johnbugay
Puritan Board Freshman
There's a thread here that's garnered some 2000 views, about a disagreement between two of the theologians that I most admire in this world. There is no end to the admiration that I have for these men, and I pray that they are able to resolve what I would consider to be a not unimportant, but not critical difference, in a civil way. I believe they will.
But this is about an issue that I believe is far more urgent, and has the potential to do far more damage to the cause of the Reformation in our world today.
A copy of the Scott Hahn book, "Covenant and Communion" arrived yesterday. Now. I don't want to leave any doubt but that Joseph Ratzinger is a leading scholar and thinker, and his work needs to be dealt with by the best Protestant biblical scholars.
But Scott Hahn is the worst kind of hacker. He is a leech: he sucks his reputation from a number of things, none of which involves his own personal integrity or his own personal intelligence. Not only is Scott Hahn NOT a leading theologian, (though he plays one on TV) but he is heavily tainted by the worst kinds of "Catholic Apologetics" that are available today -- a field at which he is a leader and a master.
Hahn gets his reputation from a couple of things. Because he knows some little bit of Protestant theology, and because he converted to Catholicism, some Catholics revere him as a great thinker. And of course, he is adding to his own "reputation" merely by associating with someone like Benedict.
If you think I'm being harsh here in my characterization of Hahn, I intend to support what I've said with some quotes both from the book, and from Benedict, to show you the kind of thing that is going on here, not only with Hahn, but with a whole legion of "Catholic Apologists" who revere him.
Hahn's is not a scholarly review of Benedict's work, as this book is portrayed. Rather, it is an admixture of some of Benedict's work with Hahn's partisan portrayal of things.
But first, consider that his book has received glowing endorsements from Protestant thinkers. Here are a few:
Michael Horton | Scott Hahn | valid interpretation | Endorsement
One of the primary arguments that I've seen against this work is that it is NOT "a scholarly introduction to Benedict's thought." Something like that would be genuinely useful. But that's not what this work is. What this IS is Scott Hahn's gloss some of the things Benedict has said in the area of Biblical Scholarship.
(What this says about these Protestant scholars is another thing. But if this is what counts for scholarship, we need to rethink our priorities. But that is the subject of a different discussion.)
I'm 40 pages into the book, and I'll give you two examples of what I'm saying.
Hahn is discussing Benedict's views on the "Historical Critical Hermeneutic." Thanks to a number of statements from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, there is a school of thought among Catholic Biblical Scholarship that has gone "all in" with the Historical Critical hermeneutic. And in fact, names like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Luke Timothy Johnson have produced leading works and commentaries.
Brown, for example, has done a great deal of work which confirmed that (a) "Monarchical Bishops," the kind that Rome has today, weren't an office that existed in the early church, they were a "development," and (b), the early ordained ministry wasn't a "priesthood" but that too developed.
Fitzmyer's commentary on Romans is a very strong confirmation of the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone."
LT Johnson has done some important work contra the "Jesus Seminar" writers. (He also is among those who find justification for homosexuality in the Scriptures).
Such things have done genuine damage to Catholicism's high view of itself (a good thing in my view). They have done so much damage to Catholicism, that it is likely that these things are at the heart of Benedict's "concern" for the Historical Critical method.
But Hahn does not give any of that background.
He cites Benedict talking only in general terms about "the limits" of the historical-critical method, and the primary reasons, "its isolation of the biblical text from the Church" and "its rigid separation of reason and faith--have sharply limited this method's usefulness."
That's well and good. He then cites a long, three-paragraph statement on this from Benedict, suggesting that the HCM "is a marvelous instrument for reading historical sources," but that it has various assumptions and underlying philosophies, and that these limit its usefulness. But then Hahn goes off this way:
"Church," of course, is defined by Pope and Bishops as successors in church government to Peter and the Apostles, from that time down to this.
Now, I called Hahn a leech, and I say so, for he has no problem saying things like "Benedict thinks this," and "For Benedict, this means..." etc. Hahn really hasn't produced anything of its own value, however. He just wants people to think he has.
But now Hahn launches into a standard line that every Protestant knows who has ever interacted with a Catholic:
This is all something that Catholicism officially believes (and probably Benedict by extension). From a Protestant point of view, nevermind that what gives the Bible its "relevance, its unity," is the fact that it is God's word, spoken, breathed, "theopneustos" to the church as a whole, with an order of its own that exists outside of whatever meaning "the Church" gives to it.
