Well, considering the name “Peter” means “rock,” I’m thinkin’ he is.
But Michael Barber, professor of theology at John Paul the Great Catholic University has decided to spend some time – and blog-posts – studying the issue in a little more depth. Here is Part I.
Check it out!
Quick question: have you ever met anyone who likes The New American Bible? Me neither.
The NAB, which is the official translation used during Mass in the United States, first entered this world, like me, in 1970. Also like me, it is starting to show its age. Unlike the King James or the Douay-Rheims, the NAB is unable to escape from its origins and reading it is like opening a time capsule and entering 1970 all over again. Because of this, Cistercian monk Br. Stephen makes a great suggestion: let’s retire the NAB:
The NAB, with its self-consciously contemporary prose of 1970, lacks the necessary timelessness to succeed as religious prose, possessing neither consciously sacral language that takes the reader out of the present moment nor the sort of unobtrusive good writing that allows the word of God to speak across time. With age, the idiom of the NAB has become a period piece, carrying us back two full generations to the blunt ugliness of the aesthetics of socialist realism and other ideas about language and literature that failed to win a lasting cultural berth. Today, its awkward phrasing may remind the reader not so much of the small, still voice of God as of the staccato earnestness of James T. Kirk on the bridge of the Enterprise. In attempting to be current, the translators left us with something that was already becoming dated by the time their work was in print.
And lest anyone think that the NAB is somehow the only English version approved for liturgical use, note that in many English-speaking countries the translation used for the liturgy is the Jerusalem Bible (my personal favorite), and the Douay-Rheims is still used for the Extraordinary Form of the Mass, even in this country. So we already have approved English translations to choose from.
Along with Br. Stephen, it is my prayer that the NAB is retired before I am.
Whenever there is a debate between Christians today about some theological point, one question is sure to be fired off: “Where in the Bible is that?” Whether the topic is infant baptism, purgatory, justification by faith alone or the assumption of Mary, Scriptural support is demanded for one’s views. And for good reason; after all, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and therefore, if a belief is found in the Bible, then surely it is true.
However, there is a false presupposition lurking behind this question, one that is commonly held by Christians today. It is the presupposition that the Bible is the source of Christian doctrine, that the Bible contains all the teachings of the Christian Faith and its purpose is to be a catechism of sorts for our teachings and beliefs. Although many Catholics have this presupposition, it is foundational to Protestantism. If you read just about any book from your local Family Bookstore (a chain of Protestant Christian bookstores), the language used in them is soaked with this presupposition: “The Bible teaches…”, “The Bible says…”, “we see from the Bible that…”.
However, this presupposition is not only false, it is illogical and contrary to history. Let us look at Salvation History for a minute and see how our Faith was passed on to us:
We can see from this short recounting that the content of our Faith – the “Gospel” – was passed on to future generations by two methods: (oral) preaching (a.k.a. Tradition) and writings (a.k.a. Scripture). Then the college of bishops – the “Magisterium”, or teaching office of the Church – continued to preach that Gospel through time, making sure that it was not deformed or altered. But it is important to know the order of priority: the Gospel is the content of the Faith, and oral preaching and writings are the methods in which they are passed on.
(An aside: an objection might be raised that the way we know about Salvation History is through the Bible, so the Bible is “before” the Gospel. However, at this point, we are looking at the Bible as strictly a history book, not an inspired text. One would not think that a book about Socrates is the source of his life and teachings; instead, it simply recounts what we know about him.)
So if we want to know the source of the content of our Faith, we must look to the Gospel, which includes the life of ancient Israel and is fulfilled completely in the person of Jesus Christ and his life, teachings, works and passion.
This idea that there is one pre-existing Gospel and then two methods in which we receive that Gospel has been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church since its earliest days. In the second century, St. Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, wrote Against Heresies, which defended the Catholic Faith against the various false teachings of his day. It is a somewhat difficult work, but if you have a moment, take some time to read Book III from the Preface through Chapter 3. In that famous section, Irenaeus lays out his defense of how he knows the heretics are wrong and he is right. His logic is as follows:
And the Church today follows this same divine logic. In Dei Verbum, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, the Church beautifully and clearly articulates the relationship between the Gospel (also called “Revelation”), Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium. Sections 1-6 discuss Revelation being given from God, and then section 7-9 note the two ways in which that Revelation is handed on to us, and finally section 10 notes the role of the Magisterium in guarding and teaching that deposit of faith.
