Tonsure? When did that start? NT references?
" Seven pieces of clothing, each one of which symbolized a step in a particular scene of Christ's ascent to Golgotha" When did this start? There must have been a lot of monks with nothing better to do than invent time- consuming symbolisms with no real NT analogies?
"The steps have been eliminated." Not in my parish. They had to put in hand rails because of our aging priests who are serving well beyond their retirement.
"seven steps leading to the priesthood: porter, lector, exorcist, and acolyte, and then subdeacon, deacon"- "Jeepers creepers" where did these old elite white guys come up with this stuff? OT connections?? Competition with the Jews?
"Once again, this tradition rich in symbolic meaning has been eliminated" Thank God!!! Now we can pay attention to the important things like the Twelve Commandments.
"It is also regrettable that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is now celebrated on a table, the piece of furniture used for meals." "Me thinks" the Last Supper was celebrated on a table not some blood- soaked altar in a temple.
" For centuries, people knelt while receiving Holy Communion, and kneeling in our culture is the most perfect expression of an adoring posture -- that is, a bodily duplication of the proper posture of the soul." What monk came up with that analogy? Jesus' first Souls of Distinction broke bread at a table sitting down as did all the peasants of the day. Three cheers for the pew peasants then and now!!!
IMHO, these " hermeneutics of fittingness" are much to do about nothing of great importance. Obeying the big Twelve, that is where the Sacrifices and Goodness reside!!!!
"Tonsure? When did that start?"
Ever heard of the Nazirite vow?
"NT references?"
We're Catholics, RFC, not Bible-worshipping Protestants. We don't believe that everything we say and do and think must be explicitly found in the Bible.
"When did this start?"
Long before you were born.
"There must have been a lot of monks with nothing better to do than invent time-consuming symbolisms with no real NT analogies?"
Ever read the Old Testament? Ever read the New Testament? If you can't find analogies to these Catholic traditions in the Bible, you must have been reading the Bible with your eyes closed -- or more likely, with your mind closed.
"Jeepers creepers' where did these old elite white guys come up with this stuff?"
"Old elite white guys"?? So what you're saying is that you're a racist who has disrespect for your elders, right? Glad to know that.
"OT connections??"
Yes, those traditions do have Old Testament connections.
"Competition with the Jews?"
Are you implying that it's wrong for Catholicism to have any customs in common with or in resemblance to Jewish customs? Please tell me you're not an anti-Semite too, in addition to being a racist and a practitioner of age-ism!!!
"Thank God!!! Now we can pay attention to the important things like the Twelve Commandments."
So you're saying that meaningful and beautiful traditions are contrary to the Ten Commandments and the two greatest commandments?
"'Me thinks' the Last Supper was celebrated on a table not some blood- soaked altar in a temple."
The Mass is the representation of Calvary, a pretty blood-soaked place. Jesus offered Himself as the perfect Victim on the altar of the cross. Mass is much, much more than a mere "meal event," as I heard someone once describe it.
"What monk came up with that analogy?"
What this obsession you have with monks?
"Jesus' first Souls of Distinction broke bread at a table sitting down as did all the peasants of the day. Three cheers for the pew peasants then and now!!!"
The Last Supper was a Passover ceremony, and in Passover "sitting down" has nothing to do with being a peasant. It symbolises the dignity of freedom -- servants must stand during a meal, but masters get to sit. In Jewish culture 2,000 years ago, "peasants," the lowest classes, the servant classes, did not sit while their masters dined -- they had to stand and serve.
But during the Last Supper, Jesus knelt down to wash the feet of the priests He had just ordained. If Jesus knelt before the world's first Catholic priests, there can't be anything wrong with kneeling to receive the King of kings and Lord of lords, can there?
"IMHO, these 'hermeneutics of fittingness' are much to do about nothing of great importance. Obeying the big Twelve, that is where the Sacrifices and Goodness reside!!!!"
Your opinion is duly noted, but then who would expect a former Catholic like yourself
to appreciate such matters?
How is this posting compatible with pb's frequently expressed caveat against sacralizing old items of liturgical practice?
The imposition on the Mass of medieval conceptions of mounting Mount Calvary etc. is really a superfetation bordering on liturgical abuse. Happily no one is actually pining for these quaint old trimmings. Much ado about nothing.
Pope Ratzinger frequently describes the Mass as a meal event and points out that not only is this not incompatible with describing it as a sacrifice but that the meal is intrinsic to the sacrifice, the two dimensions are inseparable.
http://www.futurechurch.org/fpm/
...encouraging.htm
for Benedict XVI on the need to avoid pointless opposition between the Eucharist as meal and the Eucharist as sacrifice
Spirit of Vatican II:
Ahhh...now I see where you are coming from. All is explained.
"FutureChurch was founded in Cleveland, Ohio in 1990. The Church of the Resurrection in Solon, Ohio passed a resolution calling on U.S. Bishops to reconsider opening ordination to women and the married, both men, and women, so that the Eucharist would continue to be the center of the spiritual lives of all Catholics. Subsequently, 28 parishes in Northeast Ohio supported this initiative and the local FutureChurch network was born. In response to a national call to recognize that he Eucharist is more important to Catholic identity than celibacy or the gender of the presider, FutureChurch incorporated in 1993 and grew into a national network of parish based activists.
FutureChurch is concerned about the related issues of women in ministry, optional celibacy, inclusive language, and Church decision-making that involves all the faithful, as called for by Vatican II."
Tonsure was not in use in English speaking countries since the sixteenth century.
Of course the Eucharist is more important than celibacy. But one thing puzzles me: is it not true that the number of priests worldwide has increased in recent decades? If so, how can the Eucharist be threatened?
The number of priests worldwide has gone from 420,971 in 1978 to 404,208 in 1997, amounting to a decrease of about 4%. NOT PARTICULARLY DRAMATIC. BUT THE PRE-1978 DECREASE WAS DRAMATIC. MAYBE THE NUMBERS HAVE GONE UP SINCE 1997.
The greatest growth is in Africa: 16,926 in 1978 to 25,279 in 1997 -- a growth of about 49.35%.
Asia: 27,700 in 1978 to 40,441 in 1997 -- a 46% increase.
In 1978 there were 120,271 priests in the Americas, as compared to 120,013 in 1997.
The greatest drop was in Europe, 250,498 in 1978 to 213,398 in 1997 -- a decrease of 14.81%.
http://www.diocesephoenix.org/vo...ges/
overall.htm
The number of seminarians virtually doubled under John Paul II and their vocations appear to be solid and stable.
Given these very encouraging figures, it is not surprising that the Vatican does not see any need for married or women priests and is even moving to discourage men of homosexual orientation from becoming priests.
Alice is perhaps the daughter of Dietrich v H, whom I recall, perhaps inaccurately, as an extremely reactionary writer much embittered by the Council. She seems to write out of an experience of liturgy in baroque Germany (Bavaria?). It doesn't ring many bells with me.
I see she is the wife of "the famed philosopher" -- !
So much suffering here, so much clinging to an imagined changeless past. Study Buddhism, friends. Learn about the twin heresies of substantialism (eternalism) and annihilationism -- both the product of delusive clinging to self, both the root of endless frustration. If you meet the Buddha slay the Buddha, a fortiori, slay the idol of the Latin Mass or whatever other form of delusive substance you crave.
In fairness, Dietrich von Hildebrand spoke very highly of Vatican II and recognized it as a work of the Spirit of God, contrary to the impression one might gather from his best-known title "The Rhine Flows into the Tiber". He was against what he saw as secularizing interpretations of the Council.
