Opinions on the "historical-critical method"?

[babs57]

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 that one should be aware that there is a difference between truth and fact. What I mean is, you can get any number of truths from a set of facts, and there are some truths that have no factual (material) evidence at all. One should never be afraid to face facts while studying, because facts NEVER CHANGE THE TRUTH!!

 

[_Abyssinia]

William Mitchell Ramsay was a New Testament scholar, archeologist and atheist. He went to Palestine and Asia Minor to investigate whether the Bible was historically accurate archaeologically and found it was and converted to Christianity. Some people are very sceptical and would not trust the Bible as true if it did have the historical facts that can be verified by extra Biblical documents, archeology etc. when they discover it does it leads to conversion

 

[minichibi]

William Mitchell Ramsay was a New Testament scholar, archeologist and atheist. He went to Palestine and Asia Minor to investigate whether the Bible was historically accurate archaeologically and found it was and converted to Christianity. Some people are very sceptical and would not trust the Bible as true if it did have the historical facts that can be verified by extra Biblical documents, archeology etc. when they discover it does it leads to conversion

How long ago did it happen?

 

[annem]

Zenkai
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.

Hi, the early Christians did not pass on stories the way you are suggesting.

The Second Temple Jews had two set of beliefs, one rooted in scripture (although there was no formal canon yet) and one rooted in oral tradition. Josephus, for example, says that when Pharisees passed on oral tradition it was considered as sacred and as binding as scripture.

When the Pharisees passed on oral tradition they would announce it by using the terms “paralambanein” or "paradidonai. And guess what - St Paul used those very same words in his epistles.

So, how did they pass on oral tradition? You have to imagine a culture that is rooted in, and saturated with, rote memorization. This is pretty much the opposite of how we are taught today, so it is rather alien to us. However, rote memorization was the basis for all education in the ancient world. Students learned entire poems by heart. You could even be considered well educated if you knew some of your culture’s long poems by heart, but couldn’t actually read it.

Second Temple Jews would have known and noted when Paul and the others used such words. They would have been quick to (perhaps, although we have no ironclad proof of it) take notes and certainly they would have understood the binding nature of what Paul was saying.

At any rate, this is very, very different from merely telling a story which someone remembers 20 years later.

May God grant you miracles, Annem

 

[edwest2]

biblicalarchaeology.org/magazine/

Peace,
Ed

 

[fhansen]

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.

It’s a valid method, but as Pope Benedict maintains in “Jesus of Nazareth”, it must be used responsibly, acknowledging its limitations-and it’s been often abused to promote personal agendas in the past.

 

[CalCatholic]

It’s a valid method, but as Pope Benedict maintains in “Jesus of Nazareth”, it must be used responsibly, acknowledging its limitations-and it’s been often abused to promote personal agendas in the past.

I agree, to use the historical-critical method to attempt to invalidate miracles by Jesus and or his apostles is not only irresponsible but also unscientific! Science can’t prove or disprove the existence of God or God’s interaction in the human realm!

 

[patrick457]

It’s a valid method, but as Pope Benedict maintains in “Jesus of Nazareth”, it must be used responsibly, acknowledging its limitations-and it’s been often abused to promote personal agendas in the past.

to you AND to CalCatholic.

That being said, I do feel that some folks out there seem to treat ‘modern biblical scholarship’ in general as being some sort of bogeyman to be feared, avoided, and hated, which I think is a rather silly and gross oversimplification of the actual reality, not to mention that it is throwing the baby with the bathwater. Let me quote from what I said a while back: (Sorry in advance for it somewhat ranting tone, and a few grammatical errors faithfully reproduced here; I wasn’t really in the mood when I wrote it )

I think the problem is that people sometimes assume ‘biblical scholarship’ to be this homogeneous, monolithic movement. Some might even characterize ‘it’ as the worst plague mankind has ever encountered since the Black Death, values-added tax or the Big Mac, as if all the evil cabal of scholars convene in some dark room and just cross out things they don’t like just because they’re pure wicked. It doesn’t help that the ones who get all the publicity are people like the Jesus Seminar (by no means the norm in academia, mind - they are highly infamous even within it). So it’s at least understandable why a few folks seem to view it as a sort of bogeyman, to be avoided at all costs: the whole ‘us vs. them’ mentality.

Now, if there’s anything I learned during all the time I wasted reading things and stuff, it is this: biblical scholarship is just like any other field. You have A saying this, B comes along and disagrees with A, C agrees with some of A’s ideas but disagrees with others, D disregards everyone else. In short, there is a huge diversity all across the spectrum (from the ‘liberal’ to the ‘conservative’ and everything in between) that you can hardly get a person to completely agree with you. That is why pointing the finger at ‘modern biblical scholarship’ is a huge oversimplification: labels like ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’, ‘Protestant’ or ‘Catholic’ or whatever are often not of much use either. Better it is to specifically ask, ‘whose scholarship is in question?’

