"Scott Hahn's Novelties"

[fogie]

For those of us who have parishes who don’t see the importance of any form of adult education, Scott Hahn has been a real blessing. I’ve read all of his books, which I find to be much better than his tapes. I also recommend the two books by Dave Currie.

I feel bad that my “Everyone hold hands and sing Kumbaya” formation as a child was lacking. I’ve been reading almost everything I can get my hands on for the last five years. As you can guess, I mispronounce a lot of terms now.

If there are others like Scott Hahn, let me know.

Pax Christi

 

[fogie]

On Melchizedek:
Wasn’t the “Melchizedek is Shem” idea promoted by the apostate Jews. Since Abram gave tithe to Melchizedek, Melchizedek was of higher position. Jesus, who is a priest in the line of Melchizedek, would be of more stature than Abram, who is of more stature (being a ancestor) than Levite. Putting this A>B and B>C so A>C together, we get that Jesus was of higher authority than the Levitical priesthood. A counter to this was the Melchizedek is Shem argument. Abram making an offering to his ancestor would be appropriate and doesn’t diminish the position of the Levitical priesthood. The article I read even said that several Jewish documents changed the live spans to accommodate this. I wish I could remember where I read this.

Note that the ancestry of Melchizedek is never mentioned. Does that mean it was obvious who he was or does that give more validation to him being a type (as in typology) of Christ?

Pax Christi

 

[Karl_Keating]

agname:

Next we’ll have individuals complaining about St. Patrick explaining the Trinity with a shamrock.

Actually, it’s been done. Frank Sheed noted, years ago, that “the shamrock does not help us understand the Trinity. It helps us swallow the Trinity.” (I quote here from memory.)

In fact, the shamrock is a poor symbol of the Trinity because it is composed of three separate leaves attached to one stem. The implication is that the Godhead is three separate Gods who have joined together.

The problem, of course, is that there is nothing in nature that really illustrates three Persons in one nature. The best one can do is to point to something that shows three things “next to” one another or “next to” a fourth thing, but not three things “in” one another or “in” a fourth.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

Fogie:

According to Hahn, there is a basis in the Catholic tradition for the Melchisedek-Shem identification. He writes:

Perhaps not surprisingly, this Shem-as-Melchizedek view also came to be shared by many ancient Christian interpreters like Ephrem and Jerome (both saints and doctors of the Church). It later became a commonplace in the Medieval period, as it appears in Alcuin, Sedulius, Scot, Aimon d’Auxerre, and Peter Lombard; it even shows up in the marginal annotations of the Glossa Ordinaria (J.P. Migne, ed., Patroligia Latina [Paris, 1841-1855] 198:1094-5) . . .

{A Father Who Keeps His Promises: God’s Covenant Love in Scripture, p. 279}

This, from another Catholic apologist, also might be of some interest:

Before I go further, I would bring up a few things on the Jewish tradition on Melchizedek. Rabbi Juday bar Simon held that the three patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob received blessing because of the merit of having Abram’s having given Melchizedek a tithe. Philo and Josephus note that Melchizedek is the first priest mentioned in the Torah (in Gen. 14). They saw Melchizedek as not just a priest, he was the progenitor of all priesthood. For Rabbinic Judaism, the priesthood was passed on to Abraham and his offspring recorded in Genesis 14:18. Jewish tradition held that Melchizedek was identified as Shem, the Son of Noah. According to the age laid out in Genesis, Shem lived 210 years after the birth of Abraham, 35 years longer than Abraham lived (Fred Horton, The Melchizedek Tradition, Cambridge University Press, Melbourne, 1976, pp. 122, 157-9, 114).

