Anyone care to respond to my Lutheran friend before I do?

I realize this thread has been sitting here awhile. I just came across it.

In our most recent RCIA class, our teacher (deacon) told us that when he was growing up in the Catholic church, he was discouraged from reading the Bible. Another man in the room said he had the same experience. However, both agreed that the Catholic church now encourages its parishioners to read their Bibles. Even to pray for the Holy Spirit to guide us in our reading and study.

But here is my dilemma. I hope I can say what I'm thinking here. In the midst of the class, we were given handouts that showed who authored which books of the Bible. Some of the Pauline epistles were called into question. Not for authenticity as part of Scripture, but rather as to whether Paul was really the author. I found this disturbing. Also, the Gospel of John's author was listed as possibly being a disciple of the apostle, rather than John himself.

It seems that integrity of Scriptural authority is being called into question. Such as when Scripture clearly states the way something occured, and then the Church teaches that it was just a story to teach a lesson.

Perhaps it would help to know that the book we are using is called "We Believe", by Lukefahr, published by Ligouri Press. The handouts went along with this.

I was always taught, in my Protestant background, that creation was literal. Jonah really did get swallowed by that whale (fish). There really was a flood. That if Scripture said it, then it happened. To make things simply "poetic prose" or good, moral stories, to me seems to say that Scripture is just another good book to guide us along in life. Not really the inspired, inerrent Word of God.

I know this probably seems like rambling. I wish I could make it more clear.

Any thoughts or insight that can help this Protestant who is walking the road to Rome?

In response to your email sent to me, I write:

I heard this from my step-mother (former Catholic) growing up as well. However even the Council of Trent and the Baltimore Catechism encouraged folks to read and listen to Scripture. I think it is an old wive's tale perhaps due to poor catechesis. For example, some Catholics think they have to pray to Mary to ask her to pray to Jesus for them. Others think that they can't pray extemporaneous prayers nor ask Jesus directly to forgive them of sin. However, you don't have to be Catholic for more than a month to realize these are misconceptions.

Which letters? Of course, even with all the tradition we have we do not know who wrote Hebrews. Tradition is what tells us Matthew and all the Gospel writers wrote their respected letters. Where in Matthew or the rest of the Bible does it even imply that Matthew wrote Matthew? It doesn't. The same can be said of the others. Also, John Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark but it is actually the Gospel of Peter who dictated it to Mark. Also, Luke was not one of the Twelve so whose Gospel account is he giving?

I have never heard any Catholic clergy doubt the Pauline epistles. Care to expound?

The Sacred Scriptures are defined by the Church's authority as being inspired regardless of the actual penmanship. This definition is based on Sacred Tradition (past episcopacy) and the Holy Spirit in the Magisterium (present episcopacy).

The bottom line is that the Holy Spirit wrote them. There has been doubt as to who but not as to what. In AD 382, the present canon passed the test of authenticity and 73 books made it. If I accept the Church's authority on this why can't I accept her on all her other canons, creeds and catechesis or dogmas, doctrines and disciplines?

What does the Catechism say in this regard? Just as we learned in Protestantism, do not accept what any teacher teaches, but test it in light of the Bible, so must we do with our RCIA/CCD teachers. However you now have the Canons and Catechism to test his teaching. If he or even a Pope disagrees with Scripture, the Canons or the Catechsim they are heretics for they are opposing the Holy Spirit revealed to us in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium.

I have Dr. Lukefahr's The Privilege of Being Catholic where he discusses the Bible. He makes some good points about the Scripture being understood sacramentally and as being a product of the Incarnation. I would recommend reading what the Vatican says about the Interpretation of Scripture. Please follow this link: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm
There is an excellent book by Catholic convert Mark Shea called Making Senses Out of Scripture. (http://www.mark-shea.com/books.html) Mark was lead to the Catholic Church when the Jesus Seminar was making its debut with the late Peter Jennings. His testimony is powerful. I mention that because it seems that Dr. Lukefahr may have been influenced by the Jesus Seminar.

Of course it was literal or you wouldn't really be alive to ask this but you mean the 6 days of Creation, right? I believe God can and likely did do this in 6 days but could 6 days have been indicative of a greater reality? I am in good company when I believe this. However there is so much unexplained in the Genesis of Creation. St Theophilus wrote in AD 180, "No man can give a sufficient explanation of the six days's work, nor can he describe all of its parts. He could not do so if he spoke 10,000 languages" Origen wrote in 225, "Not even the Law and the commandments totally convey what is agreeable to reason. For who that has understanding would think that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd day with the 'morning and evening' existed without a sun, moon and stars (which were made on the 4th day)?...these things (Creation narrative) figuratively indicate certain mysteries-the story having taken place in figuratively" (ANF 4.365). St Cyprian seems to have taught that the 6 days was 6000 years based on 2 Pet. 3:8 (ANF 5.503).

I certainly believe and having been to Iraq where he was and to the city where he is buried, I believe the account of being swallowed by a fish is accurate just as I believe a fish swallowed a coin in the NT whereas the Disciple fished it out providing the lot to pay their taxes. In reading Dr. Lukefahr's, he talks about Jonah being interpreted in context-IOW to the time it was written. He states fundamentalist will interpret it as literal. I guess I am a fundamentalist for Jesus said, "As Jonah was in the belly of the whale for three days so must the Son of Man be in the depth of earth (ie St Joseph of Arimathea's tomb and Hades)".

Please note, Dr. Lukefahr's is not a bishop nor is he commissioned by the Vatican to be an authority on hermeneutics. I would argue it is my fundamentalist views that lead me to the Catholic Church (ie. The Bread is Jesus Body).

No scientist in his right mind would ever dispute the Great Deluge. They may dispute the why and the Noahic Ark story but not the fact that this planet was submerged in water. Explain how I found seashells on the mesas of West Texas.

I agree. However there is a spiritual reality and a physical reality. Additionally there are some things, especially concerning dates and numbers, that the obvious answer was something beyond the literal numerals or it would not make sense. I don't have to understand it completely for it to be true. However I won't teach it unless I believe it to be such.

It may have been written in poetic prose but it was much more in its reality. I am sure you and the majority of Christians agree. Again, what does the Catechism (official stance) say about Scripture? Lovingly disagree with your instructor even if his name is Ratzinger.

Hey Seeker:
I do not have time right now to speak to the specifics of your questions but just a couple of suggestions for now.

1. David Z and David B. would be really good resources for you, the academic aspects in the Roman Church are pretty wide in some areas, these guys can help you sort through some of that really well, perhaps a private e-mail will get you some "well grounded answers" and time to chew on them.

2. Try and get your hands on some of Fr. Corabi's teachings.

His "way" of teaching is very comfortable and seems familiar to most of us from Protestant backgrounds, his method of communication is excellent.
I highly recommend him to everyone, yes, to my own Parish as well.

Sometimes we need to hear things from several sources for things to "sit down" within us.


Lastly, the things you asked about are not things to fear, they are fine to explore.

Some are just cutting edge scholarship; some are things that have been looked into for centuries, but nothing to fear.

The Roman Church loves the Bible, loves God, Loves Christ, and they are the Church.

In any Church, you are going to have differing opinions on some things, and that’s ok, it stretches us, makes us think, drives us to study.
Gotta go, I’m late.

May God bless you on your journey.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty
P.s. and yes, I am excited for you! No kidding, I mean it.

Ken and Fr. Rusty,
Thank you both for your insights and thoughts. I'm sorry my post wasn't more clear. That's what I get for trying to express things late at night. I don't know what my excuse will be for this one, since it's broad daylight! B)

The Pauline letters held in question included Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians, Titus, and 1 and 2 Timothy. On another sheet, it says they were "ascribed to Paul", but they are not listed with the epistles labeled as "Paul's own letters".

Both Acts and Hebrews were listed as "other writings", with no author given. (Although on the next page, under the gospels, Luke is listed as the author of the gospel of Luke, and "also wrote Acts".) The gospel of Mark's author is listed as "possibly John-Mark".

