Good points.
But I would disagree about Scott Hahn being considered a Fundamentalist; he's one who teaches the documentary hypothesis to high school students. (Why children need to know the documentary hypothesis is just beyond me. I think that can be a spiritually dangerous thing to teach.)
At a recent RCIA meeting which I attend as a sponsor, a candidate had a question about purgatory and brought up a passage in Romans that she felt challenged the idea of redemptive suffering. One of the other sponsors spoke up about his understanding of the documentary hypothesis (!), dismissing said passage, saying you can't always believe some parts of the Bible because they weren't written by who we think! He was taught this in a lay ministry program. I don't know what happened between the teacher and the student in that case, but the bigger question is why a layman is being briefed (and I do mean briefed) on historical-critical methods, when those methods have nothing at all to do with lay ministry, and when truths of the faith can be haphazardly explained away with blind sword-strokes of reason? I must add that our great parish RCIA program can't be blamed for the error of this sponsor, and I did speak up with a correction. I relate this because I think it's dangerous to be teaching these hypotheses as if they were gospels to theological amateurs. I myself am a theological amateur, and so far, the Bible classes I've taken as an undergraduate student in an orthodox Catholic university have been focused primarily on the history and application of these methods, and have to some extent neglected the scriptures themselves. A working knowledge of these methods is indeed essential to a theology student, but theology students in particular should be aware to use caution with regard to the spiritual implications of these methods. Where will most students and laymen take their knowledge? To the masses; and what do the masses need with scripture criticism? Would it be an aid in their picking up their Bibles, or would it be a hinderance, because they sense the uncertainty felt by some scholars, trickled down through diocesan programs, of even the very words of Christ?
One Isaiah, indeed. I think I'm going to have to purchase Aidan Nichols' book.
"Cracks in the DAMN"???
Is that a Freudian slip?
Good one, Dan.
Laura K., thanks for your observations. My stance toward the Documentary Hypothesis is much like my stance toward Darwinian Evolution, or some theistic variant of it. I know I'm supposed to take it seriously because I'm an academic, and all "right thinking" individuals accept it dogmatically; but it just appears to me to be fundamentally flawed. My first encounter with contrary position was that of the Jewish critic of it, Umberto Cassuto, who wrote a now classic critique of it. Nothing much since then has helped to render it any more plausible. I, too, find it appalling that such hypotheses and theories have made their way into Catholic Study Bibles, where they are often treated as unproblematic "facts." Far from the truth!
I really appreciate this thought-provoking blog entry, along with the subsequent comments. There is one minor point, however, where I can set the record straight. Like many biblical scholars, I personally don't accept the documentary hypothesis (the so-called JEDP theory); nor do I "teach it" to high schoolers in my high school textbook, Understanding the Scriptures. I do make a point of referring to it, however, since the theory is still commonly held by many older Catholic teachers; so that the students are made aware of it, and not confused or caught off guard by a classroom lecture.
I offer a brief summary description of the theory, and then point out how it is "only scholarly conjecture and speculation," and that "no one will ever know for certain what the sources were, and each new generation of scholars will build up a slightly different theory." I then conclude by referencing the Pontifical Biblical Commission's teaching, "that we can be confident that whatever the time frame of the sources, Moses was the substantial influence as author and legislator of the Pentateuch". I do hope this clears up any misunderstanding.
In any case, keep up the great blogging, Phil.
Omnia in bonum,
Scott Hahn
Here's the flaw in your correspondent's thought: "I think part of the problem is Catholicism's reliance on theology and philosophy over and above Scripture on a clerical level. Hence the Nouvelle Theologians were oblivious to the threat [historical criticism] posed, since they were dealing with things on a higher theoretical level in their minds."
The Scriptures don't self-interpret and Catholicism isn't just sola Scriptura. It's also informed by theology and philosophy - it's an effort to understand Scripture. And this effort is part of the Scriptures themselves. Look at the Wisdom literature, the intertestamental literature. Look at the Gospel of John. They made use of the theology and philosophy of their day to enable them to express the meaning of the encounter with God.
As far as Aidan Nichols and the OT - it's just another hypothesis and not particularly compelling, given the differences among Isaiah, deutero-Isaiah, and trito-Isaiah.