He continues with Benedict's characterization (and we do need to understand that Benedict says this):
But one step further, Hahn makes these comments. This is NOT something that Benedict said. This is merely piling on with his own (oft-repeated) thoughts:
This is what we've heard from Hahn for years, and this low view of Scripture is probably the number one thing that's repeated most often by Catholics.
We need to hear from the above-mentioned scholars on why this simply is not the case. But it is not Benedict's stated view. It is Hahn's view on something that the Catholic Church really doesn't teach.
Further along in the chapter, Benedict suggests that the historical-critical method could be "purified" by "removing those assumptions and prior understandings that limit its usefulness. He is looking at "the de-hellenization of Christianity" as being a problem, and the need for "a thoroughgoing reevaluation of the modern relationship between faith and reason."
That's fair enough. Now, I'll let those more competent than I am explain how Protestant exegetes have addressed this very issue, and how the historical-grammatical method has enabled some of the same Protestant scholars who endorsed this book to gain acceptance to places like Oxford and Cambridge, Harvard and Yale (and even Princeton again).
In discussing the issue of "the de-hellenization of Christianity," Hahn begins to describe a talk that Benedict gave, "Faith, Reason, and the University," at Regensburg University in 2006. He doesn't quote from Benedict here.
Here is what Benedict actually said. Forgive me if this is long. Hahn DOES NOT CITE THIS:
Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg
I'll let you decide if you want to read more of that. In fact, it is well known that "sola Scriptura" was not the cause of such things as the enlightenment and romanticism, but Hahn makes that direct connection. He even "leeches" some of the words that Benedict used, while changing the meaning completely:
Now, what Hahn is saying here absolutely is NOT what Benedict is saying. One has to wonder if these fine Protestant theologians who lent their name to this work bothered reading the fine print.
Yet again, it's typical of the kinds of rubbish that's shoveled out there in the hope of damaging Protestant principles in the minds of their hearers, and urging unthinking Protestants to "return home to Rome."
There's a line from an old Keith Green song about the Devil's methodology: "I put some truth in every lie, to tickle itching ears."
We've seen this methodology from the beginning: "Has God indeed said...?"
Benedict is bad enough in this regard. It will be enough of a challenge to read his work and to address the issues he is dealing with.
But Hahn is a liar and a leech, and it is a travesty that individuals such as VanHoozer, Longman and Horton have recommended this trash that’s full of mis-statements and misrepresentations.
But this is about an issue that I believe is far more urgent, and has the potential to do far more damage to the cause of the Reformation in our world today.
A copy of the Scott Hahn book, "Covenant and Communion" arrived yesterday. Now. I don't want to leave any doubt but that Joseph Ratzinger is a leading scholar and thinker, and his work needs to be dealt with by the best Protestant biblical scholars.
But Scott Hahn is the worst kind of hacker. He is a leech: he sucks his reputation from a number of things, none of which involves his own personal integrity or his own personal intelligence. Not only is Scott Hahn NOT a leading theologian, (though he plays one on TV) but he is heavily tainted by the worst kinds of "Catholic Apologetics" that are available today -- a field at which he is a leader and a master.
Hahn gets his reputation from a couple of things. Because he knows some little bit of Protestant theology, and because he converted to Catholicism, some Catholics revere him as a great thinker. And of course, he is adding to his own "reputation" merely by associating with someone like Benedict.
If you think I'm being harsh here in my characterization of Hahn, I intend to support what I've said with some quotes both from the book, and from Benedict, to show you the kind of thing that is going on here, not only with Hahn, but with a whole legion of "Catholic Apologists" who revere him.
Hahn's is not a scholarly review of Benedict's work, as this book is portrayed. Rather, it is an admixture of some of Benedict's work with Hahn's partisan portrayal of things.
But first, consider that his book has received glowing endorsements from Protestant thinkers. Here are a few:
Michael Horton | Scott Hahn | valid interpretation | Endorsement
One of the primary arguments that I've seen against this work is that it is NOT "a scholarly introduction to Benedict's thought." Something like that would be genuinely useful. But that's not what this work is. What this IS is Scott Hahn's gloss some of the things Benedict has said in the area of Biblical Scholarship.
(What this says about these Protestant scholars is another thing. But if this is what counts for scholarship, we need to rethink our priorities. But that is the subject of a different discussion.)
I'm 40 pages into the book, and I'll give you two examples of what I'm saying.
Hahn is discussing Benedict's views on the "Historical Critical Hermeneutic." Thanks to a number of statements from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, there is a school of thought among Catholic Biblical Scholarship that has gone "all in" with the Historical Critical hermeneutic. And in fact, names like Raymond Brown, Joseph Fitzmyer, and Luke Timothy Johnson have produced leading works and commentaries.
