How Critical?
A little over a week ago I posted a link to a story in The Christian Century about six Protestant theologians who had recently converted to Catholicism. One of them, Rusty Reno, blogs at First Things and has posted a comment on the article. In it he makes some rather trenchant comments about the historical-critical method of reading scripture. Reno believes the method has generated important insights, but raises some serious questions about its popular applications:
What I can understand, however, is a general reaction against the
cultural tyranny and arrogant ignorance of the tradition and practice
of modern historical-critical study of the Bible. Countless professors
use historical study as a bludgeon to beat up the naive piety of
college students, and they do so with no intention of offering an
intelligent, theologically informed alternative. The majority of
biblical scholars I have met are culpably ignorant of the history of
biblical interpretation, the history of theology, and the history of
their own discipline. They parade their textual judgments as
indubitable facts, and they are ruthless in their ambition to hold
exclusive rights to any “intellectually responsible” interpretation of
the Bible.
For these reasons, far from accepting historical criticism, I have worked to overthrow its pretensions. The new Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible is a forty-volume series of biblical commentaries precisely not
written by the supposed experts. If I had control over faculty
appointments at seminaries and divinity schools, I would establish a
moratorium on the hiring of people with Ph.D.’s in biblical studies.
The past decades have shown that doctoral programs in biblical study
are unable to produce faculty capable of reading the Bible for the
Church. Some succeed in spite of their education. Folks like Richard
Hays are working hard to reform the discipline from within. They
deserve our support. But we need to be hard-nosed in defending our
communities of faith against both the thinly masked ideologies and
intellectually embarrassing positivism of historical-critical study.
I have to say that my experience has been different from Professor Reno’s. I was introduced to historical-criticism through the works of careful scholars like Raymond Brown and John Meier. Brown’s work in particular always struck me as animated by a deep piety (read the conclusion to his Introduction to New Testament Christology for an example). Brown was also sensitive to the need to maintain connections between biblical and dogmatic theology so that the Bible could continue to be read as the Church’s book.
But I readily concede that I might feel differently if my exposure to the critical study of scripture had come from the folks affiliated with the Jesus Seminar or popularizers of the latest “lost Gospel.” Those inclined to react defensively to Reno’s “postliberalism” on this and other matters might do well to reflect on the conditions that engendered it.
My experience was like yours, Peter. In my second year of undergrad at Fordham, Scripture scholar Fr. Dick Dillon, presented historical-critical method not as a piety-piercing device, but as a tool of scholarship, and a way to get at the story of Scripture. None of us, not even the most wide-eyed of the nineteen-year-olds (who may have been me), took his instruction or the method as an attack on our faith. And this at a Catholic university. Imagine.
I think the quality of a biblical studies program has almost everything to do with whether or not the faculty know anything about theology.
At the university I know a thing or two about (Univ. of Chicago) I am given to understand that biblical studies is a historical-critical wasteland, despite the presence of Catholics. I am told this is largely due to the fact that the pedagogy is untouched by any sort of coherent theology.
Like Grant, my first exposure to historical- critical method was as an undergrad at a Catholic university. The professor was an excellent teacher, and we began the course with, and would often return to, the guiding words of Vatican II’s “Dei Verbum,” especially the following:
“Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. Therefore ‘all Scripture is divinely inspired and has its use for teaching the truth and refuting error, for reformation of manners and discipline in right living, so that the man who belongs to God may be efficient and equipped for good work of every kind’ (2 Tim. 3:16-17, Greek text).
However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to ‘literary forms.’ For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.”
Even so, I often had the discomfiting feeling that we were engaged in clandestine, somewhat heretical activity. This was heady stuff for a 19-year old cradle Catholic reared on the Baltimore Catechism and unquestioning fealty to the historical accuracy of the Bible. The lay status of the professor just added to the uneasy feeling that subversion of the magisterium was taking place on M-W-F mornings in Room 102 of Loyola Hall.
