Pages

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Scripture is interpreted by Scripture.

A great many of the theological problems or innovations that we encounter today in the Church today are the fruit of a method of biblical interpretation called the historical-critical method. While there are many benefits found in using this method of critical study of the biblical text, its methodology can be overused and over relied upon when seeking a complete understanding or sense of a given passage of Scripture.

Briefly put, the historical-critical method has four components:
  1. Form criticism
  2. Source criticism
  3. Redaction criticism
  4. Textual criticism
An main assumption that lies with using these four components as a method of biblical study is the approach that there is only a rational and human development to the text of scripture as we have it.

A major problem that can develop when this method is not used correctly is to see the Bible as a piecemeal of narration. By dividing the Bible into four critical camps the one voice of the whole, the inner identity that sustains the whole Bible and binds it together is usually lost. What you end up with are interpretations that remove the transcendent and the miraculous from the Bible.

What we need to remember is that Scripture interprets Scripture. Scripture is God’s spoken Word to us. It has an underlying unity, logic and cohesion that is divinely authored for our sake. We must always labor to keep one part of Scripture always in relation to the whole, because our particular study or reading is part of a whole. When we remember that Scripture interprets Scripture we can make use of a variety of biblical tools to help us dig deeper into God Word without loosing touch with His truth that pervades it all.
Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Ron KosarNovember 20, 2009 at 8:04 PM

    The historical critical method of Bible study starts with the assumption that one cannot trust at face value the message and content of the scripture. Said another way, just because the Bible states something is true, that is not a sound reason to beleive it as fact or truth, and that the fundamental undergirding assumption is to rule out the possibility of the Supernatural. The historical-critical method assumes the autonomy of the scientist from the Bible as the word of God, so that we must start with the secular world as the basis for understanding meaning and deciding what happened in the past. This approach does not accept the Bible as the Word of God.

    For these reasons, and because of this secular and matierialist bias, long ago I abandoned this sterile secularist approach to reading the Bible and exegesis.

    Just my 2 cents...Ron

    ReplyDelete
  2. St. John's Episcopal Church, Fort WorthNovember 20, 2009 at 9:53 PM

    Ron
    Thanks for the support and your 2 cents. Indeed this very popular method has created many hardships with modern exegesis one of which you have mentioned and that is removing any possibility of the supernatural. I particularly liked your comment that the historical-critical approach starts not with God but "with the secular world as the basis for understanding meaning and deciding what happened in the past."

    God bless,
    Fr. Klein

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)