The book I referred to ("We Believe") comments that we are to read the Bible contextually, but not literally. I was always taught that we are to read it both ways!

The author of the book also mentions that the prophetic writings were primarily written for the people of their time. Not that there are not lessons for us to learn from them (if we sin, there is punishment; if we repent, we can be reconciled to God, etc.), but that the prophecies were for their time. I believe that the prophecies, especially of Zion, also apply to today's church. Am I wrong in this?

Another authorship issue listed was that Isaiah was actually written by several authors, among them Isaiah (ch. 1-39), an unknown poet (chs. 40-55), and unknown prophets who "wrote in the spirit of Isaiah" (chs. 56-66).

I grew up in a "Bible-believing" Pentecostal church. I even went to Bible college. So some of these things are new to me. I realize the teaching I received was slanted and limited to Protestant leanings. However, as good "Bible-believing" people, we were never in doubt that God's Word was His Word!

I guess I just need to have the knowledge that the Church truly believes in the inspired Word of God, and isn't diving off into liberalism. I'm having a hard time wading through the catechism.

I guess another concern, too, is that most of our class is spent discussing the coming Sunday's mass readings, and there seems to be very limited time spent actually teaching the basics of Church teaching. (If that makes sense.)

Again, your insights are great. Thanks for sharing them with me. I've come a long way since my Protestant days...but I've got a long, long way to go, too.

Truthseeker,
I added some more information after rereading Dr. Lukefahr's The Privilege of Being Catholic. Please see it above. I hope you don't mind the posting on the forum rather than responding to your email.
Ken

Dear Truth Seeker,

This is a position held by many Biblical scholars -- Catholic OR Protestant.

The authorship of Ephesians has been disputed by scholars for a very long time (19th century or earlier). The reason? Essentially because the list of personal greetings evident in most of Paul's letter is absent. Another theory, though (which I much prefer) suggests that Ephesians was a "circular" letter, intended not only for the church in Ephesus, but also for the churches in the surrounding communities.

I find the arguments against Colossians to be less than credible (especially since the letter was dispatched at the same time as Philemon -- and no one seems to dispute Philemon!) Likewise with the arguments against 2 Thessalonians.

1 Timothy and Titus have been debated because the the description of church government seems (by some -- not by me) to be rather advanced for Paul's era. I find the arguments against 2 Timothy to be less than credible.

None of the Gospels name their author, so we must rely on Sacred Tradition. I see no reason whatsoever in disbelieving the Tradition. The "Fragments of Papias" speak of the authorship of the Gospels, and Papias was (I believe) a 2nd century bishop.

By the same token, textually, it does appear that several of the Gospels did undergo some editing. For example, Papias states that Matthew wrote first in the language of the Hebrews (which would have been Aramaic at that time.) No Aramaic copy of Matthew has ever been found -- although some of the phraseology Matthew uses is awkward in Greek and much less so in Aramaic. As another example, there are very obviously two endings to Mark. Some very early manuscripts end with Mark 16:8. Others contain 16:9-20. Textual comparison is not an exact science, but there is reason to believe that the longer ending was added later. Likewise with John. I reject the notion that the Gospel was the product of the Johannine community, and not from the hand of the Apostle -- but have no problem at all with the suggestion that the version of John we have in our Bibles is a "Second edition". (Again, note the second ending.)

At least! The Fathers taught four ways of interpreting Scripture.

I teach my students that prophecy is ALWAYS to be interpreted on AT LEAST two levels. One level, yes, was for the people to whom it was originally proclaimed. BUT that does not preclude other interpretations and fulfillments throughout the ages. Isaiah is a classic example. Yes, all those messianic prophecies also had meaning for the people of Isaiah's day -- meanings which might well have been very different. The trick is to resist the "either/or" mentality and embrace the tension inherent in "both/and".

This is an argument which has been around for a very long time -- not only among Christians but also among Jewish scholars. They note (correctly) that it was not uncommon with regard to prophetic literature (and wisdom literature and apocalyptic literature) to ascribe one's writings to one's teacher, or to a great figure of the past. It was a common literary device at the time, and never intended to be a deception. Whether the explanation is helpful or not? Who knows?


At the end of the day, the Church DOES believe that the Bible is the Inspired Word of God. Why? Because it is the Church who tells us so! I had a very good New Testament professor some years ago go through all the dates and authorship theories -- and then state: At the end of the day, none of that is important. Such and such a book is in the Bible because the Church considers it to be the Inspired Word of God -- end of story!

If you are looking for a good Introduction to the New Testament from a Biblically conservative Catholic perspective, try the "Introduction to the New Testament" by Luke Timothy Johnson. (I don't recommend EVERYTHING by this guy -- but his Biblical scholarship? Yes.) Also, anything by Fr. William Kurz, SJ. You might also be interested in the "Ancient Christian Commentaries" series which provides commentary on the Scriptures from the perspective of the Early Church Fathers. (Check out www.communitycreations.org for the best prices on the Early Church Fathers!)

I hope that this begins to help.

Many blessings,

David

David, Ken, Fr. Rusty and Truth Seeker,

What would you recommend reading that is easy to read in regards to the Church Father's? Some of the things I have looked at/tried to read are a little difficult and not what I would consider easy reads. I really would like to study more but don't like having to read the same page 5 times just to figure out what was said. :blink: Any suggestions, Help?

Alberta

This is what I suspected. It appears he is leaning toward a revisionist view of the origins of Sacred Scripture. For example, if you will look at the official Catholic Bible of the United States (New American Bible decreed by Pope Paul VI Sept 18, 1970) with prefaced commentary you will see that it was Paul who indisputably wrote these letters. I Tim. 1:1, Tit. 1:1 St Paul claims to write it. There is no reason to doubt it. I recommend reading the preface to each of these letters written by Bishops if you doubt the source but remember the Bishops in AD 382 at the 4th Council of Rome set the Canon of inspired letters. The authorship is not really a major issue.

The Fathers without exception taught as do the Vatican and the Bishops of the USA that Luke wrote the Book of Acts. As I stated earlier, the Gospel according to Mark is really the Gospel according to St Peter so Mark isn't really an issue here.

There are many issues with this. There are four senses for reading the Scriptures.

The Catholic Church believes this with you for reading this verse reveals that, "But you have come to Mount Zion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable multitudes of angels, to the general assembly and assembly of the firstborn who are enrolled in heaven, to God the Judge of all, to the spirits of just men made perfect, to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better than that of Abel." Heb 12. This is the Communion of the Saints. Also take what St Paul said, "Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages have come." 1 Cor. 10:11 There is the historical context of the Law, Prophets and the Psalms that help us understand what was said but all of it, in its spirit relates to us somehow.

What proof does he have? I am always skeptical when folks like Dr. Lukefahr claim, "Scholars believe..." I always want to know which scholars and who says they are such. Some folks tell me,"Well Father Such-n-such believes this" and I will say, "Good but what says the Pope and does what he say contradict or confirm what the Magisterium says?"

Also beware when "scholars" are quoting a source and give you "..." This is the famous ellipsis that folks use when they don't want you know the whole context of a quote.

Notice that St Paul said, "All Scripture is given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit" 2 Tim .3:15,16 It does not say everything in Scripture is inspired. There is a human element to be contextualized and considered. If something is contradictory, it is due to this fact. For example, see the following:

1 KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.

2 CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

2 KI 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

2 CH 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Compare I Kings 9:23 and 2 Chron 8:10. Also, 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chron 22:2;
I Kings 16:6-8 and 2 Chron 16:1.

Stick with the Catechism. I read a lot of folks- dubious, spurious and accurate/ factual. I have read some of the Catholic Apocrypha (not the same as the Deutero-canon), Gnostics and the Pseudepigraphia. As far as Apostolic era writings, I read the Didache, Clement, the Diatessaron and the Didiscalia. I enjoy the Nicene and Desert Fathers (ie. The Philokalia) as well. When it comes to the Patristics, I stick mainly with the Doctors of the Church for doctrine.

