpazfzfTq_tdRkWvSwdAc-mVzU&hl=en&ei=DiJISsfmHIa2M8PFqKIB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3

It covers several pages. In one footnote, it says “It should be noted that prima scriptura does not imply the superiority of Scripture, but rather, its relative primacy for Catholic theology.”

After reading the actual text, though, I got a slightly different impression. I mean, the footnote’s not a lie, but that alone doesn’t bracket Hahn squarely within the Roman Catholic position in this case. (So I say…feel free to correct that. I’m not 100% satisfied with my own assessment here). I’m no expert on Orthodox Christianity by any means, and I’m only going off of what a friend told me about it, but it sounds like Hahn’s view of the Scripture-Tradition relationship is closer to an Orthodox one than to a Roman Catholic one.

I read through some of the information on Hahn’s “conversion,” and it looks like he did give strong consideration to the OC as well as the CC. He has several reasons for favoring the CC, including the filoque clause, ethnic divisions, the Pope, and a few others. Nevertheless, it looks like there is a bit of an Orthodox flavor to some of his beliefs. That’s what I’m tasting on this one, anyway.

Even if that’s what it is, though, the CC is relatively cool with the OC, right? Bear in mind that the Orthodox position on the Pope was one of the primary factors driving Hahn to swim the Tiber instead of the…is it the Volga? I don’t think it’s really cool to call Orthodox Christians heretics, and far less to say the same of a formal Catholic in full submission to the Pope just because of something that maybe (or maybe does not) have Orthodox flavor.

Could you elaborate on what it is about Hahn’s position that seems more “Orthodox” than “Catholic”?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation” (Dei Verbum, n. 2), which includes the deed of Christ dying for our salvation on the Cross, and the deed of inspiring Scripture. Sacred Scripture describes the deeds, but Tradition is the deeds. Tradition includes salvation itself (the deed of Christ on the Cross), but Scripture only describes salvation. Therefore Tradition is greater than Scripture.

 

[Lock_Down]

Could you elaborate on what it is about Hahn’s position that seems more “Orthodox” than “Catholic”?

Ok, this is from Dei Verbum, n. 10. Vatican II.

But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

Hahn appears to have limited the Catholic Church to interpreting that which is written. This is part of what he says.

The same Holy Spirit who inspired the founders and leaders of the Church in the first generation to write the New Testament is able to guide their successors and teach it truly in all future generations. The Holy Spirit enlightens the Church to interpret what He inspired.

I don’t know if Hahn meant to limit the Church’s role to that of interpreting Scripture, but it seems that he has left out the interpretation of what was handed down along with Scripture. There is truth that continues to be revealed and handed down, as well. In his defense of Prima Scriptura- which really does not necessarily have to be anything but entirely Catholic- it so happens that Hahn (from what I can see) is one step removed form “what has been handed down” (apart from Scripture) and two steps removed from what continues to be revealed and subsequently handed down.

As for the Orthodox view on Holy Tradition, it’s not too different from Sacred Tradition. There are some small things that differentiate them, though.

Holy Tradition, for the Eastern Orthodox, is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction…It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence. wapedia.mobi/en/Sacred_tradition

One of the ways this difference comes up between the CC and the EOC is where matters of infallible declaration of doctrine are concerned. The CC continues to be a source of truth revealed by the Holy Spirit, not just and interpreter of it (though it is that, and I think I must admit this is its primary role most of the time). The EOC limits Holy Tradition to protecting what Christ taught His apostles and is all for the authoritative interpretation of it, but is not too excited about the Catholic notion of Church leadership that continues to be a source of revealed truth.

Granted, Hahn does not express any distaste for this. Any argument claiming Hahn’s beliefs as non-Catholic will be, on this matter, mostly an argument from omission. Perhaps he only wanted to emphasize one particular part of the relationship between the Church and Scripture. Maybe he never intended for this to be a comprehensive analysis of the relationship. Either way, Scott Hahn is a very good man whose submission to the Pope and the Church is beyond reproach. I know he’s working as hard as anyone to fully understand Catholic doctrine and align himself with it, and as far as any other person’s efforts help him do so, I don’t think he minds them one bit.

