The Bible has endured a good bit of critique in our post-modern society. Many scholars reject the notion that prophetic utterances actually foretold the future, but were actually written in a time after whatever had been foretold finally came to pass. Some scholars think that many of the words of Jesus that we find recorded in the gospels he actually never said. Some people hold that the Bible is bound to the past and does not have much to say that is relevant for modern people. A few even say that Paul's writings are not faithful at times to Jesus' message.
This suspicion of the Bible and its authenticity make us vulnerable. If we are like seeds planted on rocky soil in our faith, we may start losing ground in faith. We may actually fall away.
I do not expect biblical criticism to go away any time soon. I do wonder what we can take from it, however, and what we can do to maintain our firm grounding in Scripture at all once.
What is helpful about biblical critique? What is it that we must be wary of?
2 comments:
I have learned to appreciate biblical criticism when it serves to help me understand the scriptures better. I think it can help open the meaning of scripture when we understand the historical context or the type of literature represented, such as wisdom or apocalyptic, since these offer insight into how to interpret what we read. We make a mistake when we read scripture through 21st century eyes and don't take into account the culture and people at the time of the writing.
One experience I had which tested my understanding of scripture was when I attended the Jesus Seminar on the parables of Jesus. Although I felt I learned things that were helpful, the experience left me wondering if there was room for faith in the minds and hearts of the teachers and some in attendance. The Jesus Seminar seeks the historical Jesus and attempts to determine the acts and words that can be correctly attributed to the historical Jesus as opposed to those acts and words that are mistakenly attributed to Jesus. I'm not sure what the point is, but they seem to expend a great amount of study and energy trying to determine the historical accuracy of the words and deeds of Jesus.
I left that seminar with the sense that unless one can prove the accuracy of a particular scripture, that scripture can be considered in question. Scholarship appeared to trump faith and it seemed to me to be a very impersonal approach to scripture and ultimately to God.
I think we need to be firmly grounded in scripture to keep us from being swayed by whatever wind is currently blowing, but at the same time we can't say we understand it all and refuse to consider a critical approach that offers additional meaning or perhaps even a meaning that differs completely from our understanding.
Let's allow the mystery of God to remain and learn to live within the mystery.
Joyce,
I agree that historico-critical work has something to offer in regard to our understanding context and broader historical factors.
At the same time, I have grown weary of the arrogance, barely perceptible faith, and humanism that is so prevalent in such scholarship. In fact, not only does this kind of scholarship trump faith but it trumps Scripture itself, casting its validity for moderns into question. This low view of Scripture should be troubling to Mennonites. We base our actions and theology firmly and squarely on the trustworthy nature of the Bible.
Without such "faith," what really do we have left but to trust the words of the world, our own perceptions, and asundry scholars who may or may not be trustworthy?
Jeff
Post a Comment