Higher criticism

[Sayre]

Hi folks,

Which denomination(s) out there are accepting of the general consensus (where it exists) of higher criticism?

Just wondering what my options are. I find it very hard to read the bible without acknowledging the findings of modern higher criticism.

 

[ebia]

Hi folks, Which denomination(s) out there are accepting of the general consensus (where it exists) of higher criticism? Just wondering what my options are. I find it very hard to read the bible without acknowledging the findings of modern higher criticism.

RCC, Anglican, scholars from most mainline denominations, work with these tools. However, while the genie is definitely out of the bottle - there's no going back to a pre-critical reading - there's now a much greater acceptance that these tools have sometimes been over extended and their conclusions given to much certainty. So, for example, there's no going back to thinking Moses personally authored the Pentateuch, definitely conclusions about when and by whom different bits were written, redacted and collated are looking a whole lot less definite.

 

[hedrick]

In addition to the mainline, as ebia says, there's a growing liberal evangelical wing. I'd also say that good conservative scholars today look rather different than 100 years ago. They use many of the insights of critical scholars, even if they nominally maintain inerrancy. Catholic Biblical scholars tend to be fairly similar to mainline. The issue with Catholics isn't what they think the Bible says, but the additional contribution of tradition that joins with it to produce actual Catholic doctrine and practice.

There's also a gap between what is taught in seminaries and what ordinary members believe. Also often between what pastors learned in school and what they use in preaching.

Please remember that CF is largely a lay site. Most postings here do not represent the best in theology, whether liberal or conservative.

Echoing Ebia's note, one difference I've seen from when I was in high school in the 1960s and now is that critical methods have changed somewhat. When I first met them they seemed rather speculative. While it was obvious to me as a teenager that the Bible wasn't inerrant, I also wasn't convinced that folks like Bultmann had any very consistent methodology. I'd say current scholarship does a better job of using what has been learned in the last few decades about the 1st Cent Jewish environment. There have also been a few studies of how oral cultures work. It's still not physics, but I feel more confidence in current scholarship than I did 50 years ago.

 

[Sayre]

Thanks both of you.

I would agree that often the conclusions of higher criticism are over stated. Often there is no consensus from higher criticism. What I really want is permission to retain some academic rigor in reading the Bible. When I was younger I was in a church where this was mocked and I'm still rather [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off by it. I don't see the breadth of the mainstream and liberal church enough to know whether or not I have that permission inside the church or if I have to stay on the bleachers as a spectator.

 

[ebia]

Thanks both of you. I would agree that often the conclusions of higher criticism are over stated. Often there is no consensus from higher criticism. What I really want is permission to retain some academic rigor in reading the Bible.

You won't find that a problem in most Anglican, Catholic, and many other mainstream congregations.

 

[hedrick]

Thanks both of you.

I would agree that often the conclusions of higher criticism are over stated. Often there is no consensus from higher criticism. What I really want is permission to retain some academic rigor in reading the Bible. When I was younger I was in a church where this was mocked and I'm still rather [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off by it. I don't see the breadth of the mainstream and liberal church enough to know whether or not I have that permission inside the church or if I have to stay on the bleachers as a spectator.

The world isn't simple. Some people in all the mainline churches and even the more liberal end of evangelicalism accept higher criticism. But how far they’re willing to go depends upon the person and the congregation. In most areas of the country you shouldn’t have trouble finding a mainline congregation that will accept you. In my area (New Jersey) most mainline pastors take a fairly critical view of Scripture. By now you should know my views pretty well. I’m considered pretty normal in the PCUSA and other mainline churches. But in parts of the South and West the PCUSA is more conservative, and many congregations there would consider me too liberal. Even then, you should be able to find at least some congregations similar to mine.

 

[Keachian]

Thanks both of you.

I would agree that often the conclusions of higher criticism are over stated. Often there is no consensus from higher criticism. What I really want is permission to retain some academic rigor in reading the Bible. When I was younger I was in a church where this was mocked and I'm still rather [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off by it. I don't see the breadth of the mainstream and liberal church enough to know whether or not I have that permission inside the church or if I have to stay on the bleachers as a spectator.

I'm more conservative in regards to Bibliology than Hedrick and ebia, I'm wondering what you mean by academic rigor? I think much can be garnered from studying scripture both as a conglomeration of parts which may or may not agree and also as the unified whole which the Church has passed down through history to us.

 

[Sayre]

I'm more conservative in regards to Bibliology than Hedrick and ebia, I'm wondering what you mean by academic rigor? I think much can be garnered from studying scripture both as a conglomeration of parts which may or may not agree and also as the unified whole which the Church has passed down through history to us.

Hi prog,

By conservative, do you mean you are more literal? When I say academic rigor, I want to be able to acknowledge redaction where it has occurred, errors where they occur, reject tradition where it is clearly wrong (mosaic authorship) and reject literalism where it is clearly in error (six day creationism).

You don't have to answer, but I'm wondering what state you are in?

I see you are a calvinist. Plenty of people in Aus are Presby but not many outright label themselves as calvinist.

 

[Keachian]

Hi prog,

By conservative, do you mean you are more literal?

No, my two preferred hermeneutic methods are Historical-Grammatical and Christocentric, neither are literal in the sense that you probably think of it and I probably land in a more liberal group of people who prefer the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic as I see benefit in the study of both Ancient Near-East and Second Temple Judaism contexts, however I also believe that there are some significant places where Mosaic Judaism and Christianity do diverge from these contexts.

