Does catholicism recognize Biblical contradictions?

[VOW]

To Br Max:

We find the same problem with explaining the misconceptions of Catholicism to people who just KNOW Catholics worship Mary/believe in works-based Salvation/added books to the Bible/think the Pope is God/pray to statues/make up stuff and call it "Sacred Tradition."

/me sighs...

Suddenly, I'm very, very tired.



Peace,
~VOW

 

[kern]

I'll give some examples of the kind of criticism that I am talking about. These all come from the St. Joseph edition of the NAB (which seems to be a popular edition among Catholics. Right?)

1. The footnote to Luke 11:37-54 (Jesus' denunciation of the Pharisees) says this: "This denunciation of the Pharisees and the scholars of the law is set by Luke in the context of Jesus' dining at the home of a Pharisee. Controversies with or reprimands of Pharisees are regularly set by Luke within the context of Jesus' easting with Pharisees. A different compliation of similar sayings is found in Matthew 23."

Note the bold words. "set by Luke" implies that Jesus did not actually say these words at a Pharisee's house, and "compilation" means that Matthew was bringing together sayings from a number of instances and presenting them as if Jesus had said them all at once.

2. Here is the footnote to the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount: "The careful topical arrangement of the sermon is probably not due only to Matthew's editing; he seems to have had a structured discourse of Jesus as one of his sources." In other words, Jesus did not actually make the speech on the mount.

3. Finally, the footnote to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew: "Matthew's form of the 'Our Father' follows the liturgical tradition of his church. Luke's less developed form also represents the liturgical tradition known to him, but it is probably closer than Matthew's to the original words of Jesus.". IOW, neither Matthew's nor Luke's version of the Lord's Prayer are what Jesus actually said.


As I said, the St. Joseph edition is a popular one among Catholics, so it's not like these textual criticisms are a bunch of atheists trying to discredit the Bible. The introduction contains an explanation of "The speech as a literary device" which suggests that whether or not the speech is verbatim makes no difference.

Anyway, I'm rambling again. More comments?

-Chris

 

[dignitized]

kern:

No worse. They are often people who claim to be Christians yet they deny the divinity of Christ, the inspiration of the scriptures, the reality of the Eucharist . . . . the worst enemies of the church are not those atheists on the outside trying to tear it down, its those from within tearing it dow.

Any time you have people who are witness to an event, they will each have their own take on what happened. No two people will have seen the events the same way. Does that make their testimony false? On the contrary, if the testimony of two people agrees to closely that is a sure sign that something is wrong.

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Br. Max
kren, Most NEW biblical commentaries are written by biblical critics with an agenda to push. Its like these people get off on finding some way to make people disbelieve the scriptures. *sigh* And these people want to claim to be Christian??

The New Oxford Anotated Bible, which kern mentioned, is the prefered study Bible of the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul) Theology Department. It isn't a something written to make people disbelieve Scripture.

 

[Christopher Paul]

Originally posted by VOW
To Br Max:

We find the same problem with explaining the misconceptions of Catholicism to people who just KNOW Catholics worship Mary/believe in works-based Salvation/added books to the Bible/think the Pope is God/pray to statues/make up stuff and call it "Sacred Tradition."

/me sighs...

Suddenly, I'm very, very tired.



Peace,
~VOW

The really bad thing is that some Catholics believe these things as well, or at least, give off the impression of it.

 

 

[Hoonbaba]

Originally posted by fragmentsofdreams
The New Oxford Anotated Bible, which kern mentioned, is the prefered study Bible of the University of St. Thomas (St. Paul) Theology Department. It isn't a something written to make people disbelieve Scripture.

But the NOAB comments aren't the most encouraging either.  The book is very critical.

-Jason

 

[kern]

It depends on what you mean by "encouraging". If you're looking for every single word of the Bible to be literally true then it's not very encouraging. To me, it makes the Bible seem more "real" and thus more convincing to see the steps behind it. For instance, I have a hard time understanding Matthew as a literal sequential account of Jesus' life where every event and word is exactly what happened. It's much easier to see it as a theological tool which was not intended to be a biography of Jesus, but was compiled from traditions and sources that had come down to the author (though not far through time -- only 30 or 40 years, maybe a bit more). YMMV, but I like the criticism -- it doesn't weaken my faith or my view of the Bible.

