I must say that some of Hahn's views are a little hard for me to swallow. Have you ever heard his depiction of the serpent in Genesis? How about his statement that someone who truly forgets to go to Mass is in mortal sin? We must remember that those who are generally safe to read are not usually universally so. We can all get things wrong. Dr. Hahn has done great work for the Church, and I really believe that the Church in this country has benefitted greatly from him. He is not, however, above criticism.
Perhaps the pseudonym frees you to be reasonable, Dale. You don't have to live up (down?) to your own reputation as a flame-thrower (a highly entertaining flame-thrower, I hasten to add).
Five cents, please. 
Amateur psychobabble aside -- as entertaining as that is, as well 
-- I have to agree with you about the O'Neill piece. Much as I admire Scott Hahn, one of the things that has made me uneasy has been his non-responsiveness to fair questions. (Vree's piece, for example, was a firestorm, but the questions themselves were fair.) I am hoping that Hahn will respond to the O'Neill piece as it is more restrained and charitable.
Mia:
Hmmm. Interesting analysis there.
Here's the nickel, Ms. Van Pelt.
As to the Vree piece--it did raise valuable questions, but did so in such a way that anyone would be entitled to ignore them. I wouldn't have given him the time of day on that one. Hopefully, two years later and phrased with charity, the questions will get a response.
That dreadful headline pun is worthy of Scott.
+J.M.J+
O'Neill's article addresses Hahn's depiction of the serpent in Genesis, along with other peculiar notions of his. I generally agree with O'Neill's critique in the article, except that I'm not sure Hahn's background in theonomy is necessarily to blame. Evangelicalism in general is full of lots of speculation, and I've heard some other Catholic apologists engage in such speculation (Mark Brumley touches on this in his book _How Not to Share Your Faith_).
In my initial comments over on Mark Shea's blog, I clearly stated that I was only addressing the Sept. 2002 NOR Notes, because a) I had not read the new article at the time and b) the old one was a topic of discussion. Now, having read O'Neill's article, I agree that it was fair and respectful, very different from the Sept. 2002 Vree piece.
In Jesu et Maria,
Would someone be kind enough to post the page range of the article so I can request it from InterLibrary Loan?
Thanks.
Naomi:
It's found on pages 23-35 (inclusive) of the issue.
Well, I did read the O'Neill piece.
O'Neill makes, among other things (some interesting/some peevish), the following complaint:
"One may wonder whether this background [Scott's former "association" with Presbyterian theonomy] continues to play an undue role in his thought and in his professional comportment, particularly his propensity for rushing novel ideas to the public in popular books and audiocassettes rather than prudently circulating them for criticism and examination among his peers."
Continued:
I can't speak to all of Scott's "novel" ideas, but the material on the covenant(s) was the subject of Scott's rather large dissertation, successfully defended at Marquette University in the mid1990s. I'd say that having five or so university professors grill you on these matters is "prudently circulating them [your novel ideas] for criticism and examination among his peers."
The dissertation's title is:
"Kinship by Covenant: A Biblical Theological Analysis of Covenant Types and Texts in the Old and New Testaments" Ph.D. Diss, Marquette Univ (Ann Arbor: UMI, 1995; revision to be published by T&T Clark, forthcoming 2001).
Continued (2)
http://www.scotthahn.com/dv.phtm...=/
resource.html
I find it ironic that a critique of Hahn as unscholarly has no footnotes or endnotes to substantiate its own assertions.
Scholarship aside, someone please disuade him from his passion for the prroliferation of awful puns...PLEASE>
Commenting by HaloScan