None of this means, of course, that any part of the Gospel will contradict Scripture, Tradition or the teaching of the Magisterium. The “glue,” so to speak, which holds all these parts together in one unified whole is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the originator of the content of the Gospel, the inspiration of the Scriptures, the guide of Tradition, and the protector from error of the Magisterium. Man would not be able to keep a consistent teaching for even a few decades under his own power, but with the Holy Spirit involved, the Church is able to pass on the authentic and saving Gospel to all generations.
So when someone asks, “where in the Bible does it say…”, you can know that if the Catholic Church teaches it, it is part of the saving Gospel, which precedes the Bible and is the source of its content.
It is a common myth that Protestants are better at Bible studies than Catholics. I say “myth” because that view only takes into account the past twenty or so years. The truth is that the Catholic Church has been studying the Bible for almost 2,000 years now and has developed many great ways for its members to swim deeply in the Sacred Page. Marcel LeJeune over at Aggie Catholics has a great post which reviews some of those methods:
10 Ways to Study and Pray With The Bible
Check it out!
Today is the anniversary of the birth of one of the most influential Scripture scholars who ever lived: Rudolf Bultmann. Bultmann’s impact on the theological world cannot be underestimated; if you pick up just about any scholarly work on Scripture or Christology written in the past fifty years, there is a very good chance that Bultmann’s name will be mentioned.
Bultmann’s greatest influence was in advocating for a complete split between history and faith (see my post yesterday about this subject). He advocated “demythologizing” the New Testament by stripping it of any supernatural content, thus discovering the true history behind it. Actually, he claimed that the Gospels were not even historical documents, but merely the proclamation of the message of the early Christian community. Even though not all the specifics of Bultmann’s teachings are accepted in modern scholarship, his underlying presuppositions and assumptions still rule the world of Scripture scholarship and Christology.
One of the primary purposes of Pope Benedict’s Jesus of Nazareth series is to combat the work of Bultmann and his followers; in fact, the pope directly addresses Bultmann and his arguments numerous times in the first volume of Jesus of Nazareth. Pope Benedict recognizes that true faith and history are not in opposition, but instead that the Christian faith is founded on real historical events. Another critic of Bultmann’s false separation has been Fr. Benedict Groeschel, C.F.R. I was humbled when Fr. Benedict considered my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew, which uses modern scholarship but is not a scholarly work, as one small contribution in combating the false presuppositions and conclusions of Bultmann. Fr. Benedict writes in the Foreword:
Beginning with the pope himself, the effort to present the faithful with an adequate picture of Christ is well underway. It is an effort well supported by Eric Sammons. I hope that in years to come, he will follow this book up with later volumes on the other evangelists. I also hope that we will see more and more books like this, intelligent and erudite, yet accessible, on our Divine Savior and his life and personality. It is time to reject and reverse the influence of writers like Rudolf Bultmann, who dismantled the picture of Christ, leaving us only with remnants. In the place of such destruction we now have books like Who Is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew — books that rebuild or, rather, reveal anew the true picture of Christ.
We must always remember that our Christian Faith is not founded on myths in some pre-historic past, but on the historical and reliable witness of the first followers of Christ.
This sounds a bit like the old standard, “Who is buried in Grant’s tomb?” But of course the answer to many people today is no longer the obvious one: the apostle Matthew.
I have studied the issue of the authorship of the New Testament books for over a decade now, and my own thoughts on the matter have varied over the years. When I was an Evangelical Christian, I unthinkingly accepted the traditional authorship of all the NT books – Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew, Paul wrote the epistles which bear his name, etc. However, a few years after becoming Catholic and studying the issue more in-depth, I began to accept the scholarly consensus: that many NT books, including all of the Gospels except perhaps Luke, were not written by the traditionally-accepted author. After resting on that opinion for a few years, I then revisited the debate and the more I studied the issue, the less confident I grew in the “established” scholarship. So much of it, on further analysis, was based on false presuppositions and wild assumptions. Then, when I was writing my book Who is Jesus Christ? Unlocking the Mystery in the Gospel of Matthew (available for pre-order now!), the issue came up again, as I had to decide if I was going to assume that the apostle Matthew was the author of this Gospel or not.
Ultimately, I have stuck to my final conclusion: I find that there is no reason not to accept the apostle Matthew as the author of the Gospel of Matthew. I don’t hold this as 100% scientifically provable, but no scholarly argument convinces me otherwise. In fact, I find many of the hypotheses posited for non-Matthean authorship to require a great deal more faith than just recognizing the apostle as the author. Furthermore, most of the arguments advanced in favor of authorship by a “Matthean community” (which never seems to include Matthew himself) rests on extreme speculation which has no empirical evidence.