However I only hold these as The Faith and The Truth: Holy Scripture, the Magisterium and the Catechism (Holy Tradition).

That is an issue that you should address. Don't be shy in asking questions. These guys need to be held accountable, as do I, as I teach RCIA.

This library includes many of the Father's writings up till the Great Schism:
The Ante-Nicene, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Hendrickson)

However you do not have to buy the library, here it is on digits:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

If you want the Fathers divided by Doctrinal statements (ie. the Resurrection) read "Faith of the Early Fathers", Vol. 1-3 by William A. Jurgens (Catholic)

If you want the Father in a readable format and of the first three centuries obtain
"The Apostolic Fathers" by J. B. Lightfoot, J. R. Harmer, Michael W. Holmes (Anglican-Episcopal)
http://www.amazon.com/Apostolic-Fathers-J-...t/dp/0801021995

Here is a Power Point overview presentation:
http://www.mprg.org/people/buehrer/Apostol...256,1,Apostolic Church Fathers The Church from 100-300AD

If you want it by alphabetic topics but without whole quotes but in an encyclopedia format, get "Encyclopedia of Early Christianity" by Everett Ferguson (Church of Christ) There is some bias and much commentary on this. Also, he does not include the Post Nicene authors.

If you want a dictionary of doctrinal beliefs, get "A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs" by David W. Bercot (Anabaptist-Mennonite) This is only the frst three centuries and not all of them at that. However there is little bias because there is no commentary and it is exhaustive in its inclusion of the Ante-Nicene Father's quotes per subject.

Last, Thomas Oden once endeavored to start a NT Commentary using the Fathers. I do not know how far he got in this.

I do recommend Dr Robert Webber's The Complete Library of Christian Worship for the history of worship, to include much of the Fathers.

Hi all,

A couple of points:

Actually, this is not quite correct. This is a good (but not excellent) 38 volume set (in print) and available in two versions on CD-ROM as well -- the original version and the Catholic version. The difference? The Catholic version removes the anti-Catholic commentary in many of the notes and introductions. The general editor of the series, Philip Schaff, was a Reformed scholar and not known for his love of Catholicism!

Also, the translations and scholarship is a bit dated. The series dates back nearly 150 years, so more recent scholarship would not be included.

Finally, this is a 38-volume set. While extensive, it does not provide the entire corpus of Patristic and Post-Nicene writing by a long shot -- not even for an English language translation.

Two very good English-language sets are available which are far more up-to-date and far more extensive. The first is the "Fathers of the Church" series by Catholic University of America, and the other is the "Ancient Christian Writers" series (publisher escapes me at the moment). Another benefit of these two series is that they can be purchased one volume at a time. You can choose the authors/works that you are particulary interested in.

This is the "Ancient Christian Commentary" series, published by InterVarsityPress. Most of the NT is now available and about half of the OT. Thomas Oden is listed as the General Editor, but each volume is edited by a particular expert. Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scholars have all participated in this project. I've used the series extensively in teaching.

Blessings,

David

Timeline of the Canon:

The only way to be sure which books are inspired is to accept the decision of the Church. Actually, the Church was in no hurry to give definitive statements on this subject. Why?

c. 100 BC The Septuagint (Seventy) is canonized by Greek- literate Jews. This canon includes all the books of the Catholic OT canon of the 4th Century.
30 AD Jesus reads the Septuagint (including the 7 OT Deutero-canonical Books a.k.a. by Protestants as Apocrypha) in the Temple and synagogues.
60 AD St Peter refers to St Paul's writings as Scripture.
90 AD The non-Christian, non-Hellenistic Jewish Council of Jamnia removes the Deutero-canon from their canon. There were no NT books written past this year, the last being Revelation by St. John. However, the Church saw no urgent need to draw up a canon, that is, a list of inspired books.
130 AD The Protocanonical Books: The Four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Pauline letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John were considered NT Scripture.
c. 160 AD St. Justin Martyr, in his defense of Christianity to the Jew Trypho (Dialogue,chapter 32, cf 68) says he will use only the Scripture that the Jews would accept - a natural move in such a dialogue.
170 AD The Protocanonical Books: The Four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Pauline letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John were considered on par with OT.
Sometime after 220, the Church accepted the NT Deuterocanonical Books: Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation. There was an unofficial list in the Muratorian Fragment - which was found at Milan. It dates from late second century, and does give a list of books. However we see in it some early hesitations. Not mentioned are the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistles of James and Peter. It rejects some pseudo-Pauline letters to Laodicea, and Gnostic, Marcionite and Montanist writings in general. From this we gather that a stimulus to make a list came from the existence of heretical writings. Marcion rejected the entire Old Testament, and three Gospels, keeping part of Luke and some of St. Paul's Epistles.
367 AD St. Athanasius (c. 296-373 A.D.), whose list of books of the New Testament would become the standard of the Christian world, stated in his 367 A.D. Paschal letter:

"...that there are other books besides these not indeed included in the Canon, but appointed by the Fathers to be read by those who newly join us, and who wish for instruction in the word of godliness. The Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles (Didache), and the Shepherd..." (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39, emphasis added)
382 AD The Fourth Council of Rome, under Pope Damasus, gives us the first complete Canon of Scripture. It includes the OT canon (39 books) and the OT Deuterocanonical Books (7) and the NT canon (20) and the NT Deuterocanonical Books (7). St. Jerome begins his translation of the Bible into Latin (the Vulgate). Jerome views that only Hebrew texts are authoritative, but grumpily includes the Greek ones anyway. The Epistle to the Hebrews was accepted very early in the East, chiefly at Alexandria, but the west did not accept it until the fourth century. The Apocalypse/Revelation was accepted early in the west, only later in the East. Many fathers - chiefly: Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian and Hippolytus believed the John who was its author was the Apostle John. Other fathers, chiefly: Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen and John Chrysostom thought it was not the Apostle John.
c. 390 AD St. Augustine accepted the longer canon (list - including the Deuterocanonicals) and defended it in his De Doctrina Christiana 8.
393 AD The Council of Hippo affirms the Canon
397 AD 3rd Council of Carthage confirmed the Canon
405 AD Pope Innocent I sanctioned the canonical ruling of the above Councils (Letter to Exsuperius, Bishop of Toulouse)
419 AD The 4th Council of Carthage affirms the Canon
c. 495 AD Pope Gelasius decreed the Canon
1445 AD The Ecumenical Council of Florence reaffirmed the Canon
1536 AD Menno Simon, former Catholic priest, leader of the Anabaptist movement/ founder of Mennonites, accepts the Deuterocanonical Books as Scripture
1534 AD Martin Luther places the Deuterocanonical Books in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments but still preaches from them. John Knox, founder of the Presbyterians/ Church of Scotland, rejects them.
1611 AD The King James Bible includes the Deuterocanonical Books.
4/18/1546 The Ecumenical Council of Trent reaffirmed and dogmatized the Canon, making it mandatory to accept as a Catholic Christian
1825 AD Puritans and Presbyterians lobbied for the complete removal of the Deuterocanonical Books from the Protestant Bible (KJV) and in 1825 the British and Foreign Bible Society agreed. From that time on, the Deuterocanonical Books have been eliminated from practically all Protestant versions.