It was a great course, however, one of those eyeopening experiences fondly remembered years later. Hopefully, all of the students emerged not only with their faith intact but measurably enhanced. The dabbling I’ve done in exegesis since then-has been self-taught, and has likely been just enough to be dangerous to other Christians, but I second Peter’s mention of the works of the late Fr. Raymond Brown as excellent guides, and I recommend the several books by Walter Brueggemann on the Old Testament as helpful. too. Those, and frequent re-readings of Dei Verbum to put everything in proper context.
I’m still trying to wrestle with this passage:
“It is not the case that I am threatened by modern culture and its critical insights. On the contrary, I find them pedestrian and conventional and often spiritually impoverished.”
I’m not sure whether he’s criticizing text analyis methods or those practicing them. Or maybe both.
It seems to me that modern textual analysis is kind of like an autopsy. It can tell you a lot about how systems work and fit together.
But no pathologist (or textual analyst) worth his salt would presume to tell you what animated the body in the first place.
Textual analysis (and autopsies) SHOULD be “spiritually impoverished,” shouldn’t they? In the same way that pathologists shouldn’t be theologians?
I’m neither, so possibly I’m totally at sea. Which would simply be more proof that the ordinary Catholic has a hard time knowing what to make of all this.
I can understand Professor Reno’s concerns, but his reaction does go too far. It reminds me of the approach of some popular Catholic figures like Jeff Cavins and Scott Hahn, who would like to jettison the entire historical-critical approach to Scripture in favor of a fundamentalist reading that squares more with their evangelical backgrounds. There is an interesting critique of Hahn’s theology at the New Oxford Review’s Web site (you’ll have to pay for the full article): http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0604-oneill.
It seems to me that–at least in Catholic circles–this over-reaction against possible excesses of the H-C method has some ideological basis. “True” Catholics can find comfort in the way Hahn, Cavins, and others in their camp use a non-critical approach to Scripture to justify a more traditional, triumphalistic, anti-ecumenical Catholicism than what is taught in supposedly Catholic institutions such as Notre Dame and Georgetown. The problem with all of this is that they are using bad theology to try to “prove” Catholicism and “defend” it against other denominations.
On a related topic: Has anyone out there heard anything about the Diocese of St. Cloud conducting some kind of inquiry into the theological underpinnings of Jeff Cavins’ “Great Adventure” program? I had heard that the diocese had received complaints and that they were looking into it. Can anyone confirm this?
As other comments to this post have shown, taking a historical critical look at Scriptures does not necessarily destroy one’s faith. In fact, it has the potential to do quite the opposite.
I began to read Scripture seriously only late in life. I was graduated from a Catholic college which offered courses in theology but nothing in the way of biblical studies. Looking forward to retirement I had been acquiring some texts, including the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and volumes from the Anchor Bible. That is probably how I came upon Raymond E. Brown. I quickly decided that he was fundamentally right in his approach and The Death of the Messiah is my idea of devotional reading for Lent.
I was in a reading group last year that used Scott Hahn’s commentary on Acts. He made no reference to any source for anyting he said other than the CCC. He seemed to think that Acts had to be written before the death of St. Paul and that every historical detail was guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. He never seriously faced the fact that there are good reasons for a later date, much less did he see that Luke was not trying to write history as we would try to write it and that, even though there certainly is history in Acts, there are also historical errors in Acts as there are elsewhere in Scripture. There is no opposition between piety and critical method nor between sound theology and critical method. Actually anyone who undertakes to fortify the faith of students by inculcating an uncritical, uninformed approach reading is not so much fostering piety and fortifying faith as running the risk that those students will go on to discover that they have been hoodwinked and perhaps be worse off than if they had not been mistaught.
I began to read Scripture seriously only late in life. I was graduated from a Catholic college which offered courses in theology but nothing in the way of biblical studies. Looking forward to retirement I had been acquiring some texts, including the New Jerome Biblical Commentary and volumes from the Anchor Bible. That is probably how I came upon Raymond E. Brown. I quickly decided that he was fundamentally right in his approach and The Death of the Messiah is my idea of devotional reading for Lent.
