Author Topic: Historical - crithical method of reading Bible your remarks  (Read 235 times)

Offline JeanVianney

  • Hellebardier
  • *
  • Posts: 19
  • Thanked: 16 times
  • Religion: catholic catechumene
Historical - crithical method of reading Bible your remarks
« on: October 10, 2019, 03:29:13 AM »
I have no questions, but I would like to know your opinions on this. It pertains to modernism in the Church.
As you have noticed the post Vatican II - church uses the biblical criticism in her Bibles.
That s why I use the czech Susil s comentary on the new testament and Hejcl s commentary on the old testament and traditional haydock comentary for both the new and old testament of the The Douay–Rheims Bible.
I think it is betray of St. Pius X s Lamentabili sane exitu and the antimodernist oath the using historical method. By the way it was invented and pursued by protestant scholars of ninteenth century such as Harnack.
Look at the Jerusalem Bible with such comentaries, somebody would think it s an atheist Bible.
So your opinions ?
Domine non sum dignus
Christus vincit Christus regnat Christus imperat
Salus animarum suprema lex
Professio fidei tridentina
Sacrorum Antistitum
 
The following users thanked this post: Xavier

Offline Kreuzritter

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1680
  • Thanked: 1087 times
  • Religion: Quasi-Catholic
Re: Historical - crithical method of reading Bible your remarks
« Reply #1 on: October 10, 2019, 04:49:08 AM »
A pseudoscience built upon unprovable presuppositions.
 

Offline Daniel

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2617
  • Thanked: 608 times
Re: Historical - crithical method of reading Bible your remarks
« Reply #2 on: October 10, 2019, 07:45:51 AM »
I think it could go either way.

St. Jerome used some form of textual criticism in order to produce the Vulgate translation. And the colleges at Douay and Rheims used some form of textual criticism in order to produce the Douay-Rheims translation.

The problem is, textual criticism is to some extent subjective and interpretive. There's literally no way to use textual criticism in order to arrive at a definitive reconstruction of the original text.

Newer translations and commentaries try to use it to undermine the traditional teachings of the Church.

edit - Though I must admit that the newer commentaries are sometimes helpful (when taken with a grain of salt) in that they can provide some historical context to help make better sense of the reading. (During the middle ages and the renaissance there simply wasn't a lot of historical information available with regard to Egypt and the middle east.) Another thing is that some of the newer commentaries will sometimes point out where the manuscripts significantly differ, whereas the older commentaries don't really do this.
« Last Edit: October 10, 2019, 07:56:07 AM by Daniel »