"I haven't reviewed the piece in question so I have no basis on which to debate this with you."
If its the "Documentary Hypothesis" first espoused by Wellhausen that ZC is criticizing, then this has never been accepted by the Church as a valid hypothesis - even though many "biblical scholars" and theologians accept it as fact.
The late Fr. William J Most did some excellent work debunking this theory, and I believe Scott Hahn also teaches against it.
The Roman Theological Forum is dedicated to expunging the malicious effects of higher criticism from Catholic theology and their website is well worth a visit:
www.rtforum.org
If its the "Documentary Hypothesis" first espoused by Wellhausen that ZC is criticizing, then this has never been accepted by the Church as a valid hypothesis - even though many "biblical scholars" and theologians accept it as fact.
The late Fr. William J Most did some excellent work debunking this theory, and I believe Scott Hahn also teaches against it.
The Roman Theological Forum is dedicated to expunging the malicious effects of higher criticism from Catholic theology and their website is well worth a visit:
www.rtforum.org
First of all, my apologies for being AWOL the past couple days (I've been offline for the holiday).
I am quite familiar with Roman Theological Forum and Living Tradition. In fact, it's one of my favorite sites! (When are they going to update! They haven't updated in almost six months!)
The problem is that they are a tiny minority fighting a losing battle. And it is not just the "theologians" that promote the theory. The Church's bishops are almost 100% behind it (along with evolutionism, of course). The fact that they grant their stamps of approval to such bibles is scandalous. Let me ask you something: do you have any idea what it's like to come from a Fundamentalist background to the Catholic Church only to be hit on every side by theories that one has heretofore only heard from atheists???
The Catholic Church is in serious trouble. It is an ancient religion that teaches modernism, a sacramental religion that teaches naturalism, and (unlike Fundamentalist Protestants) it is in Catholicism that such notions as the "mythical" nature of angels has gained ground, in spite of the fact that there is a Catholic cult dedicated to them (Fundamentalists have retained their belief in the reality of angels without ever having prayed to them).
I appreciate your support on this issue, Tantumergo, but I hope you can understand that eventually this "well, that's what everyone's saying but that isn't the official teaching of the Church" wears a little thin.
If the Catholic Church is truly what it claims to be then it should act like it. Is that asking too much?
PS: As for Scott Hahn, I have corresponded with him and even spoken to him on the phone. While he originally retained his Biblical literalism (even believing in seven days and the facticity of the Book of Jonah) he has now gone over to the other side and attacks "literalism" (along with "Fundamentalist Zionism"). I am extremely disappointed in him for selling out. What will Mr. Giles do when he must make a decision?