I do believe it is quite possible that the Gospel as we have it today is not in every word exactly like the one that Matthew himself wrote. In fact, it is an ancient tradition that Matthew wrote his Gospel originally in “Hebrew” (most likely Aramaic) and then it was later translated into Greek. This process of translation, as well as the process of copying and distribution, might very well have edited the product which Matthew wrote. But, on a whole, the Gospel reflects the writing of Matthew himself (an aside: I also reject the Mark-Q two-source hypothesis and believe that Matthew was the first Gospel written, but I won’t get into that here).
But how important is authorship? As Catholics, we believe that the NT books are inspired by God and canonical because the Church led by the Holy Spirit has declared them to be so. And this belief is not founded on authorship. In other words, if Matthew didn’t write the Gospel that bears his name, it would still be an inspired writing and part of the New Testament. So authorship is not essential to the value of the text. However, most advocates of rejecting the traditional attributions of authorship also subscribe to many problematic presuppositions. For example, many of them reject that the words attributed to Jesus were actually said by Christ himself. Instead, they were inventions of the later Christian community. Obviously, if a first-hand witness like Matthew actually wrote his Gospel, these assumptions are much harder to sustain. But if the Gospel was instead written solely by a later Christian community, such a position becomes much more tenable, and can then lead to the denial of many Christian beliefs.
Therefore, I have seen no strong reason to reject the traditional consensus of the Church that the apostle Matthew is the author of the Gospel which bears his name. I do think the process in which this Gospel was produced was not as simple as Matthew merely writing exactly the Gospel we have today, but at the same time, the title “author” is a legitimate one for the former tax-collector.
Today’s Gospel reading, which recounts the famous scene of Christ and his apostles at Caesarea Philippi, puts our intellectual life in a stark contrast: we can either think like God or we can think like man. One way leads to illumination, the other to destruction. And Peter, that great apostles of extremes, demonstrates both ways to us in the span of about 30 seconds.
First, the leader of the apostles displays an insight that is not possible by human means:
[Jesus] said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. (Matthew 16:16-17)
Note carefully what Jesus said to Peter: the apostle did not come to a realization of the true identity of Christ by means of deep intellectual thinking or reasoning; he came to it by divine inspiration. Reason alone cannot acknowledge the divinity of Christ; it is necessary to have God Himself reveal it to us.
But then Peter quickly falls back into a more base way of thinking:
From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples
that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly
from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes,
and be killed and on the third day be raised.
Then Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him,
“God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”
He turned and said to Peter,
“Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me.
You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” (Matthew 16:21-23)
When faced with the prospect of his Lord suffering, Peter reverts to relying on his own intellectual prowess to determine the way things should go. He rejects such a path and decides on his own how Christ should come into his kingdom. But Jesus immediately rebukes Peter, telling him that he no longer is allowing God to illumine his mind, but instead is following the way of man, which in this fallen world is also the way of Satan.
None of this is to say that man should not use his intellect in life; quite the contrary: man should allow his intellect be illuminated and guided by God’s revelation. As St. Paul wrote,
Do not conform yourselves to this age but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and pleasing and perfect. (Romans 12:2)
If we depend solely on our own powers, we are sure to follow the highway to destruction. But if we follow God’s way, we can be transformed and follow the path that leads to eternal life and light.
This is a fascinating discovery:
The world’s earliest illustrated Christian book has been saved by a British charity which located it at a remote Ethiopian monastery.
The incredible Garima Gospels are named after a monk who arrived in the African country in the fifth century and is said to have copied them out in just one day.
Beautifully illustrated, the colours are still vivid and thanks to the Ethiopian Heritage Fund have been conserved.
Abba Garima arrived from Constantinople in 494 AD and legend has it that he was able to copy the gospels in a day because God delayed the sun from setting.
The incredible relic has been kept ever since in the Garima Monastery near Adwa in the north of the country, which is in the Tigray region at 7,000 feet.Experts believe it is also the earliest example of book binding still attached to the original pages.
The survival of the Gospels is incredible considering the country has been under Muslim invasion, Italian invasion and a fire in the 1930s destroyed the monastery’s church.
They were written on goat skin in the early Ethiopian language of Ge’ez.
There are two volumes which date from the same time, but the second is written in a different hand from the first. Both contain illustrations and the four Gospels.
Though the texts had been mentioned by the occasional traveller since the 1950s, it had been thought they dated from the 11th century at the earliest.
Carbon dating, however, gives a date between 330 and 650 – which tantalisingly overlaps the date Abba Garima arrived in the country.