Scott,
Thanks for your input and clarification. Good to hear from you, and much appreciated.
Randy,
Point well taken. While I can't speak for the author's intentions, my reading would be, not that the Church has not or should not make use of philosophy and theology in the interpretation of Scripture (as was done in making use of Greek concepts of 'substance', etc., in defining the significance of the Lord's Supper), but, rather, that the private interpretations and pet theories of the Enlightenment-inspired historical-critical tradition should not be substituted or elevated above the Church's own Sacred Tradition of biblical interpretation. Unfortunately, if you look at the results of Catholic biblical scholarship over the last fifty years, this describes all-too-much what has happened. The problem is not that Catholic biblical scholarship has been too critical; but that it has not been critical enough of its own presuppositions at crucial points.
It is not the use of philosophy or theology that is problematic, of course. You miss the point made by Josh S: Scriptures are not a means to arriving at doctrine--they are the foundation of doctrine. If we explain away their historicity, no amount of right interpretation will make a wit of difference. Going back to the Sources only helps if you give credence to those sources as well as the Magisterium, and not if you treat them as 'pastiches.' Even arguing the point is a bit moot, since the result on the parish level is as clear as day. I recall being in a Church in St. Kitts and stumbling on a tossed aside contemporary Scripture Daily Devotional that had a special section on appreciating the Scriptures in light of Higher Criticism, etc. Seeing the material laid out in a manner where it was supposed to aid the average reader made the crux of things uncomfortably clear. As an evangelists once said: "Watch out when you see someone broach the topic of An Introduction The Bible As Literature, that they are not Making the Bible Out as A Book Not Worthy to Be Introduced!" You also miss the point about Isaiah: it IS just a theory, as are the dual plus authorship theories that have for decades been treated as fact to unflattering effect. Equivalent to R. Brown's insistence that he was not denying the Virgin Birth but only proving that Scripture is not a convincing witness to it. George Kelley's boon really says it all, and much better than I can begin to manage.
This is a fascinating discussion. As a convert of several years, I have found that the only thing to come close to disturbing my faith is Bible study. I hate to say it, but it's the truth. I still think I am quite shaky on how the Church (traditionally) sees Scripture and how to integrate that into my prayer. I constantly come up against all of these theories and such, when all I really want to know is: who did this, why, and how should I live because of it? Any suggestions of *good* books, etc., would be appreciated.
Good observations and comments, Randy.
I'd only quibble over "it's just another hypothesis and not particularly compelling, given the differences among Isaiah, deutero-Isaiah, and trito-Isaiah." What's not particularly compelling is the hypotheses of multiple authors of varying sections of Isaiah, since the only "evidence" for multiple authors is the long-noted differences in style and/or genre of the three sections of the book. But such difference don't prove multiple authorship -- they only make it possible or plausible. Neither history nor tradition know anything of Deutero-Isaiah: the entire book has always been attributed to Isaiah. That doesn't prove single authorship, of course, but it does count for something. There's as much reason to conclude that the different sections date from different times and circumstances in Isaiah's life as there is to believe in two or more authors (unless, of course, one has problems with, for example, a prophet of God knowing the name of Cyrus the Persian some two centuries prior to the reign of Cyrus, which is not a problem for a Christian).
Megan:
A pamphlet called "Which Bible should I read, and why it matters", by TAN publishing. Be prepared to dump NAB and read Douay, but understand WHY.
Chris
Joe,
I think you've missed the point. No one is explaining away the historicity of Scripture here, least of all me. And I fail to see your distinction between: "Scriptures are not a means to arriving at doctrine--they are the foundation of doctrine." Of course, Scripture is a means of arriving at doctrine. How else would one arrive at doctrine if not for Scripture and reflection on Scripture? And no one's treating the Scriptures as "pastiches," either. Unlike Luther and the Reformed tradition, where the Scriptures were divided up, with Paul being elevated above the rest, or to the exclusion of the rest, the Catholic tradition has been to read the Scriptures (OT and NT) in toto, as one of the expressions of the Word of God. And simply because a few Catholic theologians have gone too far with the historical-critical method doesn't mean you are allowed to throw it out completely, either. After all, we don't want to de-historicize Scripture, either theologically or in our historical studies.