Form Criticism shows the Church has something more basic than the Gospels, its own ongoing teaching. Up to the time of Luther, people did not basically depend on Scripture; they simply followed the oral teaching of the Church, which, as we said, is primary. Jesus never told the Apostles: Write some books, give out copies, tell people to figure them out for themselves. This is what the "Reformers" implied. It is foolish. Copies were very expensive, not everyone could read, and the study of Scripture is quite difficult, one should know the original languages, genres, history and culture among other things. In addition, the Second Epistle of Peter tells us (3:15- 16) that in the Epistles of St. Paul there are many things that are hard are hard to understand: the unlearned and unstable twist them to their own destruction. The "Reformers" surely proved that right. Instead, we find in Second Timothy 1:13: "Hold to the form of sound teaching which you heard from me." And again in 2:2: "The things which you heard from me, through many witnesses, hand on to trustworthy men, who will be able in turn to teach others." Not strange then that the Church saw no urgent need to draw up a canon, that is, a list of inspired books. St. Justin Martyr, in his defense of Christianity to the Jew Trypho (Dialogue,chapter 32, cf 68) says he will use only the Scripture that the Jews would accept - a natural move in such a dialogue.

"Ancient Christian Writers" is published by Paulist Press.

Ken,
Thank you, thank you, thank you! You really cleared up quite a few things. However, the segments I've quoted above are confusing to me. I haven't figured out how to do multiple quote boxes on here yet, so bear with me.

1. What is a "revisionist" view?

2. So you are saying that Scripture is inspired, but yet it's not? I'm confused. The essence is inspired, but the individual words are not? Help!

3. What is the Catholic Apocrypha? As for the other writings, I'm familiar with some of these. However, I have not heard of the following: the Diatessaron and the Didiscalia. Can you tell me what these are?

4. Okay. Just for the record. Can you explain exactly what the Magisterium is?

5. Amen! :)

Thank you for the link to the Catechism, too. That really helped.

P.S. Responding on the forum is great. I'm sure there are others who will benefit from this, too!

David Z.,
And thank you, to you, too!

Again, I haven't figured out all the little quote boxes, so I'll do my best at numbering here.

1. Thank you for clearing that up. At least I got this one right!

2. Okay. I get this, too. I guess I'm on a roll here.

3. I'll have to check out the books by Johnson and Kurz. We have the Ancient Christian Commentaries in our home library. I haven't looked them over well yet, but seems I need to.

4. Definitely a great help.

However, that said...I think my brain is overworked now! Ha!

Thank you again.

I think I've had enough mind-bending for one night. I'll check back in tomorrow.

Again, thanks to all for your great help. It's a real blessing to have your insights, thoughts, direction, etc.

Okay. "Just one more thing..." (now I sound like Columbo)

I left this post on another thread, but didn't get a response. I know the rosary isn't in Scripture. But since I'm already here, I'm just going to throw this in here, too. Hope that's okay!
___________________
I am very new to the rosary, too. Would like any input form any of you on how to keep it from becoming "just rote prayers".

I am new to the whole "sinless Mother of God" thing, too. I understand the concepts with my mind, but I'm still working through all of it.

Any input from those already across the Tiber?

I do not know enough of Dr Lukefahr's understanding of the origins of Scripture to label him a revisionist. Read this about him. The writer sounds like you.

http://www.mscperu.org/english/justasking/...l_interpret.htm

I would suspect he holds to the Documentary Hypothesis theory which is certainly allowed in the Church but the reinterpretation of Scripture in light of "higher criticism" is Biblical revisionism. They basically explain away the miracles of Scriptures after first attacking the authenticity of the authors. Now I will state that doubting authorship is one thing and doubting the Biblical narrative is another issue. However one can easily follow the other. Here is another sight looking at Biblical Revisionism: http://bede.org.uk/index.htm

In the fourth century, Eusebius quotes St Irenaeus as saying: "Matthew published his Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the church in Rome. After their departure Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also transmitted to us in writing those things which Peter had preached; and Luke, the attendant of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel which Paul had declared. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also reclined on his bosom, published his Gospel, while staying at Ephesus in Asia." (History of the Church, Bk. 5, Chp. 8)

This says a lot to me.

Now, if a witness, this early, testifies to the order and origin of the Gospels and Epistles, it would behoove us to be awfully certain before we say something different.

Read here what the Holy Father has to say: http://www.christendom-awake.org/pages/rat...ical-crisis.htm

What does the Catholic Church teach about Inspiration? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm

"These books are held by the Church as sacred and canonical, not as having been composed by merely human labour and afterwards approved by her authority, nor merely because they contain revelation without error, but because, written under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, they have God for their author, and have been transmitted to the Church as such." (Concil. Vatic., Sess. III, const. dogm, de Fide, cap. ii, in Denz., 1787).

"The Holy Ghost Himself, by His supernatural power, stirred up and impelled the Biblical writers to write, and assisted them while writing in such a manner that they conceived in their minds exactly, and determined to commit to writing faithfully, and render in exact language, with infallible truth, all that God commanded and nothing else; without that, God would not be the author of Scripture in its entirety" (Encycl. Provid. Deus, in Dena., 1952).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The grace of inspiration does not exempt the writer from personal effort, nor does it insure the perfection of his work from an artistic point of view. The author of the Second Book of Maccabees and St. Luke tell the reader of the pains they took to document their work (2 Maccabees 2:24-33; Luke 1:1-4). The imperfections of the work are to be attributed to the instrument. God can, of course, prepare this instrument beforehand, but, a the time of using it, He does not ordinarily make any change in its conditions. When the Creator applies His power to the faculties of a creature outside of the ordinary way, he does so in a manner in keeping with the natural activity of these faculties." Fr. Alfred Durand SJ

This is why the revelation is without error but you will have numerical errors, IMHO; but I could be wrong. Anyone want to add their logic to this?

Catholic Apocrypha: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm
The Diatessaron: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1002.htm
Didascalia Apostolorum: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04781b.htm

Magisterium is the teaching authority of the Church. It includes all Bishops who meet in Council, 21 of them so far, and what they decree as doctrine is infallible since they speak by the Holy Spirit.

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/chura4.htm

See why I said: Ask David- (smile).
You already had Ken and I just knew that if you could get David, and perhaps David B, you would have a really well balanced and informative group, that communicates in human forms!

I still recommend the Fr. Corapi, he ties many things together really well and his examples will sometimes "make the books stick".

David: You mentioned you used the "Ancient Christian Commentary".
Do you recommend it highly?
I was going to get them, and was told down here they were not that good.
Did I miss an opportunity back when they had the good deals for the whole set and book at a time but at set price?

My book budget stays pretty tight so I try to spend well, perhaps some advice here.

Also, would like a really good Catholic commentary set, again, your recommendations would be appreciated.

I am good on word study aids for now, plenty in book form as well as computer.

Ok, last part, I have Biblesoft for computer program, really only use the Bibles and the Dictionaries, interlinear, I do a lot of word study.
However, I would like to know if there is a "good" Catholic program or one that I can get further with. Do you use them?
I hounded Bible soft for the Church Father, book of Common Prayer and Kittles for almost three years, had everyone I knew write them, but it seems they are not going to go much past that.


Again, any advice, info really is appreciated.

To Alberta, these fellows have given you really good input, so I will be brief.

Many ask me what of the Fathers to read first, my answer is always the same.
Justin Martyr’s dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
Fairly easy to read, very exciting, jam-packed with information, the first real apologetic, incredible mind, and it’s all in the midst of a great situation (if I may use that expression).

For me, it’s the very best example of the power of the Holy Sprit in the church as teacher.
Justin’s mind is incredible! No Computers, no massive libraries, no lexical aids, no theological dictionaries, just a man of God, taught by the Church, Taught by God.

I am over simplifying, but it is incredible, at least to me.

It is, home to me, for the fathers, my balance point so to speak.

Perhaps that will help, if not, hey, it didn't cost anything.

My Love to you all.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

P.s., many thanks for letting me sit in.

Rosary: For what ever it worth.

I have had people contact me on the Rosary, usually someone has given them one and they don't really know if they want to try it or not.
Some have been a little afraid of it, some, like you have said, are concerned about "rote prayers'
Some have Marian issues.
Some will say they tried it a few times and it just didn't seem to do anything for them.

Here is what tell everyone.