H/t: Byzantine, TX
Each year it seems that it takes ever more ludicrous claims in order to get attention in the mainstream media. The latest from CNN: Gospels don’t say Jesus was crucified, scholar claims. Here is the article with my comments within:
There have been plenty of attacks on Christianity over the years, but few claims have been more surprising than one advanced by an obscure Swedish scholar this spring.
The Gospels do not say Jesus was crucified, Gunnar Samuelsson says.
In fact, he argues, in the original Greek, [beware any argument that is based on the 'original Greek!' It usually means the person is counting on the ignorance of the vast majority of people - including CNN reporters] the ancient texts reveal only that Jesus carried “some kind of torture or execution device” to a hill where “he was suspended” and died, says Samuelsson, who is an evangelical pastor as well as a New Testament scholar. [I wonder if would be called a 'scholar' if he came to traditional conclusions]
“When we say crucifixion, we think about Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion.’ We think about a church, nails, the crown of thorns,” he says, referring to Gibson’s 2004 film, “The Passion of the Christ.”
“We are loaded with pictures of this well-defined punishment called crucifixion – and that is the problem,” he says.
Samuelsson bases his claim on studying 900 years’ worth of ancient texts in the original languages – Hebrew, Latin and Greek, which is the language of the New Testament.
He spent three years reading for 12 hours a day, he says, and he noticed that the critical word normally translated as “crucify” doesn’t necessarily mean that. [So, if this claim is true, he spent around 13,000 hours studying this - does that trump the millions of hours spent by thousands of scholars through the centuries who came to a different conclusion? Ever hear of peer-review?]
“He was handed over to be ’stauroun,’” Samuelsson says of Jesus, lapsing into Biblical Greek to make his point. [Translation: See? He's a really smarty-pants - he knows Biblical Greek!]
At the time the apostles Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were writing their Gospels, that word simply meant “suspended,” the theologian argues.
“This word is used in a much wider sense than ‘crucifixion,’” he says. “It refers to hanging, to suspending vines in a vineyard,” or to any type of suspension.
“He was required to carry his ’stauros’ to Calvary, and they ’stauroun’ him. That is all. He carried some kind of torture or execution device to Calvary and he was suspended and he died,” Samuelsson says. [Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament - the work of many scholars over many years and accepted by scholars of both liberal and conservative bent as authoritative - defines it as "an instrument of torture for serious offenses...in three basic forms: a vertical, pointed stake...an upright with a cross-beam above it...or two intersecting beams of equal length." Then it goes on to explain the Roman method of 'stauron' at that time as what we call crucifixion.]
Not everyone is convinced by his research. [In other words, NO ONE is convinced by his research] Garry Wills, the author of “What Jesus Meant,” “What Paul Meant,” and “What the Gospels Meant,” dismisses it as “silliness.” [I'm no fan of Wills, but I couldn't agree with him more. Yet still CNN thought it was worthy of a story.]
“The verb is stauresthai from stauros, cross,” Wills said.
Samuelsson wants to be very clear about what he is saying and what he is not saying.
Most importantly, he says, he is not claiming Jesus was not crucified – only that the Gospels do not say he was.
“I am a pastor, a conservative evangelical pastor, a Christian,” he is at pains to point out. “I do believe that Jesus died the way we thought he died. He died on the cross.”
But, he insists, it is tradition that tells Christians that, not the first four books of the New Testament. [This would not be an issue, in other words, if not for sola scriptura: if something is only in "tradition" that means it is unreliable. Even if Samuelsson were correct - which he is not - then it would still not be a problem for Catholics, as we accept sacred tradition as being a reliable means of passing on information.]
“I tried to read the text as it is, to read the word of God as it stands in our texts,” he says – what he calls “reading on the lines, not reading between the lines.”
Samuelsson says he didn’t set out to undermine one of the most basic tenets of Christianity.
He was working on a dissertation at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden when he noticed a problem with a major book about the history of crucifixion before Jesus.
What was normally thought to be the first description of a crucifixion – by the ancient Greek historian Herodotus – wasn’t a crucifixion at all, but the suspension of a corpse, Samuelsson found by reading the original Greek.
The next example in the book about crucifixion wasn’t a crucifixion either, but the impaling of a hand.
Samuelsson’s doctoral advisor thought his student might be on to something.
“He recommended I scan all the texts, from Homer up to the first century – 900 years of crucifixion texts,” Samuelsson recalled, calling it “a huge amount of work.”
But, he says, “I love ancient texts. They just consume me.” So he started reading.
