Isn’t that the truth. The observations about the book of Job made me think of the four different traditions behind Genesis and the multiple entries and reductions of the Gospel of John. If we applied a narrow criterion for Inspiration that would only allow one author, we dare to constrain God.
Technically, it still ain’t proven that the documentary hypothesis - where the Torah as a whole, not just Genesis, were composed by cut-and-pasting four or more different narratives together - was really how the Torah was composed: in fact, late last century an increasing number of scholars have begun proposing alternative theories (for example, the
supplementary hypothesis - where later authors repeatedly redacted and edited an earlier work).
On the one hand, I agree that the historical-critical method (HCM) can and does lead to loss of faith if used a certain way. But on the other hand, I hardly think the Fundamentalist approach to things - secluding oneself from and refusing to accept modern scholarship in general, calling it satanic even - is hardly the way to go. In fact, I’d say that’s the reason
why some people find HCM detrimental: it’s because not too many people bother to actually teach the flock about what it really is (as opposed to just spreading misinformation about it) and how it is to be properly used. In other words, there’s a whole lack of cathechesis in this area.
And without a guide, folks are pretty much left to fend for themselves. They encounter HCM, and it all goes downhill from there.* “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”
- Many folks here in CAF like to denounce the NAB footnotes and prefaces. I do agree that they are problematic, but not for the same reasons as many posters do. The notes are hardly problematic if you’ve got a good grounding on the necessary fields, but I feel the NAB (1) just takes the HCM thing for granted but fails to provide its readers with a proper introduction to it, and (2) only represents a certain segment of modern biblical scholarship: it takes the documentary hypothesis and the Q hypothesis for granted, failing to note that these are hardly gospel truths nor even accepted by all scholars. They might be the majority opinion, but at least the editors of the NAB should have had the decency to note that they are not universally accepted, nor are they the only hypotheses available. (I’d even say the NAB footnotes/prefaces are at risk of being outdated: these were written around the 1970s-80s, I think, and scholarship has made some further advances since then.) So it comes off as a monstrosity - I’ll be harsh here - of one-sided, borderline-outdated assertions that are force-fed to the laity as ‘gospel truth’.
Many scholars (sometimes unfortunately including those who need to be read more) are not exactly the types who could communicate their ideas coherently to the general public and are so often relegated to journals and hefty books the average joe couldn’t be bothered to read through. Out of that small handful that can speak to the public, about more than half of those are really who you might say are in the academic fringes (sometimes even those beyond the pale), or like to state their ideas in a rather provocative way (not always in a good way) that you’ll think they have some sort of hidden agenda (sometimes they do, but oftentimes they’re just really bad public speakers). So all the public is getting is really just a
small segment of a segment of modern scholarship, and it does not necessarily always represent the cream of the crop. Really, I’d bet many people have heard about The Jesus Seminar, John Dominic Crossan, or Bart Ehrman (Ehrman’s an almost decent scholar,
when he’s talking to other scholars, but he’s a terrible and misleading popular writer IMHO)*, but what about the likes of Richard Bauckham, Luke Timothy Johnson, Ben Witherington III, Larry Hurtado, Fr. Daniel J. Harrington, Dom Bernard Orchard, or Fr. John T. Meier?
- I won’t even go into the likes of Simcha Jacobovici or Reza Aslan here. They’re sensational writers. They’re hardly real academics.
Of the non-academics who actually know HCM, a segment of those are folks who
think they know it, but in reality, they either (1) only have a vague idea or worse, a misconception of it, and/or (2) they only have
a bit of knowledge about it (and that’s the
more dangerous kind, really; again, “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing” and all that). Another segment are folks who learn about it, but just keep their knowledge to themselves and do not bother to properly educate others, either because they can’t, or because they won’t. (And this is quite a shame really, because I can tell a lot of people will benefit from this sort of stuff.) Those who
really know what HCM is and can educate the average joe in the pew about it - without giving them any bad ideas along the way - are in the precious few. Well, at least I’ve never seen one for quite some time.
In fact, what many people don’t know is that historical-critical method
method available out there.only You have other forms of study like rhetorical criticism, audience-response criticism, or literary criticism that’s been gaining some foothold among some modern biblical scholars.
