Refuting the historical criticle method

[Crumpy]

Anyone wanting an overview of the Church’s opinion of the historical-critical method should review the document at this link:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM

I had this document in a booklet form for a long time. It is so boring, that I couldn’t make my way through it.

Know in advance that it takes the position that no single way of interpreting the Bible, that is, this method or that method, offers complete insights. They are tools, but each method has its pluses and minuses.

 

[Joe_5859]

Anyone wanting an overview of the Church’s opinion of the historical-critical method should review the document at this link:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PBCINTER.HTM

I had this document in a booklet form for a long time. It is so boring, that I couldn’t make my way through it.

Know in advance that it takes the position that no single way of interpreting the Bible, that is, this method or that method, offers complete insights. They are tools, but each method has its pluses and minuses.

It’s not boring!

But I suppose I’m just a nerd like that.

 

[JRRTFAN]

i was just wondering does anyone have easy ways to refute the historical critical method.

i think Benedict tore it apart in his book Jesus of Nazareth but i have yet to find it in there still readying it

His Holiness did not “tear it apart”. His comments are in the first 25 or so pages of text. What he says is it’s one method among many and has value, but is not the ONLY method. The problem he has with it is that many have rejected all the traditional methods to the sole use of H.C. method.

His concept is that the text should be the supreme guide to what the text says, all other things are interpretive and need to be properly used.

Read your way through the introductory notes of the gem of theological wisdom: The St. Joseph Edition of the New American Bible and you will encounter exactly what the Holy Father is grousing about. You’d do better, in most cases, with a Protestant NIV Study Bible.