He found very little evidence of crucifixion as a method of execution, though he did find corpses being suspended, people being hanged from trees, and more gruesome methods of execution such as impaling people by the belly or rectum.
The same Greek word was used to refer to all the different practices, he found.
That’s what led him to doubt that the Gospels specify that Jesus was crucified.
At the time they were written, “there is no word in Greek, Latin, Aramaic or Hebrew that means crucifixion in the sense that we think of it,” he says.
It’s only after the death of Jesus – and because of the death of Jesus – that the Greek word “stauroun” comes specifically to mean executing a person on the cross, he argues.
He admits, of course, that the most likely reason early Christians though Jesus was crucified is that, in fact, he was. [Proof of the idiocy of much of modern biblical scholarship. They completely divorce the texts of the Bible from the world in which it was produced. This guys admits that the reason it was seen as crucifixion is because it was, in fact, a crucifixion. But the text doesn't say it in the way he wants, so now he questions it. This would be like the first accounts of JFK's death just saying he "died of a bullet wound" and then hundreds of years later claiming he really wasn't shot because the original accounts only said "died of a bullet wound" - maybe he just ran into a rogue bullet that was suspended in mid-air in Dallas!]
But he says his research still has significant implications for historians, linguists and the Christian faithful. [Not really]
For starters, “if my observations are correct, every book on the history of Jesus will need to be rewritten,” as will the standard dictionaries of Biblical Greek, he says. [Now we get to the heart of the matter. Like many scholars, he wants to be influential. He is hoping his findings make him popular on the scholarly circuit.]
More profoundly, his research “ought to make Christians a bit more humble,” he says.
“We fight against each other,” he reflects, but “the theological stances that keep churches apart are founded on things that we find between the lines.
“We have put a lot of things in the Bible that weren’t there in the beginning that keep us apart. We need to get down on our knees as Christians together and read the Bible.” [Again, the problem of sola scriptura. When everyone can individually interpret what the Bible 'really says,' then we will never come to agreement and be able to resolve the things that keep us apart. It is only when we humbly accept the authority of the Church that such union is possible.]
Most Catholics today have at one time or another met a self-professed ‘Bible Christian.’ This is someone who claims to only believe what is in the Bible, and nothing else. As such they reject supposedly “added” Catholic beliefs like the papacy, purgatory and the sacraments, because they claim they are not in the Scriptures. In some cases, such as purgatory or even the role of Mary, it does take a deep understanding of the Bible to see their foundations found within its pages. But there are some beliefs rejected by ‘Bible Christians’ that jump out of the pages of the Bible with just a cursory reading. These are what I call the “biggest biblical blind spots of ‘Bible Christians.’”
1) The role of Peter
When I was an evangelical Christian, I often studied the Scriptures, but somehow I never saw Peter as an important figure in the New Testament. Now that I am Catholic, I do not know how I could have been so blind. Peter is almost everywhere in the Gospels and in Acts, and he re-appears in Paul’s letters at times as well. We have three separate instances – from three different Gospels – where Jesus gives Peter a specific, and unique, role in the Church (Matthew 16:17-19, Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17). Yet the vast majority of Protestants – and all ‘Bible Christians’ – fail to recognize any significant role for Peter in the early Church or in today’s Church.
2) The Eucharist
‘Bible Christians’ love to claim that they take the Bible literally, and they note their interpretation of Genesis 1-3 to support their claim. But what about John 6? In that chapter Jesus clearly states that he is the bread of life and one must eat his flesh to have eternal life. Yet no ‘Bible Christian’ takes that literally, and they relegate the Eucharist to a minor, purely symbolic, ceremony. The early Christians, on the other hand, understood the meaning of Christ’s words and made the celebration of the Eucharist the central act of their worship.
3) The role of works in salvation
“We are saved by faith alone!” cries the ‘Bible Christian.’ Yet the Bible is full of warnings on the necessity of works for the salvation of the believer. The parable of the sheep and the goats (Matthew 25:31-46) directly links our works with our eternal destination, and the only place in the New Testament where ‘faith alone’ is found (James 2:24) condemns it as unable to bring justification. But somehow the ‘Bible Christian’ still cries out “faith alone!” simply because it is a Protestant tradition.
4) The place of suffering in the Christian life
Often people don’t realize how much a culture impacts their worldview. This is true even for Christians. Our modern Western culture puts pleasure at the center of happiness, and rejects any value to suffering. This cultural presupposition has infected Christians, including ‘Bible Christians’. Yet if you read the letters of Paul, you cannot help but notice the role of suffering in his theology. The Lord himself made it clear how integral suffering would be to Paul’s life when he told Ananias: “Go, for this man [Paul] is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before Gentiles, kings, and Israelites, and I will show him what he will have to suffer for my name” (Acts 9:15-16). And of course, the heavy emphasis put on Christ’s suffering and death in the Gospels should tell even the most cursory reader of Scripture how important suffering is in the Christian Faith.