1. If you trust God, then you know you can try this and He will keep you safe, therefore, you have nothing to fear.

2. The Lords prayer has been said by all for how many years, we have not exhausted it yet, and, my wife never gets tired of hearing I love you, so again, nothing to fear.

3. The Blessed Mother Mary is: Meek, Sweet, Gentle and Kind, Mary is the Mother of Christ, The Mother of God, The Mother of The Church, she has never been known to hurt anyone, She was Chosen By God to raise His only Begotten Son, Mary is pretty safe, so no reason to fear.

4. I suggest that they: do the Rosary, as correctly as you can, religiously, with intent, for thirty days, and see what happens.
This will not and cannot harm you, in any way, I promise.

That's the thing, you will never really know unless you really try it.
You would have never known if you liked peanut butter and Jelly unless you tried it.

To this date, every person that has tried this so far has had a wonderful experience with our Mother and with Christ.
So far, every person who has done it this way, at some point has called me or come by and told me that their prayer life has been forever changed and that this has produced some real transformation in their life in general. The ones who have tried this are still doing the Rosary to this day, and say they will never let go of it.

Now your results may differ, I am making no promises.

However, if one does this, they will know beyond any shadow of doubt if this discipline of Prayer is for them.

It’s the only way “I“ know to tell people that they can know for sure.

So try it, pick a time you can give to prayer each day, do the Rosary, and see what happens.
I would love to know your results.

Again, sorry for jumping in.

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

Thanks! I knew that the publisher had changed a time or two.

Good morning, everyone! David and Fr Rusty, thank you for the insights. I just finished rereading my spiritual director's book on this subject, Understanding the Bible by Fr George Montague. Fr George gave me this book some years back but until today I really didn't have much use for it.

Here is another article I just read I think is relevant:

http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/ar...l-criticism.htm

Also, check out Catholic Bible Association. Fr. George is associated with them.

My friends, most of the answers to the questions that you have are found in Catholic bible commentaries. A good one that I have is the Jerome Bible Commentary, edited by Raymond E. Brown, S.S; Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, S.J., and Roland Murphy, OCarm. Ironically, recommended to me by a late Pentecostal pastor who uses it all the time.

I would be very happy to share insights from the commentary whenever questions arise.

Just as the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, we need to be clear that the parts which have been classified as fables are not fables but "mirrors of the truth". Now, creation did happen but what we were told in Genesis could only offer what the author saw.

This is my contention simply because the Bible story is concentrated in the Middle East, and we say God created the world in 7 days and the Middle East is certainly not the world itself. It would be mockery to God if we say God created the world in 7 days and only created Adam and Eve. Besides, what could 7 days mean? It could have meant more than just 24 hours a day. These are some things not really clarified in the Bible. The core of Christianity is not Bible scholarship, but how we love God and love neighbour.

The Word of God is important and it is indeed truth, but not historical or scientific truth, but SPIRITUAL truth. However, this cannot be equated to fiction as it is not fiction. Fiction does not portray reality and the repercussions it brings. Fiction can say that if love happens in a spark, but in reality it takes a lot of time to really love someone.

There are many things which are unexplained and vague, especially in the Old Testament. Its best to look at the commentary then, for ideas.

I have both editions of this commentary; the older one being somewhat more traditional with regard to interpretation. It's a pretty formidable text for most laity. However, by the same publisher, I can recommend the "Jerome Biblical Handbook" which is a great deal more accessible. Both texts would probably best be described as "centrist" in their biblical scholarship.

Speaking of the Scriptures, here's something interesting a good friend told me. He's a former CEC priest; now Catholic who is well trained in theology, but prior to the ministry was a trained geologist and petroleum engineer.

He told me that from a geological point of view, the opening of the Straits of Gibralter (the opening between the Atlantic Ocean and the Mediterranian Sea) only occured about 10,000 years ago. (Note all the flood accounts among the various extra-biblical traditions existing in that part of the world.) He also suspects that the legends about Atlantis also reference that event.

The author of these questions did bring out some of the same things I have voiced. Thank you for the link. (It wasn't me, though!) :D

I will be back at RCIA this week, of course. Be prepared for more questions from this Truth Seeker!

I have a real problem with this view, though. Obviously, if the author was Moses, he did not SEE creation take place. Rather, he would have written what he received through oral tradition. Which is what we, as Catholics, rely on for reliability of doctrine, etc., too: TRADITION.

Also, to say we rely on some modern-day commentary, rather than take Scripture for what it says, is to me problematic. I don't have a problem reading the writings of the Church, etc. But too many modern commentaries (whether Catholic or Protestant) seem to have a lot of "this is how I see" methodologies.

David Z., if I'm off here, please correct me.

Ken,
I read most of the article, but it did get a bit wordy for me. Can you give me a basic synopsis? Is it that historical criticism has some validity, but that caution must be exercised when trying to apply it to Holy Writ? Am I even in the ballpark here?

Thanks again to all for your insights.

In essence, proponents feel Historical Criticism is necessary because it has an implicit distrust of human nature to accurately and fairly record what transpires. So in order to get to the "real" story, the scholar must have certain techniques to ferret out the truth.

It is the "get behind the scenes," as it were, to know the real truth, especially if you suspect that there is more to the story than meets the eye.

He writes, "We all know how things and events can be misunderstood or misrepresented, or, in many cases, hidden because the writer has an agenda. It is an inevitable part of life. Even the best and most unbiased writers are still a product of their culture, and often see things through the eyes of the people, places and things with which they associate. Rare is the detached observer who is not influenced by at least some outside force, whether it is his own political leanings or the fact that the person paying him for writing the piece wants it written in a certain way. In light of all this, Historical Criticism can be an indispensable tool for the scholar."

Historical Criticism comes in four forms:

1. Source Criticism. (To uncover the sources of information from which a writer decides to write his piece. Does the writer have access to a library? Did he get his information by word-of-mouth? Is his account a compilation of various sources, some or all of which he does not identify? Knowing the source is important because the sources will definitely have an influence upon the facts and conclusions the writer gives to us. Bad sources will produce bad reporting. It's really very simple.)

2. Form Criticism (To identify what kind of literary model the writer used. For example, was the writer intending to write like a newspaper reporter, wherein he leaves little to the imagination but seeks to report "only the facts ma'am"? Or was he putting his words in very symbolic or metaphorical language so as to give a "deeper" meaning to his words?)

3. Redaction Criticism (To uncover whether the writer revised or edited the material from which he chose to write his piece. If he did, then the critical scholar must offer suggestions as to what the original material contained, and perhaps, why the writer chose to edit it.)

4. Textual Criticism (To uncover the actual text of a particular piece of writing. There may exist more than one version of a particular account, and when the versions are compared, one often contains different words, phrases, or may be missing certain portions. The textual critic must sort through all the known versions and, using standard rules of judgment, offer suggestions as to which text is authentic.)

These are all good but limited. Knowing their limitations will help in applying them to Bible Study and Hermeneutics.

