Opinions on the "historical-critical method"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zenkai

Guest
How do you feel about the historical-critical method? I personally do not like it because it seems to disregards inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Tradition, and what what the Bible says. I have no idea why it is in the footnotes of so many Bibles.
 
I think the historical-critical method is necessary, because otherwise people will try to interpret the scriptures literally, while it’s necessary to understand the historic and textual context in which the books were written.
Why do you think the critics undermine the inspirational character of the Bible?
 
Zenkai said:
Because it says that several books of the Bible were not written by who the Bible says wrote them, etc.
Click to expand...
What’s the problem in that? The texts were written annonymously from start, the authorship was attributed later. The texts were never claimed to be written by this or that author.
 
farpinho said:
What’s the problem in that? The texts were written annonymously from start, the authorship was attributed later. The nexts were never claimed to be written by this or that author.
Click to expand...
St. Peter’s Epistles state in the intros that they are letters written by St. Peter. Other Epistles also state who the author is.
 
That’s true, but remember that St. Peter most probably had secretaries and disciples write for him, and that’s acceptable for the way epistles were written in the past. Even the most educated people had others write for them. Also a disciple of St. Peter who understood his teachings and wrote with St. Peter’s name was acceptable back then.
 
farpinho said:
That’s true, but remember that St. Peter most probably had secretaries and disciples write for him, and that’s acceptable for the way epistles were written in the past. Even the most educated people had others write for them. Also a disciple of St. Peter who understood his teachings and wrote with St. Peter’s name was acceptable back then.
Click to expand...
Were “his secretaries” inspired by the Holy Spirit too?

There is absolutely no good reason to doubt what the Bible says.
 
Let me ask you a question, if your grandfather tells you a story, and several years your grandfather died you decide to write a book based on the story your grandfather told you, who do you say the author of the story is? You or your grandfather?
 
farpinho said:
Let me ask you a question, if your grandfather tells you a story, and several years your grandfather died you decide to write a book based on the story your grandfather told you, who do you say the author of the story is? You or your grandfather?
Click to expand...
I doubt I would remember every little detail of the story. I would state that it is my account of what he told me. I would not pretend to be him.

Again, there is no reason to doubt what the Bible says. I would rather believe what the Bible says than what an atheist says 2000 years after the Epistles were written.
 
Zenkai said:
Were “his secretaries” inspired by the Holy Spirit too?

There is absolutely no good reason to doubt what the Bible says.
Click to expand...
Why not? The Holy Spirit didn’t inspire just the first generation of disciples of Christ, but also the disciples of disciples. Secondly, we must remember that the epistles and Gospels weren’t meant to be part of scriptures at first, they were combined to compose the final Bible several years later. The Epistles and Gospels were written to be read in a loud voice to a huge public or in the primitive churches at first. I’m not much too worried about the authorship of these books and epistles, to be very frank with you. What worries me the most is that the christians took too long to realize the need to protect the early and authentic material with canon protection, because they were expecting the return of Christ to be very soon… what worries me the most is that St. Paul, St. Peter and the other apostles and disciples wrote a lot more epistles than the ones that survived over time, and we know nothing of them, they simply didn’t survive… 😦
 
farpinho said:
what worries me the most is that St. Paul, St. Peter and the other apostles and disciples wrote a lot more epistles than the ones that survived over time, and we know nothing of them, they simply didn’t survive… 😦
Click to expand...
Perhaps they contained the same teachings as the ones that did survive. I think the Holy Spirit preserved the most important documents.
 
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church tells us:

"The senses of Scripture

"115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

"116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

"117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

"1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84

"2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85

"3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86

"118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87"

We cannot guess and decide for ourselves. We must investigate what the Church actually teaches. That means looking, online, for Church documents that deal with the parts of the Old Testament that some find difficult to believe.

If you read the New Testament, you see Jesus referring to the Old Testament and you will see Old Testament prophecy as given by God and statements like: “This was done so that the scripture would be fulfilled.” And similar.

bible.cc/john/19-36.htm

The Scripture John is talking about is found in the Old Testament.

Jesus read from the Old Testament in the synagogue, and said:

bible.cc/luke/4-21.htm

And then we have this statement regarding the Old Testament:

bible.cc/2_peter/1-21.htm

I also suggest the following:

amazon.com/Why-Catholic-Bibles-are-Bigger/dp/1581880103

Peace,
Ed
 
Zenkai said:
I doubt I would remember every little detail of the story. I would state that it is my account of what he told me. I would not pretend to be him.

Again, there is no reason to doubt what the Bible says. I would rather believe what the Bible says than what an atheist says 2000 years after the Epistles were written.
Click to expand...
Your profile says you are becoming Catholic. We are not a sola scriptura Church, and we are not literalists.

So, first: the Bible is a compilation of writings that the Church named as “canon.” That is: we have a Canon of Scripture. “Scripture” means writings. “Canon” means rule or measure. It does not mean that there are not other true and inspired writings, but for a variety of reasons, the Church Fathers chose these 72 writings, or books, as those from which we derive our theological and spiritual truths. We also derive those things from Traditions which are outside of the writings.

Every one of those writings, much later gathered together under one cover we call the Bible, are unique to themselves. All are not historical, all are not inspirational, all are not poetry, all are not anything. As Catholic Christians, while when we read Scripture the Holy Spirit may speak to us through those words, the only authority for what the Sacred writer meant, or said, is the Church through the Magesterium and affirmed by our Pope.

As a Catholic, you might think the Bible says something. If the Church tells you differently, you are wrong no matter how much you think it says what you think, you must put the teaching authority of the Church ahead of your own.

Here is the New American Bible online. It is approved for liturgical and teaching in the US. The footnotes and introductions are also approved.

Some people take the H/C much too far. You are right in that some go so far as to deny the miracles of Jesus citing the H/C methods they use. But the Church says they are wrong. So, you see how we can get into trouble when we substitute the Church’s teaching for our own interpretation.
 
=Zenkai;9752440]How do you feel about the historical-critical method? I personally do not like it because it seems to disregards inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Tradition, and what what the Bible says. I have no idea why it is in the footnotes of so many Bibles.
Click to expand...
While being far from “an expert” this method seems completely unrealistic.

The Bible IS NOT a “history book” it’s purpose to to enable one to discover the Awe and Wonder of our God.

God Bless,
Pat
 
So what if the bible isn’t a history book–that doesn’t therefore mean that it doesn’t have factual historical realities in it!

The problem with SOME modern biblical scholars is that they don’t believe that the bible has ANY factual historical realities in it–realities such as Jesus rising from the dead or feeding 5,000 or walking on water or being born of a virgin.

ANY self proclaimed bible scholar who when using the historical critical method does not believe that those factual historical realities did in deed take place is NO scholar!
 
One thing to remember: The Bible tells how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. ::)🙂
 
PJM said:
While being far from “an expert” this method seems completely unrealistic.

The Bible IS NOT a “history book” it’s purpose to to enable one to discover the Awe and Wonder of our God.

God Bless,
Pat
Click to expand...
The Bible does contain actual history. Here is what the Bible tells us as to its usefulness:

bible.cc/2_timothy/3-16.htm

Peace,
Ed
 
Zenkai said:
How do you feel about the historical-critical method? I personally do not like it because it seems to disregards inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Tradition, and what what the Bible says. I have no idea why it is in the footnotes of so many Bibles.
Click to expand...
I feel that it’s one of the many tools to be used to know what God wants from us and for us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top