Refuting the historical criticle method

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholictiger
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholictiger

Guest
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
 
catholictiger said:
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
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific?

There are positive aspects of historical criticism, and negative aspects of historical critiscism.

What aspects of the historical critical method do you feel need refuted?
 
i guess first the multiple sources in genesis

i was just curious to see how people would refute it

but ill go through the negatives i know and we can just go through that way 👍

i took a class freshman year of college on the old tesimate and it was all based on this method i hated it
 
catholictiger said:
i guess first the multiple sources in genesis

i was just curious to see how people would refute it

but ill go through the negatives i know and we can just go through that way 👍

i took a class freshman year of college on the old tesimate and it was all based on this method i hated it
Click to expand...
Well, the historical-critical method, like any other method, is not full-proof. Therefore, multiple sources can be refuted purely on the basis it is a theory. It is a theory founded on scholarship, and there is evidence to support the theory. But, it’s still a theory.

In another few centuries, or even next week, :rolleyes: a very clever scholar could come along and overturn all we know to date with their theory. I personally don’t know of any other theories that would refute current, scholarly thinking. Not valid one’s anyway.

What I would not do, is refute the multiple sources on the basis Moses wrote the book of Genesis. That arguement doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.
 
catholictiger said:
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
Click to expand...
There is no point in “refuting” the historical critical method - it is a valid tool for studying scripture and supported by the church. It is, however, not the only tool and it can be used excessively to the exclusion of others.

You may want to refute the conlusions drawn by some who use the tool in their analysis but don’t blame the tool.
 
The fatal flaw of the Historical Critical method is that it bases itself primarily upon ASSUMPTIONS - and ones that have been made by adopting a rationalist, and basically atheist worldview. I is actually based more on guesswork and supposition than evidence. The alarming thing is that its proponents then treat the unevidenced mas of supposition they produce as if it were fact.
  • Some of the methods used are more reputable than others. For example, attempts to identify various styles of writing and naming - as used in the several-source theories on Genesis - at least have SOME logic other than prejudice. The problem is, that even these methods are based on a supposition that the traditional accounts are wrong, and that Genesis is not primarily the work of Moses.
  • Worse are the wholly disreputable methods used such as:
  1. Assuming that any account of the supernatural and miraculous has been made up or invented. This “principle” is used to suggest that Jesus’s infancy narratives are all invented lies, for example.
  2. Assuming any prophecy that is found to have been confirmed was written AFTER the confirmed event took place. This has been used to create the “accepted” dates of the Gospels, by assuming that (despite strong internal evidence to the contrary) they were mostly written after 70 AD.
  3. Assuming that of any variant readings, those LEAST likely to make sense, or to back up the accepted narrative, are most likely to be true. This has led to the loss of several verses, or to odd forms of verses appearing in modern translations.
4.The “Late Dating” theories of (2) above are then used to support conclusions that the Apostles and traditional authors did NOT write the books attributed to them. The books must thus have been written later, by lying authors, and so are even less trustworthy. This becomes a huge edifice built on rotten planks, with one supporting the other
  1. The asumption is habitually made that the Bible authors were virtually without exception liars and con-men, who made stories up and altered them to pretend that miraculous events had occurred, who put false words into people’s mouths and were quite happy to lie and lie and lie to readers of their works in order to tell a good story.
  2. Whenever they have been proved wrong - as in dating the Gospels to after 200 AD, or assuming the Seepuagint was an unreliable distorted text - they just ignore it, amend their story to cover the new facts, and continue as brazenly as before
I would say that the HC method - if you believe it is (and is designed to be) one of the biggest underminers of belief in the Gospel yet invented
 
Even when HC scholars use writing analysis to make determinations, they can be wrong by ignoring alternative possibilities that back-up the traditional narrative or attribution.

Take the letters of Peter, for example. They are very different in style, and this is used to declare that one of the letters is not by Peter, but a forgery. They usually decide that 2 Peter is the forgery.

IS THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION?

No.

