You wrote: “Even Roman Catholics have a series of critical commentaries called Sacra Pagina that takes a critical approach. This type of critical approach normally does not find much support from the Vatican since Roman Catholic scholarship has preset answers that they must arrive at regardless of the data. Nevertheless, these commentaries often deal with issues with integrity, often bringing into question some of the traditional interpretations of Rome.”

This comment makes it sound like you believe that it is only recently that Catholics have chosen to engage Scripture with a critical and scholarly eye. According to the editor of the series the title is borrowed from Medieval sources where Sacra Pagina meant the”study of Scripture to which the interpreter brought the tools of grammar, rhetoric, dialectic, and philosophy.” This sounds a little like old fashioned words
to describe what modern scholars are doing now. If I may be so bold I would suggest that Evangelicals may have just as much to learn about Scripture from Catholics as they do from liberals.

You say that “these commentaries often deal with issues with integrity.” Do these scholars have integrity because they disagree with official Church teaching or is it because they agree with Evangelical presuppositions about what the Scriptures say?

One does not have to give up membeship in the Catholic Church to have integrity and to deal with Scripture fully and honestly. Also one does not have to relinquish scholarly rigor to accept Church teachings. To have integrity and to deal with Scripture it does not necessarily follow that a person will come to the conclusions that Evangelicals or any other Protestant would accept.

I know Evangelicals have their own sacred cows they have no desire to see slaughtered by Biblical scholars. For examply how would many react if an Evangelical said that the Bible really does say Peter was the first Pope and that Evangelicals really do need the Papacy or that Jesus never did have any physical brothers or sisters? These are distinctly Catholic characteristics. Would you think that this hypothetical Evangelical could remain an evangelical or did he overstep some boundary in his scholarship? Would others still see him as Evangelical even with no formal separation or would he be chastised for falling in with papists? Would his integrity as a scholar be questioned?

My response is based upon what I see that paragraph in your post as saying. I think I’ve probably mis-read it and have done disservice to your actual thoughts on the subject as opposed to what I think you think. If this has come over as a little harsh I apologize and it wasn’t meant in that tone.

Having said that I agree with what the rest of the post is about. Liberal scholars aren’t necessarily hindered by a faith tradition or theological presuppositions that other more explicitly faith driven scholars may be. Unfortunately, as your last paragraph says, they understand the scriptures but don’t accept them. I suspect that for some of them reading the Gospel of John or Luke or any other Scripture is no different than reading one of Aesop’s fables or Plato’s “Cave” — that is a historical document that is more a curiosity and interesting and no more morally compelling than the daily paper.

ChadS

Warning, the courses are kind of pricey, but if you are interested, and want recommendations, just let me know.

Juan

Would you or Dr. Wallace mind posting some of the reputable liberal scholars that you found the most helpful? Or that you would recommend reading along side some of the more conservative commentaries? Thanks.

Your brother in Christ,

-Josh

Michael, that old post of your was the one that turned me on to this blog. The position you describe there is fairly close to my own. I hold a basically neo-orthodox view of Scripture, which I view as more nuanced and viable than the Old Princeton standard.

I don’t teach inerrancy, but neither do I teach errancy. I have my own private list of “problem passages,” but I mostly keep them private as discussing them edifies no one. And, I will also contend that none of them are serious problems that in any way endanger Christian belief. But I still couldn’t join the ETS in good conscience.

Sean, while I have a bit tighter view of Scripture than you (I can still see Scripture as “inerrant” even with those inconsistencies and even “errors” often mentioned, but that is another thread), I agree entirely that it is the rigid fundamentalist approach to what Scripture is meant to be that causes SO many to lose faith. They are taught too many “either/ors” EITHER this particular text must be literal historical narrative OR you can’t trust Scripture at all, etc. I mentioned Bart Ehrman’s loss of faith for this very reason in a recent post.