Celebrity status: a national subculture names its drinking game after Scott Hahn

"New Scott Hahn Drinking Game Has Readers Taking Shot After Every Mention Of Word 'Covenant'” (Eye of the Tiber, June 29, 2014):

Steubenville, OH––A new, dangerous drinking game invented by Franciscan University of Steubenville sophomore Ben Johnson, known as Covenant, is sweeping Catholic universities. The game, which involves players reading any book ever published by Scott Hahn, and then taking a shot of whiskey or beer every time the word “covenant” is mentioned, is raising major concerns with university officials.

What originally started out as fun for some has now turned dangerous, officials are reporting, with one man listed in critical condition and at least 47 others being admitted to area hospitals for alcohol poisoning. Now health professionals are warning Catholics of the dangers of playing Covenant.

“This is one of, if not the most, lethal games I’ve ever come across,” said Dr. Candice Jarvis, medical adviser to the USCCB. “The thing about alcohol is that it affects your ability to recognize how many times Scott Hahn uses the word “covenant,” and it absolutely effects your ability to ask the question of whether or not there are any synonyms of the word he could be using. You go into the game thinking the word will be read two or three times, and next thing you know you’re on your 26th shot after just a few paragraphs. I’d even venture to say that it would be safer if students took a shot after every mention of the word ‘the.’”

Game creator Ben Johnson told EOTT this morning that the game is admittedly more dangerous and “way crazier” than the Rick Warren drinking game he played when he was an Evangelical. “In that game we’d chug Pepsi every time we came across the word ‘Purpose.’ The worst thing I ever witnessed playing that game was people getting major sugar highs.”

At press time, Scott Hahn has urged students to consider the potential “prophets and losses” of playing Covenant.

You know you've reached a level of celebrity worthy of stardom when a whole subculture begins naming drinking games after ya. Should I envy the man?

[Hat tip to Shawn McElhinney]

The Historical Roots and Untenable assumptions of Biblical "Historical Criticism"

Here's a book I wish I had written! Twice (once at Lenoir-Rhyne University in NC and once at Sacred Heart Major Seminary) I have taught courses on the philosophical background of historical-critical biblical hermeneutics.

So I am delighted that now, finally, someone has tackled head-on the overwhelming bias of modern "historical criticism," long treated as though it were something scientific, neutral and objective. The authors have painstakingly analyzed and exposed the uncritically-assumed philosophical biases underlying modern "higher criticism," showing in many cases how these assumptions were embraced for political reasons. From the late-medieval nominalist sources and concomitant univocal conceptions of God up through 17th century critics, the authors leave nearly no stone unturned. Interestingly, their books ends where others usually begin, thus giving the sorely missing background to later developments.

The book, of course, is Scott W. Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's Politicizing the Bible: The Roots of Historical Criticism and the Secularization of Scripture 1300-1700(Crossroads, Herder & Herder, 2013).

Chapters are devoted to Marsilius of Padua, William of Ockham, John Wycliffe, Machiavelli, Luther & the 'Reformation', England and Henry VIII, Descartes, Hobbes, Spinioza, the Enlightenment, Richard Simon, John Locke, and John Toland. I was surprised there was no mention of the indirect influence of Islamic traditions of Qur'anic interpretation on western Biblical interpretation, and I might have devoted far more attention to the influence of Kantian philosophical assumptions on the "Jesus of History" vs. "Christ of Faith" dichotomy, and of the neo-Kantians (and, later, of Heidegger) on thinkers like Barth and Bultmann.

Yet this is an invaluable and truly ground-breaking study, and one I recommend to ANYONE (and certainly students of Scripture) interested in making their way safely through the minefields of contemporary Biblical studies and the widely and uncritically accepted historical-critical assumptions such as the Documentary Hypothesis, 'JEDP' source criticism in the OT (which I have seen even in footnotes of NAB Catholic Study Bibles!), redaction criticism, form criticism, Q as the source of Mark, etc.

Hahn New Testament with notes & commentary: endorsements

A reader writes:

Hahn's love of bad puns drives me nuts. But who cares! He has to be the answer to years of prayers for someone to cap the gushing well of liberal Scripture scholarship that was set loose last century with so much toxic damage. It's a certifiable miracle when arguably the most conservative Bible dictionary out today is published by Doubleday, or when Ignatius, the same publishing house that prints DeLubac and Balthasar, also happily and without as much as a hiccup prints a study Bible with notes every bit as conservative as anything printed by Crossway. And when a pro-gay marriage advocate at NRO can write an endorsement of it!