I was in a reading group last year that used Scott Hahn’s commentary on Acts. He made no reference to any source for anyting he said other than the CCC. He seemed to think that Acts had to be written before the death of St. Paul and that every historical detail was guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. He never seriously faced the fact that there are good reasons for a later date, much less did he see that Luke was not trying to write history as we would try to write it and that, even though there certainly is history in Acts, there are also historical errors in Acts as there are elsewhere in Scripture. There is no opposition between piety and critical method nor between sound theology and critical method. Actually anyone who undertakes to fortify the faith of students by inculcating an uncritical, uninformed approach reading is not so much fostering piety and fortifying faith as running the risk that those students will go on to discover that they have been hoodwinked and perhaps be worse off than if they had not been mistaught.
Joseph–
You made several good points…twice in fact. :)
I agree especially with your “hoodwinked” comment, though, contrary to what I used to think, critical method is probably not a good topic for the homily at Sunday Mass. As already noted in this thread, having a very knowledgeable instructor/guide with adequate time for teaching is (forgive the pun) critical to conveyance of the essentials.
A visiting priest once told us that “weekly attendance at Sunday Mass is the absolute minimum eternal life insurance policy a Catholic can have.” It got a good laugh, but there’s some truth to it. It’s too bad that there isn’t some form of compulsory adult religious education, along the lines of continuing education credits that some professions require. Basics such as Church history and Bible study and analysis could be covered.
Bill,
At Sunday the homilist, like the physician, should at least do no harm. I think this has two aspects. He should say anything that without proper background might disturb the beliefs of the faithful. He should also avoid spreading false pieties that may discredit him in the eyes of the more critical in the congregation, who will either think that he knows better but has contempt for his audience, or perhaps worse, that he knows no better and is not to be taken seriously in any matter of importance. Last Easter our parish bulletin featured a harmonization of the four accounts of the resurrection and the events that immediately followed. It was simply absurd and as useless as it was unnecessary. The parochial vicar who provided it thought it was a highly probable account of the events in question. It marked him as a man who will believe anything. It is difficult to take such a fellow seriously.
Apologies for the repetition above. Does anyone have a delete button that can be applied?
Critical method in reading an ancient text is in essence having a due regard for the historical situation and cultural world of the ancient author. This is the only way of finding out what the author means. Although God is the author of Scripture it is not less true that Scriptural texts also have human authors and are fully the work of those authors in all things except that the texts are inerrant as to those matters which are there for our salvation. If we take this idea seriously, we must use critical method in reading them.
I don’t know who Rusty Reno has encountered. No one would say that biblical scholars are themselves inerrant. Far from it. But I would make two points. First, critical method should not be confused with a naturalistic view of the world, a view that supernatural intervention does not occur, that miracles do not occur, above all, that no one rises or, perhaps better, is raised up from the dead. Naturalism is simply a prejudice and it is incompatible with Christian belief. Secondly, an interpretive reading that is critical in intent may still be incompetent because of the limitations of the interpreter. The answer to such a reading is another, more critical one conducted with greater competence.
I don’t know how you can talk about scripture without making some reference to the historical situation and cultural world of the ancient authors–especially when you consider that God chose to speak to us through human beings and not through unmediated revelation. None of us has been gifted with infused knowledge of all the mysteries of salvation, after all.
I find it instructive that most of those who are suspicious of the historical-critical method are either Evangelicals or Evangelicals who have crossed the Tiber. Having not been immersed in the Catholic tradition, with its sacramental economy and liturgical identity, they don’t seem as accustomed to the way God uses everyday stuff to reveal himself–wheat and grapes, oil and water. So it’s harder to see how God would use the thought-world, say, of folks living in first-century villages in Palestine as a means of revelation. There’s more than one way to read John’s famous statement that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.
