I was in Seminary in the early 70's. All the good 'critical' work was out there. Much of it was very plausible. And a great deal was very helpful
But when I got out into the trenches, this was my alleged thinking:
The Church gives me this collection of writings. The Church tells me it is unlike any other collection of writings.
It may be true, it may be interesting that the Apostle Peter did not write the Petrine Epistles, or not both of them. It may be true that this or that section of Mark and/or John is unattested in the earlier MSs.
But this is what the Church has given me. I cannot, without setting myself above the Church, say, "Well we don't have to pay attention to this," or "That is a later addition, so it doesn't count."
So in the exegesis part of my sermon or class prep I NOTED what the scholars said. I took it seriously. But I preached on the text as it was given to me to preach on, not on the Mad Dawg "improved" text.
I guess I was doomed to be Catholic. it seems to me the Bible comes to us as the Queen of traditions -- of things handed down. She is attended by other traditions which assist in making her known, as a queen might be attended by ladies, some competent, some not so much.Which adds up to: I don't care who wrote which bits. I mean, I'm interested, but I don't care.
Is that wrong? ;-)
The Church gives me this collection of writings. The Church tells me it is unlike any other collection of writings.
It may be true, it may be interesting that the Apostle Peter did not write the Petrine Epistles, or not both of them. It may be true that this or that section of Mark and/or John is unattested in the earlier MSs.
But this is what the Church has given me. I cannot, without setting myself above the Church, say, "Well we don't have to pay attention to this," or "That is a later addition, so it doesn't count."
Ah, my friend, you see that I agree inasmuch as I accept fully and completely the Canon of Scripture. It doesn't matter to me who the author is: the Church has Canonized Scripture and Canonized it is.
So in the exegesis part of my sermon or class prep I NOTED what the scholars said. I took it seriously. But I preached on the text as it was given to me to preach on, not on the Mad Dawg "improved" text.
That way lies the madness of the Reformation. Agreed again.
I guess I was doomed to be Catholic. it seems to me the Bible comes to us as the Queen of traditions -- of things handed down. She is attended by other traditions which assist in making her known, as a queen might be attended by ladies, some competent, some not so much.Which adds up to: I don't care who wrote which bits. I mean, I'm interested, but I don't care.
Is that wrong? ;-)
Frankly, I have no idea whether it's completely right, completely wrong, or a combination of "right" and "not right". In all likelihood that is the reason I evolved into a Unitarian? While I am relatively certain that our Scripture is not "perfect" in it's choice of words, books included, and books excluded, I have come to accept it as "sufficient". (Is that wrong?)
(Ask me sometime about my belief in the importance of Mary Magdalene in the miniistry of Jesus, her role in the pre and post ressurection of Jesus, and the possible "jealousy" of males who wrote her out of Scripture.)