I do not know his claim to philosophical fame. I suspect that he is famous only in a small coterie, and for reasons of ecclesiastical ideology rather than philosophy. Nothing sinks a philosophyer faster than signing on to an ideological cause.
Fr. O'Leary,
Von Hildebrand didn't write "The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber". That was Fr. Ralph Wiltgen. Von Hildebrand wrote numerous books, but perhaps the best known commentaries on the current crisis are "Trojan Horse in the City of God" and "The Devastated Vineyard".
His attitude toward Vatican II in those two books was mostly positive, writing as he was before the crisis was in full swing. Here's a letter from Dietrich Von Hildebrand on Vatican II (From "A Letter from London," by Michael Davies, The Remnant, April 30, 2004).
Davies writes:
"The following letter from Dietrich Von Hildebrand, who was described by Pope Pius XII as the 20th century Doctor of the Church, is not without interest in view of recent critiques appearing in The Remnant of the article, 'Why Vatican II Was Necessary,' which appeared in the March 2004 issue of Crisis magazine.
"In view of my almost totally negative attitude to the Council set out in my book, Pope John's Council, I felt very uneasy some years ago when reading certain enthusiastic remarks concerning Vatican II in Dietrich Von Hildebrand's, Trojan Horse in the City of God. Compared with Dr. Von Hildebrand I am an intellectual pygmy, and I wrote to him explaining the fact that I was very unhappy about our disagreement, particularly with regard to such instances of his praise for the official documents and 'the greatness of the Second Vatican Council' found on page 1 of his book. He replied as follows in a letter dated 22 April, 1976:
Dear Friend in Christ:
I was very pleased about your words concerning my position toward the documents of Vatican Council II. I consider the Council --- notwithstanding the fact that it brought some ameliorations --- as a great misfortune. And I stress time and again in lectures and articles that fortunately no word of the Council --- unless it is a repetition of former definitions de fide --- is binding de fide. We need not approve; on the contrary we should disapprove.
Yours affectionately,
Dietrich Von Hildebrand
In "Devastated Vineyard" Dietrich Von Hildebrand said this about the new Mass:
"Clearly, if one of the devils in C.S. Lewis's The Screwtape Letters had been entrusted with the ruin of the liturgy, he could not have done it better."
Somehow my ellipses were taken out by haloscan.com. Just note that the letter above is not complete; I cited the bits specifically about Vatican II.
Maybe what we need is a resurgence in the popular understanding of religious symbolism. I must admit, as a convert from non-symbolic Evangelicalism, it's taken some getting used to—especially since the Church's symbols seem to be changing all the time. It's disconcerting to find such a wide variation of imagery and practice from one parish to the next.
"I do not know his claim to philosophical fame. I suspect that he is famous only in a small coterie, and for reasons of ecclesiastical ideology rather than philosophy. Nothing sinks a philosophyer faster than signing on to an ideological cause."
Thems fightin' words, Fr. O'Leary. Please get to know more about what von Hildebrand actually professed. His philosophy was not a product of ecclesiastical ideology, and in fact most of his philosophical writings did not center on the Church's beliefs.
(He was a phenomenological realist, focusing his writings on a value-based ethics.)
The claim to philosophical fame to which O'Leary appeals, apparently as a criterion of importance, is a fickle and not always trustworthy thing. Karl Jaspers and Nicolai Hartman were famous philosophers in their own day, and now hardly known at all. Yet that fact hardly deminishes their value. On the other hand, some philosophers have been wildly popular, like Jacques Derrida, and I'm not so confident as to their lasting importance.
Dietrich Von Hildebrand took Max Scheler into his apartment when the latter was expelled from the Catholic faculty of the Univesity of Munich for his womanizing and multiple divorces. Ironically, it was through the influence of Scheler (whose mother was Jewish and whose father was Lutheran but who converted to Catholicism in his youth) that Von Hildebrand came to the Catholic Faith. Scheler later abandoned Catholicism for a form of pantheism before his premature death in 1928. Von Hildebrand was a penetrating value-theorist. He wrote extensively on value ethics. Most of his major philosophical works remain untranslated outside of German. John Crosby's son at Franciscan University is spearheading a project to get all of his works into English translation. He is probably unknown for much the same reasons that Scheler is comparatively unknown. Value ethics is hardly popular, especially after being eclipsed by Heidegger's critique of "value-thinking" since WWII. There are many philosophers in this cadre: Reinach, Stein, Geiger, and, more recently, the Lublin School in Poland, Wojtyla, Crosby and others at the Academy in Lichtenstein, etc. Not world-class philosophers in terms of reputation, but serious thinkers doing excellent work. Philosophically I would put Von Hildebrand on a par with Jacques Maritain, at least.
It's true he's more known among conservative Catholics for his religious writings. Alice von Hildebrand's biography, The Soul of a Lion is a good introduction to the work of Dietrich von Hildebrand.
How is this posting compatible with pb's frequently expressed caveat against sacralizing old items of liturgical practice?
This is a fair question on the part of "Spirit," who might take me to be guilty of the very same thing to which he regularly succumbs -- namely, appealing to 'ancient tradition' when it suits him, and appealing to 'development' when it suits him. You'll notice that O'Leary (or "Spirit") does this, e.g., by appealing to "ancient tradition" when referring to the normativity of communion in the hand, and by appealing to 'devlopment' when referring to liturgical innovations or 'inculturation,' etc.
I need to respond to O'Leary's challenge more substantially than I have time to here, having been absent from my classes two days for my brother's funeral services. But I would likely start somewhere with our friend, the Venerable Cardinal Newman and his criteria for organic development and continuity with tradition, etc. In this post, however, the question is not one of sacralizing practices of the past, but of what practices, gestures, postures, customs, habits, most fittingly express Catholic theology.
Interesting observation from Robert J. Thiel http://www.cogwriter.com/pharisee.htm
"What, then, are the signs of a (modern) Pharisee?
1) They are interested in an outward appearing religion (Mat 23:25-27).
2) They trust in themselves that they are righteous (Luk 18:9).
3) They do not actually keep the ten commandments (Mat 15:3).
4) They rely on traditions more than the Bible for their religion (Mat 7:1-13)."
Realist, all but the 4th point is difficult-to-impossible to ascertain, unless you are telepathic. As to relying on traditions (please note difference from Sacred Tradition), the teachings of the Bible need to be incarnated in our worship. Perhaps, yes, we can rely too much on these, but to ignore them would be to introduce a creeping gnosticism.
"What, then, are the signs of a (modern) Pharisee?
1) They are interested in an outward appearing religion (Mat 23:25-27).
Or they pretend to be "inwardly religious", when it is really earthly power they crave.
And yet the Bible states clearly HOW Jesus is the Messiah, according to Tradition and Scripture. Not just a Teacher, but a fulfillment of Sciptures. This is about Covenant. So, to merely ignore the core of the Covenant for purely cosmetic reasons is a corruption. But to attempt to find and "stay" faithful to those things that, while appearing cosmetic, help keep people tied to the core of the Covenant is a GOOD thing.
In a marriage, to say that the "core" of the covenant is that you stay faithful to your wife is great. But to suggest that you don't have to remember her birthday, or anniversary or say she is beautiful, be affectionate, do your chores around the house, etc...will, ultimately render your "true marriage" meaningless, as it falls apart. All of those "incidentals" are intrinsically part of the expression, maintainence and actualization of the Covenant.
Does this mean that doing your chores IS what marriage is all about? Of course not.
2) They trust in themselves that they are righteous (Luk 18:9).
As apposed to being obedient to "legitimate authority". Pride. Who exhibits pride more? Someone that submits to the authoritative teaching of the Church, or someone that advocates personal interpretation of scripture?