Just today my wife brought home Jaroslav Pelikan’s “Whose Bible Is It?” (Penguin, 2005). He’s such a great scholar and so serious a religious person that this book is sure to be a source of clarification about the Scriptures and how we are to try to make sense of them. He’s too good a historian to be “uncritical” and to religious to take the Bible as just another piece of literature. I’m eager to see just what he does say.
A very interesting thing is happening, as far as I can see, in parish churches. The critical-historical approach is actually taken hold. Scott Hahn is out believe it or not.
This is seen how priests make comments like “if Paul really said that.” The same is being uttered by many conservative Catholics. Which says to me that the Arch-diocese, at least in New York, is propagating that approach.
Many did say the Council would take forty years to become mainstream.
The new attention to scripture is welcome. Now if it will only develop enough to take people’s attention away from shrines, grottos and pilgrimages.
I have read Raymond Brown.
I have read Scott Hahn.
…. here it comes:
Scott Hahn is no Raymond Brown.
Not even remotely on his very best day.
Jimmy Mac: you are so right about the comparison of Hahn and Brown.
Also, check out Reno’s blog at First Things posted today. Imitating U.S. News & World Report’s annual rankings of colleges, Reno gives his own personal listing of best schools of theology or religious studies.
Interesting thread. I found Jean’s autopsy anology particularly apt.
The experiences shared here…faith deepened by judicious exposure to the historical-critical approach…are encouraging. Welcome voices, but not the only voices meriting attention.
Some, in academia and elsewhere, *do* relish deconstructing the worldviews of traditional Christians. Some people *do* experience anomie when their beliefs are debunked. If this has not been our experience: good, but maybe our circle is a little too small.
Some Catholics and many Evangelicals feel estranged and beseiged, believing themselves the object of elite ridicule and withering contempt. The fact that we don’t see it that way doesn’t invalidate their experience.
I would appreciate responses to Peter’s final sentence: “Those inclined to react defensively to Reno’s “postliberalism” on this and other matters might do well to reflect on the conditions that engendered it.”
I can only speak from experience. I have never heard anyone “deconstructing” anything from any pulpit. One priest I know says very emphatically “the Gospel according to St. Matthew” and the like, even though neither the current translation nor the Latin original has anything more than “according to Matthew”. I suppose he is trying to make some sort of point, but he never says what it is. One deacon in the parish has taken to imitating him. Another priest whose homilies I often hear is convinced that despite the views of certain scholars (unnamed) Matthew was written before Mark because there is an early
Father who says so. I can’t resist adding that one priest my wife and I heard one day explained that the Jews thought Jesus meant it literally when he talked of giving his body and blood to be eaten and drunk, but that it was only symbolic. You might take this as a bit of “deconstruction” but we have heard this fellow more than once and, fundamentally, he is just very confused, to put it as generously as possible. Fortunately his heavy accent makes much of what he says unintelligible.
I would appreciate responses to Peter’s final sentence: “Those inclined to react defensively to Reno’s “postliberalism” on this and other matters might do well to reflect on the conditions that engendered it.”>>
There is no question that much of the criticism of historical-criticism is the fear that it is a threat to the faith. And with the actions of some Christians who throw out mostly everything, that fear is justified.
The point is never to lose our center and to have a responsible theology and history which does not throw out the diamond but polishes it,
Liberals, perhaps too often, neglect to reassure others that the heart is still there and that we can not have a theology which is a “Carnival des animaux” where any idea is given credence.
Mike McG–
Here, perhaps, is a cautionary tale about historical-critical analysis:
Earlier this summer I was channel surfing one night, and I stopped when I saw Bart Ehrman being interviewed on C-Span’s “Booknotes.” Ehrman is the chair of the dep’t of religious studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. One of my colleagues at work had had Ehrman for some New Testament classes while attending UNC. My colleague thought Ehrman was a great teacher, and he had recommended some of Ehrman’s books to me.
