There is false teaching everywhere; but there is false teaching by mere omission and false emphasis. The true teachings are there, but they are either not currently taught or given their due emphasis. I don’t know of any church organization that is exempt from this. We are warned of this in 1John 4:1-6. Even though excerpts from the Bible are presented everywhere, I have found that reading them in the Bible within their context is an important safeguard, along with using our own spiritual discernment from God. The proliferation of Bibles has made this possible for us today. It wasn’t so easy in the past. I found this to be very rewarding in my personal life. There will always be abuses, but that shouldn’t prevent us from making use of this. Paul never compromised with his teachings even though he was aware of those who would pervert them.
Before I knew or understood anything about the thing called biblical criticism, I borrowed one of John P. Meier’s books from a public library titled “A Marginal Jew”. After reading it I only had one thought: Is the New Testament all fiction? The book had a disturbing effect on my faith and I wondered how any Catholic priest could write such a book. This was at the same time that my parish priest was teaching from an organization he participated in and mentioned above, The Jesus Seminar.
I didn't know Meier was a Catholic priest, but unfortunately many priests in recent decades have fallen prey to these rationalist lies. I wonder how many Catholics have been led to doubt or even deny their faith because of priests like these.
Good question. One more thing that makes a spoiled or disgruntled Catholic say, “Hey, I’m going to attend Calvary Chapel, etc., and come to my own religious conclusions.” Did Pope Benedict XVI say the Church would become much smaller? Things will change for the better but probably not in my lifetime.
There’s nothing wrong with historical criticism. It depends on the exegete. I employ historic criticism. There’s two different types of critique. 1. Diachronic 2. Synochronic. The Diachronic is the method used NT scholars like Bart Erhman. The synochronic typically focuses on the final form but still employs uses of contextual analysis. You need to read the book in the context of its author & audience not the narrative for example.
All of this they teach at Holy Apostles too.
Furthermore, BXVI argues for the use of a form of historic criticism (method b) with the Patristics (method a) into a blend what he calls method C.
BXVI writes in Jesus of Nazareth, “The first point is that the historical-critical method—specifically because of the intrinsic nature of theology and faith—is and remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work. For it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but is based on history.”
There's nothing wrong with the historical-critical method in itself, no, so long as those using it follow the principles of the Church, especially contained in the infallible teaching of the PBC. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case, thus leading to the grave abuses Benedict listed later in that book, as I quoted. Holy Apostles makes this clear too.
In my experience, I started out in the Classics department, secular scholars do not carry the same skepticism with other ancient primary sources as they do with the Bible. Inherently, the admit with their skepticism there is more at stake with biblical claims.
Good point. Despite there being incomparably greater manuscript evidence for the Bible, passages are often rejected almost offhandedly. Sadly, many Christian biblical scholars do the same thing.
Dr. O'Callaghan has specialized and taught in the fields Linguistics, Theology, History of Christianity and is a historical and theoretical theologian, who specializes in the study of the early Church, particularly the development of Christian doctrine from A.D. 30 to the second and third centuries. Contributing a number of articles for scholarly journals on ancient Christology, Trinitarian theology and eschatology.
A consummate New Testament scholar Dr O’Callaghan has amassed a brilliant educational background
Contributing author for 5 Internet on line studies daily reaching more that 1.5 millions readers monthly. Professor O’‘Callaghan has taught in Europe as well as Universities in America, and has been a mentor for numerous doctoral candidates at Universities throughout the East and Midwest. His educational background encompassed:
Educated at Cambridge University England, Oxford University England, Trinity College Ireland, Milligan College Tenn., Southern Christian University Louisiana., Indiana University, Vincennes University, Purdue University, Hebrew University, Notre Dame University with earned degrees in Theology Th.D., Linguistics Ph.D. Hebrew studies MAJS, PhDJS.Jewish Studies, Religious Education M.R.E. Philosophy, D.Phil, Doctor of letters, D.Litt., Early Christian History, Ph.D. Ancient Biblical Philology Ph. D. [linguistics] Linguistics, Computational Linguistics, Psycholinguistics Attended Harvard and Princeton auditing classes in my spare time.
Teaching background includes Teaching Biblical Background, in Church History, New Testament Theology, Textural criticism in Hebrew and New Testament Greek, Hermeneutics, Biblical Archeology, Paleography, Philology.
This is wonderful! Thank you for this insightful piece.
Thank you, I’m glad you liked it. God bless!