3) They do not actually keep the ten commandments (Mat 15:3).
Only the Ten Commandments? What about the other teachings and directives provided by the Holy Spirit through Christ's Church.
Do you not mean the Mosaic Covenant? The Word? Then what about the NEW and EVERLASTING Covenant? This includes a LOT more than the Ten Commandments. What about the Bride of Christ? What about our marriage to Christ (Bridegroom Messiah)? What about our Faithfulness to that Covenant?
4) They rely on traditions more than the Bible for their religion (Mat 7:1-13)."
Traditions like American individualism? Or 60's rebellion?
And I assume you mean the OT, because the NT is only the "bible" because of the Tradition, and the Magisterial teaching of the Church (Christ's Bride).
Okay, fess up. Who here is a sedevacantist?
"Trojan Horse", right. I am not sure that the letter cited can fairly represent DvH's considered attitude to Vatican II -- if it does, it confirms my earlier impression that he was estranged by the Council (and not just a critic of theologians he saw as abusing the Council).
Theology is indeed torn between the appeal to origins and the appeal to necessary development. Newman's stress on the values of life and growth is very wholesome in this regard.
Sorry to hear about your brother, pb -- he must have been the greatest bridge to your Japanese life.
Tonsure was not in use in English speaking countries since the sixteenth century.
Spirit, you better sit down for this, but perhaps the author of the article was not speaking about English speaking priests!!!
Tonsure was formally abolished by the RCC in 1972. I don't recall whether a symbolic snip might have been part of the one of the minor ordinations on the way to the priesthood, but I don't think so. Visible, permanent tonsure was not in use in the English speaking world, but perhaps had some presence in the Catholic imagination in Europe -- Alice seems to have memories of it. What make a fuss about something of absolutely no importance? Is this the kind of otiose pastime characteristic of a decadent Empire?
"Interesting observation from Robert J. Thiel http://www.cogwriter.com/pharisee.htm\"
RFC, what are you doing reading the ramblings and diatribes of a bigoted anti-Catholic cult member? Robert Thiel is a lay apologist for a little sect that calls itself the Living Church of God, a fundamentalist Sabbatarian group that split off an earlier group that called itself the Global Church of God, which split off the Worldwide Church of God, founded by the late Herbert Armstrong -- ultimately they trace back to the Seventh-Day Adventists. Thiel believes that the Catholic Church is the Great Whore of Babylon, and that anyone who goes to church on Sunday or believes in the Trinity is not a real Christian. Thiel also believes that there is not one God, but two Gods, the Father and Jesus, and that the Holy Spirit is not God but is merely the unintelligent power and energy of the Father and Jesus. He also believes that it is the destiny of Christians to become God -- not in the orthodox sense of deification or theosis, but in the sense of becoming little Creator Gods in charge of their own planets or galaxies. Thiel was born and raised Catholic, but he now devotes a substantial amount of energy deriding and telling falsehoods about the Christian faith, for he believes that Armstrongism is the one true faith, and he eagerly awaits the coming of the Great Tribulation when he believes the Pope and the Catholic Church will try to annihilate the Armstrongists. If you've been reading Armstrongist propaganda lately, you must be really desperate for something to read. Might I recommend something by St. Alphonsus Liguori? His "Passion and Death of Jesus Christ" perhaps?
Fessing up- I am not a sedevacantist but I confess to likeing what I read in the books of Crossan, Borg and Armstrong.
And I confess that Luke Johnson fails to convince me that they are wrong in their conclusions.
And great questions from their books, "did Judaism give too little in failing to convert the Roman Empire?
Did Christianity give too much in succeeding?" Yes IMHO.
Is there some confusion here between Karen Armstrong and some other Armstrong?
"Tonsure was formally abolished by the RCC in 1972....Alice seems to have memories of it."
Spirit,
I noticed too that you originally thought that Dr. Alice von H was Dr. Dietrich von H's daughter. Please don't be deceived by the very youthful photo of Alice von Hildebrand. I laughed when I first saw that picture in The Latin Mass magazine; everybody else on their masthead has a fairly recent photo, but apparently the only one they could find of this now eighty-something year old woman is from about fifty years ago.
" Fessing up- I am not a sedevacantist..."
I think perhaps Kathy meant me. But maybe she can explain herself further, if it's worth pursuing.
"but I confess to likeing what I read in the books of Crossan, Borg and Armstrong."
Realist, doesn't it strike you as just a little odd that when these modern liberals get done deconstructing the Gospels and wrenching out everything that doesn't agree with their modern liberal presuppositions their "historical Jesus" ends up being.......a good modern liberal just like them? And to top it off, on their reckoning their "historical Jesus" was such a doofus that not a single one of his hand-picked cadre of followers, nor a single one of those whom they themselves taught, got their master's message right. So why spend so much time analyzing such an inept and (from a modern perspective) uninteresting oaf? Unless what you're really out to do is simply to gore orthodox Christianity's ox, not engage in robust scholarship per se.
Did you read Craig Blomberg's "The Historical Reliability of the Gospels" yet?
Thomas,
Have you read Crossan's The Historic Jesus, The Life of Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, his Excavating Jesus (with Jonathon Reed), and his Who is Jesus (with Richard Watts), Borg's Meeting Jesus for the First Time and Armstrong's The Great Transformation : The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions and her
A History of God: The 4,000-Year Quest of Judaism, Christianity and Islam??
If yes, I will buy and read the somewhat dated book you reference.
I have read two of the titles you mention above (by Crossan). The methodology was just terrible. Critiques of Borg's works indicate that he shares the same methodological deficiencies. So I'm sorry, I just can't take their work seriously.
But if you wish to believe that they have offered up robust and compelling scholarship, that's your prerogative of course.
O'Leary writes:
"I do not know his claim to philosophical fame. I suspect that he is famous only in a small coterie, and for reasons of ecclesiastical ideology rather than philosophy. Nothing sinks a philosophyer faster than signing on to an ideological cause."
ROFLOL! Or signing on to a sexual lifestyle. Are you really serious in such arrogant shrug offs. One man's brilliance is another's "small coterie." Sure, except for the fact that the current pope praises Von D in the forward to his biography. But then you only reference Ratzinger when you can bend his words to support a verbose theology of Vatican II that contradicts his constant teachings.
Thomas,
I lot of what I consider robust contemporary biblical scholarship can be found on-line at the following addresses (some are in abstract form):
1. http://www.earlychristianwriting...m/
theories.html
2. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb077.html
3. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan1.rtf
4. http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan2.rtf
5.
http://www.faithfutures.org/Jesu...us/
Crossan3.rtf
6.
http://www.mystae.com/
restricted...r.html#Criteria
7. http://southerncrossreview.org/1...g/14/
pagels.htm
8.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...2/
0401torah.asp
9.
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bis...es/
bissar24.htm
10.
http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/jh...hc/
jhcbody.html
11.
http://www.religion-online.org/
12.
http://www.mystae.com/
restricted...r.html#Criteria
13.
http://www.ntgateway.com/
14.
http://www.mystae.com/restricted.../
testament.html
15.
http://www.equip.org/free/DG040-1.htm
Well, those sources are pretty much all over the map, aren't they. The flaws in (some of) the methodologies represented by the sites above aren't really sound bite fodder, so a blog entry can't do justice to the discussion. I always remember that a huge part of where one ends up depends on where one starts, i.e. on one's presuppositions. Examine those and the conclusions are frequently not terribly surprising.
