|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 10, 2009 14:25:48 GMT
Some time ago Harris suggested opening a thread on thsi subject, so let's get goign with this piece from the PERTINACIOUS PAPIST blog, which amongst other things explores the current state of Catholic scripture studies and how the Bible becomes dead when separated from the liturgical life of the Church and her developing faith. pblosser.blogspot.com/2009/11/tolle-lege-this-catholic-bible.htmlEXTRACTS "Exegetes or theologians carried away by an earlier enthusiasm may find it difficult to be open to a new one or to the re-emergence, even in modified forms, of ideas that they had earlier rejected,” warns Murphy. But “current, widely accepted opinions in theology and exegesis also need to be wary of various subtle and not so subtle forms of authoritarianism.” Can we get an A-men? “If we can put aside our prejudices and return to [older encyclicals and pronouncements of the Pontifical Biblical Commission] and their history, they may help us avoid two extremes: an enclosed mutual-admiration-society of either the right or the left; and a consequence of that -- failure to respect the academic right of other points of view to exist.” Even more, “The hopes and fears that earlier generations… had about the study of the Bible in general and the historical-critical method in particular” may have had more merit than today’s academic guild cares to admit. “It is only by looking into the past as well as into the present that we can see whether those fears were true or baseless, exaggerated or clear-sighted; and above all whether we have furthered the hopes that Pope Gregory expressed… ‘Seek, I beg you, to meditate every day on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God.’’’ A helpful guide toward that end would be a second recent book, Lovely, Like Jerusalem,a literate and concise introduction to the Old Testament. Aidan Nichols, OP, meets Pope Gregory’s clarion call with a modest trumpet blast of his own, calling Bible-believing Catholics back to sanity as Frank Sheed would have defined it, to read the text with an eye for what is really there. It’s hard to recall any priest since Hubert Von Zeller [see bibliography below] whose writing on the Old Testament text seems so matter-of-factly helpful and at the same time so spiritually clear-sighted. When online Ignatius Insight’s Carl Olsen asked Nichols about his heavy reliance on non-Catholic theologians, Nichols was candid. “By the end of the twentieth century Catholic exegesis [had] became indistinguishable from [liberal] Protestant,” he claimed. “Until this situation has changed… the best course of action is to select biblical commentators of whatever denomination whose work seems to accord best with the Catholic understanding of Scripture as found in Tradition.” Considering Nichols heavy usage of Anglican and Evangelical commentators, the appropriate response from Catholic readers here might reasonably be “Ouch!” Nichols essentially disinvites to the party those inappropriately dressed, which in this case means most of the post-sixities Catholic academy. In the past when skeptics expressed bewilderment at Evangelicals’ simplistic Biblical devotion, an oft-heard quip in replay was “Well, that’s what you get for reading someone else’s mail.” Confessional labels notwithstanding, that pretty much seems to reflect something of the sentiment at work here: here is a priest writing for fellow family members in the faith, those who share a real bloodline of belief, and not merely a tenure review board. He recognizes those experts who are striving to see through the eyes of faith, but spends little time amongst those who cannot help but encounter Scripture as a sealed book. Touching down lightly on the postmodern angst over Genesis, creation, and Mosaic authorship, Nichols says that the “historical minimalism in fashion today in many departments of Old Testament studies is not an adequate basis on which to read Genesis as Scripture….” He continues: “Of course no book of Scripture is history in the sense of a Ph.D. thesis on an historical subject in a modern University. That does not mean it cannot give a reliable account of past events, especially when those events were religiously crucial to the minds of the people whose lives they affected.” With scholarly feet thus firmly planted, he takes readers through the Torah, the Wisdom literature, and the Prophets, stopping as well for a quick scan of the Apocryphal books. His especially strong section on the Psalms as a semitic prayer book should revivify the Mass readings for more than a few readers who subsequently sit through Sunday services. Because his first reflex is to take Scripture at its word, Nichols’ entire tone comes off in marked contrast to so much critical output, reminding us from just where we have drifted. The Jesuit John Courtney Murray may now have his naysayers for contributions to Vatican II on religious authority and pluralism, but in the old America magazine he also weighed in giving unqualified endorsement to the highly traditional commentaries of Rev. John Steinmueller as “scientific.” Back then, such was the mainstream. Even a bit more recently in 1954 Romano Guardini would give deference to details in Scripture by alluding to “the dignity lent them by the Word of God.” In Lovely Like Jerusalem that attitude is admirably and intelligently reclaimed. A first portent of the sanity comes in the chapter on the Pentateuch, where Nichols appears to recommend Gordon J. Wenham’s fisking of the JEPD hypothesis. But the real shocker is on page 46, where he manages to bring the cocktail chatter at the Catholic Theological Society to an uncomfortable halt by lending an Oxford don’s credibility to the unaskable question: “But was there a Second Isaiah?” Come again? What’s more, in answer he suggests an unblinking negative.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Nov 25, 2009 16:50:29 GMT
I am not sure if the above is a comment on the bible per se or rather a discussion on peoples different interpretations of the bible.