5) The necessity of Baptism
The vast majority of ‘Bible Christians’ believe that one simply has to “accept Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior” in order to become a Christian. While some might also eventually baptize such a person, it is not seen as a necessary step in the life of a Christian. Yet nothing could be further from the biblical witness. When the crowd asks after the first Christian sermon how they might be saved, Peter responds, “Repent and be baptized” (Acts 2:38). Baptism was the normative means to enter the Church and no Christian denied this fact until recent years.
It is unfortunate that ‘Bible Christians’ reject such clear directives from the Bible. Such people are usually sincere, well-intentioned followers of Christ. Let us hope and pray that one day they will decide to enter the Church that gave us the Bible – the Catholic Church.
Other than Jesus there is no figure more richly drawn in the New Testament than St. Peter, the leader of the apostles whose feast we celebrate today (along with St. Paul). Reading the Gospels and Acts, one really gets a sense of this loyal, impulsive, courageous and flawed man. Much of his personality comes out in the many declarations of his that Scripture records. Thus, I have decided to list here my 10 favorite St. Peter quotes (I would have also done the same for St. Paul, but I’m afraid I would just end up listing his entire epistles).
Favorite St. Peter Quotes
10) “We believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 15:11)
9) “We have given up everything and followed you.” (Mark 10:28)
8 ) “I have neither silver nor gold, but what I do have I give you: in the name of Jesus Christ the Nazorean, (rise and) walk.” (Acts 3:6)
7) “Whether it is right in the sight of God for us to obey you rather than God, you be the judges. It is impossible for us not to speak about what we have seen and heard.” (Acts 4:19-20)
6) “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)
5) “Lord, you know that I love you” (John 21:15, 16, 17)
4) “Get up. I am only a man myself.” (Acts 10:26)
3) “Depart from me, Lord, for I am a sinful man.” (Luke 5:8)
2) “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.” (John 6:68)
1) “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mt. 16:16)
Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us!
I have always been fascinated by the topic of the development of Christian doctrine. Not long ago, I wrote a post about the New Testament foundations for this concept. But typically when one speaks of the “development of doctrine,” he is referring to its development throughout church history after the end of public revelation. But what about before the death of the last apostle? Is there development of doctrine within the New Testament? Michael Liccione over at Sacramentum Vitae addresses this question:
To some theologians–mostly modern biblical theologians–the answer is obviously yes. See, e.g., the late Raymond E. Brown’s Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, a fairly middle-of-the-road view of the matter by a pre-eminent Catholic scholar. To others, the answer is equally obviously no. In their view, the New Testament records divine revelation, so that even if revelation itself was progressive during the time recorded in the NT, the very category of development of doctrine is simply inapplicable to the Bible. Rather than rehash that impasse, though, I’d suggest this: assuming that the Bible records, in written form, the unfolding of the definitive events of divine revelation to humanity, the pattern of that unfolding tells us a lot about how we, as church and as individuals, come to understand it more fully over time. And the means by which the Church comes to state her understanding achieved over time just is development of doctrine.
Personally, I have always been more skeptical of claims of development within the NT than I am of claims outside it. I have a number of reasons for this:
1) The time frame. Within the NT, we have a time frame at most of about 60-70 years. Usually when one speaks of the development of doctrine, he is discussing centuries, not decades. As Pope Benedict has pointed out, it is a false assumption to say that what comes later always must be more developed than what comes before, especially regarding such short time frames. Was St. Clement of Rome more developed than St. Paul? Was St. Ignatius of Antioch more developed than St. John the Apostle? Within a century you often have lights who shine much brighter than their contemporaries, and of whom it takes a long time to digest and understand fully.
2) Document dating. As much as biblical scholars state confidently the dating of the NT documents, the truth is that we really don’t know exactly when they were written. We can make educated guesses, but we can’t know with absolute assurance the order in which they were written. So how can we know how they developed? In fact, most scholars assume doctrinal development to establish dates, which means we have a circular argument: “Document A came after document B because it is more developed, and we know that development occurred because document A came after document B.” Not exactly a strong foundation for this theory.