Ehrman was on TV that night talking about his latest book, “Misquoting Jesus,” which I had never heard of, and which takes the position that the stories and sayings of Jesus in the NT are essentially more legend and myth than fact. Ehrman candidly recounted his difficult journey from evangelism to agnosticism (though his comments bordered on atheism to my thinking) as a result of his years of H-C analysis of the NT. From an education (at the Moody Bible Institute) and religious life steeped in the inerrancy of the NT, he had gradually (and painfully) reached the conclusion that the inconsistencies in the NT are too great to ignore, and that all the mystery and supernaturalism and divinity he had once found in the Bible as an evangelical was slipping away. He woke up one day, and the Bible was no more than fictional literature to him.
The Washington Post has a story about Ehrman’s book and his loss of faith. Here’s the link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/04/AR2006030401369.html
As you’ll see in the article, Ehrman’s wife, an Episcopalian and academic, disagrees with her husband’s conclusions, but, as one might expect, she says she respects his intellectual integrity. For my two cents, it seems that the cracks Ehrman found in the NT as the result of his intense H-C analysis were just too much of a shock for his evangelical sensibility to absorb, and he threw the baby out with the bath water. Yes, there are factual discrepancies in the NT, and I can see how upsetting that would be to some Christians, but, as Dei Verbum reminds us, the Holy Spirit will always ensure and guarantee “that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation.”
Whilke many conservative Catholics and evangelicals may feel offense in this matter, the notion of “elite ridicule” may easily be offense at criticism. And all are open to criticism and should not take offense. The basic question beyond that is how much the “offended’ bring to the table in terms of their knowledge and study of the subject and not just what beliefs they hold, no matter how cherished.
The state of Biblical scholarship, in general, weighs against them.
Bill Collier – Concerning Ehrman, you might find a March 15, 2005 entry at Ben Witherington’s blog entitled Misanalyzing Text Criticism – Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, and a July 25, 2006 entry at Awilum entitled Scholarly Lack of Transparency of interest. JK
For people who have difficulty living with a certain degree of uncertaintly and complexity the path from total credulity to total incredulity may be smooth and tempting.
James K. –
Thanks for the blog references, especially the lengthy piece by evangelical scholar Ben Witherington, who IMO effectively deconstructs Bart Ehrman’s deconstruction of the NT in “Misquoting Jesus.”
Witherington also included a book review by another scholar within his posting. The reviewer picked apart some of Ehrman’s assertions, and then the reviewer offered the following sage advice about the “sacred duty” of religious scholars:
“Scholars bear a sacred duty not to alarm lay readers on issues that they have little understanding of. Unfortunately, the average layperson will leave this book with far greater doubts about the wording and teachings of the NT than any textual critic would ever entertain. A good teacher doesn’t hold back on telling his students what’s what, but he also knows how to package the material so they don’t let emotion get in the way of reason. A good teacher does not create Chicken Littles.”
One typo to note if others are looking for the Ehrman piece at Witherington’s blog. The date the piece was posted was 3/15/06.
Bill Collier – Apologies for the typo and thank you for the correction.
While I’m at it – Mark Jameson – I think I that you’re equating fundamentalism with evangelism.
JK
Apologies again. I meant “evangelicalism.” If I may, I’d like to blame it on the blister at the tip of my finger rather than the advance of years.
What I find troubling about Bart Ehrman is not his view of the bible, but his not acknowledging that he no longer believes in the Christian faith. Apparently he has told the WP but there is no such recognition in his books.
Dominic Crossan is another who has lost his faith. And sometimes he pretends to be a Christian.
These writers do not discredit textual criticism in any way. It just shows that anyone can lose faith.
So it is misleading of the WP to say that this or that doctrine is the core of the Christian belief. That is to make Christianity a church of dogma.
That Jesus was sent by God is most essential and that he set an example and required that his life, death and resurrection be celebrated until he comes again.
I think it is important to stress that it is about Jesus and not this or that ancillary belief.