When I say academic rigor, I want to be able to acknowledge redaction where it has occurred, errors where they occur, reject tradition where it is clearly wrong (mosaic authorship) and reject literalism where it is clearly in error (six day creationism).

I can see redaction in the Historic books, but largely I see this as the authors of Scripture redacting their sources to make their inspired theological points, I would agree with you on Mosaic Authorship and the rejection of 6 day creationism (I don't think Gen 1 deals with creation itself but rather something similar to what is described in Ex 40)

You don't have to answer, but I'm wondering what state you are in?

ACT

I see you are a calvinist. Plenty of people in Aus are Presby but not many outright label themselves as calvinist.

Well, that would be because I'm not Presby, I'm a Reformed Baptist (as far as I can be with my views on ANE and 2TJ)

 

[Sayre]

No, my two preferred hermeneutic methods are Historical-Grammatical and Christocentric, neither are literal in the sense that you probably think of it and I probably land in a more liberal group of people who prefer the Historical-Grammatical hermeneutic as I see benefit in the study of both Ancient Near-East and Second Temple Judaism contexts, however I also believe that there are some significant places where Mosaic Judaism and Christianity do diverge from these contexts.


I can see redaction in the Historic books, but largely I see this as the authors of Scripture redacting their sources to make their inspired theological points, I would agree with you on Mosaic Authorship and the rejection of 6 day creationism (I don't think Gen 1 deals with creation itself but rather something similar to what is described in Ex 40)


ACT


Well, that would be because I'm not Presby, I'm a Reformed Baptist (as far as I can be with my views on ANE and 2TJ)

Well I can agree with you that redaction of historic books is not necessarily a bad or uninspired thing. I think of Gen 1 as more of a theodicy than a creation account. I have read nothing on 2TJ - am I missing something big?

 

[Keachian]

Well I can agree with you that redaction of historic books is not necessarily a bad or uninspired thing. I think of Gen 1 as more of a theodicy than a creation account. I have read nothing on 2TJ - am I missing something big?

Second Temple Judaism 2TJ is the abbreviation I use. It covers the development of the Judaic religion between the time of the rebuilding of the Temple under Ezra and Nehemiah to the destruction of the Temple in the Razing of Jerusalem in 70AD

 

[juvenissun]

Hi folks,

Which denomination(s) out there are accepting of the general consensus (where it exists) of higher criticism?

Just wondering what my options are. I find it very hard to read the bible without acknowledging the findings of modern higher criticism.

For me, they are the sources of unnecessary headache.

I will feel much comfortable to read the Bible without using any trace of their knowledge.

 

[Willie T]

Isn't this wonderful "higher criticism" exactly what Jesus faced when He brought Truth?

 

[ebia]

Isn't this wonderful "higher criticism" exactly what Jesus faced when He brought Truth?

Ur, no.

 

[Sayre]

For me, they are the sources of unnecessary headache.

I will feel much comfortable to read the Bible without using any trace of their knowledge.

But why would you do that? To give the text proper credit and respect, you should read it for what it is. Reading Shakespeare as a recipe book is to disrespect Shakespeare. Ditto for the Bible.

 

[ebia]

Reading Shakespeare as a recipe book is to disrespect Shakespeare.

And the resulting cake isn't likely to be great either.

 

[juvenissun]

But why would you do that? To give the text proper credit and respect, you should read it for what it is. Reading Shakespeare as a recipe book is to disrespect Shakespeare. Ditto for the Bible.

Higher Criticism are experts who talked about things they are not sure about. We do not have the expertise. That means the arguments would be a total fog for us. If so, why bother?

We are reading the Bible message, not the history of Bible. As long as the message is right, who cares about who wrote what in which way at what time?

 

[ebia]

Higher Criticism are experts who talked about things they are not sure about. We do not have the expertise. That means the arguments would be a total fog for us. If so, why bother? We are reading the Bible message, not the history of Bible. As long as the message is right, who cares about who wrote what in which way at what time?

It can help us understand the message. If we understand the context in which, say, Daniel, or deutero-Isaiah, or Mark, or Genesis 1, was written we can better understand what it was saying to its original audience and then better understand what it can say to us. And in particular it can help us avoid anachronistic and inappropriate readings.


Of course it can, as form criticism did, take us down a complete blind-alley.

 

[juvenissun]

It can help us understand the message. If we understand the context in which, say, Daniel, or deutero-Isaiah, or Mark, or Genesis 1, was written we can better understand what it was saying to its original audience and then better understand what it can say to us. And in particular it can help us avoid anachronistic and inappropriate readings.

Of course it can, as form criticism did, take us down a complete blind-alley.

What additional information could the H.C. give us which is not already sufficiently introduced in the Bible? I would appreciate any such example.

My impression to H.C. is that it suggested something like the Genesis is probably written by a number of persons at very late time; and the Daniel is written AFTER the Babylon time (so, no prophecy). I would take these information as 100% trash. I think those scholars are just fooling themselves in these studies.

Regards to those two points: Genesis has multiple authors: fine with me. I wish it had MORE authors. Same attitude to all other books. The more authors of the Bible, the more marvelous the Book is. Daniel's real time of authoring: Nobody knows, including those people in H.C..

 

[pshun2404]

“When they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and assert that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition…when we refer to the tradition which originates from the Apostles…they object to tradition, thinking themselves more wise than the elders, and even the Apostles…Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal…endeavoring like slippery serpents to escape all points…” Irenaeus Against Heresies, Book III, chapter 2

There is nothing new under the Sun...

In His love

Paul