3) Inspiration. Unique among all Christian documents, the writings of the New Testament are inspired by the Holy Spirit. This does not automatically preclude the concept of development within the texts, but it should give one pause. All of Salvation History does show a slow revealing of God’s revelation, but in the case of the New Testament, we are talking about a special, condensed time of public revelation in which the Word revealed himself to the apostles and the apostles then preached that Word to the world.
With all the above being said, I’m not totally against any idea of doctrinal development within the New Testament. But I would hesitate to put too much importance on any theory that was completely dependent upon NT development.
In some Evangelical circles, knowledge of the Biblical Greek language is seen as a trump card in any arguments regarding the interpretation of Scripture passages. When a debate occurs, someone just has to say, “well, in the original Greek, this means…” and the argument is won. But the reality is much different: although knowledge of Biblical Greek is helpful in many ways, it does not automatically give one knowledge of the “real” meaning of a passage. Greek is still a human language, and as such, it has its ambiguities just like any language. Furthermore, those who know Greek have their own biases and preconceptions which they bring to the text. Sometimes knowing the Greek can eliminate certain possible interpretations, but never does it alone give you sure knowledge of the meaning of a debated passage.
One of the most well-known Greek teachers in the Evangelical world is Bill Mounce. I myself have used his materials to learn Biblical Greek. Fortunately, even though he is an expert in the Biblical Greek language, Mounce does not fall into the fallacy of thinking that knowledge of Greek gives you some secret knowledge of the inner meaning of the Bible. He understands that proper interpretation includes many factors outside of just knowing the original language.
Case in point: a recent blog post by Mounce caught my eye, as he decided to tackle 2 Peter 1:20-21, which is a heavily debated passage between Catholics and Protestants. This passage states:
RSV: First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.
NAB: Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
NIV: Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
Greek: τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες οτι πασα προφητεια γραφης ιδιας επιλυσεως ου γινεται ου γαρ θεληματι ανθρωπου ηνεχθη προφητεια ποτε αλλα υπο πνευματος αγιου φερομενοι ελαλησαν απο θεου ανθρωποι
The importance of this passage in Catholic/Protestant debates should be clear: does this passage mean that an individual cannot interpret Scripture? If so, that would go a long way towards undercutting one of the bedrocks of Protestantism. After making some introductory comments regarding context, Mounce posits two different possible meanings for verse 20:
Contextually, Peter is saying that the prophecies of Scripture were not made up by the prophets from what they saw and heard in their prophecies and dreams; but what they understood them to mean was the result of the Holy Spirit carrying them along. They too had experienced the direct work of God, just as Peter had on the Mount of Transfiguration. But can we be more specific?
1. One view is to say the passage is talking about origins. These prophecies and interpretations came from God, as opposed to what the false teachers were teaching.
2. A second view is to say the prophecies are not open to any one person’s individual interpretation, but the interpretation must be in conformity to apostolic interpretation. For us today, this would mean Scripture in general.
At this point, I am not sure there is much difference between these two options. Prophecies and their interpretation come from God, not from individuals who vary from the apostolic teaching.
I would be in basic agreement with Mounce at this point, and in fact I would say the two possibilities can be combined into one: the origin of prophecies in Scripture (and all of Scripture for that matter) is the Holy Spirit, and therefore an individual is not allowed to make up their own interpretation of what they mean. Furthermore, any interpretation cannot vary from the deposit of faith – what Mounce calls “apostolic teaching.” But then Mounce goes off the tracks:
But the Catholic REB translates “No prophetic writing is a matter for private interpretation.” This would cement the seat of authority of interpretation in the church and not any individual teacher, preacher, or prophet, and exclude, among others, people like Luther. At one level, this is not saying anything different. The false teachers were wrong to come up with their personal (and different) interpretation of things. But I wonder how Peter would feel being told that his interpretation of the Messianic Kingdom was wrong because is was an individual interpretation and different from the prevailing (i.e., Rabbinic) views of the day. I suspect he wouldn’t agree.
Let’s get this straight: Mounce agrees that it is not proper to get interpretations “from individuals who vary from the apostolic teaching,” yet he thinks the Catholic understanding of the passage could be used against Peter, the chief apostle?! Peter, by definition, cannot have an “individual interpretation” which varied from the apostolic teaching, as he is himself an apostle. Surely Mounce cannot believe that Catholics would use this passage against Peter, the first pope!
And this brings up a more important question: how do we know what is “apostolic teaching”? Most Protestants today would say it is by properly interpreting Scripture. Yet you can see the circular argument: Biblical interpretation cannot vary from apostolic teaching, yet apostolic teaching is determined by (individual) Biblical interpretation. There must be some determination of what is apostolic teaching outside of Scripture. And fittingly, it is the role of the apostles (and their successors), not just any individual, to declare what is apostolic teaching. The reason is that the apostles have the same origin as the Scriptures, for it was the Holy Spirit which gives them their authority.
