Hey guys,
I was on amazon.com and I saw a review which caught my attention. I was wondering if anyone can contribute their thoughts on the following review. I'll quote it here in full:
whoops....I just realized I pasted the wrong review!! sorry about that! here's the real one I wanted to share
----------------------------------------------
I share a number of similarities with Scott Hahn. In may ways I have had a similar spiritual pilgrimage to him. We even attended the same American Protestant seminary - Gordon Conwell in Boston. He graduated with highest honors a few years before I graduated with highest honors. But whereas he converted from Evangelicalism to Catholicism, I have remained in the Evangelical camp. So this review reflects some major theological differences.
At the outset it can be said that Roman Catholics will (or should) like this book. It is an impressive defense of the veneration to Mary afforded by the Catholic church. As a convert to Catholicism, Hahn is both a passionate and an articulate defender of Catholic doctrinal teaching. And as a former Evangelical apologist, he is a skilled debater and thoroughly conversant with the biblical and theological issues at stake.
What does a Protestant make of his work? As can be imagined, differences of opinion will abound. One key issue is that of authority. Protestants tend to look to Scripture as the final word of authority. Thus the doctrine of Mary, like any other, is judged from that basis.
Hahn argues that Mary "fills the pages of Scripture"; that "Marion types abound in the Old Testament"; and Mary can readily be found in passages such as Rev. 11 and 12.
But except for Acts 1:14, Mary is mentioned nowhere else outside of the gospels., and no clear Marion types exist. And many Patristic interpreters regarded Rev. 12 as referring to the church, not Mary. Indeed, the idea that it refers to Mary and her assumption does not seem to be held by any of the early fathers. Likewise, the doctrine of the immaculate conception does not appear until the fifth century (and was rejected by Anselm, and Aquinas, among others).
Hahn also attempts to prove that Mary is the "mother of God". But when the fifth-century fathers used the phrase, it was in order to uphold Christ's deity, and only later did it become a title to uphold honor to Mary. At Chalcedon for example "theotokos" (God-bearer) was used, but the supplementary phrase by Cyril, "mater theou" (Mother of God) was rejected.
He also argues that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that Jesus had no brothers or sisters. Concerning the former, biblical support is sorely lacking. Even, the late Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown can speak of the "dubious methodology of assuming without proof Lucan knowledge of Mary's lifetime virginity".
He claims that the references to brothers and sisters actually refer to cousins.. But as Brown says, this is "a thesis that in truth faces enormous difficulties". And Roman Catholic scholar J.P. Meier argues that "from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings".
Nowhere in the NT does the word adelphos (brother) mean cousin. Indeed, the NT has another word, anepsios which is used for cousin (eg., Col. 4:10). While adelphos can mean relative, the contexts in the gospels make blood brother the logical usage.
Hahn also makes much of passages like Luke 1:42 where Elizabeth exclaims: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!" But in the OT there are similar descriptions. In Judges 5:24 we find the prophet Deborah praising Jael: "Blessed be Jael among women". And in the apocryphal Judith 13:18 Uzzziah says of Judith, "Blest of God Most High are you, daughter, above all the women of the earth".
Appeal is also made to Luke 1:48 where Mary says,. "From now on all generations will call me blessed". But as Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer explains, this is "not because of any intrinsic, personal holiness or merit, but because of him whom she is bearing". And again, it is not unique to Mary. A similar phrase can be found in the case of Leah: "How blessed I am! All women will count me blessed" (Gen. 30:13).
As Brown puts it, "This OT background suggests that Mary's blessing is not purely a personal one. She has a role in God's plan for His people because she has conceived the Messiah who will be the glory of Israel (Luke 2:32)".
Indeed, Jesus at times seems to rebuke his mother or claims made about her. For example: "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.' He replied, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it'." (Luke 11:27-28)
Hahn maintains that the word translated "rather" can be used in different senses. Yes, but most careful NT scholars recognise that here it is being used as a correction or modification. If Jesus wanted on this occasion to elevate Mary, he could clearly have chosen less ambiguous terminology.
And consider John 2:3-4: "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine'. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what have I to do with you?' My hour is not yet come." Hahn says these words do "not signify reproach or disrespect" However, the use of the formula is one that conveys disagreement, with the point in question being disputed. Indeed, the idiom always denotes a distance between the two parties.
Other objections could be raised. But as I said, Catholics will find this a welcome addition to the growing arsenal of Catholic apologetics (of which Hahn has been a major contributor). Protestants will find much of interest here, and some may be persuaded. But many will remain unconvinced. But the debate is worth pursuing, and Hahn has positioned himself as a formidable defender of his new found faith. For both sides of the debate, anyone interested in the subject of Mary will find this a stimulating and challenging book.