Thomas,
And that is why books will always be important. Crossan's (and Reed) latest book, In Search of Paul, is excellent IMHO. It explains quite well Paul's views about women and also slavery. The listing of Pauline and non-Pauline Epistles on p.105 was new to me. As per Crossan and many others only seven of Paul's thirteen Epistles are authentic. The others were written apparently by followers, assistants or well-meaning scribes of the period. This gives a lot of credence to JD's historical analyses of the NT.
"As per Crossan and many others only seven of Paul's thirteen Epistles are authentic."
Yet another conclusion arrived at through the use of the popular intellectual process known as the Anal Auto-Extraction Methodology.
Jordan,
You don't have to be a biblical scholar to note the differences in the "real-Paul" and "not real Paul" epistles.
It's doubtful whether it's appropriate to use the word "scholar" in reference to those who advocate the unprovable speculation that some of St. Paul's letters are forgeries. There's simply not a shred of evidence for it, and the Church on a magisterial level has always affirmed their Pauline authorship.
Jordan,
The "not from Paul" Epistles are considered pseudepigraphs not forgeries.
I repeat read Crossan and Reed's In Search of Paul to get a more historical perspective of the time.
And keep in mind Paul's second coming projections. He erred badly giving credence that "all of Paul is not necessarily reliable".
Before we digress too far down the path of Pauline errancy, I would like to make a passing, non-scholarly observation on the topic at hand. There are certain earnest souls in the Church (and inhabiting this blog) who see the debate over right worship as "much ado about nothing". Like so many busy Marthas, they are eager to get about the business of Christianity, hands and minds occupied with the task of implementing the social gospel, and they become quickly impatient with those of us who wish to linger at the feet of the Lord.
Be glad, Mary of Bethany, for you need not be disturbed by your sister's jealous rebukes. You have the Lord's assurance that yours is the better part, and it will not be taken away from you.
Introducing 162 minutes of sheer torture for busy hands and earnest minds, and those who must have something to DO:
http://www.chiesa.espressonline....?id=47343&
eng=y
Dave,
"You have the Lord's assurance that yours is the better part, and it will not be taken away from you."
For another view: 448-. Martha and Mary: (1) Luke 10:38-42, single attestation from the Third Stratum (80-120 CE) based on the historical analysis of Crossan and others.
Therefore the saying is very questionable with respect to being a commentary by Jesus and reinforces "much ado about nothing" with respect to dialogues concerning proper posturing.
See http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb448.html for added details.
"The 'not from Paul' Epistles are considered pseudepigraphs not forgeries."
Most pseudepigraphs are forgeries, RFC, and the whole point of claiming that St. Paul didn't write or dictate all the letters that the Holy Spirit says he wrote or dictated is to cancel them out as authoritative. Indeed, it's hard to see how pseudo-Pauline epistles could be of any value to the Catholic Church.
Anyway, as I said before, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that St. Paul was not the author of the letters that the Holy Spirit attributes to his authorship. Why bother with arrant speculation? The only reasons to do so are to tickle one's intellectual fancies or to come up with a lame excuse not to abide by the teachings of St. Paul. We Catholics aren't going to reject what God says and what tradition affirms just because some johnny-come-lately heretic gets some goofy notion that contradicts everything we've always believed and that history affirms.
RfC,
Jesus' parable about inviting "the poor, the crippled, the lame, and the blind" (cf., Luke 14:12-14; 21b) is a single attestation from the third stratum and not derived from Jesus, according to Crossan.
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb460.html
So much for the pew peasants.
That is, if we accept the Jesus Seminar methodology as normative for reading the Gospels.
The way I see it, we can play this endless shell game of parsing texts to find a Jesus who suits us, or we can accept the whole NT as the Word of God. The latter course urges me to serve the pew peasants along with Martha AND linger at the feet of Jesus along with Mary.
BTW, it is possible to care about the liturgy AND seek to follow the twelve commandments.
Luke 14:7-10, the pew peasant text par excellence, is also poorly attested according to Crossan.
http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/...JDB/
jdb459.html
What a pointless game. Why play it?
What a pointless game?
All historical research is pointless if you like.
But there may be a theological point in researching Jesus historically. The Word became flesh, that is, the divine Wisdom took up its abode in the world of historical contingencies. So close study of the development of the Jesus traditions helps us come closer to the reality of incarnation.
I agree that a fetishism about what Jesus himself actually did and said, and an effort to play this off against what is "merely" later tradition or theological elaboration, would be unsound.
"Most pseudepigraphs are forgeries, RFC, and the whole point of claiming that St. Paul didn't write or dictate all the letters that the Holy Spirit says he wrote or dictated is to cancel them out as authoritative."
This is fundamentalism. The RCC accepts that the deutero-Pauline letters are not forgeries but developments of Pauline tradition, in line with the conventions of pseudepigraphy of that time. The Church insists that Scripture must be read with great respect for the literary genres and conventions operative at the time. This has to do with recognition of the integrity of the human authors, who are not zapped and turned into automatons by the inspiration they receive.
The recognition that Ephesians or Titus are not directly Pauline is a matter of historical and literary study, a recognition of facts, and has nothing to do with undermining the authority of these letters.
It is true that Protestants see some of these letters as testifying to a trend they call "early Catholicism" and that they see as regressive. However, it would be incorrect to think that the problems of seeing the Pastorals as Pauline were invented for the purpose of substantiating such theological assessments.
"Indeed, it's hard to see how pseudo-Pauline epistles could be of any value to the Catholic Church." This again is fundamentalism. Most of Scripture is pseudepigraphical: the book of Isaiah is a compendium of different sources separated by centuries, the five books of Moses are not the actual work of Moses, Mark, Matthew, John, Peter, are not the authors of the works under their name, etc.
"Anyway, as I said before, there's absolutely ZERO evidence that St. Paul was not the author of the letters that the Holy Spirit attributes to his authorship. Why bother with arrant speculation?" The general consensus of scholars is against you on this, but you can find a defense of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals in JND Kelly's commentary. Kelly was not primarily a scriptural scholar, however. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor argues for the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy.
"The only reasons to do so are to tickle one's intellectual fancies or to come up with a lame excuse not to abide by the teachings of St. Paul." A totally gratuitous supposition.
" We Catholics aren't going to reject what God says and what tradition affirms just because some johnny-come-lately heretic gets some goofy notion that contradicts everything we've always believed and that history affirms." All progress in scriptural scholarship since Reuchlin and Simon has been greeted with this visceral rejection. But truth advances despite our screams of protest against it. And the result has been a very obvious renewal of scriptural culture in all the Christian churches. In the days you pine for the Church actually forbad the translation of Scripture -- it was a sealed book.
I see the 1913 statement of the PBC on the authenticity of the Pastorals uses langauge worthy of Jordan: "non obstante quorumdam haereticorum ausu, qui eas, utpote suo dogmati contrarias, de numero paulinarum epistoarum, nulla reddita causa, erasuerunt". The Vatican website lists this text but does not give the text itself. The more recent PBC documents placed at the top of its list -- though technically not documents of the magisterium -- trump those produced in earlier, darker days, when scriptural scholarship was managed in terms of fighting off "heretics" and "Modernists".
To call the pseudepigraphs forgeries is to show insensitivity to first-century literary conventions. As the New Jerusalem Bible states: "The best explanation may be that the Pastoral Epistles are letters written by a follower of Paul, conscious of inheriting his mantle and seeking to give advice and instruction for the administration of local churches. This adoption of a revered name in such circumstances was a literary convention of the times."
There is no doubt that most of the pseudepigraphs contain significant wisdom and extend much of the wisdom of the OT and Greek/Roman culture. On the other hand, most of the anti-feminine and pro-slavery rhetoric commentaries attributed to Paul are in the pseudepigraphs thereby shining a brighter light on the true Paul.
