Evangelicals love Jesus. They are Jesus people, and for that reason Catholics and Evangelicals are together. Catholics, as the people who partake of Jesus' body, blood, soul and divinity, cannot help but be endeared to them.
 |
| Examining the Dead Sea Scrolls: "I know the canon is in here somewhere!" |
At Devin Rose's blog, he
posted an article about Bert Ehrman and his approach to "debunking" the Bible. Much like the Jesus Seminar, Ehrman believes that through textual criticism and the historical critical method, the Bible can be proved an unreliable source and therefore not a supernatural book. I want to share with you what I said to add to this discussion with a comment afterwards:
Devin,
I would like to add a caveat/caution. I’m going to number my comments to make it easier to respond to them.
1. Catholics and Protestants are on the same side of the table (same team) regarding the problems with the historical-critical method. Ehrman et al. make a decision regarding what import the textual variants have on the inspiration of Scripture and ignore evidence that is still overwhelming in favor of our ability to trust the texts we have today.
2. What Ehrman et al. are doing is deconstructionist/revisionist history. It starts with a theory and then makes a false deduction and then exports that theory and projects it onto the historical facts. This is a popular way “to do” history today. In this case, Ehrman et al. use this method to demythologize the text and in the end to make Christ no more than a tragic guru.
3. However, history does not take an infallible Magisterium to understand it or to know it with the certainty proper to our natural cognitive ability. It is not revealed religion but rather something we can apprehend through the right use of our reason. History is the unfolding and subsequent record of reality, not the in-breaking of the divine through accommodation and condescension as is the case for revealed religion.
4. Thus, the Catholic, employing the right use of reason, must acknowledge that there was not consensus regarding the canon in the early Church. No list nor set of lists sufficiently corroborates a Protestant or Catholic canon in such a way as to necessitate the assent of the intellect. In other words, it is not the same as the “sky is blue” and all one simply must do is look at the sky to confirm it.
5. This is not a problem for the Catholic. The Catholic does not claim that 1 and 2 Clement were not read in the liturgies of the early Church for some time. The Catholic doesn’t negate the fact that some lists speak of a 22-book canon and others don’t. We also don’t deny that Hebrews was called into question nor that the second letter to the Corinthians was likely lost (our second is the third letter). What we affirm is that Scripture is God-breathed, revealed religion, and as such requires supernatural authority (Christ and His Church) and not merely the right use of reason. History is a part of nature. Supernatural-theology is not. The fact that Christ resurrected is a part of natural history. His descent into Hades and his sacrifice in the heavenly realm is not.
6. Sadly, the Protestant–in an attempt to protect orthodoxy (which is commendable)–employs a similar type of wrongly used reason to wreak havoc on the history. Starting with a theory–that the canon was affixed, that Christ somehow implied what it was, that the Church was not in any way a part of the canonizing process but rather that the canon was “self-evident”, rationally unassailable, and historically precipitated (a theory derived from an incessant fear of admitting the authority (the “who”) of the Catholic Church–similar to Ehrman’s fear of admitting the Person (the “who”) of Jesus Christ)–they go on to do the same thing to the reality of history that the Jesus Seminar types do to the person of Christ.
7. The implications to the credibility of Christianity are devastating. Ehrman is thinking within the theory-paradigm of #6. He rejects the authority of God’s divine agent–the Church–to canonize Scripture. Scripture does not rest upon the authority of Christ’s presence in his Church–mediated through his Apostles and their successors. No, the Bible must (because of #6) be that which is beyond argument grounded in its historic continuity, inter-textual perfection, etc. and so on.
8. More importantly, even if we agree that the textual problems can be worked out (which we can and do–I suggest anything by Pope Benedict XVI), that still doesn’t get us to a canon. That is why Ehrman suggests a wildly different canon, and in a book I just read, an evangelical scholar suggested that if we discovered another letter from St. Paul the canon may not be in fact closed. (No, this is not the time to quote the end of Revelation in an attempt to proof-text the closing of the canon–if, in fact, that letter that was found was virtually included in what was implied in Revelation)
In conclusion, the Protestant theory of the canon necessitates a revisionist history that is as disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to the evidence as the Jesus Seminar is to the person of Christ. So, on the one hand we are on the same team–defending the inspiration of Scriptures and attesting to the historical reality of the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. However, on the other, I’m afraid, the Protestant revisionist history regarding the canon and their rejection of Christ’s authority mediated through his apostles (the one’s with the keys of the kingdom) foments the intellectual quagmire and bolsters the pagan claim that Christianity is a mere myth. And, sadly, as long as the historical reality of the canon is rein-visioned in a mythic tale of consensus and universal acceptance, the pagans will have a paradigm to operate in to discredit the texts of the canon themselves.
Peace in Christ,
Brent
Is the Evangelicals only way out to become Catholic? No! Instead, a view that would be consistent with the historical evidence might posit that The Church had an especial grace when canonizing Scripture. The Protestant could argue that the unique nature of Scripture as apposed to teachings from Scripture (laid down in other councils) makes this act of the Church of a particular species correlative to that which is its most proximate object: Scripture.
Some do argue this and I commend them. This demonstrates their willingness to admit to the historical
reality while at the same time affirming the supernatural nature of the Word of God. It also cuts the legs out from under the pagans who would seek to discredit the theory that the Bible is trustworthy and then to call the canon into question. These are two different questions (
textual variants and
the canon) which get blurred only when someone refuses to accept the agency of the Church in defining the canon.
Christ is not trustworthy because our senses can perceive that he is God, just in the same way the canon is not divine because we can verify through reason alone its supernatural source. No, it is precisely when St. John the Baptist said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" that men and women were compelled to exercise the virtue of faith and believe in that which they couldn't see. This faith isn't against reasons (e.g., history affirms the reality of the resurrection) but is not grounded in pure reason. So, too, in a subsidiary and tertiary way, the Scriptures receive their authority directly from God. Yet, just as we perceive the Father through the Son, so too do we in the age of the Church perceive the Son's working to bring about Scripture through His Church empowered by the Holy Spirit, the one called along side to help (παράκλητος-paraclete). This doesn't detract from God's glory, but just the opposite proclaims and affirms his divine plan to build a Church--a family--that not only the gates of hell will not prevail against but that would be a sign to the world of the eternal reality of the Kingdom of God.
Some do argue this and I commend them. This demonstrates their willingness to admit to the historical reality while at the same time affirming the supernatural nature of the Word of God. It also cuts the legs out from under the pagans who would seek to discredit the theory that the Bible is trustworthy and then to call the canon into question. These are two different questions (textual variants and the canon) which get blurred only when someone refuses to accept the agency of the Church in defining the canon.
Christ is not trustworthy because our senses can perceive that he is God, just in the same way the canon is not divine because we can verify through reason alone its supernatural source. No, it is precisely when St. John the Baptist said, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" that men and women were compelled to exercise the virtue of faith and believe in that which they couldn't see. This faith isn't against reasons (e.g., history affirms the reality of the resurrection) but is not grounded in pure reason. So, too, in a subsidiary and tertiary way, the Scriptures receive their authority directly from God. Yet, just as we perceive the Father through the Son, so too do we in the age of the Church perceive the Son's working to bring about Scripture through His Church empowered by the Holy Spirit, the one called along side to help (παράκλητος-paraclete). This doesn't detract from God's glory, but just the opposite proclaims and affirms his divine plan to build a Church--a family--that not only the gates of hell will not prevail against but that would be a sign to the world of the eternal reality of the Kingdom of God.