The discussion I was more alluding to is based more around the authorship, accuracy, literalism and the historicity of the document itself. What should one take as literal truth and what should one take as allegorical? What should a Catholic do if the Vatican’s interpretation of the bible does not totally line up with their own?
For instance, there are people who claim that the bible is the absolute inherent word of God, full stop. Others believe it is the word of God as interpreted by men, and thus open to error.
Maybe we should start at the beginning with the Pentateuch and work our way through.
I think most people accept that the scriptures that make up the modern day bible were written centuries apart by men. Now these men may have been inspired by God/Jesus/the holy spirit, but nonetheless the ink was put to paper/papyrus by human men.
As human beings we are all subject to impressions, interpretations, and perspectives, prejudices’ and political motivations of the world around us. I'm sure this was also the case in ancient times.
This may be the reason that there appear to be contradictions in books throughout our history including the bible.
As an example the Pentateuch is now believed by modern theologians to have been authored by four different writers 1. The Yahwists 950 BCE 2. The Elohists 800 BCE 3. The Deuteronomists 750 BCE 4. The Preistly Writers 539 BCE
Now Church Tradition and Jewish Tradition would suggest to us that Moses himself wrote the above books, but by examining prose style, the different forms of Hebrew used in the texts and the time differences involved, this would appear to be unlikely.
All of the above authors had their own motives as previously described. Moses is never credited as the writer of the above "five books of Moses". As you can see there is quite a timescale between supposed authors of these books - 411 years.
However, in my opinion a lot of these stories were included to convey moral messages rather than an accurate report on historical events.
So this begs the question, how accurate is the bible and what parts should be taken as literal and what parts as symbolic? Catholics would state that is why we have the Pope to clarify these issues and I'm sure most people here agree.
However, what should a Catholic do when a view the Vatican professes conflicts with their own feelings such as the authorship/accuracy/interpretation of the Pentateuch or other books?
Refer back to the bible for guidance? Question the conclusions as a result of years of research carried out by theologians and biblical scholars regarding dating and authorship?
I feel it’s an issue worth exploring and relevant to Catholics in the modern world.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Dec 15, 2009 17:27:43 GMT
Ok harris - this is a reasonable point. Here are a few initial responses (and bear in mind that I'm not a Biblical scholar);- I don't believe in the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch - I do believe it is divinely inspired, but that doesn't mean it is transparent. I accept that the general/widespread belief in the Mosaic authorship in the past does raise questions about our understanding of tradition as a source of doctrine. I have not looked into the question myself but I believe there is an answer if only one looks hard enough. The Bible is not and should not be read simply as a positivistic account of events - it is many things including a liturgical text. (I have been trying for some time to read the Divine Office daily - with very little success because of work pressure) but it is fascinating to see how the authors of the Office for individual saints relate their lives and virtues to individual Biblical texts - they read the Bible through their lives. The idea that the Biblical text is not exhausted by a surface reading is not a modern invention to "get round" scientific difficulties. It goes back to the Church fathers (i.e. the first theologians). St. Augustine was already struggling with the tension between the Old Testament view of the physical world (i.e. a flat earth with the sky above it like a tent and a solid "fundament" around it) and the Ptolemaic universe with its round earth and celestial spheres. Dealing with this sort of tension is what theology is for. (This again is not a specifically Christian or religious problem; any science or body of knowledge needs to be elaborated as new questions arise.) Theology does or should differentiate between different levels of knowledge and define different levels of authority (e.g. somebody who deliberately denies Jesus was God is not a Catholic, whatever they may call themselves; somebody who denies the genuiness ofmarian apparitions can still be a perfectly orthodox Catholic although there would at the least be a strong onus on him to explain why he holds this view.) If an infallibly-defined doctrine were definitely proved to be untrue or to have been abandoned by the Church then Catholicism would be false - as simple as that - e.g. if the former poster on this site Redmond were correct in stating that geocentricity was an article of faith and that in abandoning it the popes became material or formal heretics, then Catholicism would be false. Harris's comments about Biblical scholarship seem to imply that it is unanimous - its findings have various levls of authority, there are disputes between different schools, and in many instances differences are related to philosophical presuppositions - e.g. someone who begins with the belief that miracles never happen will tend to dismiss all accounts of miracles a priori. At this stage I'll throw the ball back to Harris and let him develop his points further - then i'll respond.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Dec 31, 2009 17:23:25 GMT
I think this is a reasonable response in that you do not totally ignore the findings of scholars who in the main do not accept the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. I think as Catholics people have that choice.