For added details, see Crossan and Reed's The Search for Paul e.g.
p. 111:
"In Paul's theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity. "
'I agree that a fetishism about what Jesus himself actually did and said, and an effort to play this off against what is "merely" later tradition or theological elaboration, would be unsound.'
That is precisely what I was identifying as a "pointless game". Research into the historical Jesus is a useful and indeed a very Christian endeavor, so long as it is not detached from faith.
"The RCC accepts that the deutero-Pauline letters are not forgeries but developments of Pauline tradition, in line with the conventions of pseudepigraphy of that time."
The "RCC" accepts this? There is not one single magisterial text that says any such thing and many that speak to the contrary. You're overreaching by a long mile here Father.
"The recognition that Ephesians or Titus are not directly Pauline is a matter of historical and literary study, a recognition of facts, and has nothing to do with undermining the authority of these letters."
Cite these "facts". The fact is that consistently the earliest attestations of the various Pauline epistles attribute them to St. Paul. There are no "facts" to the contrary as no ancient sources attributing them to anybody but St. Paul. What we have are not facts, but scholarly shell games like statistical analyses of word occurrences.
"Most of Scripture is pseudepigraphical: the book of Isaiah is a compendium of different sources separated by centuries, the five books of Moses are not the actual work of Moses, Mark, Matthew, John, Peter, are not the authors of the works under their name, etc."
All unproven assertions. The earliest witnesses we have say otherwise. The authorship of the various New Testament books is a lot better attested than a great many other works of antiquity. One doesn't have to be a fundamentalist to hold that statistical analyses and theories made up out of whole cloth about Johannine or Pauline or Petrine communities are quite inadequate to overthrow the attestation of the early Fathers concerning the authorship of various books.
"In Paul's theology, Christian gender inequality can no more exist than can Christian class inequality. Females and males are therefore equal in family, assembly, and apostolate within Christianity."
Once again, this position only holds up after one has cleared the way for it by dismissing all the evidence to the contrary as "deutero-Pauline". Just like with the "historic Jesus", once the modern scholar is done eliminating material, he ends up with a Paul who is non-offensive to modern sensibilities. How convenient.
The 1913 text that rejects the questioning of Pauline authorship of the Pastorals can be saved from being simply embarrassing if one reads it to mean: rejection of the authorship without good reason and for purposes of heresy is not to be countenanced.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURI...IA/
PBCINTER.HTM is the PBC's most important recent utterance on these matters. It provides the warrant for the common sense of Catholic exegetes today, none of whom query the legitimacy of doubting direct Pauline authorship of the Pastorals, and most of whom deny such authorship.
ThomistWannaBe -- all Catholic clergy have taken courses in Scripture in which it is explained to them why Isaiah, for example, cannot be the work of a single hand. The Pope knows all about this. It is common knowledge.
The authorship of the fourth Gospel by John, Son of Zebedee, is not held by any prominent Catholic exegete as far as I know.
The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, or the standard Introductions to the OT and the NT (Eissler, Kummel, Brown etc.) lay out the basic information.
Vatican II expressly faults people who are blind to the literary texture of Scripture and impose on it rigid and magical conceptions of its composition.
The Catholic Church is not a Jerry Falwell style fundamentalist club.
"In determining the intention of the sacred writers, attention must be paid, inter alia, to 'literary forms for the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts' and in other forms of literary expression. Hence the exegete must look for that meaning which the sacred writer, in a determined situation and given the circumstance of his time and culture, intended to express and did in fact express, through the medium of a contemporary literary form" (Dei Verbum 12). This is a far cry from the magical view of Isaiah that would have the 8th century prophet write pages and pages about Cyrus (5th century). The division of Isaiah and Deutero-Isaiah is not an invention of modern scholars -- it was put forwards by Abraham ibn Ezra in the 12th century AD.
"...all Catholic clergy have taken courses in Scripture in which it is explained to them why Isaiah, for example, cannot be the work of a single hand. The Pope knows all about this. It is common knowledge."
That's your magisterial authority for your assertions; "The Pope knows all about this"? As I said, you cannot cite a single magisterial document to back up your assertion that the "RCC" accepts the views that you have laid out here.
Let's take just one example and see how it fares in light of facts (not fancies): the authorship of the fourth Gospel by St. John the Apostle is attested by St. Irenaeus (disciple of St. Polycarp, who himself was a disciple of St. John the Apostle), St. Clement of Alexandria, the Muratorian Canon, and Theophilos of Antioch. It is also attested by the superscriptions of two very early papyri, P66 and P75, which are from two different textual lineages. All later patristic sources agree with this early attestation. There are no ancient sources that attribute the work to any other author. So we have a unanimous early attestation, spread from Gaul to Rome to Alexandria to Antioch. And what positive, early evidence does Fr. Raymond Brown have for the "Johannine community" that he posits? Not one shred. And I'm fundamentalist if I say that the unanimous positive witness of antiquity speaks a lot louder than Fr. Brown's argument from silence?
As to patristic attestation, if I remember correctly the Fathers attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul. Yet the PBC document I gave a link to puts this Epistle in a different category from Pauline letters.
Of course it will be objected that the PBC is not the magisterium, but note that its recent documents are prominently displayed on the Vatican's website. It describes its own status as follows: "The Pontifical Biblical Commission, in its new form after the Second Vatican Council, is not an organ of the teaching office, but rather a commission of scholars who, in their scientific and ecclesial responsibility as believing exegetes, take positions on important problems of Scriptural interpretation and know that for this task they enjoy the confidence of the teaching office."
oops, the sentence I just quoted is from Cardinal Ratzinger's preface to the document.
I'd better watch it -- I don't want to get the Pope into trouble -- I'm sure some of you would like to delate him to the inquisition already.
The following key statement of the PBC document, blessed by the man who is now Vicar of Christ, is incompatible with fundamentalist literalism:
"The historical-critical method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the "word of God in human language," has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding not only admits the use of this method but actually requires it."
"As to patristic attestation, if I remember correctly the Fathers attribute the Epistle to the Hebrews to Paul."
As you (should) know, Father, the patristic attestation for the book of Hebrews is both late and uncertain. The attestation for the Gospel of John is both early and unanimous. So if that's the best you can do to engage the evidence I've brought to the table then I rest my case.
"Of course it will be objected that the PBC is not the magisterium,"
You can stop right there. The PBC is not the magisterium. And whether the Pope should place his confidence in their statements is a matter of prudential judgment which cannot be turned into an exercise of the magisterium. So I stand by my statement that not a single magisterial document can be cited to back up your assertions here.
"Oriented in its origins toward source criticism and the history of religions, the method has managed to provide fresh access to the Bible. It has shown the Bible to be a collection of writings, WHICH MOST OFTEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF THE Old Testament, are NOT THE CREATION OF A SINGLE AUTHOR [hence my statement that pseudepigraphy is well-nigh universal in Scripture], but which have had a long prehistory inextricably tied either to the history of Israel or to that of the early church. Previously, the Jewish or Christian interpretation of the Bible had no clear awareness of the concrete and diverse historical conditions in which the word of God took root among the people; of all this it had only a general and remote awareness."
The PBC thus undercuts arguments from the Fathers -- the Church had only a dim awareness of the compositional history of Scripture.
Gosh, ThomistWannaBe, so you trust your own prudential judgment more than the Pope's, on an issue in regard to which the Pope has acquired considerable scholarly expertise of his own. I studied the theology of the Eucharist under him in Rome in 1973 and his course contained much discussion of the Lukan institution narrative using the most up-to-date critical methods. Dogmatic and moral theologians are often angry with Ratzinger, but he is quite popular with exegetes, and his addresses to exegetes on the theological dimension of Scripture are well received.