Your comment on R. Brown's treatment of the Virgin Birth shows a lack of understanding as well. All Brown was really saying was that it took Scripture AND Tradition (as it always does) to engender the dogma of the Virgin Birth, just as it took both Scripture AND Tradition to engender the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Scription alone is not always sufficient. And that's Catholic teaching.
Jordanes,
I really don't see the problem with Isaiah, taken as three distinct authors (or perhaps even more). We're not dealing with faith here or dogma or morals. And one can learn a lot from close textual study. And if one wants to avoid de-historicizing the Scriptures, the one also ought to recognize the various genres and changes in style, etc., as well as basic historical data.
One of the chief driving forces behind hypotheses that try to identify multiple authors in Isaiah has been difficulty in believing that a prophet could know the future. So-called Deutero-Isaiah is pretty insistent that God can and does reveal the future to prophets, though. Of course one can posit multiple “Isaiahs” who all lived and wrote before the events foretold in the Book of Isaiah, but as I understand it these hypotheses as a rule place all of the “Isaiahs” well after the events foretold, and some would even claim that the whole of the book is pseudepigraphal. Since ancient tradition and history tell us nothing about multiple authors of Isaiah, all we can do is speculate without being able to reach any solid conclusions. Did Isaiah write only the first half of the book? Were the “royal chronicle” interludes and chapters 40-66 written by someone else and appended to the book after Isaiah’s lifetime? Or are only certain passages of the book authentic, with the rest being falsely attributed to Isaiah? Or was the entire book written after Isaiah’s lifetime and palmed off as his work? There’s simply no way to be sure, and no good reason why Isaiah couldn’t have written the entire book, or could have written two books that were joined together with the “royal chronicle” chapters written by someone else and added in the middle as connecting text. There are many possible explanations for how God inspired the Book of Isaiah to be written. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, however, the favored view ought to be that we should respect the longstanding tradition of Jews and Christians regarding the authorship of the book. God knows if that tradition is incorrect, but we’ll never be able to tell one way or another, and such speculation won’t give us much help in understanding what the Holy Spirit is telling us through Isaiah.
Randy,
Points taken. Apologies if I misread you.
As for Brown on the Virgin Birth, however, I don't think I misread him. I think he himself was torn between what he came to believe via textual analysis and what he felt obligated to affirm by his vows, and never satisfactorily reconciled the two. Of course, I am no mind reader, but the fact so many orthodox and intelligent Catholics (many of whom do not come out of Evangelicalism and don't necessarily affirm strict inerrancy) find severe problems with Brown says I am not alone in my reservations. I shall also cede, however, that folks like Ratzinger have praised the man highly, so I am not sure how to package the whole imbroglio.
Jordanes,
On Isaiah, Nichols makes the brief point that the actual naming of the future King's name might be the insertion of an over-helpful later scribe, a suggestion I had never heard but sounds feasible.
Megan:
A few ideas...
Kreeft's "You Can Understand the Bible," if you appreciate his style, cannot be beat. T-rrific!
Laux's "Introduction to the Bible" (Tan) is a little dated, but nonetheless thematically has lots of heart.
Quite recent by comparison, and a bible study in the form of a book, is Stephen Clark's eye-opening "Catholics & the Eucharist." It makes you realize Catholics *are* Bible Christians.
A book inexplicably out-of-print but likely found cheap at Alibris is
Sheed's "Christ in Eclipse," which is an indirect but amazingly helpful intro into the Gospels (he wrote it after diagnosing Catholics as too often Scriptural illiterates, hence becoming the discoverer of 'Sheed's Disease'!)
This being December, I have to toss in this last one I am enthused about:
Guardini's "The Lord," a book which is really a long collection of meditations on the Life of Christ and the New Testament. Ignore the pretty awful cover, and Ratzinger's intro (!) that doesn't much excite (at least my) American ears. It takes a little work, but between the content and the prose,--which manages to impact even in translation--the effect lingers.
Thus endeth the reviews.
On Isaiah, Nichols makes the brief point that the actual naming of the future King's name might be the insertion of an over-helpful later scribe, a suggestion I had never heard but sounds feasible.
I suppose that's possible, but the way the name of Cyrus is introduced, it doesn't strike me as having the feel of interpolation or gloss.