1 Peter is actually almost identical in style and content to the letters of Paul. In fact it is written in polished Greek, and not a fisherman’s letter at all. 2 Peter is written far more simply, and in rough Greek.

A simple solution presents itself… Peter and Paul are both in Rome. Churches ask for an epistle from Peter. Peter is not happy drafting it, so asks Paul to do it, and he signs it and sends it off. Does this not happen today? By he time 2 Peter is written, Paul is not available, and so Peter actually dictates this letter to a scribe. Problem solved without accusing the letters of being forgeries.

Is it conceivable that a fake letter of Peter would have been written and accepted in the early church?
 
Axion said:
Even when HC scholars use writing analysis to make determinations, they can be wrong by ignoring alternative possibilities that back-up the traditional narrative or attribution.

Take the letters of Peter, for example. They are very different in style, and this is used to declare that one of the letters is not by Peter, but a forgery. They usually decide that 2 Peter is the forgery.

IS THAT THE ONLY POSSIBLE CONCLUSION?

No.

1 Peter is actually almost identical in style and content to the letters of Paul. In fact it is written in polished Greek, and not a fisherman’s letter at all. 2 Peter is written far more simply, and in rough Greek.

A simple solution presents itself… Peter and Paul are both in Rome. Churches ask for an epistle from Peter. Peter is not happy drafting it, so asks Paul to do it, and he signs it and sends it off. Does this not happen today? By he time 2 Peter is written, Paul is not available, and so Peter actually dictates this letter to a scribe. Problem solved without accusing the letters of being forgeries.

Is it conceivable that a fake letter of Peter would have been written and accepted in the early church?
Click to expand...
This is good. Application of the same methodology can still lead people to draw different conclusions. Historical cricitism does not lead to one conclusion. As this poster says, many conclusions can be drawn. A lot depends on why you want to draw it.If you are an atheist, you will use historical criticism to undermine the Gospel. Believers use it to gain greater insight into the divine message of the Bible.

It’s possible Peter and John may have been illiterate. Perhaps not completely illiterate, but they were not educated. There is evidence the Johannine community compiled the Gospel of John and the epistles after the Apostle’s death to preserve his teaching. However, the evidence is not conclusive and it does not mean the *teaching *does not originate with the Apostle. As this poster says, Peter may have dictated the letter to a scribe.
 
catholictiger said:
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
Click to expand...
Why would you want to refute the Histo-Critical Method?

It was created by German protestants, as you’ll know from your studies, and developed over the last few centuries, but only recently (post Divino Afflante Spiritu, 1943) taken up by Catholic scholars. It has been the down fall of protestantism as it undermines sola scriptura at the most fundamental level. But for the Church, it can only bring a deepening of the faith.

The present holy father is unlikely to attack it since he is one of the central figures responsible for bringing it into Catholic biblical studies,‘The first point is that the historical critical method - specifically because of the intrinsic of theology and faith - is and remains an indispensable dimension of exegetical work’. J. Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth (St. Ives: Bloomsbury, 2007) foreword xv .

What has happened is that he now sees it’s limitations and its possible misappropriation within the faith and spends the whole introduction placing it in its correct context. That is, its flaw is that it is a purely scientific tool, not something in itself, ‘The unity of all of these writings as one “Bible”, however, is not something it can recognise as an immediate historical datum’. (his emphasis),ibid, xvii.

I believe he’s pointing to the living faith in the context of theology. As Catholics our faith comes from the community of faith (the Church) within a living continuum received from the original witnesses and endowed with the authority to preach the real faith about the real Jesus. Compare this with protestantism and you can see why it was their intellectual undoing. For example, Textual criticism (one of the four main methodologies within the Historical-Critical Method) tells us, ‘Most manuscripts of John 1:34 end the verse with the words: “This is the Son of God”, whereas some early copies of the text read: “This is God’s chosen one”. In other cases, some manuscripts may include material absent from different copies of the text…’ J. Corley, Unlocking the Gospels (Minnesota: Liturgical Press,2004)p6.