James Keegan:
Thanks for the invitation to nuance. I stil prefer to use the term Evangelical, as that refers to a particular ecclesial tradition, whereas fundamentalism is more a philosophical approach to Scripture that can run the gamut of many denominations and nondenominations. Of course, not all Evangelicals are fundamentalists. But there again, there are a sizable number of Catholics who are fundamentalistic as well–just in a different way.
As I wrote above, I think that a significant difference rests in the religious worldview inhabited by non-liturgical Christian traditions. This points also to some of Bart Ehrman’s religious odyssey. When you come from a religious tradition in which revelation occurs exclusively through the inerrant word of God, then to be confronted with the inconsistencies revealed by textual criticism can be unsettling indeed. Those formed in the Catholic tradition, by contrast, tend have a broader view of revelation: God speaks through Scripture, through Tradition, through the Magisterium, etc. The whole concept of revelation is more fluid, and that leaves room for the possibility that God would use human beings, as well as their cultural situations and limitations, to unveil himself and his plan of salvation.
Of course, this is all assuming a sound formation in the Catholic tradition.
Can I ask just what it is we’re talking about? Is it the Biblical criticism associated with Julius Wellhausen (seldom has as admirable a human being drawn so much sheer hatred), textual criticism (going back at least to Erasmus), the advance in understanding the history of the ancient Near East largely due to excavation and analysis, the kind of sophisticated reconstruction of the original audience Raymond Brown was known for, the schlock associated with the Jesus Seminar — or fifteen other things one might name? One of the things that sours me on people like Reno, of whom I have never heard before this discussion, is that they seem to have a generalized fear of any sort of critical scholarship. Please correct me if I’m being unfair, but it’s as if the self-described JP II Catholics aren’t settling for undoing the work of John XXIII they’re going after the good work of Pius XII.
I think Mr. Mazzella is a little unfair to Bart Ehrman, as in the only book of his I have actually read (one of his OUP introductions to the NT) he makes it quite clear in his bibliographies that students should read particular scholars for a Catholic or an Evangelical perspective. And he’s certainly not to be compared with Crossan, whose suggestion that the Resurrection didn’t happen because the body would have been thrown to the dogs at least has the merit of having no supporting evidence.
I do have to say as someone who has a fairly substantial training in a once related field like Classical Philology I sometimes find some of the “critical” standpoints and methodologies one runs across (in oral studies or textual criticism, for instance) to be pretty unsophisticated. It is of course possible that I’m comparing apples to oranges.
Gene,
I meant to compare Erhman and Crossan for their abandonment of their faith, while at the same time they do not make it clear that they are not Christian, let alone believers.
As I said I do not object to their scholarship.
I do wonder how such bright individuals do not manage to put the whole picture together. Perhaps I am naive, or maybe I am talking from a faith perspective, but I fail to see how any real study of Jesus can conclude anything but the unparalleled, unsurpassed and unequaled person—Jesus Christ.
After remarking that the Catechism almost totally bypasses critical biblical scholarship, [Luke Timothy Johnson] registers no regrets, “for truth to tell, the contributions of critical biblical scholarship either to real history or to authentic theology have not up to now been particularly impressive and have certainly not had the character of transmitting faith to succeeding generations.”
[At the risk of a flame war, the quote can be found here, near the bottom of Section VIII:
http://72.14.205.104/u/firstthings?q=cache:n5mZWck2yNwJ:www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9501/articles/dulles.html+%22luke+timothy+johnson%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=15&ie=UTF-8
IOW, concerns about critical biblical scholarship are not phantasms conjured up by phobic minds on the right, determined to undo the work of Blessed John XXIII and Pius XII. There are serious questions about the role and contributions of critical scholarship and the responsibilities of Catholic biblical scholars to the wider Church that can’t be dismissed by rolling one’s eyes and saying “Feh–conservatives.”
Mr. Price –
My goal is certainly not to have a flame war. But a couple of points:
I think I made my own reservations about at least some contemporary (and not so contemporary) biblical scholarship clear. And my reservations about academics who pass on third hand anti-Christian stuff (anecdotes supplied off-blog at request) would be even greater.