Furthermore, it is my opinion, that outside of the more conservative seminaries and churches, it is commonly held that Moses did not write these books and that they are a compilation of works by numerous writers over an extended period of time.
However, the overwhelming consensus of Orthodox rabbinic opinion affirms that the entire Pentateuch was dictated word-for-word by God to Moses, exactly in the manner that a Torah scroll appears today.
This begs the question, what are the arguments for Mosaic authorship?
First, there are numerous passages in Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy that point to Moses as author. For instance, Exodus 34:27 says, "Then the LORD said to Moses, 'Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.'" In fact, there are references throughout the Old Testament (Joshua, 1 & 2 Kings, Ezra, Nehemiah, Daniel, and Malachi) that claim that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
New Testament writers assumed that Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible as well.
In Matthew 19:8 Jesus refers to laws regarding marriage in Deuteronomy and credits Moses with writing them. In John 7:19 Jesus says, "If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me." In Romans 10:5 Paul states that Moses wrote the law. It would be hard not to attribute either deception or error to Christ and the apostles if Moses did not write the Pentateuch.
And yet what is written or hinted at within the Bible regarding the authorship of the Pentateuch seems to conflict with the evidence presented by Biblical Scholars.
What should Catholics really believe is the truth?
Does this cause any conflict with other members?
What is the Catholics Churches official position on this?
I think this could spark an interesting discussion as this, in essence is a traditional Catholic website.
|
|
eccles
New Member
My Old Horse Chester
Posts: 25
|
Post by eccles on Jan 1, 2010 23:55:14 GMT
I am going to be the "Devil's Advocate" here. When I was educated at a Jesuit College in Melbourne, Australia we did Genesis and Exodus, not from an actual Bible because the only book of Scripture we had was the New Testament. I can't remember what we used for Genesis and Exodus. That for me seems centuries ago. It was in the 1950's
Even as a boy I could not believe anything in the Old Testament - the parts we did. Of course I had to believe, OR ELSE. I often wondered why we never did the whole of the Old Testament. We seemed to have the impression that the Bible was for Protestants. We knew nothing about the many versions of the Bible, especially the official Douay version.
Recently I read from Genesis to Kings II and now I think I know why we did not do them - the Genocide and Slaugther done by God, or under the orders of God.
We were made to believe the story of Adam and Eve was true - the Word of God. Now many Catholics do not believe they are true. What I would like to know is this. Why does the Roman Catholic Church still include the Old Testament Historical Books in the Bible especially in the light of the implication that humans bred throught incest - a Mortal Sin in in the eyes of the Church. I refer to the idea that Adam and Eve were the first Humans, had children and they inbred.
I could go on more. I must point out that I am now Atheist.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 2, 2010 15:40:57 GMT
The standard response to the incest point (and, more dubiously, to the genocide issue) is that God may allow or command certain things which might otherise be sinful; a more sophisticated take on this is that revelation should be seen as progressively developed by God over time (before finalisation in the New Testament) so that the earlier stages are necessary to build on the later ones, but are then superseded by it. (Jesus says Moses allowed certain things "because of the hardness of your hearts" which are now superseded by His sayings.) There is a problem with this given the use made of the releavant Old testament passages by certain Christians (Cromwell in Ireland, the more ruthless conquistadors in the New World) but I believe the answer lies along these lines. There certainly was a tendency to neglect the OT in favour of the NT among pre-concilair Catholics. This was quite wrong because the NT does not supersede the OT but fulfils/transcends it; one of the major themes of the liturgy is that the Church is the new Israel and its story is mirrored in that of the first Israel.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Jan 13, 2010 14:31:32 GMT
Would anyone else care to join this debate?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 14, 2010 16:13:44 GMT
Just as a matter of curiosity, Eccles, when you say you did not believe anything in the old Testament do you mean you saw it simply as a historical account? There are some very fine things in the Prophets and the Psalms, for example. I second Harris. If anyone else wants to join in, that would be good.