Now I would agree that there are people within academia who are spouting (I’ll be frank) utter junk, but that doesn’t mean there’s no longer anything of value to be found in it. To overgeneralize and oversimplify the situation makes one no different from those who accuse priests of being child-molesters. The actions of the few are hardly reflective of that of the many. What we so unfortunately often have when we speak of “scholarship” (ooh, that dreaded word!) is a gross caricature, a strawman even. In other words, often people are thinking of and pitting themselves against something which technically doesn’t even exist, almost like the one-man swordplay anti-Catholics seem to enjoying themselves with when they accuse “the Catholic Church.”

 

[Jerry-Jet]

“Modern biblical scholarship” and “Historical Critical Method” came up with and support the following NON SCHOLARSHIP JUNK:

“A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored one” and Q!

1900 years of scholarship didn’t support these 3 travesties!

The Fathers of the Church–the Doctors of the Church–and the dogmas of the Catholic Church do not support these three travesties!

What counts more in the field of biblical scholarship–the first 1900 years or the last 100 years?

Are the last 100 years of so called scholarship that came up with this JUNK superior to all the Doctors of the Church for the first 1900 years?

Was the Pontifical Biblical Commission of the early 1900s smart or idiots?

It really is that simple!

Was Mary FULL OF GRACE or highly favored?

It really is that simple!

Did a “young woman conceive” or were the New Testament writers inspired by the Holy Spirit who cannot err right in saying that “A VIRGIN” conceived?

Is the “HAIL MARY” based on biblical fact or are the “modern scholarship” and “historical critical method” people right?

It really is that simple!

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write the gospels INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit or did they COPY Q?

It really is that simple!

 

[patrick457]

“Modern biblical scholarship” and “Historical Critical Method” came up with and support the following NON SCHOLARSHIP JUNK:

“A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored one” and Q!

1900 years of scholarship didn’t support these 3 travesties!

The Fathers of the Church–the Doctors of the Church–and the dogmas of the Catholic Church do not support these three travesties!

What counts more in the field of biblical scholarship–the first 1900 years or the last 100 years?

Are the last 100 years of so called scholarship that came up with this JUNK superior to all the Doctors of the Church for the first 1900 years?

Was the Pontifical Biblical Commission of the early 1900s smart or idiots?

It really is that simple!

Was Mary FULL OF GRACE or highly favored?

It really is that simple!

Did a “young woman conceive” or were the New Testament writers inspired by the Holy Spirit who cannot err right in saying that “A VIRGIN” conceived?

Is the “HAIL MARY” based on biblical fact or are the “modern scholarship” and “historical critical method” people right?

It really is that simple!

Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John write the gospels INSPIRED by the Holy Spirit or did they COPY Q?

It really is that simple!

Well, what has that got to do with ‘biblical scholarship’ in general? Seriously, if one’s idea of ‘biblical scholarship’ is limited to minimalism and Q and Jesus Seminar and all that stuff, then you have a very narrow and incomplete picture. Do ALL ‘scholars’ hold to the theory of Q or any other of the stuff that you say? Are ALL scholars of a ‘liberal’ bent? Does EVERY scholar disregard other sources like the Fathers? Why are you are trying to propose a dichotomy as if everything in the world can be neatly categorized in black and white? Why do you have to pit the two sides as if they’re some two opposing camps? Does the fact that just because there’s some garbage in it means that there’s no longer anything of worth to be found? Seriously, is Raymond Brown (hardly a conservative but also hardly a liberal) or Marcus Borg or John Dominic Crossan or Bart Ehrman the only people around? No! If anything they’re but drops in an ocean!

…I’m very sorry for the whole rant, I don’t think I was being clear enough. No offense, I’m just been under some huge stress lately; to preserve public decorum and to avoid opening unnecessary confrontations that will just waste everyone’s time, I think I will remove myself from here again. Again, I’m very sorry for bringing my own troubles here and not being so level-headed, guys - prayers would be really appreciated. Good night and goodbye for now, folks.

 

[steve53]

How do you define scholarship?

And IS there such a thing as RELIGIOUS scholarship that means anything? You can be a religious scholar and be COMPLETELY WRONG on a lot of things, but have a lot of flaky evidence to support your assertions, and maybe you can also speak and write Greek to impress people.

When you want to know about history- if you think it is important- you MUST abandon religious pretensions and enter the realm of critical analysis, where all evidence and sources are evaluated for veracity. Technically, in critical analysis, if a provable error is found in ANY source, the source MUST be dismissed completely.