The Historical Criticism of the Protestant Tübingen school concluded:
1. Paul wrote only four of the thirteen epistles attributed to him. The other epistles, and the book of Acts, since they were "conciliatory" in tone, were judged as post-apostolic writings (i.e., not written by those apostles who claimed to write them), since by then the "synthesis" was rapidly unfolding.
2. Matthew was said to be the product of the earliest "Jewish" position, and thus close to Jesus' view, but was, nevertheless, the result of several redactions of some unidentified source.
3. Luke was the best example of the pre-Pauline "antithesis" to Jesus.
4. Mark, was a great ecumenist, and thus combined elements of Matthew and Luke.
5. The gospel of John, since its material was judged to be synthetic, was said to be written by some Jewish scribe in the second century when harmony between Matthew and Luke had been accomplished. As a result, John was judged worthless in regards to "historical" value.
6. Baur further stipulated that in the writings of Clement, the apostle Paul was disguised as Simon Magnus who was in constant conflict with his arch rival, Peter, and the conflict between Paul and Peter had its own thesis-antithesis-synthesis of development.
7. Since the book of the Apocalypse (which is traditionally understood to be written by John) was also hostile to Paul's way of thinking, it was judged as primitive and thus the earliest and more "Jewish" of all New Testament books.
8. Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918), another German Protestant, was the heir-apparent to the Historical Critical school, but more in the direction of Old Testament studies. He proposed that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses (the traditional view) but by several unknown individuals and at various times in history. The effects of this theory are manifold, but I will cite one example. Wellhausen's view, better known as the Documentary Hypothesis, proposed that Genesis 1 was written by a different person and at a different time than Genesis 2. Genesis 2 was said to be written very early in Israel's history, while Genesis 1 was said to be written by the "Priestly" group of writers just after the Babylonian captivity (587-517 B.C.). Why? Because in coming back to their homeland after being punished for 70 years in Babylon, the Jews needed a remembrance of how great God was, as well as a fresh start in life, and there was no better way to do this than to write a spectacular story of God's power, especially since the Babylonian god Marduk, who had a similar creation story, needed to be excised from the Jewish mind. Incidentally, this view of Genesis 1 fit like a glove with the burgeoning field Darwinian evolution. If through "historical criticism" it could be shown that Genesis 1 was not a literal and detailed account of an actual creation, but merely a literary device designed for sixth century Jews in order to reestablish their roots, then there would be no recourse to use Genesis 1 as a historical document, and science, once again, would provide the "real" answer how the world began. (Catholic theologian Fr. Stanley Jaki, who is an avowed evolutionist and presently on the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, ascribes to this very idea, as do most of the other 87 members of the PAS, most of whom are not Catholic).

The late Fr. Raymond Brown who taught Higher Criticism and, besides Karl Rayner did more to infiltrate the Catholic Church with it said this,"The only other 'ecumenical' activity of any significance is between the charismatics of both faiths, since they share a desire for tongue-speaking and are, more or less, anti-theological."

"The real enemy," says Brown, "is the 'Catholic far-right,' the 'right-wing vigilantes,' arch-conservatives, fundamentalists, and those whose opinions have little or no scholarly respectability."

"Historical criticism, although very helpful when it is tamed, is often an unruly tyrant wielding destruction in its path." Robert Sungenis

Whereas the Fathers and Medievals confronted the same discrepancies by quietly and painstakingly working out harmonizations of the conflicting texts, the new breed of modern Catholic exegetes thought little of branding the sacred writers with the most atrocious errors of fact.

Let's look at a small example of a biblical "discrepancy" to get a feel for the subject.
1. Matthew records that there were two blind men on the way to Jericho who cried out to Jesus to be healed (Mt 20:30), but Mark and Luke say there was only one (Mk 10:46; Lk 18:31). The historical critic would have little hesitation in concluding that at least one writer, probably Matthew, somehow got his wires crossed. He would feel no requirement to seek for a harmonization of the differing Synoptic accounts. To him, such an exercise would be a needless waste of energy, since he has already resolved in his mind that Scripture contains errors, and thus the discrepancy concerning the blind men would just be one more proof of that fact.

Although the example of the blind men may seem insignificant in comparison to the larger issues of life, it is by no means trivial in regards to the veracity of Scripture. As the old saying goes, the devil is in the details. The fact is, no matter how minuscule the supposed error, like a loose piece of yarn hanging from an old sweater, a continual pull will eventually unravel the whole garment. If Scripture can make an error in one place, then it can make errors in two. If it can make errors in two, it can make errors in thousands of places.

Eventually, there was no place that the tentacles of historical criticism did not penetrate. In its quest to "uncover the real story behind the story," not only were the critics seeking to uncover Scripture's "errors," they were on a mission to "naturalize" as many biblical narratives as they could, ripping away any vestige of the miraculous found on its pages. In fact, many of the purported "errors" of Scripture were said to be the result of the biblical writer's penchant to embellish his narratives with extraordinary events for the sake of effect.

2. The first eleven chapters of Genesis suffered the greatest blow from the modern wrecking ball. Almost everything recorded in the Bible's first chapters was relegated to the area of myth and legend, including the creation account, the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, and the genealogies. Moses was said to be a Jewish folk hero, as was Joshua, Samson, and even David. Moses' parting of the Reed Sea so that the Israelites could cross it was judged to be nothing more than his forging of a shallow river -- a story later embellished by Israelite cult worship to make their nation appear as a mighty people among their neighbors.

3. Prophecy, one of Scripture's most prestigious and awe-inspiring testimonies to its divine origin, was also dealt a death-blow by the naturalism of historical criticism. Since prophecy, by its very nature, means that its writer is predicting the future, this did not sit well with the historical critics who had disavowed themselves of ever having to believe that a man had the prerogative to prognosticate under divine guidance. Hence, all prophecies contained in Scripture were said to be "after the fact." That is, the event which appeared as a fulfillment of prophecy was said to have already happened before the biblical narrative was penned, yet the writer made it appear as if an earlier author was predicting the future. In fact, one theory held that the greater part of the Old Testament was written by the Hellenists of the second century BC, and thus, all of the Old Testament prophecies could be accounted for, quite naturally. As for the prophecies that spoke of a coming Messiah, they were said to be pointing to the Jewish desire to overcome their enemies, not to Jesus Christ -- something very similar to how many Jews treat the Old Testament today.

As time passed, archeology helped mollify some of the more extreme historical-critical theories. With the work of William F. Albright (d. 1971), whose list of accomplishments include 800 books and the confirmation of the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was shown that Old Testament narratives had a rich harvest of archeological support. One of Albright's most famous finds was the collapsed walls of Jericho, thus vindicating the Bible's testimony of that ancient event. The only discrepancy came from archeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who, although confirming that Albright's excavated Tel was indeed that of Jericho, claimed that his date of circa 1400 was off by about 150 years. Since Albright, other archeologists have found David's underground water passageway that led him into the city of the Jebusites, which he conquered and renamed Jerusalem (2 Samuel 5:8). Others have found the three major cities: Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer built by Solomon (1 Kings 9:15). Since all these finds verified Scripture, there was a little room left to question the authenticity of other events in the biblical record. Politically speaking, the quest no longer turned on whether the biblical narratives were true, but who could dig deeper to settle the dispute in the Middle East regarding rights to the land of Palestine. While American, English and Israeli archeologists dug down to Jericho; Palestinian and Arab archeologists dug down further to Canaan, claiming that their people had settled the land even earlier than the Israelites!

Despite these stunning archeological finds, it was hard to shake the historical critic from his self-appointed mission. Having made their claims on the Old Testament narratives, they now turned to the New Testament. They continued to make the same question-begging assertions, that is, that much of the biblical narratives were redacted, fabricated, or at the least, embellished. This was the state of Catholic biblical exegesis from the late 1940's onward as it picked up the torch left by their Protestant forebears.

But one thing was different in the Catholic Church that was not true of most Protestant denominations. The Catholic Church put limits on just how far it was going to allow historical criticism to advance. Ironically, what Pius XII gave to the critics in 1943, he took back in large measure in the 1950 encyclical Humani Generis. In that encyclical, for example, he stated that, regardless of how a scholar might interpret the finer details of the creation account, he had to maintain that an actual man and woman were the first human pair, and that they both sinned against God, which resulted in the curse of Original Sin being forced upon the whole human race. Meanwhile, Karl Barth, the famous Protestant historical critic who had heavily influenced Hans Kung, and who in turn influenced many Catholic theologians, was teaching that man is as he always was (i.e., no original sin), and that God intended on saving the whole human race, without exception. So whereas the mainline Protestants allowed historical criticism to penetrate even the bedrock of salvation doctrine, the Catholic Church was clear that those areas of dogma were definitely off-limits to modern hermeneutical science.