Father [Pablo] Gadenz also notes this tradition of Melchizedek as being Noah’s son Shem. Melchizedek is a title, not a name per se:

Through recourse to Jewish traditions of interpretation, we discover that Melchizedek is identified in the Jewish Targums and midrashic sources as Shem, the first-born son of Noah. (Father Gadenz footnotes this as follows: footnote 14: Joseph Fitzmyer cites the Targum Neofiti I, the Fragmentary Targums, and the Targum Pseuto-Jonathan, all of which identify Melchizedek as Shem; see his article “Now This Melchizedek…’(Heb. 7, 1)’Catholic Biblical Quarterly

25 (1963), 313, fn. 32.) In this interpretation, the blessing by Noah of Shem-Melchizedek in Gen. 9:26 is understood as the patriarchal priestly blessing, which is then passed on by Shem_Melchizedek to Abraham in Gen. 14:19. Hence, Shem-Melchizedek, the first-born son of Noah, is the chief priest and patriarch (father figure) over his house, that is over all of his extended family which through ten generations includes Abraham as well (cf. Gen 11:10-26). Abraham, after receiving the blessing from Shem-Melchizedek, is designated to become the new chief priest and patriarch over all his descendants. (Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God, pp. 217-218).

Father Gadenz also notes that Saint Ephrem the Syrian, a fourth century doctor of the Church, and Saint Jerome, who studied under the Jews, also identified Shem as Melchizedek (St. Ephrem the Syrian Commentary on Genesis section XI, in the The Fathers of the Church, vol. 91 (Washington: The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), p. 151), and St. Jerome, Epistle 73 Patrologica Latina, vol. 22, 676-81). St. Jerome in his commentary on Genesis (Corpus Christianorum: Series Latina, vol. 72, 19), where in speaking of the Jews’ assessment of Melchizedek, writes:

They say that he [Melchizedek] was Shem, the son of Noah, and calculating the years of his life, they declare that he lived to the time of Isaac, and that all the first-born [from] Noah, until Aaron exercised the priesthood, were high priests (Catholic for a Reason: Scripture and the Mystery of the Family of God

, p. 218).

Scott Hahn, saying he is drawing upon Jewish Tradition, argues that it went without argument that Shem actually was Melchizedek. He argued that the early Christians assumed that was so, (as seen above by Sts. Jerome and Ephrem). Shem was the one blessed by Noah (Gen. 9:26). Noah was the Father, and priest, of all the earth. Thus, Shem received the blessing from Noah, and thus he now would be the priest over all the earth. That indeed shows how since Shem is priest-king, and would thus be a priest-king over all the earth, not just Salem. This shows even further how the type of the figure of Melchizedek (Which is a Title, not a Name, per se) is fulfilled in Jesus being a priest-king over all the earth (Scott Hahn, Tape series The Epistle to the Hebrews 8 tapes, tape 3, St. Joseph Communications.) That is how he could be the source of blessing for Abraham, who would therefore accept it. That Melchizedek was Shem, is thus accepted by both Jewish and Christian traditions.

Interesting stuff.

 

[Tarcisius]

I understand all the positive things said about Dr. Hahn. I think he has done a lot of good for a lot of people, me and my wife included, but I guess no one here has read the article in the New Oxford Review yet. I think the article needs to be looked at.

When some of the issues are mentioned in these posts, everything seems OK. When I look at the discussion of them in the article, I have my doubts. The author seems to have good reasons against what Dr. Hahn is saying. His biggest issue is about how covenant and family are used. The stuff about the dragon and Melchizedek is not the big thing.

I hope someone will read the article and will comment about the author’s argument. I looked for the article online, but the web site for the New Oxford Review hasn’t been updated in about a year. Maybe someone can scan it in and post it so everyone can read it? I don’t have a scanner.

 

[fogie]

DominvsVobiscvm,

Thank you for your excellent summary of the Melchisedek-Shem relationship. I’ll go to bed smarter than when I woke up!

I always say that I’ve got to get smarter because I’m not getting better looking.

Pax Christi

 

[Carrie_Andrews]

IMHO, Scott Hahn and his wife, Kimberly, are rocking Catholics! He must be on the right track if he’s getting attacked, especially by media!!! I’ve read some of his books and find them very instructive and Spirit filled!