|
|
|
Post by regenskuechl on Jan 17, 2010 12:34:50 GMT
The standard response to the incest point (and, more dubiously, to the genocide issue) is that God may allow or command certain things which might otherise be sinful; a more sophisticated take on this is that revelation should be seen as progressively developed by God over time (before finalisation in the New Testament) so that the earlier stages are necessary to build on the later ones, but are then superseded by it. . Very good formulated explanation. (Jesus says Moses allowed certain things "because of the hardness of your hearts" which are now superseded by His sayings.). Could you please give me the exact point in NT where he says so? There is a problem with this given the use made of the releavant Old testament passages by certain Christians (Cromwell in Ireland, the more ruthless conquistadors in the New World) but I believe the answer lies along these lines. There certainly was a tendency to neglect the OT in favour of the NT among pre-concilair Catholics. This was quite wrong because the NT does not supersede the OT but fulfils/transcends it; one of the major themes of the liturgy is that the Church is the new Israel and its story is mirrored in that of the first Israel. I do not quite get what exactly "mirrored" means in this context. Could you please explain that nearer, give examples or else link me to a site where it is better described
|
|
|
Post by Inedifix on Jan 18, 2010 9:27:21 GMT
I accept that the general/widespread belief in the Mosaic authorship in the past does raise questions about our understanding of tradition as a source of doctrine. I have not looked into the question myself but I believe there is an answer if only one looks hard enough. One has to laugh. ;D I
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2010 11:04:42 GMT
Inedifix: Stating a problem and declaring that one does not know the answer but is sure there is one is preferable to being a know-it-all who pretends to know everything. The first step to knowledge is acknowledging the extent of one's own ignorance. I have no claim to Biblical scholarship and don't know the relevant languages (indeed, I wsh I knew the English text better than I do) so I think it no shame to suppose that there are others better-informed than I and to wait and see if anyone else on this board knows more about the subject. The purpose of this board is to encourae knowledge and diminish ignorance.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 18, 2010 11:13:58 GMT
Regenskeuchel: -Matthew 19:8 He said to them, "It was because of your hardness of heart that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives. But from the beginning it was not this way.
The "mirroring" would be exemplified in such things as the way in which the Easter liturgy parallels the Egyptian captivity and wanderings in the wilderness of the Israelites under Moses with the slavery to sin from which Jesus as the new Moses delivers us. The same parallels can be seen in the lives of the saints. For example, those Early Irish lives of St. Patrick in which he is described as undergoing ordeals similar to those of Moses are not divinely inspired and are not factual accounts of St. Patrick (and have many theological flaws which come from adapting Christianity to a primitive warrior society) but the idea of St. Patrick, as the instrument of Jesus, being to the Irish what Moses was to the Israelites (or St. Gregory the Illuminator to the Armenians, to take another example) is perfectly sound and inspiring.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 22, 2010 16:50:39 GMT
In case anyone who looks at this thread is not sure what the historical-critical method is, let me give a couple of examples of how it would work. I will take examples from early Islamic history rather than Christianity as this may make it easier to separate methodology from content. I should explain that the standard life of Mohammed was not written until about 100 years after his death. It is based on oral traditions allegedly handed down by the Companions of the Prophet, and a major issue is how far these are genuine evidence and how far they may have been invented (e.g. to explain cryptic references in the Koran to events in Mohammed's life which are not fully explained because it is assumed the audience know what is meant, to support one side or another in the disputes following Mohammed's death). There are also various collections of these oral traditions, which are assessed by Islamic jurists as having varying degrees of plausibility. Someone who does not believe Mohammed received a mission from God will necessarily asses these like any other historical texts. (1) The major division within Islam is between the Shia, who believe Mohammed wished to be succeeded by his son-in-law Ali and by the descendants of Ali by Mohammed's daughter Fatima as leader of the Muslims, and the majority (known as the Sunni) who believe that Mohammed did not indicate his wishes but that the selection of successors from among his companions (the Caliphs) was correct. Now the Shia maintain that Fatima was Mohammed's only daughter by his first wife Khadijah, but the Sunni (or at least many of them) believe that Mohammed and Khadijah had four daughters, two of whom were married in succession to Caliph Uthman (Mohammed's third successor) but that of these daughters only Fatima had children. A historical-critical approach based only on this statement might suggest that in fact Fatima was Mohammed's only daughter, and that Sunni sources retrospectively invented the others to undercut the suggestion that by betrothing his only child to Ali, Mohammed showed him special favour. (I assume for the sake of argument that there is no other way of judging this, such as the existence of early and well-authenticated references to the other daughters.) It will of course be noted that this cannot be conclusively decided one way or the other, as it is quite possible in the natural course of events that one sister might be fertile and the others barren. (2) One of Mohammed's earliest converts was his slave Zaid. As a sign that all believers were equal, Mohammed freed him and adopted him as his son and - at a time when Mohammed was religious and political ruler of Medina - married him to another early convert, the noblewoman Zainab. Shortly after the marriage, Mohammed was seized with desire for Zainab. According to the received account he resisted his desire; seeing his distress Zaid offered to divorce Zainab, and mohammed agreed after receiving a revelation approving his marriage to Zainab. A historical-critical account might (a) see this as evidence Mohammed really existed (which has been questioned) on the grounds that the story is so embarrassing it would hardly have been invented from whole cloth (b) suggest that Mohammed's behaviour might possibly have been less scrupulous and Zaid and/or Zainab more reluctant than tey are portrayed. Does this get my point across?