Historical scholarship is a different kettle of fish from religious scholarship.

Generally, the further away from the actual event, the less veracious the source is likely to be. Eyewitnesses to contemporaneous events of the era studied should be given more weight. In the early Christian era that means Josephus, Philo, and book of John, and maybe some others.

Remember that the only secular historians we have from the early Christian Era were saved BY THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES. They probably saved the best of them. The library at Alexandria in Jesus’ day probably held close to a million scrolls.

Bottom line is that if you believe in the Holy Spirit and the power of God through Jesus, the historical occurrences around Jesus and the early Christians were all secondary events, and not causative. They should only be of casual interest. God wanted to go from point A to point B, and the history resulting from that was just happenstance and of no real meaning, like the waves generated from a speeding boat.

 

[farpinho]

How do you define scholarship?

And IS there such a thing as RELIGIOUS scholarship that means anything? You can be a religious scholar and be COMPLETELY WRONG on a lot of things, but have a lot of flaky evidence to support your assertions, and maybe you can also speak and write Greek to impress people.

When you want to know about history- if you think it is important- you MUST abandon religious pretensions and enter the realm of critical analysis, where all evidence and sources are evaluated for veracity. Technically, in critical analysis, if a provable error is found in ANY source, the source MUST be dismissed completely.

Historical scholarship is a different kettle of fish from religious scholarship.

Generally, the further away from the actual event, the less veracious the source is likely to be. Eyewitnesses to contemporaneous events of the era studied should be given more weight. In the early Christian era that means Josephus, Philo, and book of John, and maybe some others.

Remember that the only secular historians we have from the early Christian Era were saved BY THE CHRISTIANS THEMSELVES. They probably saved the best of them. The library at Alexandria in Jesus’ day probably held close to a million scrolls.

Bottom line is that if you believe in the Holy Spirit and the power of God through Jesus, the historical occurrences around Jesus and the early Christians were all secondary events, and not causative. They should only be of casual interest. God wanted to go from point A to point B, and the history resulting from that was just happenstance and of no real meaning, like the waves generated from a speeding boat.

What is the “Book of John” you are talking about?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Exactly how is my view of biblical scholarship MINIMAL when “A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored one” are supported by the translation teams that came up with the text of the NAB?

Wouldn’t anyone say that those translation teams should be a broad based composite of
Modern Catholic biblical scholarship?

Now I’m not saying that dogmatically the Catholic Church teaches “A young woman will conceive” or “Hail favored one” but I am saying that apparently the MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARS who made up the biblical translation team of the NAB believe that those translations are supported by MODERN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP in CONTRADICTION to biblical scholarship in the Catholic Church over the first 19 centuries!

Try to attend an American Catholic seminary and dispute the accuracy of Q and see how far that will get you! Are there American Catholic seminaries that wouldn’t mind if you didn’t believe in Q? Of course! Are there others who would think bad of you and possibly negatively impact you if you didn’t accept Q as accepted biblical scholaraship truth?

Of course!

So see–we are not exclusively talking about Jesus seminar fringe here.

We’re talking about American Catholic biblical scholarship as of today that is accepted by many in American Catholic seminaries who SUPPOSEDLY know what real modern biblical scholarship is all about.

Now I’m not saying that EVERY American Catholic seminary or every American Catholic professor at every American Catholic seminary supports that scholarship–or that all translators of the NAB support that scholarship but let’s be intellectually honest and not PRETEND that a great number of professors at American Catholic seminaries and NAB translators do support that kind of scholarship!

And at least a majority of the translators of the NAB agreed with that type of scholarship when it came to “A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored one”!

Can there be Modern Catholic Biblical Scholarship that wouldn’t agree with “A young woman will conceive” and “Hail favored on” and the notion of Q?

Of course!

But if that kind of scholarship isn’t seen in American Catholic seminary curricula or the text of the NAB then exactly which side has the upper hand?

And one last thing–the APOSTLE John WROTE John and he was an eye witness to what he wrote about!

That is exactly what I’m talking about–and if you don’t believe me that that is true ASK the first 1900 years of Catholic biblical scholarship–ask the Pontifical biblical commssion which was asked that very question in the early 1900s under St. Pope Pius X!

They held against those who didn’t believe that the apostle John wrote John!

Name One POPE who says that John didn’t write John! Ask Pope Benedict XVI if John wrote John!

I guarantee you that he will not side with the MODERNISTS who say that the person who wrote John was NOT an eye witness to the events in that gospel!

That’s what INAUTHENIC Modern biblical scholarship says.

It should be opposed!

 

[annem]

Steve 53Historical scholarship is a different kettle of fish from religious scholarship.