Although Mounce errs in his understanding of the Catholic interpretation of this passage, I would agree fully with the final paragraph of his post:
As is so often in Greek, the original language gives us the range of interpretive options, but usually it is context that makes the final decision. Greek is not a magic key that reveals the one and only possible interpretation; otherwise we wouldn’t have an endless supplies of Greek commentaries.
Fortunately, Christ did not expect us to be Greek scholars to understand the Bible; instead he gave us apostles and their successors to guard and teach the deposit of faith, which gives us the overall context in which to properly interpret Scripture.
Over the past two centuries in the Western world, we have seen a fundamental shift in how people interpret the Bible. Unfortunately, much of that shift has caused the Bible to become not more clear, but more obscure. Thus, it is sometimes helpful to go back and see how Scripture was interpreted before this shift. Here are some clear steps for interpreting the Bible, written in 1786 by a Russian Orthodox prelate:
1.) Open the literal meaning, and where it is dark because of translation or an ambiguity in the language, explain it in such a way that no passage is left which students cannot understand, apart from the very rare texts which are too complex to comprehend.
2.) Interpret spiritual and mysterious meanings, especially in the Old Testament, in those passages where such meanings are transparently concealed. In doing this, one has to be cautious so as not to do this with force. Thus, one ought not to seek out a secret meaning where there is none (or where one is forced, as is noticeable with many interpreters), but where links and the parallel passages follow directly from the words. Interpret spiritual and mysterious readings in agreement with the best interpreters.
3.) For a better understanding of dark passages, find and link the parallel passages, for this will make comprehension easier, since what is said in one place is often said ambiguously and briefly in another place, and despite the similarity between the two texts, the one differs in terms of a more detailed and clearer account.
4.) In interpreting Scripture, do not forget to conclude with the moral teachings flowing from the text. Formulate it with great regard.
5.) In interpreting the books of the Old Testament Prophets, indicate clearly when and in which circumstances their prophecies were fulfilled in the Old Testament and the New Testament.
6.) Where passages of Holy Scripture seem to contradict each other, explain these texts in agreement with published sources that contain general agreement.
7.) Wherever passages are found from which some false conclusions were drawn and which subsequently led to schisms or heresies, one is obliged to clearly indicate the right and true meaning of these passages, and to invalidate the opinions and arguments of heretics and schismatics.
8.) Where passages of Scripture are found to which human wisdom might make objections, such objections must not be hidden. Instead, allow them to be seen in a clear and satisfactory form.
9.) On the part of the teacher, it is critical to consult the Church Fathers, to read scrupulously the best Church teachers and interpretors, to know Church history well, and, above all, to beseech often and diligently the Father of Light to open the eyes toward understanding the wonders in His Law.
Frankly, I think these nine steps are still valid today and following them would help anyone draw closer to Christ through the Scriptures.
H/t: Byzantine, TX
You might be surprised to know that I’ve got a lot more to say than can fit on this blog. Just ask my wife.
That’s why I do speaking engagements, too, and have been for fifteen years. I’ve addressed groups large and small on topics as diverse as Scripture, evangelization, marriage and spirituality.
Although my true speaking-topic-loves are Scripture and Evangelization, I’m happy to speak on other Catholic themes and shape my talk based on the audience.
Right now I’m not receiving any financial compensation from these engagements (although I do ask that the host organization pay for my travel expenses, and in lieu of a speaker’s fee I ask for a donation to Little Flowers Foundation). I look at my speaking engagements as a tithe, in the hope that I can help others draw closer to Christ.
The message of my book Who Is Jesus Christ? is that the Lord is waiting to meet us – chasing us down in fact – in Scripture and in the circumstances and experiences of our lives. If I can serve others in seeing Him, encountering Him, embracing Him, I consider that a privilege.
I am now scheduling for engagements starting this Fall through Summer 2011. If you are interested in having me come to speak, just email me. For more details, click here.
 |
I began my study of the Catholic faith in 1991 as an Evangelical Protestant, converting to the Catholic Church in 1993.
I serve as head of evangelization at St. John Neumann parish in Gaithersburg, MD, and am cofounder of Little Flowers Foundation, a non-profit whose mission is to assist Catholic families seeking to adopt children with special-needs.
I regularly speak to parish groups and other organizations on a variety of topics - contact me to schedule a talk for your group.
You can email me at eric@ericsammons.com.