Fundamentalists still appeal to patristic authority to uphold the Pauline authorship of Hebrews: http://www.themidnightcry.com/s_...m/s_13.asp?
n=44, though as an anonymous text the authorship was always somewhat uncertain.
The fact that all the fathers attribute John to John is hardly surprising, since the text itself claims to be the testimony of a Beloved Disciple, and only John fits the bill.
Clement of Alexandria saw John as the latest of the four Gospels -- thus later than Luke (or Luke-Acts) which does not suggest Johannine authorship.
John A. T. Robinson argued for an extremely early dating for John, though whether for Johannine authorship I do not recall. His view was not widely shared.
In any case, the consensus of the majority of scriptural scholars today is that only 7 letters of Paul in the NT are of direct apostolic authorship. The RCC has absolutely no problem with this. If you can find some text from the magisterium since 1962 or even since 1943 rejecting this development, I will be impressed.
"The PBC thus undercuts arguments from the Fathers -- the Church had only a dim awareness of the compositional history of Scripture."
Well PBC locuta est, causa finita est.
"Gosh, ThomistWannaBe, so you trust your own prudential judgment more than the Pope's, on an issue in regard to which the Pope has acquired considerable scholarly expertise of his own."
I think the Holy Father had a very liberal formation with respect to biblical studies, whereas my own--although it had flaws of its own--was quite conservative (not to say fundamentalist) and hewed more closely to the perennial Catholic approach to Scripture. I have no problem with the judicious and even "necessary" use of the historical-critical method. I have serious problems when the method is coupled with a hermeneutic of suspicion and the practitioners go on to discredit all of the positive evidence in order to advance theses which rest on no explicit evidence at all. Scripture critics can be pretty fundamentalistic about their unproven methods (just like neo-Darwinists can be pretty fundamentalistic about Darwinism, which they dismiss any and all opposition as fundamentalists.)
I have cited this quote here before, but let's hear again the very candid statement by NT scholar E. Earle Ellis concerning so-called "scientific" results of the historical-critical method:
"The meaning of ancient texts no less than other aspects of historical knowledge is never free from the subjective factors with which the interpreter comes to and pursues his task. What appears probable to one interpreter will be improbable to another. The failure of the historical-critical method, after two hundred years, to achieve an agreed meaning for any substantial biblical passage underscores that fact and makes a more modest attitude incumbent upon all biblical scholars" (Foreword to L. Goeppelt, Typos: The Typological Interpretation of the Old Testament in the New. trans. D. H. Madvig. [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], xvii.)
There are many instances in which the "assured results of biblical scholarship" have been totally overthrown by subsequent evidence coming to light. For example, the reconstruction of New Testament origins put forth by F. C. Baur in the first half of the 19th century looked to be absolutely established until they were totally destroyed by the meticulous work of one of my scholarly heroes, the great Anglican J. B. Lightfoot in his five volume "The Apostolic Fathers."
Bare assertions are easy to make. It's evidence that matters.
"John A. T. Robinson argued for an extremely early dating for John, though whether for Johannine authorship I do not recall. His view was not widely shared."
And J. A. T. Robinson was no fundamentalist, as I'm sure you will agree. His "Redating the New Testament" was a bombshell and remains a very provocative work. It is all the more valuable precisely because he was a rather liberal Anglican.
"In any case, the consensus of the majority of scriptural scholars today is that only 7 letters of Paul in the NT are of direct apostolic authorship. The RCC has absolutely no problem with this. If you can find some text from the magisterium since 1962 or even since 1943 rejecting this development, I will be impressed."
Sorry Father, no shifting the burden of proof. I hold that, magisterially speaking, the traditional status quo holds. It remains for you to cite any magisterial authority for your assertions.
The authorship of Revelation was also a topic of controversy: "The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:
.. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus."
NOTE -- if they were wrong, this proves that the Fathers can be naive in their acceptance of authorship, and so cannot be trotted out as a knockdown argument on this topic.
" This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom."
So the Fathers were just like us, debating the issue diligently. But there has been a lot of progress in study of the composition of the NT since their time.
"Magisterially speaking, the traditional status quo holds"...
Well, I will content myself with pointing out that the magisterial documents you appeal to are cautions against new developments dating back to the 1910s;that these documents are given no prominence in church teaching today -- they are in point of fact a dead letter; and that the entire world of Catholic biblical scholarship is referred by Rome to the documents published by Popes, Vatican II and the PBC since 1943. The PBC is entrusted with looking after the nitty-gritty of Catholic scriptural policy, and it does so in the spirit of Dei Verbum which is the last major magisterial document on Scripture (and indeed the most important church pronouncement on Scripture since Trent).
The trouble with this argument is that when evidence is produced it can be explained away as a result of magic. For instance, to a normal reader the fact that Second Isaiah refers to Cyrus is clear evidence that it is not the work of the 8th century prophet of that name. But fundamentalists will say that the 8th century prophet knew by divine revelation the name of the 5th century ruler (a foreign name to boot). With that kind of hermeneutics, of course nothing can be proved or disproved. If I want to believe that Shakespeare wrote Jane Austen's novels, I can postulate that he prophetically anticipated the state of the language in 1800 and the names of Napoleon or whatever historical characters are mentioned in her novels; that the texts were hidden somewhere until brought to light by the fake authoress etc. etc.
"So the Fathers were just like us, debating the issue diligently. But there has been a lot of progress in study of the composition of the NT since their time."
To say that they didn't have certain tradition on a specific issue (as, for example, the authorship of Hebrews or the Apocalypse) does not logically lead to the conclusion that they *never* have a certain tradition. But modern "critical" scholarship is equally dismissive even if there is a unanimous tradition, with a huge geographical dispersion. But if we simply apply the same sorts of criteria used in textual criticism we would have to take seriously the authenticity of an oral tradition with such unanimity from such diverse and dispersed witnesses.
That's not fundamentalism, that's using critical methods to uphold traditional conclusions. But there is a very strong impulse in modern biblical studies to deny that any of the canonical Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. Thus the external evidence, no matter what its quality, is set aside in favor of modern reconstructions based on no evidence at all.
So who's the fundamentalist?
"The trouble with this argument is that when evidence is produced it can be explained away as a result of magic. For instance, to a normal reader the fact that Second Isaiah refers to Cyrus is clear evidence that it is not the work of the 8th century prophet of that name."
So would you say, Father, that the fact that the Synoptic gospels have our Lord predicting the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 is 1) proof that they were all written after that event and 2) that our Lord, therefore, obviously said no such thing?
In other words, is it just magical to suppose that the incarnate Word of God could know what was going to happen 40 years in His future?
ThomistWannaBe,
It seems to me that our faith in the authenticity of Scripture should not depend on scholarly (or even Patristic) attestation of its human authorship, but on ecclesial attestation of its divine authorship. Mother Church assures me that the primary author of the Gospel of John is the Holy Spirit. Whether the Gospel text was composed by the Apostle himself or by members of his community in a series of drafts, revisions, and redactions is an interesting question, but my faith does not stand or fall on its answer, which will likely change over the course of time.
Dave,
In principle, in the abstract, I don't disagree with you. But notice how easy it is even for the Scripture scholar/skeptic to bamboozle the well-educated Catholic, let alone the "pew peasant". According to the "Spirit of V2", Matthew, John, Peter, and Mark didn't write those portions of Scripture traditionally attributed to them. What's more, the fact that they were writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit did not prevent them from making errors not only in scientific or historical, but even in religious and moral matters. And the "majority of biblical scholars" of which he is so fond say that the writers of the canonical Gospels were not eyewitnesses to the events they narrate.