----------------------------------------------
Thanks in advance! =)
-Jason
I was on amazon.com and I saw a review which caught my attention. I was wondering if anyone can contribute their thoughts on the following review. I'll quote it here in full:
whoops....I just realized I pasted the wrong review!! sorry about that! here's the real one I wanted to share
----------------------------------------------
I share a number of similarities with Scott Hahn. In may ways I have had a similar spiritual pilgrimage to him. We even attended the same American Protestant seminary - Gordon Conwell in Boston. He graduated with highest honors a few years before I graduated with highest honors. But whereas he converted from Evangelicalism to Catholicism, I have remained in the Evangelical camp. So this review reflects some major theological differences.
At the outset it can be said that Roman Catholics will (or should) like this book. It is an impressive defense of the veneration to Mary afforded by the Catholic church. As a convert to Catholicism, Hahn is both a passionate and an articulate defender of Catholic doctrinal teaching. And as a former Evangelical apologist, he is a skilled debater and thoroughly conversant with the biblical and theological issues at stake.
What does a Protestant make of his work? As can be imagined, differences of opinion will abound. One key issue is that of authority. Protestants tend to look to Scripture as the final word of authority. Thus the doctrine of Mary, like any other, is judged from that basis.
Hahn argues that Mary "fills the pages of Scripture"; that "Marion types abound in the Old Testament"; and Mary can readily be found in passages such as Rev. 11 and 12.
But except for Acts 1:14, Mary is mentioned nowhere else outside of the gospels., and no clear Marion types exist. And many Patristic interpreters regarded Rev. 12 as referring to the church, not Mary. Indeed, the idea that it refers to Mary and her assumption does not seem to be held by any of the early fathers. Likewise, the doctrine of the immaculate conception does not appear until the fifth century (and was rejected by Anselm, and Aquinas, among others).
Hahn also attempts to prove that Mary is the "mother of God". But when the fifth-century fathers used the phrase, it was in order to uphold Christ's deity, and only later did it become a title to uphold honor to Mary. At Chalcedon for example "theotokos" (God-bearer) was used, but the supplementary phrase by Cyril, "mater theou" (Mother of God) was rejected.
He also argues that Mary was a perpetual virgin and that Jesus had no brothers or sisters. Concerning the former, biblical support is sorely lacking. Even, the late Catholic NT scholar Raymond Brown can speak of the "dubious methodology of assuming without proof Lucan knowledge of Mary's lifetime virginity".
He claims that the references to brothers and sisters actually refer to cousins.. But as Brown says, this is "a thesis that in truth faces enormous difficulties". And Roman Catholic scholar J.P. Meier argues that "from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings".
Nowhere in the NT does the word adelphos (brother) mean cousin. Indeed, the NT has another word, anepsios which is used for cousin (eg., Col. 4:10). While adelphos can mean relative, the contexts in the gospels make blood brother the logical usage.
Hahn also makes much of passages like Luke 1:42 where Elizabeth exclaims: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!" But in the OT there are similar descriptions. In Judges 5:24 we find the prophet Deborah praising Jael: "Blessed be Jael among women". And in the apocryphal Judith 13:18 Uzzziah says of Judith, "Blest of God Most High are you, daughter, above all the women of the earth".
Appeal is also made to Luke 1:48 where Mary says,. "From now on all generations will call me blessed". But as Catholic scholar Joseph Fitzmyer explains, this is "not because of any intrinsic, personal holiness or merit, but because of him whom she is bearing". And again, it is not unique to Mary. A similar phrase can be found in the case of Leah: "How blessed I am! All women will count me blessed" (Gen. 30:13).
As Brown puts it, "This OT background suggests that Mary's blessing is not purely a personal one. She has a role in God's plan for His people because she has conceived the Messiah who will be the glory of Israel (Luke 2:32)".
Indeed, Jesus at times seems to rebuke his mother or claims made about her. For example: "As Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, 'Blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you.' He replied, 'Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it'." (Luke 11:27-28)
Hahn maintains that the word translated "rather" can be used in different senses. Yes, but most careful NT scholars recognise that here it is being used as a correction or modification. If Jesus wanted on this occasion to elevate Mary, he could clearly have chosen less ambiguous terminology.
And consider John 2:3-4: "And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus said to him, 'They have no wine'. Jesus said to her, 'Woman, what have I to do with you?' My hour is not yet come." Hahn says these words do "not signify reproach or disrespect" However, the use of the formula is one that conveys disagreement, with the point in question being disputed. Indeed, the idiom always denotes a distance between the two parties.
Other objections could be raised. But as I said, Catholics will find this a welcome addition to the growing arsenal of Catholic apologetics (of which Hahn has been a major contributor). Protestants will find much of interest here, and some may be persuaded. But many will remain unconvinced. But the debate is worth pursuing, and Hahn has positioned himself as a formidable defender of his new found faith. For both sides of the debate, anyone interested in the subject of Mary will find this a stimulating and challenging book.
----------------------------------------------
Thanks in advance! =)
-Jason