This is a pretty sweeping statement. What biblical scholars do you disagree with? Which do you find compelling?

May God grant you miracles, Annem

 

[steve53]

This is a pretty sweeping statement. What biblical scholars do you disagree with? Which do you find compelling?

May God grant you miracles, Annem

I have given up even reading them. A waste of time.

 

[Bookcat]

Pope Benedict XVI (who as Cardinal certainly pointed out the limitations of the HCM)

"32. Before all else, we need to acknowledge the benefits that historical-critical exegesis and other recently-developed methods of textual analysis have brought to the life of the Church.[97] For the Catholic understanding of sacred Scripture, attention to such methods is indispensable, linked as it is to the realism of the Incarnation: “This necessity is a consequence of the Christian principle formulated in the Gospel of John 1:14: Verbum caro factum est. The historical fact is a constitutive dimension of the Christian faith. The history of salvation is not mythology, but a true history, and it should thus be studied with the methods of serious historical research”.[98] The study of the Bible requires a knowledge of these methods of enquiry and their suitable application. While it is true that scholarship has come to a much greater appreciation of their importance in the modern period, albeit not everywhere to the same degree, nonetheless the sound ecclesial tradition has always demonstrated a love for the study of the “letter”. Here we need but recall the monastic culture which is the ultimate foundation of European culture; at its root lies a concern for the word. The desire for God includes love for the word in all its dimensions: “because in the word of the Bible God comes to us and we to him, we must learn to penetrate the secret of language, to understand it in its structure and its mode of expression. Thus, because of the search for God, the secular sciences which lead to a greater understanding of language became important”.[99]

1. The Church’s living magisterium, which is charged with “giving an authentic interpretation of the word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of tradition”,[100] intervened in a prudent and balanced way regarding the correct response to the introduction of new methods of historical analysis. I think in particular of the Encyclicals Providentissimus Deus of Pope Leo XIII and Divino Afflante Spiritu of Pope Pius XII. My venerable predecessor John Paul II recalled the importance of these documents on the centenary and the fiftieth anniversary respectively of their promulgation.[101] Pope Leo XIII’s intervention had the merit of protecting the Catholic interpretation of the Bible from the inroads of rationalism, without, however, seeking refuge in a spiritual meaning detached from history. Far from shunning scientific criticism, the Church was wary only of “preconceived opinions that claim to be based on science, but which in reality surreptitiously cause science to depart from its domain”.[102] Pope Pius XII, on the other hand, was faced with attacks on the part of those who proposed a so-called mystical exegesis which rejected any form of scientific approach. The Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu was careful to avoid any hint of a dichotomy between “scientific exegesis” for use in apologetics and “spiritual interpretation meant for internal use”; rather it affirmed both the “theological significance of the literal sense, methodically defined” and the fact that “determining the spiritual sense … belongs itself to the realm of exegetical science”.[103] In this way, both documents rejected “a split between the human and the divine, between scientific research and respect for the faith, between the literal sense and the spiritual sense”.[104] This balance was subsequently maintained by the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission: “in their work of interpretation, Catholic exegetes must never forget that what they are interpreting is the word of God. Their common task is not finished when they have simply determined sources, defined forms or explained literary procedures. They arrive at the true goal of their work only when they have explained the meaning of the biblical text as God’s word for today”.[105]"

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.html

Does the Historical-Critical Method have its limitations?? yes

Has it been misused? yes

But that does not mean it gets simply thrown out ?. no.

(it is quite ironic for me to be defending to good in the HCM – for I am usually more on the side of cautioning others of past misuse (or present) etc of such … But it must be said that YES there is good there. We must recognize the benefits --while using a Hermenutic of Faith not of suspicion as some use.)

 

[annem]

Steve53 I have given up even reading them. A waste of time.

Steve53, come come. You 'gave up reading them"? Really? Name the scholars you have read, please. And while you’re at it, the arguments you found “a waste of time” /

I double dog dare you. I triple dog dare you.

And may God grant you miracles and light, Annem

 

[Julia_Mae]

. One should never be afraid to face facts while studying, because facts NEVER CHANGE THE TRUTH!!

there ya go

 

[PJM]

=Jerry-Jet;9752948]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!

AMEN! Jerry,

God Bless,
pat

 

[57Bill]

It’s a valid method, but as Pope Benedict maintains in “Jesus of Nazareth”, it must be used responsibly, acknowledging its limitations-and it’s been often abused to promote personal agendas in the past.

historical-critial is probably, no it *is *the weakest of the three forms that I know that are used (Theological, Historical and Literary) not much has been hammered out conclusively re historical critical other than Matt and Luke used some material from Mark.