I have to credit Scott Hahn with putting me on to two excellent books, which should be read by anyone interested in coming to terms with the background of the historical-critical approach to Biblical interpretation in the traditions of Enlightenment philosophy and Protestant theology. The books are J.C. O'Neill's The Bible's Authority: A Portrait Gallery of Thinkers from Lessing to Bultmann (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1991), and The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Kaesemann, by Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995). Another interesting volume I would add is by C. Stephen Evans and has a title that turns a basic historical-critical assumption delightfully on its head: The Historical Christ & the Jesus of Faith (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996). A less scholarly but highly readable and basically reliable book by the otherwise problematic Luke Timothy Johnson is his The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels (HarperSanFransicso, 1997), about which I would only offer the caveat that he uses the word 'history' in an ambivalent way ('history,' for the historical-critical tradition by definition excludes the supernatural). Johnson waffles on that issue, but he's also incisively critical of the naivity and stupidity of historical-critical assumptions as they've gone to seed in the Jesus Seminar, which can make for delightful reading.
As far as the prophets are concerned, I think it is naive to assume that prophecy is there only for the "future." A prophet was also called by God to call His people back to the faith, to call the people to repentance and the right way of life. This is the chief function of "prophecy," not some kind of seeing into the future. And the sort of foretelling that the prophets use is fairly uniform over time: repent and follow the ways of the Lord or the enemies of Israel will triumph. That's pretty standard stuff.
As far as the historical-critical method is concerned, there's no reason to "turn it on its head." It's a valid, useful method for contextual research. Of course, it's been taken too far by some scholars, but throwing it out entirely is also wrong and unscholarly. And there's no reason not to do scholarly research on Scripture, unless we want to go back to some kind of unthinking fundamentalism and that's never been the Catholic way.
Thanks, everyone, for the suggestions. My Christmas list just got a little longer!
Early in this string, Joe wrote that the point made by Josh S. was that "Scriptures are not a means to arriving at doctrine-- they are the foundation of doctrine."
I don't want to challenge this, as I am not sure exactly how it is meant. I would note,though, that the church produced the Bible and not vice-versa. In that sense, doctrine preceded scripture. The tradition existed before it was set down in writing. Doctrine must be consistent with inspired Scripture but it is the Church that recognized the Scripture as consistent with the Tradition.
Dan:
Maybe I am wrong, but I cannot agree. The Church did not "produce" the Bible. It *recognized* it for the inspired reality that it--or they, the books--was/were. Vatican I points this out. Defining the canon was like defining a supernatural phenomenon. The Church cannot be above the Bible for the simple reason that the Bible is the unique Word of God. The Church has been entrusted as its Steward, but it certainly did not produce it. God produced it, and chose to use humans in the process. Does this seem legitimate?
As far as the prophets are concerned, I think it is naive to assume that prophecy is there only for the "future." . . .
All true. However, it’s also erroneous to argue, as some do, that God did not reveal the future through His prophets. Such an approach is untenable, making a hash of both the Old and New Testaments. After all, Jesus did say of Moses, “He wrote about Me.”
Joe,
This is a sort of "chicken and egg" situation. You don't get the New Testament without the Church and you don't 'get' the Church without the New Testament. I'm no expert but I know that the bishops of the Church decided which writings should be in the canon and which ones were not inspired. Even giving all the credit to the Holy Spirit, the bishops were not acting in a vacuum. They knew which books were consistent with the Tradition.
Paul preached the Gospel without the benefit of texts by the four evangelists and he wrote to Christians who were believers before they got his letters. The Tradition obviously came first.
When I say that the Church produced the scriptures, I mean that the writers were the Church before, sometimes quite a bit before, they wrote the scriptures. I would say that Peter, Paul and the four evangelists, et al., were the original Church.
The Church is the steward of the deposit of faith, which preceded the scriptures and it was in that capacity that the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, could determine the canon, i.e., recognize which writings were inspired. Having recognized the books as the inspired word of God, the Church is, of course, bound to reverence and hold to them.
In a word, Si!
Jordanes,
When Jesus says of Moses, "He wrote about Me," he's not speaking as though Moses had second sight or had a crystal ball. Jesus is the One Who knows, not Moses. Moses (cf. Deuteronomy) could not contemplate God, but only glimpsed Him. The writers of the NT recognized Jesus as a new Moses, the One in the bosom of the Father and the One the Father acknowledged at his baptism ("This is my beloved Son").