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 22, 2010 17:16:01 GMT
Here is an interesting piece (courtesy of Mark Shea's blog) in which James Hannam (whose recent book on mediaeval science, GOD'S PHILOSOPHERS, some of you may have seen reviewed) sets out the case against the theory that Jesus never existed. www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Jan 22, 2010 17:25:17 GMT
From the link above, here's a spoof argument that Hannibal never existed, showing how easy it is, using the same techniques of ultra-scepticism, to claim that a well-attested public figure never existed. I attach the link to the Wikipedia entry on Hannibal so you can check it out for your own amusement. EXTRACT: DID HANNIBAL EXIST? I want to wrap up by showing how easy it is to produce a scenario where we can deny the historicity of a major public figure. When I published this spoof on the Secular Web's discussion board it was taken seriously even though with hindsight it seems ridiculous. The comments in italics are annotations to bring out points of similarity with the various Jesus Myth ideas in currency. I would invite any Jesus Mythologist to explain to me the substantial differences between their theory and the spurious one below. To ask whether or not the great Carthaginian general Hannibal every actually existed might seem rather pointless. An exercise for a student learning about the nature of historical evidence perhaps but not something any serious scholar would waste time on. But maybe we should not be too hasty in acquiescing with the opinion of establishment historians (in other words, there's a plot by academics stifling debate). In fact, although there is plenty of writing about Hannibal, none of it is contemporary and there is no archaeological evidence for him at all (not surprising given the Romans razed the city from whence he came). Furthermore he is not mentioned in any Carthaginian sources - incredible given he was supposed to be their greatest leader (there are no Carthaginian sources as the Romans burnt their city down)! We find when we actually try to pin him down he tends to recede further into the mists of time. His exploits, such as leading elephants over the Alps, are clearly legendary (the sceptic pretends to be incredulous but seems happy to buy his own amazing theory) and it is not hard to find a motive for the creation of this colourful character by Roman writers (as long we can invent a motive for fabrication we can assume that fabrication exists). Rome and Carthage were great trading rivals in the Western Mediterranean and it did not take them long to come to blows. Rome signed a peace treaty but, under the leadership of the elder Cato desperately wanted to rid itself permanently of the competition. (this is actually true and so helps to hide when we slip into fantasy) They needed an excuse and the idea they came up with was brilliant. Like all ancient civilisations, the Romans rewrote history as it suited them to demonstrate their own prowess. (a useful and exaggerated generalisation) Consequently we should not be surprised to find that they invented a great enemy from Carthage to demonstrate the threat still existed and justify a further war to wipe them out. The author of the fiction was Cato himself (we need someone to point the finger at and note how there is no distinction made between the background material above and theorising here) who we know wrote the earliest Roman History (true as well, actually). But it was intended simply as a justification for a further war with Carthage. It contained the details of Hannibal's alleged campaigns against the Romans including victories on Italian soil (it might well do but Cato's history has conveniently not survived). Cato brilliantly combined the truth with his own anti-Carthaginian propaganda with the intention of goading Rome into another wholly unjustified war with the old enemy (give the fabricator lots of credit for his invention). Once the war was over and Carthage razed to the ground, the Romans were able to ensure that only their version of history survived (this is important as it enables all other sources to be declared forgeries). Therefore the myth of the great Carthaginian war leader became fact and later Roman historians like the notoriously unreliable Livy (we have to denigrate counter sources) simply assumed Cato's fabrications were true (because the ancients were stupid and simply could not do any research themselves). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal
|
|