So after 1950, the Catholic modernists were somewhat corralled by the Church. They were permitted to write about their speculations concerning Scripture, but they simply could not alter Catholic doctrine from its traditional moorings. So instead of being dogmatic about their heterodox beliefs, Catholic critics began to put their reservations about Catholic dogma in the form of interrogatives. In this way, they couldn't be accused of rejecting Catholic teaching, but they could certainly put doubt in people's minds by asking a lot of leading and provocative questions. They were hoping for a ground swell of popular support as they disseminated their historical-critical ideas in all the universities and seminaries of the world. Unfortunately, due to the unrest in the 1960s and 1970s, many were ripe to hear their message of dissent.

For example, one of the leading proponents in the Catholic historical-critical school, Fr. Raymond Brown (d. 1998), questioned a majority of traditional beliefs, all under the guise of doubting their "historical accuracy" in Scripture. In one of his most famous and controversial works, The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, Brown, like his Protestant counterparts Bultmann, Barth and Tillich, questioned the resurrection of Christ. He writes: "Are we thereby perpetually committed to the notion held in times past of the biological how of that exaltation, namely a bodily resurrection?" (p. 12). He also questioned papal infallibility, proposing: "If biblical criticism has qualified the notion of the inerrancy of the Bible, does modern historical study imply that the Roman Catholic notion of the infallibility of Church teaching also has to be qualified?" (Ibid., p. 35). Brown even questioned the legitimacy of the papacy itself, which he based on his "historical critical" conclusion that Matthew 16's narrative of the events at Caesarea Philippi never took place. In the same and other works he questioned the function and identity of apostles, bishops and priests; apostolic succession; the barring of women from ordination; the Eucharist as a sacrifice; the value and authority of Tradition, and Mary's perpetual virginity, all, of course, based on his "historical-critical" approach to Scripture.

Much of this theological interrogation originated from Brown's resolve that Scripture was prone to error. He writes: "In the last hundred years we have moved from an understanding wherein inspiration guaranteed that the Bible was totally inerrant to an understanding wherein inerrancy is limited to the Bible's teaching of 'that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writing for the sake of our salvation'" (The Virginal Conception and Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, pp. 8-9). Brown further documented his beliefs in his book Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, and later summed them up in the New Jerome Biblical Commentary, stating: "Scriptural teaching is truth without error to the extent that it conforms to the salvific purpose of God" (p. 1169). In other words, if Scripture isn't talking specifically about salvation, it indeed may contain errors. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, which was also populated by the same modernistic mind-set, and of which Brown became the president, helped spread these new-fangled ideas far and wide.

Where did Brown get his notion that Scripture could err on matters outside of salvation? He and his colleagues claimed that the teaching came from Vatican II's document Dei Verbum, ch 3, no. 11, which reads, "Therefore, 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."

To the casual reader, this statement may not seem problematic, but it has been interpreted in two diametrically opposed ways since Vatican II closed its doors in 1965. The traditional way to read the passage would be to say that Scripture is without error in all that it asserts as true, and all that it asserts as true is put there for the sake of our salvation. The modernist way would say that Scripture is without error specifically in those things that were written for the sake of our salvation, but other things that are not dealing with our salvation, e.g., historical narration, science, math, chronologies, genealogies, etc., may be in error. Seizing on the ambiguity of Dei Verbum, Brown and the modernists made a considerable market for themselves, practically rewriting the Catholic teaching on biblical inerrancy, and all with little admonishment from the Vatican hierarchy.

To see how Brown arrived at his conclusion, it is necessary to delve into some of the discussions that were taking place at Vatican II. There were actually three versions of Dei Verbum's clause "without error...for the sake of salvation" prior to the one finally decided upon. Interestingly, one of the phrases, veritatis salutaris ("salvific truth"), was rejected due to the fact that it implied that Scripture's inerrancy was limited to salvation. In the words of Archbishop Philippe who spoke to the council Fathers, "Therefore it should not be said that the sacred books 'teach' salvific truth without error, because this insinuates a distinction among the scriptural affirmations themselves, as if some of them taught without error truths pertaining to salvation, while others had no such content and were thus not necessarily immune from error...I request that we restore the expression 'without any error,' as in the previous draft, since the documents of the Magisterium...always express themselves in such a way as to exclude completely from the sacred Scriptures error of every kind. "

Indeed, in 1970, Paul VI in the words of his July 1 allocution: "For the Church, Sacred Scripture is the Word of God, inspired by Him and therefore guaranteed by divine inerrancy in its own authentic meaning."

Catholic Historic Critic König gave three examples of "errors" in Scripture:

(a) In Mark 2:26, Jesus says "in the time of Abiathar the High Priest," the alleged error being that Ahimelech was the high priest at that time (1 Sam 21:1);

However, as for Abiathar versus Ahimelech, the phrase in Mark 2:26, epi Abiathar archiereos is in the Greek genitive case, which means "at the time of Abiathar the high priest." This nuance fits the Old Testament scene well, since Saul had murdered Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, whereupon Abiathar fled to David and served as his priest, being appointed high priest when David actually became king. Under these circumstances, it would be perfectly legitimate for Jesus to refer to Abiathar as the high priest, just as if one could say "Now when King David was a shepherd boy" even though David was not a king when he was a shepherd boy.

(b.) In Matt 27:9, Matthew is said to err in assigning Jeremiah to a prophecy spoken by Zechariah (11:12-13).

However, as for Jeremiah versus Zechariah, Matthew 27:9 is a combination of both prophets' words (cf., Jeremiah 18:2; 19:2, 11; 32:6-9; Zech 11:12-13), since neither of them have all the details found in Matthew's quotation. The mere fact that Jeremiah is the more prominent prophet, and was always at the head when the Jews made lists of the prophets (as appears in the Babba Bartha), it would not be out of place to refer to him over Zechariah. The same kind of preference is noted in Mark's choice of Isaiah over Malachi in Mark 1:2-3 (cf., Mal 3:1; Is 40:3).

© Daniel 1:1's statement that Nebuchadnezzer besieged Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim was wrong, since it should be the sixth year of Jehoiakim.

However, as for the "third" or "sixth" year of Jehoiakim, König's objection fails to take into account the differing methods of calculation between Jewish and Babylonian calendars. Daniel, following the Babylonian calendar since he was in captivity for seventy years in Babylon, had a three-year discrepancy with the Jewish calendar that Jeremiah used, which was based on the differences between the regnal and accession years of the kings.

To make a long story short, the Vatican II council rejected König's request, since there was really no definitive and irrefutable evidence to back him up. In actuality, alleged errors were well-known, all the way back to the patristic age and up through the late Middle Ages, and each anomaly was given a plausible solution. None of the Fathers or Medievals ever suggested that Scripture itself was in error, whether in history or salvation. As noted, the Vatican II council Fathers rejected König's examples. The only thing they agreed to do was take the word "any" out of "without any error," but with the stipulation that "without error" meant the same thing as "without any error."

Robert Sungenis
Catholic Apologetics International
April 21, 2003

Here is a cool site:

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm

You know, I may have been wrong. All my years of Scriptural study I have never had a problem accepting that the Revelation of God was inspired, "God breathed", to fallible human minds and written by fallible human hands and the errors are due to the human factor. However, are there really errors? Are these errors acknowledged by the Catholic Church who gave us the Bible?
The errors I have noted have been numerical but are they really contradictions? However one would think if the Holy Spirit is "breathing" this to the writers, the writer would write it down the same. Therefore, would the Holy Spirit intentionally tell one numeric figure to one writer and another different figure to another writer? He is not contradicting Himself or the writers. Could this have been providentially intended?

Dr. Gleason Archer stated they are scribal errors due to the fact that letters have been used as numerals and then translated into numbers. (Archer, Gleason, L., Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, 1994 Revised Edition, 1982, Zondervan Publishing House)

Let's look at the errors and a possible explanation: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#INDEX
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim...radictions.html
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7273/bibli...radictions.html
http://debate.org.uk/topics/apolog/contrads.htm
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html#phil_ot

Any thoughts?

