Textual critics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dionysus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Dionysus

Guest
Hello. I was just wondering if anyone here knew of any good Catholic scholars in the field of textual criticism (names of authors and/or works are welcome). I’m aware a myriad of protestant biblical scholars as well as a number of skeptical critics of the bible, but not of many Catholic scholars advocating the the validity of Christian scripture and the Catholic perspective of it (I am not well read in this field at all though, so that would explain my ignorance here).

Specifically, I am interested in textual criticism dealing with the assembling of the bible by the early church and any response to allegations that the scriptures were doctored or hampered with. Any information would be appreciated.
 
The late Fr. Raymond E. Brown is a well-respected scholar. His work, “An Introduction to the New Testament” is a wonderful book.

For a pretty exhaustive list of links visit my buddy’s site here. Scroll down the right side and there are years worth of reading available.

All my best . . .
 
Some prominent Catholic bible scholars who haven’t been mentioned:

Roland Murphy, O.Carm.
Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J.
Jerome Neyrey, S.J.
John P. Meier
Luke Timothy Johnson
Pheme Perkins
George Montague, S.M.
Eugene Laverdiere, S.S.S.

I’m sure there are lots of others.
 
Thanks for the names and the links. It’ll save me the tedious trouple of having to research this on the internet, which is nothing but a labyrinth for me.
 
I believe Bruce Metzger was Catholic.

But I have to wonder, why are you interested in Catholic critics? Why are evangelical critics like Dan Wallace uninteresting to you?
 
Well, for one, protestant bible scholars are often biblical literalists, which is an idea that I’m inclined to reject outright. While I’m aware that this doesn’t necessarily effect their thoughts and work not related to that subject, I’m a tad worried that such scholars may bring a somewhat “unscientific” attitude. I am open to suggestions about good protestant critics, but laziness prevents me from taking the time to look for good reliable sources that don’t hold what I consider to be an untenable position (literalism).

With Catholic Scholars I wouldn’t have to worry abnout stumbling into such a problem, or with Orthodox sbible scholars, though I am not aware of many of those. In short, Catholic scholars seem, from my point view, general more “trustworthy” so to speak. Other problems arise when one finds “Anglican” scholars who turn out to be sceptics in all but name, or even the occasional “progressive” protestant.

I have know problems though with confirmed reliable protestant sources though. Josh McDowell, for example, has impressed me. Protestant scholars just seem more theologically “risky”.
 
Dionysus said:
Well, for one, protestant bible scholars are often biblical literalists, which is an idea that I’m inclined to reject outright. While I’m aware that this doesn’t necessarily effect their thoughts and work not related to that subject, I’m a tad worried that such scholars may bring a somewhat “unscientific” attitude. I am open to suggestions about good protestant critics, but laziness prevents me from taking the time to look for good reliable sources that don’t hold what I consider to be an untenable position (literalism).
Click to expand...
There are few literalists in textual criticism today, at least when you get outside the penumbra of (insert-pet-translation)-onlyists, in my experience.

Most of the biblical scholars I’m aware of (who tend to be in the Metzger-Aland axis) are not anything even remotely close to literalists.

As to Catholic textual critics, I note that Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini is the Chair of Textual Criticism at the Pontifical Biblical Institute. He was an advisor to an edition of the Greek New Testament (which seems to be the Nestle-Aland version). He might be worth looking into.
 
hatsoff said:
I believe Bruce Metzger was Catholic.

But I have to wonder, why are you interested in Catholic critics? Why are evangelical critics like Dan Wallace uninteresting to you?
Click to expand...
Bruce Metzger was probably one of the finest textual critics of his time, but he wasn’t Catholic. I believe he was an ordained presbyterian minister. He was on the RSV translation committee and served as chair to the NRSV project. His wikipedia site lists a number of his textual works, all of which are worth picking up: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_M._Metzger
 
dio,
I found Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1997) a good balanced starting point for dealing with canon formation, which seems to be core of your quest. It’s not a huge volume. You could read it in a couple weeks casually.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary has good scholarly overview for ‘historical critical method’ and for the many nuances of your question.

However, know that the above works are scholarly and promote no allegiance to any denomination. It’s dry factual stuff.

Hope this helped,
Peter
 
PeterK said:
dio,
I found Metzger’s The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (1997) a good balanced starting point for dealing with canon formation, which seems to be core of your quest. It’s not a huge volume. You could read it in a couple weeks casually.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary has good scholarly overview for ‘historical critical method’ and for the many nuances of your question.

However, know that the above works are scholarly and promote no allegiance to any denomination. It’s dry factual stuff.

Hope this helped,
Peter
Click to expand...
Ditto. It is a great text, authoritative and well worth reading.
 
Dionysus said:
Well, for one, protestant bible scholars are often biblical literalists, which is an idea that I’m inclined to reject outright. While I’m aware that this doesn’t necessarily effect their thoughts and work not related to that subject, I’m a tad worried that such scholars may bring a somewhat “unscientific” attitude. I am open to suggestions about good protestant critics, but laziness prevents me from taking the time to look for good reliable sources that don’t hold what I consider to be an untenable position (literalism). With Catholic Scholars I wouldn’t have to worry abnout stumbling into such a problem, or with Orthodox sbible scholars, though I am not aware of many of those. In short, Catholic scholars seem, from my point view, general more “trustworthy” so to speak. Other problems arise when one finds “Anglican” scholars who turn out to be sceptics in all but name, or even the occasional “progressive” protestant…
Click to expand...
Let me suggest a Catholic bible commentary series then. A really nice up-to-date series with modern scholarship and a good balance of analytic rigor and pastorally sensitive interpretation is the Sacra Pagina series, which I believe is edited by Daniel Harrington, S.J. It’s available from Amazon.com, and I usually get used volumes in the $15 range. I’ve used several commentaries in that series and found them really good. Not quite as lengthy or critically rigorous as the Anchor Bible Commentary series, not as focused on interpretation (without as much critical apparatus) as the aptly named Interpretation commentary series. A good balance. I’ve gone through commentaries on Galatians, I Peter, II Peter, Jude, and Revelation and found all were really well done. There is a companion series on Old Testament books called Berith Olam, but I haven’t used any of the commentaries in that series.

By the way, the Anchor Bible commentaries on John and the letters of John by Raymond Brown, SS, and on Luke and Acts by Joseph Fitzmyer, S.J. are first rate (even though Raymond Browns’ commentaries are now a bit dated). I’d suggest anything by Raymond Brown, in fact. He’s my favorite NT commentator, although he passed away several years ago. I’m also a huge fan of John P. Meier’s series A Marginal Jew, a study on the historical Jesus. The fourth volume was recently published and a fifth is anticipated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top