 

[SHEMP]

theMutant:

OOPS!

I indicated the wrong tape set. The one where he discusses the topic of this thread is “Salvation History,” also available from St. Joseph Communications and also an EXCELLENT series. If you want to hear what Dr. Hahn said about Shem being Melchesidech and the serpent in the Garden being a Dragon, this is the tape set to get.

I’ve listened to a number of Hahn’s tapes and CD’s. The content is good but the production quality is abominable. He needs to get better audio equipment, especially for the price he charges.

 

[agname]

Karl Keating:

Actually, it’s been done. Frank Sheed noted, years ago, that “the shamrock does not help us understand the Trinity. It helps us swallow the Trinity.” (I quote here from memory.)

In fact, the shamrock is a poor symbol of the Trinity because it is composed of three separate leaves attached to one stem. The implication is that the Godhead is three separate Gods who have joined together.

The problem, of course, is that there is nothing in nature that really illustrates three Persons in one nature. The best one can do is to point to something that shows three things “next to” one another or “next to” a fourth thing, but not three things “in” one another or “in” a fourth.

I believe the best evangelists…are those who can simplify the complex…to reach those of all intellectual levels…even the lowest. Given what he was working with…he was doing a great job. Actually…given today’s standards…from what I’ve seen…he’s still above par.

For those who don’t know…Patrick would hold up a shamrock (purely a teaching aid) and challenge his hearers, “Is it one leaf or three?” The crowd said, “It is both one leaf and three.” He replied…“And so it is with God.”

After having read his material…he was pretty careful in not confusing pagans (those he was trying to convert) with the idea of Polytheism.

 

[agname]

Those those who haven’t…I recommend
reading…the “Confessio” of Saint Patrick…
and St. Augustine’s as well.

 

[agname]

To this day we still utilize the trefoil, triquetra, interwoven circles, the equilateral triangle, and circles of fish to symbolize the Trinity.

 

[Karl_Keating]

agname:

I believe the best evangelists…are those who can simplify the complex…to reach those of all intellectual levels…even the lowest. Given what he was working with…he was doing a great job. Actually…given today’s standards…from what I’ve seen…he’s still above par.

The shamrock may have been a step up intellectually for the Irish pagans, but Sheed’s point was that it shouldn’t have been used by (mainly Irish) priests to instruct their flocks in the mid-twentieth century.

 

[Catholicguy]

*It seems to me that most of the animus against Dr. Hahn and others arises from a sector of the Church who fear the *
“Protestantisation” of the Church by new converts, especially if they are popular

It might be the case that Cradle Catholics who know the Faith are rather reluctant to see converts championed as difinitive experts even as those such as Ignatius,Basil, Irenaeus, Augustine, Aquinas , Ambrose, Bonaventure, Catherine, De Sales, Jerome, Chrysostom, Pope Leo, Bellarmine, et al. are seldom, if ever, acknowledged.

I prefer Cradle Catholics’ explanations of the Faith rather than those of a convert. They know it from the inside. They have both practical and intellectual knowledge. I certainly don’t begrudge Hahn’s success but he is not the expert on the Faith some imagine him to be.

And, “The Wanderer” has chronicled a rather nasty process whereby his convert wife gained control over a Catholic HomeSchooling program run by an Orthodox Cradle Catholic and Mrs. Hahn’s literatue tables at her Catholic Home Schooling confabs feature numerous Protestant texts while prohibiting what are deemed, I guess, “traditionalist” Cataholic texts.

 

[DominvsVobiscvm]

It might be the case that Cradle Catholics who know the Faith are rather reluctant to see converts championed as difinitive experts even as those such as Ignatius,Basil, Irenaeus, Augustine, Aquinas , Ambrose, Bonaventure, Catherine, De Sales, Jerome, Chrysostom, Pope Leo, Bellarmine, et al. are seldom, if ever, acknowledged.

