Ben Douglass is the most reasonable and congenial Catholic epologist I’ve had occasion to deal with. That may have something to do with the company he keeps.
As I look over his blog, it's revealing to see how often he must raid the pantry of Protestant scholarship to restock his Catholic cupboard (see below). For a traditionalist Catholic, the irony must be acute.
Mind you, I don’t say this as a criticism. Indeed, I think his taste in reading material is often impeccable. Given his fondness for, and dependence on, so many conservative Evangelical scholars, to bolster his high view of Scripture, it would represent a failure of hospitality on my part if I didn’t invite him to return to Mother Kirk.
Ben, the door is ajar. There’s a candle in the window. And we have a fatted calf roasting on the rotisserie. Come inside and join us!
*****************************************************************************************
He alleges a consensus of Bible scholars. But no such consensus exists. The field of Biblical scholarship is far from monolithic; Bible scholars span the entire theological spectrum and as such believe a myriad of contradictory ideas. Does Kersten include, within his supposed consensus of Bible scholars, Bauckham, Bruce, Carson, Metzger, Miguens, Wallace, or the Opus Dei scholars at Navarre?
Keil lists, as concrete examples, changes in the use of pronouns, the spelling of the demonstrative pronoun, the construction of infinitive verbs, the conjugation of third person plural verbs, and vocabulary.79 Most conclusively, Keil notes that the name "the Lord of hosts," Yahweh Sabaoth, is absent from the Pentateuch, even though it "was current as early as the time of Samuel and David, and so favourite a name with all the prophets."80 This datum is inconsistent with the supposition, required by the Documentary Hypothesis, that the Pentateuch was written concurrently with the prophets.
Reformed Evangelical scholar John Currid summarizes the refutation of this rationalist critical argument...81
Indeed, I may, with slight interpolation, make my own the words of the Protestant scholar C. F. Keil...86
[64] Protestants have often alleged that (a) the teachings of the Catholic Church cannot be infallible because they are not consistent over time, and (b) the Church's claim to be under the authority of the Word of God is disingenuous. If Kersten's description of Catholicism were accurate, both of these criticisms would be true, for in his view, (a) the Church's teaching on Scripture has changed, and (b) the Church can correct what is erroneous in Scripture.
[71] Cf. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis (Jerusalem, Israel: Shalem Press, 2006); Duane Garrett, Rethinking Genesis: The Sources and Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1991); Gleason Archer, A Survery of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1996).
[78] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. 1, Pentateuch (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006) p. 11.
[79] Ibid., pp. 11-12.
[80] Ibid., pp. 10.
[81] John D. Currid, A Study Commentary on Genesis, Volume 1 (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press, 2003) pp. 29-30.
http://www.pugiofidei.com/NAB.htm#3
Oh dear, this is bad news for the community of Catholic epologists, if I stand out as particularly reasonable and congenial among them. Thanks, in any case. If I am cordial, it has less to do with reading Protestant biblical scholarship than with getting a surfeit of apologetic nastiness in association with Bob Sungenis. Count me cloyed.
ReplyDeleteIn the opening statement of my recent sola Scriptura debate, I acknowledged my debt to Protestant scholarship for defending biblical inerrancy. As a traditionalist, I have no problem admitting that over the past 40-50 years Catholic scholars have dropped the ball when it comes to defending this element of our common heritage. This is simply another aspect of the multi-faceted crisis in the Church (which has scandalized Gerry Matatics and so many others). As a result of this, little inerrancy-affirming Catholic scholarship exists which is up-to-date, in print, and in English. So, I have to turn to Protestant authors for help. Scott Hahn's St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology is helping to rectify this situation. I see this task as part of my vocation.
In spite of my Lowlander last name, I have never been a Protestant (except in the sense of an unorthodox Catholic). My heritage is Catholic on my mother's side, and as far as I know, my father's as well. My father's mother was a devout half-German, half-Irish Catholic. I'm not sure what my father's father was raised, since he did not practice, and I never knew his father, my great-grandpa Douglass (although, apropos our recent discussion of ghosts, my mother claimed that a ghost visited my crib the night he died). Whatever Presbyterian heritage I may have is quite remote. So, Ah dinnae see the kirk as hame. Nevertheless, I appreciate the spirit of the invitation anaw.
Well, you and I share some common Celtic roots. What do you think of Capercaillie? I especially like Karen Matheson’s rendition of “Urnaigh A 'Bhan-Thigreach.”
ReplyDelete"In the opening statement of my recent sola Scriptura debate, I acknowledged my debt to Protestant scholarship for defending biblical inerrancy. As a traditionalist, I have no problem admitting that over the past 40-50 years Catholic scholars have dropped the ball when it comes to defending this element of our common heritage."
ReplyDeleteThanks Ben.
And if you recall, I cited and acknowledged your post translating another Catholic's work on the historical fact-narrative on the Book of Jonah when debating Catholics who dismiss the historicity of Jonah.
I recently stumbled across an interview with Aidan Nichols, OP, in which he endorses the same approach to Protestant scholarship which I use in my NAB critique:
ReplyDeleteIgnatiusInsight.com: [Lovely Like Jerusalem] draws deeply upon the work of several non-Catholic theologians. Did you intend it to be an ecumenical work of sorts? Who are some of the non-Catholic biblical scholars you think Catholics should be more aware of?
Nichols: It was an unintended consequence of Pius XII's opening out of biblical studies to contemporary historical-critical scholarship that by the end of the twentieth century Catholic exegesis became indistinguishable from Protestant. Until this situation has changed (and in the United States Timothy Luke Johnson has argued strongly for it to do so) the best course of action is to select biblical commentators of whatever denomination whose work seems to accord best with the Catholic understanding of Scripture as found in Tradition.
What do you think of Capercaillie?
ReplyDeleteTheir instrumentals are decent, but Karen Matheson's voice is fantastic. Unfortunately, none of the three CDs I currently have in my possession contains Urnaigh A 'Bhan-Thigreach, so I can't offer an opinion on that particular piece.
My favorite Capercaillie song would probably be Bonaparte: it's so funny to hear that beautiful feminine voice singing about pounding the French with the smashing of fists. I also love Four Stone Walls (a good distributist song), Seice Ruairidh, Hi Rim Bo, Rann Na Mona, Coisich a Ruin, Oh Mo Dhuthaich, Alasdair Mhic Cholla Ghasda, and Dean Cadalan Samhach.
Ben Douglass said...
ReplyDelete"Their instrumentals are decent, but Karen Matheson's voice is fantastic. Unfortunately, none of the three CDs I currently have in my possession contains Urnaigh A 'Bhan-Thigreach, so I can't offer an opinion on that particular piece."
It's on track #9 of this album:
http://www.amazon.com/Crosswinds-Capercaillie/dp/B000005CN9
Thanks. I know I used to have that album but cannot find it at present. The lyrics are beautiful, to say the least.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you might be interested to know that the Daniel chapter of the NAB article, which cites even more Protestant biblical scholarship (some of which discovered at this blog) is now online, as are the mp3s of my recent Sola Scriptura debate.
www.pugiofidei.com