Jesus recognized Himself in the accounts of Moses, but Moses only saw dimly. Although he was a prophet, he did not see the future clearly, but only in shadow. That's why the Fathers of the Church frequently used the conceits of shadow/figura to contrast the OT with the NT.
Joe,
You have an odd notion of the "recognition" of the scriptural canon. The Church was responsible for the canon, although it is not responsible for the Word of God. The distinction is this: the Church (i.e., its agents, the bishops, experts, etc.) had to sort through all sorts of Gospels and epistles, which had appeared by the fourth-fifth centuries (the canon of the NT was declared in the West in 393 in Hippo Regius and 397 in Carthage ; in the East in 367 A.D. in the 39th Festal Letter of Athanasius). The ones judged orthodox were those congruent with Church doctrine. Those that were not were tossed (Gnostic gospel, apocryphal gospels, pseudepigrapha, etc.).
This process is distinct from Scripture as the Word of God. Orthodox Scripture is the Word of God. But judging which Scriptures truly reflected the Word of God was the process by which the canon was formed and that was up to the Church.
When Jesus says of Moses, "He wrote about Me," he's not speaking as though Moses had second sight or had a crystal ball.
Yep. But Moses still wrote about Jesus, even though his understanding of the Messianic promise could not have been terribly clear or exact. Moses' prophesied of Jesus, speaking of things to come that Jesus fulfilled in due time.
That's why the Fathers of the Church frequently used the conceits of shadow/figura to contrast the OT with the NT.
And before them, the writers of the New Testament used the same shadow/figure contrast.
Orthodox Scripture is the Word of God. But judging which Scriptures truly reflected the Word of God was the process by which the canon was formed and that was up to the Church.
At Vatican I, the Church dogmatically taught, "And these books of the Old and New Testament are to be received as sacred and canonical, in their integrity, with all their parts, as they are enumerated in the decree of the said Council [Trent], and are contained in the ancient latin edition of the Vulgate. These the Church holds to be sacred and canonical, not because, having been carefully composed by mere human industry, they were afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation with no admixture of error; but because, having been written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God for their author, and have been delivered as such to the Church herself."
In other words, the Church holds these books to be canonical because they were delivered to her from the outset as having been divinely inspired. Those that were not delivered as such were not accepted as canonical.
Of course that doesn't mitigate in any way the Church's authority and role in ascertaining the biblical canon for those who were in doubt.
Jordanes,
Nothing I said contradicts Vatican I. The Church still had to sort through the various gospels/epistles and discern which truly reflected the Word of God. Several, e.g., Revelation, were very controversial and nearly didn't make it into the canon (check various lists of the Scriptures held by pre-canonical theologians as well as statements in Eusebius). Vatican I can make a statement about the divine inspiration of the Scriptures without contradicting the process that went into the makeup of the canon. Discernment of which were divinely-inspired was not automatic in all cases.
As far as the historical-critical method is concerned, there's no reason to "turn it on its head."
Randy, while modern and contemporary scholars in the historica-critical tradition have sometimes unconvered insights, key methodological tools, precisely such as the now common distinction between the "Christ of Faith" and "Jesus of History," are based on fundamentally problematic pre-theoretical philosophical commitments. This particular distinction, for example, stems from the Kantian distinction between the "noumenal" and "phenomenal," by which he sought to "limit science" he understood science) "to make room for faith" (as he understood faith). By restricting science to the phenomenal world of empirical appearances, he not only made reality as such unknowlable; but he also placed the objects of faith (not only God, but the mind or soul, free will, and the real world, as such) beyond the reach of discussion in terms of rational understanding. In simple terms, he divorced 'facts' from 'values,' a dualization discredited ever since Dilthey noticed that 'reason' is historically conditioned, Polanyi has shown that knowledge is ineluctably personal, Gadamer has shown that facts require interpretative understanding, and Nagel has shown that there can be no such thing as a "point of view from nowhere."