Which shows me that you’ve never read a single one of Hahn’s books, at least never looked at the footnotes.

 

[Becky]

Penni:

Can you post a link here to that article?

Here is their site, but I’m not sure if they have the article online: newoxfordreview.org.

 

[Xenon-135]

I have several books written by Scott Hahn and I agree that he utilizes the covenant relationship in some fashion in almost everything he authors. I can’t imagine what would possibly be the objection to this covenant view of salvation history?

It would appear to me that unless one was to embrace the dispensationalist viewpoint of salvation, that the covenant love relationship is right on the mark.

I would give more creedence to claims against Dr. Hahn if it weren’t that all of his books bear both the Imprimateur and the Nihl Obstat (pardon the spelling).

I get kind of jealous of protestant converts who are popular too, but heck, I figure thats what the parable of the prodigal son was all about. I am happy to have Dr. Hahn as part of our Catholic family and I surely appreciate the contribution he and Kimberly have made to my own spiritual growth.

Oh, yeah, and I think it would be nice if he would pause from writing for just a brief spell and pick up his axe and let us hear what he can do. I mean, he writes that he played guitar, I think maybe him and Patrick Madrid could do a CD together or something. Just a thought.

Yours in Christ

 

[agname]

Karl Keating:

The shamrock may have been a step up intellectually for the Irish pagans, but Sheed’s point was that it shouldn’t have been used by (mainly Irish) priests to instruct their flocks in the mid-twentieth century.

I would respond the symbol alone of course is not inerrant…the subject matter requires a thorough explanation in conjunction with this visual aid. I still use it to explain the Trinity to kids…to me it’s no different than drawing the trefoil. I can see his point…but, I also see the other side.

 

[gomer_tree]

Both converts and cradle Catholics, reverts, etc. serve a purpose in evangelization. A cradle Catholic may have some success in converting a Protestant, or at the very least holding reasonable discussion. But there’s nothing that can replace the experience of one who’s been there. I say this as a cradle Catholic.

Also, in some ways regarding the spiritual and personal relationship with God, and the zeal to evangelize, many Protestants were light-years ahead. Sometimes it takes a guy like Hahn to make even the cradle Catholics realize how great our faith is. These guys say “look… I was on fire for Jesus *before *I had the fullness of truth. Now that I understand the Catholic faith, why aren’t you guys screaming this from the rooftops!?” And he’s right. He helped me realize I should appreciate my faith more and put it more into action.

Of course, cradle Catholics and reverts also have their own stories, and there is no shortage of good apologists and theologians here as well. And I haven’t heard anyone suggest that we should read Hahn et al before we read Augustine et al.

Hey. Come on guys. There’s room for everyone!

 

[MARTIN2]

CHECK OUT DR. HAHN’S WEBSITE ON SALVATION HISTORY. HE JUST FINISHED 3 ONLINE COURSES ON SALVATION HISTORY. FOR BEGINNERS, INTERMEDIATE AND ADVANCED PEOPLE. THEY ARE VERY GOOD. YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT SALVATION HISTORY? VISIT THE ONLINE COURSES. HE GOES INTO DETAIL ABOUT COVENANTS, ADAM AND THE DRAGON, THE TRINITY, SHEM AND MELQUISEDEK AND EVERY THING YOU WANT TO KNOW ABOUT OUR FATHERS PLAN.

---

HERE IS THE LINK, YOU WON’T REGRET TAKING A LOOK AT IT!
SALVATIONHISTORY.COM

---

 

[theMutant]

SHEMP:

I’ve listened to a number of Hahn’s tapes and CD’s. The content is good but the production quality is abominable. He needs to get better audio equipment, especially for the price he charges.

The quality of the recordings is less important than the content. I would like better quality myself. The tapes I’ve heard were not recorded in sound studios but in homes or classrooms. Therefore, I’m grateful that the recordings aren’t worse!