So much for the real Vatican II: "The commission was fulfilled, too, by those Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing" (Dei Verbum 7). Under Fr. O'Leary's reckoning, DV 7 is false since it was not "Apostles" (plural) who wrote, but at best one Apostle (i.e. St. Paul.) But according to the "majority of biblical scholars", St. Paul's connection with the "historical Jesus" is pretty much non-existent; so his claim to be a genuine Apostle is bunk.
The point is that once he starts uncritically buying into these supposed "assured results of modern Scripture scholarship", how is the Catholic supposed to affirm what the Church teaches: "Holy Mother Church has firmly and with absolute constancy held, and continues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historical character the Church unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven" (Dei Verbum 9)?
It's not going to shatter my faith if it could somehow be *proven* that St. John the Apostles didn't write the gospel attributed to him. But I see no reason to cede that ground, since it is very far from proven. In fact, the evidence is heavily on my side. Fr. Brown, et al. have no external evidence at all for this fabled "Johannine community" and the evaluation of the internal evidence doesn't even begin to vitiate the traditional view of authorship. So why should any faithful Catholic give quarter and relinquish the traditional view of this book as an eyewitness account of what our Lord Jesus said and did? It is a powerful part of our apologetic as Catholics that the Gospels do in fact "faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven" because they were written by "Apostles and apostolic men who under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit committed the message of salvation to writing" "(that's the letter of Vatican II.)
Others are free to scamper after the "scholarly consensus" de jour. I don't think it's wise to be so easily swayed.
TwB, I'm no expert on Fr. Raymond Brown (and I'm certainly no scripture scholar), although I've read The Community of the Beloved Disciple, as well as portions of Fr. Brown's commentary on John's Gospel. As I recall his introduction to the latter, Fr. Brown affirms that the Fourth Gospel ultimately derives from an eyewitness to the event. Also, is it really true that there is no external evidence of the Johannine community described by Fr. Brown? If you can point me to specific critiques of Fr. Brown's work in this regard, I would be interested to read them.
The average Catholic who is interested in modern biblical scholarship can avoid succumbing to heretical conclusions by reading the Scriptures and modern commentaries on them with the mind of the Church, i.e., with constant reference to the magisterial statements concerning the truths of the Faith.
External evidence seems to be sorely lacking in regard to the enigmas of John -- a gospel described as the Sorgenkind (difficult child) of New Testament studies.
Vatican II could have stated bluntly that John was the author of John if it wanted to; instead it spoke of the apostolic origin of the Gospels and the complex development of sources and traditions behind them. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form, others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus" (DV 19).
Eyewitnesses? But no one claims that Mark or Luke were eyewitnesses, do they? Mark used notes of Peter (according to, I think, Papias) and Luke tells us himself about his sources and methods (1.1-4). The four Gospels no doubt derive from apostolic eye-witness, but as Vatican II points out they are kerygmas shaped with a view to the circumstances of the churches at the time of their composition.
Did Jesus predict the destruction of Jerusalem? -- very possibly, though perhaps in general terms -- much as people predict the downfall of the American Empire today. Some date Mark before 70, though Mk 13 predicts the destruction of the temple. But that is quite a different thing from predicting in precise detail the coming of a foreign king called Cyrus 250 years later.
More precise details about the fall of Jerusalem in Matthew or Luke would be a good argument for their post-70 dating. (Both Luke and Matthew add to the Markan text which they use as a basis. Writing after the fall of Jerusalem they would naturally adjust their kerygma to the present situation of their churches)
A student of literature simply cannot live with impossibilities, such as that the prophet Isaiah in the eighth century would speak the language and talk of events of the fifth century as if they were happening while he wrote, or that Jesus would speak two such different languages as those of the Synoptics and those of the Johannine discourses. A determined fortress mentality that thinks in terms of "ceding ground" revels, to the contrary, in stretching the limits of the rational and plausible to lengths that make a shambles of scriptural studies.
This is not harmless. Consider Ronald Reagan's fundamentalist faith in Armageddon as predicted by Ezekiel et al. The puppets who are the figureheads of the decaying American Empire tend to be brainwashed fundamentalists. America was founded on the slaughter of the native population on the basis of biblical texts and it remains the only first world country to have a virulent cult of biblical literalism. As we worry about "ceding ground" we may be rushing into the arms of something truly evil -- fundamentalism.
Dave,
You wrote: "The average Catholic who is interested in modern biblical scholarship can avoid succumbing to heretical conclusions by reading the Scriptures and modern commentaries on them with the mind of the Church..."
I think this is a very wise approach, but I would contend that it is not shared by the most prominent Catholic exegetes. I think that the approach to the authenticity and accuracy of Scripture taken by Frs. Brown, Fitzmyer, Murphy, et al. may be fairly summed up in three words: "I doubt it." That is, they do not approach the sacred Scriptures with confidence, certain that the canonical Gospels, for example, "faithfully hand on what Jesus Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation until the day He was taken up into heaven." Rather, you will find constant doubt placed on the historicity of this saying, that event, to the point that the reader himself is left with nothing but unresolved doubt. This is not a traditionally Catholic approach to the sacred text. I submit that, as you rightly point out, the Catholic approaches the Scriptures with confidence in their authenticity and accuracy and that means using every reasonable means to harmonize any apparent contradictions or anomalies. The modern Catholic exegete frequently is embarrassed by such efforts, he finds that they don't play well amongst his peers, they smack of a "fundamentalist" (oh, that dirty word!) approach, and so he prefers to maintain a scholarly detachment and cast doubt instead.
Note, for example, the doubt with which "Spirit" comes to the text. He writes:
"Did Jesus predict the destruction of Jerusalem?-very possibly, though perhaps in general terms-much as people predict the downfall of the American Empire today....More precise details about the fall of Jerusalem in Matthew or Luke would be a good argument for their post-70 dating."
So in other words, it's fine to posit that a general "prediction" of the sort that anybody could make (like a fortune cookie or an astrology tip) is dated prior to the events. But if it gets too detailed, well, then we'd be in the realm of "magical" thinking and so that must have been written after the event. So our Lord didn't really say all those things; the Gospel writers just filled them in later. I propose that underneath all of this is a fundamental lack of supernatural faith. The God-Man could not actually have predicted the fall of Jerusalem and destruction of the Temple in detail. Therefore if someone says that He did, it must have been written after the event. If I'm a fundamentalist for arguing in favor of the authenticity of our Lord's words in the Gospels, then so be it.
There is a very good book-length work: "The New Biblical Theorists" Msgr. George Kelly
See also:
http://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRI...TUR/
DESTBIB.TXT
http://www.catholicculture.org/d...cfm?
recnum=4071
http://www.tcrnews2.com/
RaymondB...ymondBrown.html
Generally I have enjoyed the writings of Fr. Brown and found them useful. Yet I must admit to being less than encouraged by his explanation of the Eucharistic sacrifice, taken from a Q&A response to Protestant objections to Catholic doctrines:
'The liturgy of the Last Supper, which we call the Mass, is a sacrifice in the sense that it makes present again to Christians of different times and places the possibility of participating in the Body and Blood of Christ in commemoration of him, proclaiming the death of the Lord until he comes.' (Reading the Gospels with the Church, pg. 82)
While not strictly heterodox, Brown's rather verbose statement seems to be at pains to avoid the all-too-literal understanding that the Mass takes us to the very foot of the Cross with Jesus.
Make no mistake; the writings of Fr. Brown are indeed useful. But they are not edifying and more than one Catholic has lost his faith by adopting the "I doubt it" hermeneutic that is exemplified again and again in Fr. Brown's writings.
