FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Church (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=2)
+--- Forum: Catholicism (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=10)
+--- Thread: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? (/showthread.php?tid=84361)



Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - Crowe - 04-03-2019

It seems like the entire field of Biblical studies and "textual criticism" exists to undermine the authority of Scripture and the traditional interpretations. Most things written before Vatican II are pretty good but they don't really respond to any of the arguments from more recent years and studies. Are there any good studies of the Bible from recent years which do a good job at responding to textual criticism and affirming tradition?


RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - MaryTN - 04-03-2019

Me, too!
.
Most Catholic Bible Studies are lukewarm and fuzzy.  It seems to be more about "fellowship" than learning.


RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - GoodKingWenceslas - 04-03-2019

(04-03-2019, 01:28 AM)Crowe Wrote: It seems like the entire field of Biblical studies and "textual criticism" exists to undermine the authority of Scripture and the traditional interpretations. Most things written before Vatican II are pretty good but they don't really respond to any of the arguments from more recent years and studies. Are there any good studies of the Bible from recent years which do a good job at responding to textual criticism and affirming tradition?

Do you mean books or Bible Study Curricula? I don't know *many* Catholic ones of either, but there are some very good Protestant ones that do not really get into heretical ideas.


RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - LionHippo - 04-03-2019

Here is one that I like and found most in agreement with tradition: http://agapebiblestudy.com/ . The menu tabs are on the left side of the page. I don't think all of the books have been treated yet, but a great number are available: http://agapebiblestudy.com/Bible_Studies_Menu.php.

Most of the Ignatius Press books on Biblical scholars are written by orthodox Catholic Bible scholars. The Ignatius Study Bible series, for example, will present both the traditional and modern views of Scripture. But it almost always sides with Tradition. This is most evident in their introductions to the books of the Bible, where they will compare modern theories of authorship with traditional ones, and usually always come out in favor of traditional authorship. However, they don't dismiss the modern theories completely out of hand; rather, they present both sides, and explain why the traditional scholarship is stronger.


RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - MagisterMusicae - 04-03-2019

(04-03-2019, 01:28 AM)Crowe Wrote: It seems like the entire field of Biblical studies and "textual criticism" exists to undermine the authority of Scripture and the traditional interpretations. Most things written before Vatican II are pretty good but they don't really respond to any of the arguments from more recent years and studies. Are there any good studies of the Bible from recent years which do a good job at responding to textual criticism and affirming tradition?

The problem is the system itself.

Textual criticism is merely the scholarly field that looks at extant copies and variant readings and is looking to determine a text which is more literally faithful to original. Since we know that the original books of Scripture are far from extant, and we do have variations, that is not a bad thing, but it is not very useful for interpretation, since the variant readings do not affect doctrine or dogma. Thus textual criticism, correctly studied, will never change our interpretation of Scripture, because we're not Protestants. The Fathers and Magisterium are the interpreters of Scripture.

Seeing as textual criticism isn't about interpretation, then the problem must be something else, either using textual criticism as a basis, or the abuse of textual criticism to make interpretations. If this is the case it is not textual criticism which is the issue, but its abuse.

The bigger issue is "higher criticism" or the historico-critical method. The foundational assumption for this method are the issue. It is a Modernist (in the proper heretical sense) critique, because it asserts in its foundational principles that Scripture is sourced from some other texts, or each book is a melee of compiled stories and forms assembled by some compiler, etc.

This undermines the inspiration of Scripture which, while it has the human textual element worthy of study and mediate instruments who penned the original text, ultimately has God as its author, which cannot be discovered by material criticism of a text or historical analysis.

To argue with textual critics of a Modernist bent is already to cede too much ground. Their problems are not their interpretations, but the method they use. To argue with them is like arguing about whether abortion should be allowed when there is a risk to a mother's mental health, when your interlocutor actually thinks abortion up to birth for any reason is fine. It's already conceding too much.


RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - Crowe - 04-03-2019

(04-03-2019, 05:42 AM)LionHippo Wrote: Here is one that I like and found most in agreement with tradition: http://agapebiblestudy.com/ . The menu tabs are on the left side of the page. I don't think all of the books have been treated yet, but a great number are available: http://agapebiblestudy.com/Bible_Studies_Menu.php.

Most of the Ignatius Press books on Biblical scholars are written by orthodox Catholic Bible scholars. The Ignatius Study Bible series, for example, will present both the traditional and modern views of Scripture. But it almost always sides with Tradition. This is most evident in their introductions to the books of the Bible, where they will compare modern theories of authorship with traditional ones, and usually always come out in favor of traditional authorship. However, they don't dismiss the modern theories completely out of hand; rather, they present both sides, and explain why the traditional scholarship is stronger.
Thanks. I'll look into these.


RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - Florus - 04-04-2019

(04-03-2019, 02:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: The bigger issue is "higher criticism" or the historico-critical method. The foundational assumption for this method are the issue. It is a Modernist (in the proper heretical sense) critique, because it asserts in its foundational principles that Scripture is sourced from some other texts, or each book is a melee of compiled stories and forms assembled by some compiler, etc.

Except it is evident in the Scriptures that the sacred authors themselves used other sources, many are explicitly referenced in the books of Kings. This in no way excludes God as the Divine author, so there is a valid way in which we can study the sacred texts from this angle. 

On the issue of a compiler or editor, why could he not have been inspired as well? Take the issue of the Torah, I'd say it's possible to both recognize Mosaic authorship as well as a later inspired editor/compiler who crystallized the books into their current form.

There are certainly unorthodox ways of understanding these things but I don't think the ideas of sacred authors using other sources (which is attested to in the Bible) or the influence of editors is something to be dismissed as un-Catholic.