 

[Lock_Down]

Tradition is “the deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation” (Dei Verbum, n. 2), which includes the deed of Christ dying for our salvation on the Cross, and the deed of inspiring Scripture. Sacred Scripture describes the deeds, but Tradition is the deeds. Tradition includes salvation itself (the deed of Christ on the Cross), but Scripture only describes salvation. Therefore Tradition is greater than Scripture.

I don’t really like the idea of saying any of the three- Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium- is greater than another. All three are indispensable, and all three collectively form the whole of Church authority. This might not be the best comparison of all time, but saying “Tradition is greater than Scripture” is a bit like saying “The Holy Spirit is greater than Jesus” (or vice versa). Particularly since Scripture and Tradition, together, make up a deposit of faith that is one and the same.

CCC, 80: “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.

CCC, 82: “As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”’

CCC, 86: “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

If you’re open to my honest opinion, this is what it is: The tendency to say “Tradition is greater than Scripture” often comes as a knee-jerk reaction to its polar opposite, found in Protestantism. I think that in this case, your knee may be responding in opposition to Protestant beliefs instead of moving in harmony with Catholic doctrine.

And finally, with respect to the OP: Perhaps Hahn’s main idea in defending the “Primacy of Scripture” is not one that says “Scripture is greater than tradition,” but instead, he means to say “Tradition serves Scripture, just as the Magisterium serves the single deposit of faith that is Scripture-Tradition.”

 

[Joe_5859]

I don’t know if Hahn meant to limit the Church’s role to that of interpreting Scripture, but it seems that he has left out the interpretation of what was handed down along with Scripture. There is truth that continues to be revealed and handed down, as well. In his defense of Prima Scriptura- which really does not necessarily have to be anything but entirely Catholic- it so happens that Hahn (from what I can see) is one step removed form “what has been handed down” (apart from Scripture) and two steps removed from what continues to be revealed and subsequently handed down.

I think, giving the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Hahn, I think the simple explanation is that he is primarily a biblical scholar. Thus, most of what he writes is about Scripture specifically. I don’t see what evidence there is in that quote that would prove that Dr. Hahn somehow advocates that Sacred Scripture is more important than Sacred Tradition. Further, it doesn’t seem quite fair to ascribe to him this belief based on the fact that he left such a statement out of this one paragraph. I’m pretty certain Dr. Hahn is familiar with Dei Verbum.

Dr. Hahn is writing the forthcoming book “The Church: The Sacrament of Salvation”, in the Didache Semester Series of textbooks (it’s due out in Spring 2010). Perhaps this might help assuage your concerns about where Dr. Hahn stands. Or you could check out his book “Understanding the Scriptures.” It will give you a pretty thorough idea of where Dr. Hahn stands:

“For the Catholic believer the Word of God alone is supreme. But the Scriptures are not the only source for God’s Word, as the Scriptures themselves will tell you” (p. 7).

Just an aside, I think that it is incorrect to say that “there is truth that continues to be revealed”. Public revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. There is certainly doctrinal development, but that is not the same thing as having new truths be revealed. Perhaps that is what you meant, anyway, in which case, I simply disagree on your choice of words.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Joe5859:

I think, giving the benefit of the doubt to Dr. Hahn, I think the simple explanation is that he is primarily a biblical scholar. Thus, most of what he writes is about Scripture specifically.

Well said. This whole thread is based on a malcontent’s slanders.

 

[Joe_5859]

Well said. This whole thread is based on a malcontent’s slanders.

Thanks! I don’t quite understand some of the criticism Hahn receives. The man converted over 20 years ago, got his PhD from a Catholic university, and has read more works of the Church Fathers, Popes, and Councils than probably most of the people on this forum put together. Yet some people treat him as though he converted yesterday and is unfamiliar with how Catholics really think because of his Protestant upbringing.