There is false teaching everywhere; but there is false teaching by mere omission and false emphasis. The true teachings are there, but they are either not currently taught or given their due emphasis. I don’t know of any church organization that is exempt from this. We are warned of this in 1John 4:1-6. Even though excerpts from the Bible are presented everywhere, I have found that reading them in the Bible within their context is an important safeguard, along with using our own spiritual discernment from God. The proliferation of Bibles has made this possible for us today. It wasn’t so easy in the past. I found this to be very rewarding in my personal life. There will always be abuses, but that shouldn’t prevent us from making use of this. Paul never compromised with his teachings even though he was aware of those who would pervert them.
Before I knew or understood anything about the thing called biblical criticism, I borrowed one of John P. Meier’s books from a public library titled “A Marginal Jew”. After reading it I only had one thought: Is the New Testament all fiction? The book had a disturbing effect on my faith and I wondered how any Catholic priest could write such a book. This was at the same time that my parish priest was teaching from an organization he participated in and mentioned above, The Jesus Seminar.
I didn't know Meier was a Catholic priest, but unfortunately many priests in recent decades have fallen prey to these rationalist lies. I wonder how many Catholics have been led to doubt or even deny their faith because of priests like these.
Good question. One more thing that makes a spoiled or disgruntled Catholic say, “Hey, I’m going to attend Calvary Chapel, etc., and come to my own religious conclusions.” Did Pope Benedict XVI say the Church would become much smaller? Things will change for the better but probably not in my lifetime.
There’s nothing wrong with historical criticism. It depends on the exegete. I employ historic criticism. There’s two different types of critique. 1. Diachronic 2. Synochronic. The Diachronic is the method used NT scholars like Bart Erhman. The synochronic typically focuses on the final form but still employs uses of contextual analysis. You need to read the book in the context of its author & audience not the narrative for example.
All of this they teach at Holy Apostles too.
Furthermore, BXVI argues for the use of a form of historic criticism (method b) with the Patristics (method a) into a blend what he calls method C.
BXVI writes in Jesus of Nazareth, “The first point is that the historical-critical method—specifically because of the intrinsic nature of theology and faith—is and remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work. For it is of the very essence of biblical faith to be about real historical events. It does not tell stories symbolizing suprahistorical truths, but is based on history.”
There's nothing wrong with the historical-critical method in itself, no, so long as those using it follow the principles of the Church, especially contained in the infallible teaching of the PBC. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case, thus leading to the grave abuses Benedict listed later in that book, as I quoted. Holy Apostles makes this clear too.
In my experience, I started out in the Classics department, secular scholars do not carry the same skepticism with other ancient primary sources as they do with the Bible. Inherently, the admit with their skepticism there is more at stake with biblical claims.
Good point. Despite there being incomparably greater manuscript evidence for the Bible, passages are often rejected almost offhandedly. Sadly, many Christian biblical scholars do the same thing.
My background and education may be of some intrest.
Dr. O'Callaghan has specialized and taught in the fields Linguistics, Theology, History of Christianity and is a historical and theoretical theologian, who specializes in the study of the early Church, particularly the development of Christian doctrine from A.D. 30 to the second and third centuries. Contributing a number of articles for scholarly journals on ancient Christology, Trinitarian theology and eschatology.
A consummate New Testament scholar Dr O’Callaghan has amassed a brilliant educational background
Contributing author for 5 Internet on line studies daily reaching more that 1.5 millions readers monthly. Professor O’‘Callaghan has taught in Europe as well as Universities in America, and has been a mentor for numerous doctoral candidates at Universities throughout the East and Midwest. His educational background encompassed:
Educated at Cambridge University England, Oxford University England, Trinity College Ireland, Milligan College Tenn., Southern Christian University Louisiana., Indiana University, Vincennes University, Purdue University, Hebrew University, Notre Dame University with earned degrees in Theology Th.D., Linguistics Ph.D. Hebrew studies MAJS, PhDJS.Jewish Studies, Religious Education M.R.E. Philosophy, D.Phil, Doctor of letters, D.Litt., Early Christian History, Ph.D. Ancient Biblical Philology Ph. D. [linguistics] Linguistics, Computational Linguistics, Psycholinguistics Attended Harvard and Princeton auditing classes in my spare time.
Teaching background includes Teaching Biblical Background, in Church History, New Testament Theology, Textural criticism in Hebrew and New Testament Greek, Hermeneutics, Biblical Archeology, Paleography, Philology.