Back  

A review of the book: SCRIPTURE published in 2006.

1. This book is part of the series: Rediscovering Vatican II, and advertised as explaining how Dei Verbum came to be formed at Vatican II. From the first page it is obvious that the author, Ronald D. Witherup, is wedded to the Markan Priority theory. This theory claims that Mark wrote his Gospel first and then unknown anonymous authors, who had never met Jesus, borrowed from it to compose two more Gospels.

As Ronald Witherup has viewed the debates through his Markan Priority eyes, it is necessary to draw attention to how this has influenced his writing.

Devino Afflante Spiritu of 1943 urged Catholics to use the historical-critical method (sometimes referred to as literary or textural analysis ) as a tool when examining how the Gospels were formed. So Witherup is correct pointing out that Dei Verbum endorsed the use of the method. But to imply that its use must automatically leads to the acceptance of the Markan Priority theory, and to present 'fundamentalism' as the only alternative, is not acceptable.

The author praises the interventions of Abbott Butler in the debates on Dei Verbum at the Vatican Council.

"Christopher Butler … argued vigorously to keep the positive references to the modern historical-critical method in the constitution (DV, 19) when it seemed that some council fathers mistrusted this orientation." (Pages 22 and 23).

He implies that the Abbot supported Markan Priority. But in reality he had been using the historical-critical method for years to show the unreliability of the theory. His books upheld the tradition of the priority of Matthew's Gospel. His writings inspired both W.R. Farmer and Dom Bernard Orchard to promote the Matthew-Luke-Mark sequence of Gospel composure. [They saw the order of Matthew-Mark-Luke as that in which they were published].

2. The Council Fathers made great efforts to find unambiguous words for Section 7 of Dei Verbum. Part of it reads:

"…handed on what they [the Apostles] had received from the lips of Christ, from living with Him, and from what he did, … those Apostles … committed the message of salvation to writing." [From Vatican web site]. Witherup omits to comment on this important section of Dei Verbum.

3. Section 19 of Dei Verbum stresses the historicity of the Gospels, but Witherup prefers to discuss the influence of an earlier document which the Council did not discuss or promulgate. There is no room here to comment on Witherup's opinion that the Gospels are not always historical. But readers may wish to read: 'The Gospels as History' and 'Magisterium, Scripture and Catholic Exegetes' by Thomas McGovern, (christendom-awake.org).

4. Witherup conveys the impression that the theory of Matthew the Apostle not writing a Gospel is the Church's alternative to 'Fundamentalism'. But he is out of step with the Church, yet seems to see the Church as being out of step with him. After alluding to Pope John Paul's extensive use of Scripture in his Encyclicals and other writings, Witherup writes on pages 71 and 72:

"An analysis of this pope's use of Scripture, however, shows that for the most part, he preferred spiritual interpretations and applications of the Bible to historical and scientific interpretations. He rarely adopted the historical-critical method and was clearly more at home in pre-critical approaches."

He finds words to 'excuse' the Pope for having this attitude. But this was not merely a private papal quirk. Since Dei Verbum was promulgated Rome has issued many documents which recognise the eyewitness apostolic authorship of the Gospels. For a list see our article [G301. It includes a statement by the then Cardinal Ratzinger complaining that the strongest attacks on the Catechism had come from Scripture scholars.

On his pages 76-77, Witherup admits a clash with the Catechism.        "Others …maintain that it exhibits a kind of stilted use of Scripture more characteristic of an earlier era. One example is the lack of sophistication [advanced knowledge] regarding the historical basis of the Gospels in the section on the life of Christ (CCC, 484-658). The results of the historical-critical method in this regard seem to have slipped into the background as if they were totally insignificant."

Notice how this equates: "The results of the historical-critical method", with accepting Markan Priority's rejection of the historicity of the Gospels.

Those who have used the historical-critical tool to show that Matthew wrote first, followed by Luke and Mark, have no problems with the teaching of CCC or other church documents. This approach may be unfamiliar to those who have been taught the Markan Priority theory only.

DB Version: 19/10/2012



Back