Study Bible

No. It depends upon who puts it out. Sadly many Catholic Scripture Scholars have fallen into the same trap as their contemporaries in the Protestant traditions and have devolved to studying Scripture in only a scientific matter. And to add insult to injury they will totally disregard the witness of the early church as well, which in this case it sounds like they did concerning the passage in Hebrews.

Not saying that many positive contributions haven't been made; but at times you will see speculation being treated as fact instead of what it truly is speculation. The "q" gospel is a perfect example of this.

CollectsBooks said:

Hi. I have been reading from a catholic study bible I picked up and am surprised at how historically critical it can be. For example, it seems to adopt the perspective that the old testament was deeply revised from yahweist elohist sources by priestly sources (if I understand this correctly). Also there is a note in Hebrews saying the idea of Jesus being granted sonship as opposed to his preexistence as the Son was the original teaching and evolved into the latter.

Being from a conservative protestant background, the only bible in which I've read these subjects addressed was in an apologetic study bible and that was showing such ideas in a negative light instead of a factual one.

So my question is, is it typical catholic belief that the scriptures err so deeply? Do most catholic study bibles take a historically critical position? Thank you

Click to expand...

For Bible study, I suggest getting the Didache Bible: Ignatius Bible (RSV-2CE) or the Navarre Bible. Not all Catholic study Bibles are equal. Some of them can border on heresy, and the Church has warned us about the heresy of modernism and the danger of taking historical criticism too far. Which Bible is it?

I recommend reading the following:
Truth and Tolerance: Christian Belief and World Religions
CDF on some errors of interpretation of VII
Jesus of Nazareth 3 Volume Set
Pascendi Dominici Gregis
Lamentabili Sane
Iucunda Sane

Catholicism allows for a Historical criticism model but does not mandate it. Some things are more accepted than others. Like...the immediate audiences of the four Gospels. The Gospels have an audience that was all Christians to come but also an immediate audience per book. That is fairly accepted. What study Bible are you using? It will help give an idea of what is in it.

New American Bible revised edition published by OSV. I'll look into the general way that looks at scholarship.

Catholics are permitted to apply historical criticism but we can't do it in a way that counteracts dogma. And it is only one tool to be looked at in the studying of Scripture. We combine that with the body of Sacred Tradition and constant teaching.

I think historical criticism has its purpose, and when properly applied helps us contextualize the writings we find in the Bible. But historical criticism, must be married to history and anthropology, which many scholars do not do for whatever reason. These you have to be careful of for when they take the Bible out of history, and put it in its own vacuum, they will come up with all kinds of crazy things.

A good example to the organizing the Gospels from which one was written first, to last. Across the board historical criticism scholars state that it has to be Mark first, then Luke or Matthew, and last John. Why? Because Mark is the shortest one, so it had to be written first, and then Matthew got a hold of Mark's gospel, or he had access to some writing called the "Q" gospel, and expanded upon what Mark wrote. Luke did the same thing, and John was just written outside of all that.

But when you read the Church Fathers who were much closer to the timeframe than we are they are all in agreement that the Gospels were written in the same order as we have them now in all of our Bibles. That is THE reason why we have that order. Also that the first three Gospels were written independently of each other. St. John wrote his last, knowing what Matthew and Mark wrote, so his Gospel discusses things that were left out of the other Gospels.

Criticism of historical criticism:

"The gratuitous negation of the supernatural principles, proper to knowledge falsely so called, has actually become the postulate of a historical criticism equally false. Everything that relates in any way to the supernatural order, either as belonging to it, constituting it, presupposing it, or merely finding its explanation in it, is erased without further investigation from the pages of history. Such are the Divinity of Jesus Christ, His Incarnation through the operation of the Holy Ghost, His Resurrection by His own power, and in general all the dogmas of our faith. Science once placed on this false road, there is no law of criticism to hold it back; and it cancels at its own caprice from the holy books everything that does not suit it or that it believes to be opposed to the pre-established theses it wishes to demonstrate. For take away the supernatural order and the story of the origin of the Church must be built on quite another foundation, and hence the innovators handle as they list the monuments of history, forcing them to say what they wish them to say, and not what the authors of those monuments meant." - Pope St. Pius X, Iucunda Sane

When I was in school, historical criticism really threw me for a loop. I learned it both from an Evangelical school, a mainline (liberal Protestant) school and a Roman Catholic school.
Sometimes it isn't just the proposed theory, for example, the idea that the Torah really has several sources woven together (JEDP) but in what kinds of implications it has for faith and the Bible.
At the Evangelical school, their take was kind of "this is what liberals teach & its heretical & wrong because it disproves the Bible". At the mainline/liberal school, their take was kind of like "this is why we don't really believe the Bible, see its proven". However, at the Catholic school it was more like, these things might be the case, but they may also not be. And, in any case, if it was the 4 source hypothesis or if there were 2 (or 3!) Isaiahs then that just tells us how God worked to give us the Scripture. I think in Catholicism the belief that the entire process is inspired & that the Church is inspired to transmit & interpret Scripture is helpful because while Scripture is truly inspired / inerrant, there isn't a "sola scriptura" that has to be constantly maintained / defended.

if you want a translation which is essentially higher criticism in reverse, try the Classic Orthodox Bible. It is the most literal word-for-word translation I've read with commentary about why higher criticism is wrong.

At it's best historical criticism can show God working through people on levels both short and long term. It can show immediate and eternal audiences. It can humble us before the magnificence of history by reflecting the smallest glimpse of our God, so much larger than history and time that history and time shrink before Him but as He acts within them each moment is magnified. Each event one note in a symphony of Salvation History.