Also not that "criticism" when used in the context of "textual criticism" does not have the same negative connotation as criticizing a person. The intent of criticism is not to destroy the Bible, but to figure out the method, purpose, and nature of its composition.

-Chris

 

[dignitized]

fragments: Is that a conservative seminary or a liberal one? Most liberal seminaries of both prot and catholic ilks are in their heart anti scripture, and anti Christian even while wearing Christian clothes. Its a "LORD LORD" kinda thing . . . .

 

[kern]

That seems a bit harsh. Someone is not a true Christian because they do Biblical scholarship?

-Chris

 

[fragmentsofdreams]

Originally posted by Br. Max
fragments: Is that a conservative seminary or a liberal one? Most liberal seminaries of both prot and catholic ilks are in their heart anti scripture, and anti Christian even while wearing Christian clothes. Its a "LORD LORD" kinda thing . . . .

While it is open to people of differing views, St. Thomas definitely leans conservative and its major and minor seminaries (St. Paul and St. John Vianney respectively) are definitely not liberal.

 

[isshinwhat]

Here's an interesting passage from Papias, a disciple of the Apostle John, concerning the Gospel of Mark.

And the presbyter [the Apostle John] said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him. But afterwards, as I said, he accompanied Peter, who accommodated his instructions to the necessities [of his hearers], but with no intention of giving a regular narrative of the Lord's sayings. Wherefore Mark made no mistake in thus writing some things as he remembered them. For of one thing he took especial care, not to omit anything he had heard, and not to put anything fictitious into the statements.

From the Fragments of Papias (150 A.D.) found in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 3:36:15

 

[kern]

A lot of modern Biblical criticism has its roots in the early church. For instance, the idea that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel of John dates back to the 2nd or 3rd century; it, too, is not some modern liberal theory designed to discredit scripture or anything like that.

-Chris

 

[isshinwhat]

Do you have a source for that statement, Chris? Every Father I have read, including several who either knew John personally, or were 2nd generation disciples of his, are in agreement that he wrote the Gospel which bears his name.

God Bless,

Neal

 

[kern]

I know the source I got it from (Interpreter's One Volume Commentary on the Bible), but I do not have the book so I can't quote it. It's in the "authorship" section of John. The idea did not gain much "popular" support until recent years, but it seems that there have always been people who considered the gospel to be written by multiple people, or in any case not by John.

-Chris

 

[dignitized]

Historically speaking, most of modern biblical criticism finds its roots in the secular humanist enlightenment and anti-scholasticism of the 19th century.

 

[dignitized]

I have no problem with better understand the scriptures or their origins and sources, what I do have a problem with is picking them apart and in anyway saying they are erroneous or false. If you make any such claims concerning scriptures, I must question if you truly are a Christian. It is a central tenant of the Christian faith - what more, of the Hebrew faith before and alongside that the scriptures are Divinely inspired and with out error. If the scriptures have error, then we have no foundations. With out scripture, what do we have to verify that what we believe is real??

 

[kern]

Sacred Tradition? That's what was used to determine what was scripture in the first place.

-Chris

 

[dignitized]

kern: tradition helps us to know what Texts are to be called scripture, but it is God and not tradition that inspires the scriptures.

Even the first Christians had the OT to reply on through the Septuigent translation.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by VOW
The Catholic Church teaches that Sacred Scripture is incomplete, it must be viewed together with Sacred Traditions. When the two are used together, there are no contradictions.

I would say the Church would necessarily say there are obvious contradictions in Scripture Alone, which merely points to the need for Sacred Tradition.


Peace,
~VOW

I'm a bit confused. Could you show an example of something where you feel that Scripture Alone contains a contradiction, and show how Sacred Tradition resolves it?