My first concern (and I deliberately avoided the word conservative) is with people who lump all sorts of critical study together (I, for instance, wouldn’t give ten cents for the final achievements of Bultmann, but regard Wellhausen’s work as basically something you need to work into your analysis of your faith). I believe Pius XII in Divino afflante spiritu identified all sorts of sloppy reading of scripture which were very common in my youth, and by what I have seen on various weblogs and what Mr. (Prof.?) Gannon quotes are raising their ugly head again.
I also agree that the transmission of faith to succeeding generations is of prime concern; let me say that such a procedure as harmonizing the nativity or resurrection accounts will not contribute to the transmission of robust faith — this is one area where I think R E Brown (about whose work I have more reservations than some posters) has a lot to contribute. For what it’s worth my thoughts on this head owe a lot to the unique experience of teaching the Greek New Testament, or tiny bits of it, to evangelical students in an ostentatiously secular university.
I still don’t get Mr. Mazzella’s point on Ehrman and Crossan — I think Ehrman is a sympathetic guy who is fairly explicit about what he is doing and Crossan, based on his autobiography, is just as much a sleeze as his scholarly work indicates. In fact, as has been pointed out above, Ehrman makes a good object lesson about the perils of a certain kind of belief.
One final comment — L T Johnson’s remark about the lack of contribution of CBS is a little beside the point — I think the contribution of a lot of these studies is to make faith more robust by purging of it of easy and self-indulgent wish-fulfillment. It’s a process that many Latter Day Saints (the serious ones, not the authors of exposes) have gone through in their tradition.
Mr. O’Grady:
Just a couple of points, as I largely agree with you.
(1) The flame war reference was to the previous fooferaw between First Things and our host magazine.
(2) My post wasn’t aimed at your argument, with the exception of the papal reference, which struck me as too polemical by half (though I’m the last person to squawk about that, truth be told). I found myself agreeing with several points.
(3) I think LTJ’s comment is *directly* on point because that is the locus of the criticism of CrBibSt. “The assured results of modern criticism” have been served up as a form of anti-catechism deeply corrosive of faith, posed as a sort of new dogma without caveats.
Oops. I really didn’t mean “J P II Catholics” as a reference to the late pope, about whom I have ambiguous feelings. I was getting at some of his self-proclaimed heirs and their generalized bashing of the Enlightenment and its works.
I’m not sure what the “assured results of modern criticism” are; but I’d had to have serious biblical scholarship dismissed as a reaction to those who use them to beat the bishops or the catechism (ambiguous feelings here again) over the head. But I think the wicked triumvirate of sentimentalism, triumphalism, and cleverness that informed so many sermons of my youth will do more harm than the advanced intellectuals will any day of the week.
As I’ve monitored this thread, I am beginning to wonder why we’re even bothering to comment on Reno’s post.
i’ve gone back to read it several times, and it seems to be built largely on sweeping generalities:
Example: Countless professors use historical study as a bludgeon to beat up the naive piety of college students, and they do so with no intention of offering an intelligent, theologically informed alternative.”
Really? Does “countless” mean “most”? How are these legions identified? And by what methods are they beaters-up of naively pious college students?
Example: “I am frustrated by the folks who congratulate themselves on their critical, progressive mentality but who seem unable to tolerate self-criticism.”
Which folks? How have they demonstrated self-congratulatori-ness? Or their inability to tolerate self-criticism? And how does Reno know they can’t tolerate self-criticism, since this would occur within the confines of one’s own brain?
Reno’s piece focuses very little on any ideas here, but on the shadowy proponents of H-C conclusions he doesn’t like or even talk about very much. It is, at heart an irresponsible and uncharitable bit of screed.
No wonder Gene asks, “Can I ask what it is we’re talking about?” Reno offers very little to latch onto.