Speaking of whom, he also refers us to the following brief notice by Mike Potemra, "New Catholic Study New Testament" (National Review Online, May 26, 2010):

I recently got hold of an advance copy of Ignatius Press’s Ignatius Catholic Study Bible New Testament, and I recommend it strongly for Catholic parish Bible study groups and for personal reading. (While Catholic distinctives are addressed in the notes, the tone is not that of hectoring apologetics; typical Protestant readers, therefore, can profit from reading them. The only reason I don’t go particularly out of my way to recommend the book to that audience is that Protestants already have an embarrassment of riches when it comes to study Bibles, while this book meets a long-unmet need among Catholics for a conservative Bible resource.) The articles are impressively lucid — I was quite taken, in particular, with the editors’ fascinating suggested explanation for why Luke may have been right, after all, about the census of Quirinius; and their exposition of why Paul’s doctrine on faith and works does not conflict with that of James. The book is, in addition, quite a bargain — 711 large-format pages, with very clear print and maps, for $21.95, or, at Amazon, $14.93. Kudos to Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch, who developed the book.

Hahn was a Presbyterian minister and is a Catholic convert, and his work combines the former’s love of Scripture with the latter’s love of the broader tradition of historical Western Christianity. (If he shepherds through an Old Testament volume of proportionate size to this one, he will also deserve credit for improving the physical fitness of any readers who chooses to carry it around without a wheelbarrow.)

[Hat tip to J.M.]

For the record: an exchange between Scott Hahn & Dale Vree

Scott Hahn recently responded in a letter to the editor of the New Oxford Review to criticisms of his views of the Holy Spirit as follows:

In response to your New Oxford Note "A Little Bit of Gnosticism" (Feb.) about me, I have to wonder whether you read what I wrote about the Holy Spirit.

First, I expressly deny that the Holy Spirit is feminine, in both the hardcover and paperback editions of my book First Comes Love. In this connection, I cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and its teaching about God: "He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective 'perfections' of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband" (#370).

Second, I always refer to the Holy Spirit as "He" -- never "She" -- in all my writings and teachings.

Third, it is absurd to say that modern defenders of Gnosticism (such as Elaine Pagels) derive any support whatsoever from exploratory study of maternal aspects of God and the Holy Spirit, whether by me or the orthodox Catholics I cite (e.g., St. Ephrem, St. Methodius, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Edith Stein, Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, Louis Bouyer, Matthias Scheeben).

Fourth, what you imply about me supporting lesbian marriage is unspeakably vile and slanderous. And on what basis do you argue: That if the Spirit has a maternal function, then Jesus had two mommies? The same twisted and perverse logic could be turned right around to show that Dale Vree, the Editor of the NOR, must support gay marriage between men: "If the Spirit's role is really paternal, then Jesus had two daddies -- at least (the first and third Persons of the Trinity), not to mention St. Joseph." As I said, this is twisted and perverse.

Your readers deserve better. Indeed, I invite them to read my chapter and judge for themselves, which they can now find online (courtesy of Doubleday).

NOR Editor, Dale Vree, replied as follows:

Yes, we read what you say about the Holy Spirit carefully, twice and sometimes thrice.

(1) Just to cite your paperback version. You do say the Holy Spirit is feminine. You say: "In Syriac as in Hebrew, the word for Spirit, ruah, is feminine, and so it ordinarily called for a feminine pronoun" (p. 160). You say: "Christians often interpreted the Bible's wisdom passages as referring to the Holy Spirit.... In the Book of Wisdom, chapters 7-9, God's Wisdom is referred to as 'holy spirit'.... The Hebrew word for Wisdom, hokmak, is also feminine..." (p. 161). You say: "Dominican theologian Father Benedict Ashley.... concludes 'it is to the Third Person of the Trinity...that the Old Testament descriptions of the feminine Wisdom are applied.' And his conclusion seems very reasonable" (p. 162). You say: "Etymology doesn't usually make for good biblical theology; but these cases might be an exception. The great Dominican Thomist Father Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange said: 'Since "Spirit" -- in Hebrew, Ruah -- is of the feminine gender...'" (p. 163). You say: "St. Edith Stein [said]...'Such love is properly the attribute of the Holy Spirit. Thus we can see the prototype of the feminine being in the Spirit of God...'" (p. 165). You wrote it. How can you deny it?

As for your quote from the Catechism (#370), the Catechism preponderantly says that God is our Father (#233, 238-40, 268-70, 272-74, 278, 2779-85, 2794-2802). As you say in a subtext, God is "Still Our Father" (pp. 166-67).