This item is available on the Apologetics Press website at: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/507

AP Content :: Alleged Discrepancies

Addition Does Not a Contradiction Make
by Kyle Butt, M.A.

Suppose a man is telling a story about the time he and his wife went shopping at the mall. The man mentions all the great places in the mall to buy hunting supplies and cinnamon rolls. The wife tells about the same shopping trip, yet mentions only the places to buy clothes. Is there a contradiction between the stories just because the wife mentions clothing stores but the husband mentions only cinnamon rolls and hunting supplies? No. They are simple adding to (or supplementing) each other’s story to make it more complete. That happens quite often in the resurrection accounts in the Gospels.

For example, the Gospel of Matthew names “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary” as women who visited the tomb early on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Mark cites Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome as the callers (Mark 16:1). Luke mentions Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and “the other women” (Luke 24:10). Yet John talks only about Mary Magdalene visiting the tomb early on Sunday (John 20:1). Do these different lists contradict one another? No, not in any way. They are supplementary, adding names to make the list more complete. But they are not contradictory. If John had said “only Mary Magdalene visited the tomb,” or if Matthew stated, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were the only women to visit the tomb,” then there would be a contradiction. As it stands, no contradiction occurs. To further illustrate this point, suppose that you have 10 one-dollar bills in your pocket. Suppose further that someone comes up to you and asks, “Do you have a dollar bill in your pocket?” Naturally, you respond in the affirmative. Suppose another person asks, “Do you have five dollars in your pocket?,” and again you say yes. Finally, another person asks, “Do you have ten dollars in your pocket?” and you say yes for the third time. Did you tell the truth every time? Yes. Were any of your answers contradictory? No. Were all three statements about the contents of your pockets different? Yes—supplementation not contradiction.

Under this heading falls many an alleged discrepancy. Take, for instance, the situation between 1 Corinthians 10:8 and Numbers 25:9.

“Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand” (1 Corinthians 10:8).

“And those that died by the plague were twenty and four thousand” (Numbers 25:9).

We must remember that we are not asking whether these two verses say different things. We are asking whether the different things that they say can be reconciled without violating any logical boundaries. The answer is a resounding “yes.” If 24,000 died, is it not the case that 23,000 died as well? Once again, applying the principle of supplementation dissolves the problem immediately.

The supposed contradiction between these two verses is further repudiated when it is realized that 1 Corinthians 10:8 mentions a specific time—“one day”—while in Numbers 25:9 the time is not limited to a single day. The fact is, 23,000 could have died in one day and 1,000 could have died the day after. Once again, after looking closely at the verses under discussion, it becomes evident that no discrepancy exists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objectively, one can neither prove nor disprove that the error is a copyist error or an error in the original manuscripts. However,
1. Given the many archaeologically verified statements in the Old Testament, and
2. Given that most of the other places where there are genuine discrepancies in modern copies have to do with numbers,
Thus, the evidence is not conclusive but favors a copyist error.
Ken



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ken,
First, thank you for taking the time to put all that on here. It is appreciated more than you know. This last article was especially helpful. I suppose that's what I've really always thought. That if there were discrepancies, they were due to viewpoint, etc. Not that there are errors in Scripture.

I bookmarked the link to the "bringyou.to" website for future reference.

The article by Sungenis, on the development of the use of historical criticism was extremely insightful as well.

It's so nice to have our very own scholars at hand, to help in time of need!

Thank you so much for all of this information.

My mind is bent again. Time to contemplate all I've ingested.

Truth Seeker,
At the risk of sounding falsely humble, I must state that I am not a scholar. I am what you are-someone who seeks truth. For example, I was taught as a youth that that there was no contradiction when one Gospel account stated Jesus fed 5,000 and another stated He fed fewer while obviously referring to the same event. One does not cancel out the other. This can be said of Judas' suicide account. Did he hang himself or jump off a cliff? The Fathers taught he hung himself near a cliff and the branch broke due to his weight wherein he fell off a cliff. Both accounts were true. We only saw through a glass dimly just as we see the future dimly, even through prophetic means. If this is true of the future by the Spirit (1 Cor. 14) why is it not true in the history revealed by the Spirit? Hindsight is only 20/20 to those who have experienced it not to those merely recording it. This isn't to say there are errors or inaccuracies but merely incomplete knowledge.
Ken

Looking at the previous posts from Ken, I have to say this is why I return here again and again! Ken has privately e-mailed me and I feel we have become "friends", but this source of knowledge/information means I will have to settle back, take time and inwardly digest all that has been laid before me. What a Blessing!! And I mean that for the contributors here and for the "Davids" who moderate what is going on. For those of us who want to learn and try to find the path Our Lord wants us to be on; I can say I don't know if any of us would receive this open mindedness from one pastor alone. Through the guidance of The Holy Spirit, we should all find knowledge, truth and growth here,.. I hope that is the case for all!

Roy

I hope I am not to far off topic.
David, could you please, when you have time, post a list of what you consider to be the best Catholic commentaries, software, etc.
Perhaps what you consider should be the Priests "staple items"

I would appreciate that very much and think it might be beneficial to many here.

Ken, perhaps you could also give a list of books, commentaries, favorite apologetics, that have been helpful to you as well.

Thanks guys,

in HIM,
Fr. Rusty

Hi Fr. Rusty,

You'll want the "Ancient Christian Commentary" as each volume comes out. They are published by InterVarsityPress (but my brother can get them cheaper than Amazon.com!) This set is multi-denominational effort (Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant) showing how the Church Fathers (both East and West) used Scripture. Most of the New Testament has been published, and about 1/3 to 1/2 of the Old Testament.

You'll want the "Navarre Bible" which has now been completed. This is a rather conservative Catholic "text and commentary" sort of arrangement using both the Revised Standard Version and the New Latin Vulgate. I recommend the paperback editions in the New Testament if you want the Latin. (Again, my brother sells them cheaper than does the publisher itself!)

If you are into Patristics, check out the "Ancient Christian Writers" series. The good thing about this particular series is that you can purchase just the titles you want -- not the entire set. I've got several volumes, including #1 (The Epistles of St. Clement and St. Ignatius of Antioch), #6 (The Didache, the Martyrdom of St. Polycarp, and other writings), and #11 (St. Gregory the Great - Pastoral Care (A MUST READ!!!) ).

If you are into Church History and the History of Christian Thought, check out the five-volume "Christian Tradition" series by the recently deceased Lutheran-turned-Orthodox theologian Jaroslav Pelikan.

For some good, basic essays on topics in Christian Theology, check out the four-volume paperback series "Explorations in Christian Theology" by Hans Urs von Balthasar.

Also (with apologies to Robert Sungenis who, in my view takes his criticism of criticism way to far) the New Jerome Biblical Commentary is incredibly useful -- even if one does not agree with all of the higher critical material. It is probably the single, most comprehensive, Catholic one-volume commentary available.

(WARNING -- SHAMELESS MARKETING!!!) All of the above can be easily ordered from my brother who, thanks to the disarray in the CEC has lost many of his customers -- and would eagerly love to cultivate more! :)

This is a good start . . .

Blessings,

Fr. Rusty,
That's a great suggestion! I can't wait to see the list. (We will see a list, right???) ;)

BTW, for anyone interested, the Ancient Christian Commentaries series that was mentioned earlier (published by IVP)...

They have a way you can sign up to receive a new book each time one is published. Through IVP, they are $39.99 each, I believe. We were also able to take advantage of an offer to purchase everything they had published so far (we have 8 OT volumes; 11 NT volumes). Some books of the Bible are split between one or more volumes. Other volumes contain more than one book of the Bible. I do not know if they are planning to do any of the deuterocanonicals.

The website is Ancient Christian Commentaries

Other info. on this: InterVarsity Press, 430 East Plaza Dr., Westmont, IL 60559-1234
Phone: 1-888-843-2310.
E-mail: series@ivpress.com

I'm going to be coming back to this thread over and over, to re-read everything and try to digest some more of it.

Thanks again!