Maybe it’s just me having a bad day or something, but instead of opening these types of essays up for general discussion, maybe we should simply create a bin entitled “Unsubstantiated accusations and sweeping generalities Catholics have recently made” and let it go at that.
I agree with Jean Raber that Reno’s remarks are not worth much discussion. But I think the discussion has been motivated by real concerns. The litrurgy offers countless Scriptural texts to those who go to mass frequently. Some are rather puzzling. Little by way of comment on the difficult parts is offered, at least in my experience. Adult education in reading Scripture is a real need.
Jean:
I suppose that for some of us, this is a sore subject. It’s like getting punched repeatedly in the arm. After a while, all you need is one little touch in that tender spot, and you flinch. I’ve been on the receiving end of the evangelical zeal of those who want to throw out all modern criticism and ignore papal teachings from Pius XII to Benedict XVI–all under the guise of “orthodox Catholicism.” It’s not a pleasant experience.
It’s also helpful to hear how other people (especially that esteemed group known as Commonweal Catholics) react to these attacks on modern criticism. It doesn’t just affirm my own convictions; it gives me new perspectives that help temper and inform my own.
But if I may continue by imitating Donald Rumsfeld for a moment: Are there some bad apples among those who practice the Historical Critical method? You betcha. Can this method be used in a one-sided way to justify faulty interpretations? Good golly, yes. Are all those who follow the tenets of modern criticism saints and mystics? Heavens to Betsy, no.
But to throw out the entire project because of some people’s misapplication is even more wrong-headed, and intellectually irresponsible. Yet that’s what Reno seems to want when he writes: “If I had control over faculty appointments at seminaries and divinity schools, I would establish a moratorium on the hiring of people with Ph.D.’s in biblical studies.”
As to the comments about the Catechism, I’m neither surprised nor disappointed. It’s not the goal of the Catechism to teach biblical criticism. I would venture to say that the work of scholars like Ray Brown and even Luke johnson stands in the background behind the whole thing. You don’t have to become a biblical scholar to have a lively faith. But it sure is helpful to have people catechize you who are familiar with responsible scholarship. And since the goal of the Catechism is to lay out the teachings of the church for a general audience, I don’t particularly see the need for a disquisition on the merits of formgeschichte or the identification of chiastic structure in the Pauline corpus.
Mark–
Nicely stated. And while it’s true that one doesn’t have to know anything about H-C method to have, as you said, “a lively faith,” explanations of the Bible based on H-C are reaching a general audience–witness the bestseller status of Ehrman’s “Misquoting Jesus” or the media attention given to the Jesus Seminar. Some basic instruction in H-C would probably be a good thing for all Catholics to receive, if for nothing else than to reduce the shock and awe response some people have when first exposed to it. In the TV show I mentioned where Bart Ehrman was being interviewed, he mentioned how surprised many of his students are when he points out what he believes to be fatal flaws in the Bible. While I have nothing against Ehrman and he is likely a fine scholar in many respects, I can’t help being squeamish about impressionable students receiving information from Ehrman in a vacuum. It’s somewhat analogous to the significant percentage of young adults who purportedly get their only exposure to current events through Jon Stewart on “The Daily Show.” Scary.
Some interesting comments have been made on this thread.
And I think it’s fine to “out” Catholic writers of any stripe when they fall back on poorly constructed arguments, even in defense of the Faith.
But in my Perfect World, bloggers would make a distinction between essays like Reno’s, which is a nicely written piece of tripe, and more thoughtful criticisms of, well, US, which offer specifics.
I have just received a copy of Jaroslav Pelikan’s commentary on Acts. This is from the Brazos Series of which R.R. Reno is the General Editor. The commentary, as Pelikan says, “is intended to be primarily theological rather than philological”. However note this point:
“It is however an ecumentical consensus, now at any rate [here he cites Dei Verbum], that theology must be firmly grounded in philology, which implies for the Acts of the Apostles the obligation of a close and careful explication de texte on the basis of the Greek original.”
The true marriage of theology and philology must not be allowed to end in divorce, or the children will suffer.