(2) As we said in our New Oxford Note (Feb.), Hahn says: "We know Who the Spirit is by what He does, and what the Spirit does is bridal and maternal..." (italics added). No "He" (the Holy Spirit) can be bridal or maternal. You might just as well have said the Holy Spirit is a "She."

(3) It is not just the modern defenders of gnosticism who say the Holy Spirit is maternal or motherly, it was also the bogus gnostic gospels. In the authentic Gospel of John, Jesus repeatedly calls the Holy Spirit "He" and "Him." And in the Catechism, the Holy Spirit is repeatedly called "he" and "him" (e.g., #683, 687, 1092, 1107, 1129, 2652).

(4) We would be startled if you would support lesbian "marriage," but that's where your argument leads. If Mary was female or maternal, and if the Holy Spirit is female or feminine and maternal, then Jesus had two mommies, which validates lesbian "marriage." No, Dale Vree does not support "gay marriage" between men: The Holy Spirit is paternal and Mary is maternal. That's the proper order.

We said in our New Oxford Note (Feb.) that "Hahn brings in Pope Benedict XVI to support his views.... [But] Hahn completely misreads it [Benedict's June 8, 2005, General Audience]." We noticed that you do not defend that argument -- and you can't.

Yes, we encourage our readers to judge for themselves at your website.

I would urge my readers not to jump to hasty conclusions, but to read and consider both letters with care and sensitivity for the details and nuances of truth, and, in commenting, to do so with considered charity.

[Scott Hahn is Professor of Theology and Scripture at Franciscan University of Steubenville, a popular Catholic speaker, and author of many books, including First Comes Love: Finding Your Family in the Church and the Trinity (Image, Reprint ed., 2006). Dale Vree is founder and editor of the New Oxford Review. The two articles above were originally published under the titles of "Scott Hahn Defends Himself" and "The Editor Replies" in New Oxford Review (May 2007), pp. 10-11, and are reprinted here by kind permission of New Oxford Review, 1069 Kains Ave., Berkeley CA 94706, U.S.A.]

Online Appendix to Scott Hahn's The Family Spirit

A reader notes that Scott Hahn addresses many of the concerns raised concerning controverted points in his writing concerning the perfection of spiritual maternity and its relation to the Church, to Mary, and to the Holy Spirit in the online Appendix [PDF file] to his book, The Family Spirit.

[Hat tip to Sun and Wine]

A public apology to Scott Hahn

Just for the record, and to prevent any further misunderstanding, I want to apologize for publishing unedited and without any qualifying explanation a guest essay that included a passing swipe at Professor Hahn. I would not ordinarily do this sort of thing, Pertinacious Papist that I am, but Scott is a good friend of mine whose friendship and reputation I value, and I would not want to tarnish these in any way.

"The gnostic temptation: Theology as Literary Criticism" is in my opinion an otherwise fine essay by another respected friend, Ralph Roister-Doister, which raises some very important and timely issues about postmodern theological trends. I suppose Ralph's sense of humor sometimes gets the better of him. A passing reference to "Scott Hahn's Archie 'n' Jughead promotion of the family as a suitable symbol for the triune God" was offensive, as suggested by several individuals, and I should have requested its deletion before publishing it. In interests of full disclosure, I went ahead and published the piece despite Ralph's second thoughts about it, and so that was my responsibility. In any case, as readers who pursued the discussion into the accompanying combox are aware, further qualifying remarks were offered by myself and others a propos those remarks, at least indirectly. But I now recognize the insufficiency of those remarks. The essay itself should have not been posted unedited.

Accordingly, I have edited out the "Archie 'n' Jughead" swipe. Ralph is still well within his rights to raise the questions he does about von Balthasar and Hahn, although the more obvious target of his criticism, in my opinion, would be postmodern Catholic scholars such as Fr. Joseph O'Leary, John Dominic Crossan, Thomas Sheehan, Mary Daly, Richard Rohr, and the like.

I do not expect the issues surrounding Hahn's proposals regarding the Holy Spirit to be settled soon, any more than I would expect the same of von Balthasar's proposals regarding the hope that all men might be saved. What I hope for, as I'm sure Scott does, is a robust discussion of these issues with a passion for truth ameliorated by honesty and charity.

Update 4/10/07

Related reading that may be of interest includes the online Appendix [PDF file] to Scott Hahn's The Family Spirit, which touches on the controverted points regarding the perfection of spiritual maternity and its relation to the Church, to Mary, and to the Holy Spirit.