At the worst, taken to extreme it tries to rob Scripture of connection to the Divine. It tries to grasp more than the sum of it's facts and when it can not...seeks to reduce God.

So it is a great tool, when used wisely. And a faith breaker for some when used poorly.

CollectsBooks said:

So my question is, is it typical catholic belief that the scriptures err so deeply? Do most catholic study bibles take a historically critical position? Thank you

Click to expand...

Regarding your first question, it is probably not the general belief among Catholics that scriptures err simply because most Catholics aren't aware of what the Church teaches about the Bible. To the second, others have responded about Catholic study bibles. The Bible you mention is the New American Bible-Revised Edition, which is the "official" version of the U.S. Catholic Bishops and is the translation used in our liturgy. If you look at the basic NABRE, the introductions and explanations contain summaries of the historical and textual criticisms, as you describe. So one could conclude that the material in that Bible discussing such criticisms is what the Church teaches. In several instances the NABRE does not choose a "correct" answer, but summarizes what scholars have discussed as possibilities. All in all, it appears to be quite fair in its presentation.

Not too long ago, someone asked me to recommend a book that would help him understand what the Church teaches about the Bible (and what in it is "true"), in particular about Genesis and Moses. I asked if he had a Catholic Bible? "Yes", he responded. "Which one?" I asked. He didn't know but literally dug it out from where it was buried (that right there tells you something), and it was the NAB. I told him that this was the Bible published by our bishops conference and that he should read it, especially the introductions to each section and book, starting with the OT Pentateuch. I told him doing so should answer many of his questions and give him a good intro into scripture scholarship.

The NABRE introduction to Genesis says that we should consider it neither "history" nor "myth". They suggest thinking of it as the "creation-flood story". That would have answered one of his questions.

Martinius said:

Regarding your first question, it is probably not the general belief among Catholics that scriptures err simply because most Catholics aren't aware of what the Church teaches about the Bible.

Click to expand...

Martinius, could you please clarify what you mean here? The Church teaches the scriptures are free of all error, not only in doctrine but in historical accuracy too. Pope Leo XIII said we are not free to believe otherwise, and this teaching has been reaffirmed again and again.

CollectsBooks said:

Also there is a note in Hebrews saying the idea of Jesus being granted sonship as opposed to his preexistence as the Son was the original teaching and evolved into the latter.

Click to expand...

That's really surprising. That sounds like the heresy of Paul of Samosata - He taught that Jesus was born as a normal man, but was infused with Sonship. I'm not sure when it was condemned, but it definitely was condemned by the time of John Chrysostom (who is a Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church), since he mentions it in the context of John 5:28 in one of his homilies (the KJV actually contains a heretical rendering of this verse). Paul's excommunication was also documented by Eusebius in his History of the Church (from Book VII):

Jared R said:

Martinius, could you please clarify what you mean here? The Church teaches the scriptures are free of all error, not only in doctrine but in historical accuracy too. Pope Leo XIII said we are not free to believe otherwise, and this teaching has been reaffirmed again and again.

Click to expand...

I will agree about doctrinal error, but not historical accuracy. Pope Leo XIII may have believed that but since then that view has changed. On the USCCB website, usccb.org, the section on "Understanding the Bible" says this: "The Bible is the story of God's relationship with the people he has called to himself. It is not intended to be read as history text, a science book, or a political manifesto. In the Bible, God teaches us the truths that we need for the sake of our salvation."

I would agree with that. The point you were referencing was about Catholics in general not knowing what the Church teaches about the Bible. I gave a personal example of that "lack of knowledge". Many Catholics I know have not cracked open a Bible since their school days, nor have they thought much about all the scholarship that has occurred that reveals much more to us now than was known earlier, even as recently as the time of Pope Leo. If people don't read scripture, they likely do not read the information provided by the Church about the books of the Bible, their authors, and their historical development.

Another example is Isaiah, mentioned in another post. The NABRE introduction to Isaiah describes the three parts that were written by three different people, with the possibility of more, since they say that "Third Isaiah" was composed by "writers", implying two or more. Pope Leo would likely not have agreed with that position, yet here it is clearly presented in a Catholic Bible and on the Bishops' website. But the average Catholic would likely be amazed to hear that there were several authors of Isaiah who lived at different times. Or that there were likely four sources for the books of the Pentateuch, none of which include a guy named Moses.

To reiterate, the "Catholic in the pew" is just not aware of all this, as they weren't taught it in school, they don't hear it in church, and they don't generally care to learn about it. One thesis of mine in several threads on this forum over the years has been that Catholics are basically ignorant of what the Church truly teaches, other than about a few "hot button" topics, and for even some of those they are not adequately informed. Tis a sad situation.

Bl. Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu agreed with Pope Leo that it was not just Pope Leo's personal belief, but "the ancient and constant faith of the Church."

CollectsBooks said:

Also there is a note in Hebrews saying the idea of Jesus being granted sonship as opposed to his preexistence as the Son was the original teaching and evolved into the latter.

Click to expand...

I searched for this and found it in the notes to Chapter 5 in the NABRE. It is referencing Hebrews 5:8 that says: "Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered."

The note says this: "Two different though not incompatible views of Jesus' sonship coexist in Hebrews, one associating it with his exaltation, the other with his pre-existence. The former view is the older one (cf. Rom 1:4)."

This would appear to be the standard view of how Christology developed in the early Church, as exemplified by the Epistles and the changing theology as we move from the earlier synoptic Gospels, especially Mark, to John's Gospel with its higher Christology. It is just one example of the varying theologies that are found throughout the New Testament and beyond.