In other words, on the basis of classic historical-critical assumptions, biblical attestations of supernatural events such as miracles belong by definition, not to the phenomena of history, but to the postulations of faith. Thus, 90% of the Bible has to be discredited as non-historical, and treated as a construct of the faith of the "believing community" (i.e., as purely "noumenal," in the Kantian vocabulary). These assumptions are manifest in Thomas Jefferson's treatment of the New Testament. He went through it with scissors, as it were, and cut out every reference to the supernatural, leaving him with a very slim volume indeed -- something like 19 pages, as I recall. This was the residue he could accept as historically credible. Poor deluded thing.
"...judging which Scriptures truly reflected the Word of God was the process by which the canon was formed and that was up to the Church."
Don't get it. Scripture according to Tradition does not merely "reflect" the Word of God, but IS the Word of God in written, human words. Absolutely the Church was used as the means of discerning/defining the canon, and its testimony is indispensible in our surety that said books are inspired.
Pertinacious Papist,
Yes, I realize the pre-theoretical commitments that have been made on the part of Kantian and post-Kantian scholars. But that is not true of all scholars who use the historical-critical method. As I already said above, the historical-critical method is also used to contextualize matters in Scripture, which do not necessarily have to result in tossing out dogma or doctrine. May I also remind you that prior to Kant, Luther paved the way for this very attitude by divorcing Scripture from the Church and making his personal views on justification the parameter for what was valid or invalid in the Scriptures themselves.
Nothing I said contradicts Vatican I.
I didn't say anything you said contradicted Vatican I, Randy. Quite the contrary.
I'm enjoying this discussion, but I'm getting the impression you think we're arguing or debating.
Good discussion here.
"He went through it with scissors, as it were, and cut out every reference to the supernatural, leaving him with a very slim volume indeed"
They point you make in that recent comment Dr. Blosser is very much on my mind for a good number of years - on the one hand if we indeed do reason that the creator of the Universe is not capable of performing whatever miracle what kind of creator do we really believe in?
On the other hand the miracles reported particular in the New Testament are for the most part actually pretty modest - almost pedestrian in nature - arent they?
The kind of stuff one could expect from a couple of generations of humans 'miscommunicating' by word of mouth.
In my mind you conservative catholics get it about right when you fight to keep the mystique of the church alive.
By the time us progressives have made sense of it all - we have convinced ourself that there are really no good 'reasons' to believe.
And yes that is in my mind why Vatican II did not succeed - because if you strip the church of all the irrational 'clutter' -all the soulful stuff that emerged out of history and time but does not make any sense - you are left with not all that much beyond what could be easily accomplished with a good natured secular philosphy. As President Bush put it - Jesus my favorite Philospher.
Jefferson today would embrace Science and human reasoning as his dominant Religion - and that is indeed the 'Religion' that an increasing percentage of rather influential people on this planet truly embrace if they are honest.
Joe,
You're going into a semantic frenzy here. Remember, the Word of God precedes its setting down in Scripture and it is not limited to Scripture.
Randy,
Again point taken. Likewise remember: Scripture is uniquely God's word written, and is inspired, UNLIKE tradition which cannot make the same claim to such special inspiration. As such it stands alone in its special witness, regarldess of the Church's responsibility to interpet it
My "frenzy" comes from exasperation over the Catholic Church's inability--post-Reformation and then amidst the crisis of Higher Criticism--to appreciate Scripture versus resent it for being a billy club at the Reformation or a dated artifiact.
To wit: Here's a challenge. Identify a single Catholic author post Vatican II who does not introduce the Bible amidst a waterfall of qualifications and equivocations. Really. Even the Pope in reference to the 10 commandments feels compelled to doubt whether there really were stone tablets (see "God & The World"). Unless I am missing something, you have got ot be kidding me.
Don't get me wrong: I love the Church and respect her tradition. THAT is why the ongoing devaluation of the Bible bothers me. Perhaps it is an artifact of my post-conversion evangelical hangover, I'll readily admit. Regardless, I will say this: Traditionalist and Liberals both in today's RCC simply don't get the importance of the Bible. The Synod may portend change--Hahn thinks so. The reported documents, however, wwould hardly excite laymen to read further in the Sacred Text.
If I sound frustrated, you're right. the Bishops seem to believe the Bible despite itself, and that is a losing proposition. Hence we now have a pagan Europe...
Commenting by HaloScan