"While not strictly heterodox, Brown's rather verbose statement seems to be at pains to avoid the all-too-literal understanding that the Mass takes us to the very foot of the Cross with Jesus."
In my opinion, ecumenism becomes a disease when it renders Catholics, like Fr. Brown, incapable of affirming Catholic distinctives boldly and proudly.
Spiri of Vatican II:
"Brainwashed"? LOL.
Pot, once again say hello to kettle.
TWB,
I just read a scathing reader review on Amazon of Brown's The Community of the Beloved Disciple. The review is written by a Catholic mother who said that after reading TCBD she threw all of the other books by Brown that she had purchased into the trash. Why? She feared for the faith of her son, who might find the book.
I really enjoyed TCBD, yet I find that maternal instinct compelling. Mom doesn't have a scholarly axe to grind -- she's just protective.
Something else about Fr. Brown. I read somewhere (can't find the reference) that he doubted the scriptural basis for devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. Compare that decidedly un-Catholic view to the position shared by Rahner and von Balthasar -- two contrary theologians, each possessed of massive erudition, both deeply devoted to the Heart of Jesus.
Dave,
Speaking of TCBD, you asked above if it's really true that Fr. Brown has not a shred of external evidence for such a "creative" community. Well, there isn't a word of it in any of the patristic sources, which would be the only place that Brown could go to find such evidence; he's not likely to find references to obscure Christian communities in secular writers. But note that it really wouldn't matter anyway, because Brown impeaches the testimony of the Fathers when they witness that the Gospel was written by St. John himself. So he could hardly then turn around and rely on them to support some other historical construction.
So yes, it is true that Brown has discarded the only external evidence that does exist, which runs in favor of authorship by the Apostle John, and replaces it with a reconstruction for which there is no external evidence at all. It's not the only example that could be cited; he does that sort of thing all the time.
The work of a Catholic exegete is supposed to be used in the service of the Church and in support of her Magisterium. As you have rightly pointed out, Fr. Brown failed miserably in that regard--his writings contain one doubt after another with respect to distinctively Catholic doctrines.
Raymond Brown was a saintly man who bore with the vicious carping of his fellow Catholics out of love for the Church. Ratzinger saluted him, saying "the Church needs more exegetes like Raymond Brown". His sense of the historicity of the Gospels is exactly that of the Pontifical Biblical Commission (of which he was an honored member) and is directly in line with Catholic teaching since Divino afflante spiritu, 1943, including Vatican II's Dei Verbum.
The Scriptural basis for devotion to the Sacred Heart? Does this mean that Brown exegeted some Johannine text in a manner that some critic decided removed one support for the devotion? In any case Balthasar and Rahner had very little exegetical formation (much less that Ratzinger has). The constant carping of rightist American Catholics has done far, far more to poison Catholic life than any exegete. In constrast the scriptural boom has done more to bring light and healing to Catholicism than anything else. Scriptural studies also enrich the ecumenical movement, in which Vatican II encourages all Catholics to participate.
'The Scriptural basis for devotion to the Sacred Heart? Does this mean that Brown exegeted some Johannine text in a manner that some critic decided removed one support for the devotion?'
No, it means that I suspect that Brown was lukewarm toward certain distinctively Catholic doctrines and devotions, and that this attitude colored his exegesis.
I have no idea whether or not Fr. Brown was a saintly man. What seems apparent to me, however, is that his sense of the historicity of the Gospels was NOT 'directly in line with Catholic teaching since Divino afflante spiritu, 1943, including Vatican II's Dei Verbum.' His interpetation of the virginal birth of our Lord is but one significant example of his departure from the Church's teaching on the historicity of the Gospels.
I'll grant at least that Fr. Brown was not as extreme as Crossan and the Jesus Seminar. I can at least read Brown without my knuckles turning white as I grip the velvet armrests of my inquisitorial throne.
The new emphasis on scripture and the promotion of scriptural studies are good things. The hermeneutics of doubt that has accompanied the scriptural movement is not.
His interpretation of the Virgin Birth? Do you not know that Brown strongly defends the virgin birth, and was criticized by other Catholic exegetes such as McKenzie for conservatism on this front?
Have you even read The Birth of the Messiah, (second edition)? You may be sure that Ratzinger has, which is why he considers Brown to be an exemplary Catholic exegete.
To say of any priest that he is lukewarm about the Sacred Heart (with no evidence, just a "suspicion") is the height of uncharity. I "suspect" that Brown began every day of his life with the words, "O Jesus, through the most pure heart of Mary, I offer thee up all the thoughts, words, deeds and suffering of this day for all the intentions of thy Sacred Heart".
If I have been uncharitable in my speculations about Fr. Brown's (or any priest's, including Fr. O'Leary's) devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, I apologize.
To the other point, if Fr. Brown is such a staunch defender of the Virgin Birth and other traditional doctrines, how is it that his work is so readily enlisted in support of such an anti-Christian cause as this:
http://www.simpletoremember.com/
...Credibility.htm ?
I do not suggest that Brown would be pleased with such a vile use of his work. The issue is that his work is even open to such use.
What the link you post picks up from Brown are banalities known to all students of the New Testament. You might as well say that the NT itself should be shunned as lending itself to such "vile uses". Luke happily, repeatedly, calls Mary and Joseph the parents (goneis) of Jesus in Lk 2; in fact the virginal conception is attested by only one verse in his infancy narrative, which is full of legendary material (the story of Zechariah in the temple, based on traditional annunciation-of-birth narrations, for example). The contradictions with the infancy narrative of Matthew are glaring -- according to Luke Jesus is being made much of in the Jerusalem temple outside Herod's door at the time when according to Matthew Herod is seeking his life and causing his to flee into Egypt. Jesus' family come from Nazareth according to Luke, settle in Nazareth later according to Matthew. Scriptural scholars have not problem with all this, but extreme literalists -- who abound particularly in the USA -- do.
This debate about Brown was conducted already on this site. I'll look up the link for you.
look up Archives 12/01/2005-12/31/2005 the entry of December 23, Christmas Reflections -- press Comments.
Does the state of the biblical evidence create a problem for believing that Mary was literally a virgin after conception of Jesus? Undoubtedly. Brown's defence of the virginal conception is theological rather than exegetical (compare it with Barth's robust theological defence of the virginal conception). On the exegetical front the most that Brown can say (or that anyone can say) is that the New Testament witness to a virginal conception is not as easily explained as some have claimed and that while it cannot prove the virginal conception it does not make it impossible to believe in it either. (Contemporary biology makes this miracle odder than it seemed in antiquity, when virgin births were very popular.)
Would a sacrifice of the doctrine of the triple virginity in favor of a simply spiritual reading of the credal utterance "natus ex Maria virgine" cause problems for Christian faith? No doubt. But what is so new about that? Galileo and Darwin caused problems, and the findings of critical study of Scripture have caused problems. But a wider and more mature thinking of faith has been able to take those problems in their stride.
Thanks, Fr. O'Leary.
That is quite a thread.
(Interesting to see how it devolved into a debate about homosexuality toward the middle, complete with Spirit's passing reference to New Cath's jackboot. What a joy.)
Much food for thought there. Both sides are compelling. Reminds me of how little I know. 
'Galileo and Darwin caused problems, and the findings of critical study of Scripture have caused problems. But a wider and more mature thinking of faith has been able to take those problems in their stride.'
Reminds me of something said by this blog's patron, JHN: 'Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt.'
Quite, 10000 difficulties do not make a doubt, as to the essence of faith, but they can purify faith so that it realizes what its essence is.
Commenting by HaloScan
