Biblical criticism in the life of the Church

A reader recently wrote me with a number of thoughtful observations, which, I think, merit discussion. I share them with you here for your reflection and comments:

I really, really think a history of biblical criticism and the Catholic Church needs writing, and would have far more impact than many of the books being cranked out looking at individual books of Scripture. Especially in light of the Biblical Renewal jag. A generation ago there were names Hugh Pope and G. Ricciotti and Cuthbert Lattey. Now folks like Scott Hahn have to labor alone and landlocked, under the label of 'Fundamentalism.' And Brown and Fitzsmyer are meanwhile enshrined as the watershed figures, while Ignatius Press diplomatically demurs from publishing George Kelley's dead-on 'New Biblical Theorists.'

I think part of the problem is Catholicism's reliance on theology and philosophy over and above Scripture on a clerical level. Hence the Nouvelle Theologians were oblivious to the threat [historical criticism] posed, since they were dealing with things on a higher theoretical level in their minds.

The just-ended Synod does not seem too much more encouraging, given the 'fear' of 'Literalism' and embarrassed attitude towards the Old Testament, so I don't know when the self-inflicted wounding will cease. At least Providence keeps anyone from saying or defining anything bad in an officious sense. That much is a cause for gratitude.

But this is a fascinating conversation. Reminds me at the start of Sobrino at Catholic Analysis who also sees great things from the Synod [Link]

Scroll down to read the comment by Josh S about fusing middle ages pontifical attitudes to higher criticism and the resulting cognitive dissonance. A Eureka moment for my confused thoughts:

What I am saying is that if one were to apply the same historical-critical tools to the Assumption story, one ends up with the same conclusions that your average Jesuit scholar draws about the most of the Bible–the Assumption story is a mythic expression of the piety of later Christians. Papal infallibility is supposed to be the safeguard, but it ends up in a tension, because Catholic scholars have the “liberal critic” mask they wear when dealing with the Bible, but the “unquestioning fundamendalist” mask they put on when the criticism is about to push them into denying this or that medieval theory or story. A good example is Al Kimel arguing that indeed, historical criticism proves that Paul didn’t write most of the letter attributed to him, but since God guided the Church to infallibly define the canon, we can still rest assured that they are the Word of God.

In other words, 20th century historical criticism gets fused with 19th-century anti-modernist infallibility theories. The result is redefinition of just about everything you can find pertaining to Scripture and dogma in pre-V2 Catholic literature and dogma.

To those of us on the outside, the incongruity in Catholic thought is real and obvious. You can’t spend half your time attacking and undermining Hebrew miracle stories as myths and jeer at people who believe the Bible is inerrant, then insist that everyone believe certain medieval miracle stories are literally true because papal dogmas are inerrant. Excommunicating Hans Kueng was only a stopgap measure and did nothing to address the underlying problem.

Also: [comment by 'Greg']

Fitzmyer, Brown, Meier, et al don’t really believe in the historicity of much of the Gospels. Honestly, if you really read them, you would know that. As “magisterial” as Birth/Death of the Messiah may be in one sense, they are essentially arguments that the pertinent elements of Scripture are nothing more than pastiche. Same with Meier’s major two volumes.

Michael, if you wonder why Catholics aren’t evangelistic it is because they are preached at by priests who have been trained in seminaries in which these guys are the center of exegesis, therefore they have no compelling reason to believe any of it is true, and their preaching shows it.

The idea that Reese was removed by B16 is a myth, unsubstantiated, promoted coyly by Reese himself. If you go back and trace the chronology, what you find is that Reese resigned very soon after B16 was elected, dropping all kinds of hints that he was removed, but never directly coming out and saying so. It was fairly despicable.

I, too, attend Catholic schools in the 1970’s. We were given a Jerusalem Bible in the first week of 9th grade, read it throughout the curriculum and read Dei Verbum as well. Tough slog, that last one, was, but nonetheless, we read it. Anecdotes are pretty useless. They only express one individual’s experience, not the general picture.

And then this: "The Vanishing Bible" (Off the Record, November 19, 2004):

I was reminded in this connection of an excellent article by Prof. James Hitchcock, in which he explains how it happened that the considerable Catholic hunger for Sacred Scripture was exploited so as to undercut the very reasons that gave birth to it. An excerpt:

Well-meaning, not highly educated Catholics who eagerly joined bible-study groups after the Council not uncommonly found their inherited faith shaken, as they were invited -- by group leaders and by written materials -- to scrutinize Catholic teachings and practices sceptically and to measure them against the New Testament in classical Protestant fashion, a scrutiny which usually seemed to work to the Church's disadvantage. Although this was not their original intention, many people became liberal Catholics through the medium of Bible study. (Thus liberal Catholics are quick to ask, for example, "Where does the New Testament condemn homosexuality?" or "Where does it say that women cannot be ordained priests?")

Such attitudes would be defensible if they rested on an unwavering confidence in Scripture as the revealed Word of God. However, Catholic Bible study after the Council also moved towards a liberal Protestant scepticism towards the Scripture itself, so that in a way it became irrelevant what the Bible might or might not say about a particular question, since it is naive and obscurantist to assume that the Scripture in some direct way constitutes the Word of God.

In effect liberals first used the Bible to "deconstruct" the teachings of the Church, then in turn "deconstructed" the Bible itself. The result -- intended by some, stumbled into by others -- was to eliminate all objective source of religious authority, leaving the individual as the ultimate judge of authentic belief.

The entire article -- it's not long -- repays a careful reading. It's an open question whether a new initiative to encourage Bible-reading would ultimately strengthen faith, or would be hijacked by the familiar summer-workshop-apparat and used to advance its own agenda. As Hitchcock points out, the institutional precedents are not reassuring:

In the final and most astonishing irony, modern biblical scholarship is unable to explain why the Bible should be studied at all, except as an important historical document, or why it should be accorded any unusual respect. Only the Church can justify this, but it has been precisely the rule of modern scholarship to exclude the Church from any meaningful capacity to interpret Scripture. Thus, if it continues on its present well-worn path, even moderate biblical scholarship will continue to contribute to the undermining of the Bible’s influence over human hearts and minds, not exactly what was intended when Catholics of thirty years ago were urged to make themselves more biblical

Our correspondent concludes his email:

The whole thing is aggravated by the question, if the Bible is reliable like conservatives propose, WHY does the evidence so mislead great minds? Why does the [Pontifical Biblical Commission] trip over itself acknowledging newer scholarship but ignoring NT Wright? Why was Raymond Brown so convinced of the nebulous nature of evidence? Why can Newsweek's Meachem write a great bio of Hamilton and then flounder on the New Testament? In a vaguely related phenom., why can Luke Timothy Johnson write on the Gospels and get it, and so miss the boat on Papal Infallibility? Quite a mystery.

But perhaps the tide is turning just a bit. A while back Our Sunday Visitor had a cover story by Scott Hahn suggesting Matthew was actually the first Gospel after all. And, Get... THIS... Aidan Nichols' new book on the Old Testament actually suggests perhaps there was only one Isaiah. Whaaaat?! I have never EVER seen such [a position] condoned by a name Catholic academic writing today before now. Quite amazing and encouraging. Perhaps there are cracks in the damn.

[Hat tip to J.M.]