This, I’m sure you’ll agree, is devastating if you are basing your faith solely on ‘a’ bible and your own authority to interpret it. However, from a Catholic perspective, Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, it can only deepen our faith or at least be harmless to it.

P.S. I should say that Pope Benedict goes out of his way to emphasis that he is writing as a theologian and not as the Vicar of Christ - there is a big difference 👍
 
martywheaton said:
It has been the down fall of protestantism as it undermines sola scriptura at the most fundamental level. But for the Church, it can only bring a deepening of the faith.

This, I’m sure you’ll agree, is devastating if you are basing your faith solely on ‘a’ bible and your own authority to interpret it. However, from a Catholic perspective, Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, it can only deepen our faith or at least be harmless to it.
Click to expand...
This is true. Historical criticism has deepened our understanding of faith in the Catholic tradition, and presented a serious challange to fundamentalists.

Historical criticism is a tools. Like other tools, it can be used for good, or used for evil.
For example, surgeons and murderers both use knives, but for different reasons.
 
As others have said, the historical critical method is just a tool. It can be used well and it can be used poorly. Many have used it poorly, specifically when they divorce faith from biblical interpretation under the guise of being “objective”.

“Jesus of Nazareth” is written primarily to introduce the reader to the person of Jesus through the Scripture. It’s not intended to be some sort of academic critique of the historical-critical method (though, of course, you can glean some nuggets in that regard).

If you really want a more complete articulation of Benedict’s thoughts on the matter, try locating a copy of his article “Biblical Interpretation in Crisis: Foundations and Approaches to Biblical Exegesis” (Origins, Vol. 17: No. 35, February 11, 1988). It’s a great read.

Of course, the other place to go would be the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s 1994 document The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church. Section I.A in particular gives a nice synopsis, but the whole document is worth the read.
 
I have Pope Benedict’s “Jesus of Nazereth” book.

By listening to Christian radio, I learned about a group of people (150) who as biblical scholars, were members of a group called the Jesus Seminar.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Seminar

While their intentions may have been innocent in their attempt to explore new areas of theology, what ended up happening was that they explained away Jesus’ divinity.

And, that also is what Pope Benedict refutes in the forward and first chapter of "Jesus of Nazareth.

Scholars, who in an attempt to make a name for themselves with a new theological approach (historical critical method) have reduced the divinity of salvation history and harmed the public concept of Christ.

They ended up remaking Jesus into their own image.

Apparently, this historical critical method has effected church thinking as well. I was reading a few posts yesterday, where some mainline denominations are “iffy” on whether or not Jesus actually died on the cross, etc.
 
The Historical Critical Method is a tool, like a surgeon’s scalpel is a tool. In the right hands, being used consistent with the heart of the church, the HCM can provide valuable textual criticisms and insights. In the wrong hands, it can be destructive to the faith simply due to a wrongful agenda driven misuse. Pope Benedict XVI, in Jesus of Nazareth speaks approvingly of the Method, when properly used.
 
No kidding. He isn’t Christian anymore? Is that why the historical critical method of studying the scriptures has to be done in a “certain way”. These critical scholars are the honest ones you can trust. The scholars who choose to remain “faithful” have probably decided that there is too much at stake to throw it all away. Some, thankfully have some integrity.
 
Sante said:
Actually, this scholar does a number on Ratzinger’s “Jesus of Nazareth”. Ratzinger’s work is actually an embarrassment.

wwwuser.gwdg.de/~gluedem/download/pope_review.pdf
Click to expand...
Ludemean is Exhibit A of what is wrong with improper use of the Historical Critical Method. Bought into the whole approach is the “schiolar’s” complete surrender to criticism that is contrary to the Apostolic Tradition. Instead of gaining additional insights, through the method, the scholar finds refuge in being outside it. In so doing, Ludemean misses the Jesus of Scripture, relegating Jesus to a figment of an overimaginative Early Church.
 
Btw… consider the recent treatment of the HCM, by the great Anglican Theologian Richard Bauckham - Jesus and the Eyewitnesses - The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony. Loved the book
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top