Brown, for example, has done a great deal of work which confirmed that (a) "Monarchical Bishops," the kind that Rome has today, weren't an office that existed in the early church, they were a "development," and (b), the early ordained ministry wasn't a "priesthood" but that too developed.
Fitzmyer's commentary on Romans is a very strong confirmation of the Protestant doctrine of "justification by faith alone."
LT Johnson has done some important work contra the "Jesus Seminar" writers. (He also is among those who find justification for homosexuality in the Scriptures).
Such things have done genuine damage to Catholicism's high view of itself (a good thing in my view). They have done so much damage to Catholicism, that it is likely that these things are at the heart of Benedict's "concern" for the Historical Critical method.
But Hahn does not give any of that background.
He cites Benedict talking only in general terms about "the limits" of the historical-critical method, and the primary reasons, "its isolation of the biblical text from the Church" and "its rigid separation of reason and faith--have sharply limited this method's usefulness."
That's well and good. He then cites a long, three-paragraph statement on this from Benedict, suggesting that the HCM "is a marvelous instrument for reading historical sources," but that it has various assumptions and underlying philosophies, and that these limit its usefulness. But then Hahn goes off this way:
"Church," of course, is defined by Pope and Bishops as successors in church government to Peter and the Apostles, from that time down to this.
Now, I called Hahn a leech, and I say so, for he has no problem saying things like "Benedict thinks this," and "For Benedict, this means..." etc. Hahn really hasn't produced anything of its own value, however. He just wants people to think he has.
But now Hahn launches into a standard line that every Protestant knows who has ever interacted with a Catholic:
This is all something that Catholicism officially believes (and probably Benedict by extension). From a Protestant point of view, nevermind that what gives the Bible its "relevance, its unity," is the fact that it is God's word, spoken, breathed, "theopneustos" to the church as a whole, with an order of its own that exists outside of whatever meaning "the Church" gives to it.
He continues with Benedict's characterization (and we do need to understand that Benedict says this):
But one step further, Hahn makes these comments. This is NOT something that Benedict said. This is merely piling on with his own (oft-repeated) thoughts:
This is what we've heard from Hahn for years, and this low view of Scripture is probably the number one thing that's repeated most often by Catholics.
We need to hear from the above-mentioned scholars on why this simply is not the case. But it is not Benedict's stated view. It is Hahn's view on something that the Catholic Church really doesn't teach.
Further along in the chapter, Benedict suggests that the historical-critical method could be "purified" by "removing those assumptions and prior understandings that limit its usefulness. He is looking at "the de-hellenization of Christianity" as being a problem, and the need for "a thoroughgoing reevaluation of the modern relationship between faith and reason."
That's fair enough. Now, I'll let those more competent than I am explain how Protestant exegetes have addressed this very issue, and how the historical-grammatical method has enabled some of the same Protestant scholars who endorsed this book to gain acceptance to places like Oxford and Cambridge, Harvard and Yale (and even Princeton again).
In discussing the issue of "the de-hellenization of Christianity," Hahn begins to describe a talk that Benedict gave, "Faith, Reason, and the University," at Regensburg University in 2006. He doesn't quote from Benedict here.
Here is what Benedict actually said. Forgive me if this is long. Hahn DOES NOT CITE THIS:
Meeting with the representatives of science at the University of Regensburg
I'll let you decide if you want to read more of that. In fact, it is well known that "sola Scriptura" was not the cause of such things as the enlightenment and romanticism, but Hahn makes that direct connection. He even "leeches" some of the words that Benedict used, while changing the meaning completely:
Now, what Hahn is saying here absolutely is NOT what Benedict is saying. One has to wonder if these fine Protestant theologians who lent their name to this work bothered reading the fine print.
Yet again, it's typical of the kinds of rubbish that's shoveled out there in the hope of damaging Protestant principles in the minds of their hearers, and urging unthinking Protestants to "return home to Rome."
There's a line from an old Keith Green song about the Devil's methodology: "I put some truth in every lie, to tickle itching ears."
We've seen this methodology from the beginning: "Has God indeed said...?"
Benedict is bad enough in this regard. It will be enough of a challenge to read his work and to address the issues he is dealing with.
But Hahn is a liar and a leech, and it is a travesty that individuals such as VanHoozer, Longman and Horton have recommended this trash that’s full of mis-statements and misrepresentations.
