Before I move on to talk about the next school of thought, which will be Process Theology, I will briefly write on an approach to Bible reading and study which excites some and "turns off" others.
It is known as the historical critical method of Bible study. The major reason why I write on this topic, is because to many people, the validity of a theological position is determined by the role that the Bible plays in arriving in establishing that position. Some people want to know "what does that Bible say about that," or what "that" has to do with "what the Bible says?"
Since I have not taken a statistical census, I could be entirely wrong, but I suspect that the average person would prefer to take the "devotional" approach to Scripture. This approach merely consists of reading the Bible, for the most part superficially, and/or quoting it. This approach is a very comfortable one since it does not require much rigor or too much investigation and research. Taking this approach is reflective of what many of us prefer, i.e. the short-cut to study as well as to other things in life.
I will in no way criticize that approach, or the people who prefer to use it. It works for some people that way in terms of how their faith is informed and how their faith journey is shaped. I have to admit that at some point in my faith journey, that is the approach that I used. But the reason for that was that I was not familiar and had not heard of the approach which I will now be addressing, i.e. the historical-critical approach to Bible study. I am grateful that by God's grace I have been exposed to this method, though I will confess that this method introduces a series of complex issues and questions relative to this book which we consider to be "the Word of God." Sometimes, as a result of being exposed to and utilizing this method in my practice of ministry, I wish that I could go back to the devotional method, which in essence, is Bible 101. I have been mentioning in the classes that I have taught that in Bible study and theology, we go from the simple to the complex and back to the simple. The difference in this case is that the second simplicity is an informed simplicity rather than a blind and naïve one in which the person believes everything that he/she hears.
I now invite you to adventure. The adventure is to delve into more information. I invite you to risk. This method is risky, because it will challenge us to reexamine our assumptions and presuppositions about "what the Bible says." I invite you to tedium. I guarantee you that because of the details involved, this approach to the Bible will at some points seem tedious and even boring. Personally, after swimming in six feet of water, I prefer the challenge of swimming in sixteen feet of water, if I may use that analogy in comparing the approaches to the Bible. I acknowledge the fact that swimming in sixteen feet of water poses great risks and dangers, but I find it much more fun and exciting to be somewhat "daring."
This historical critical approach to the Bible began in the seventeenth century and became popularized in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. It resulted in divisions within the Church, and I suspect even in the Jewish communities because of the results of "faith vs. scholarship" syndrome. The historical critical approach consists of the following questions:
1. Authorship- When we read any piece of literature, one of the first questions that comes to our mind is "who wrote this book?" The Bible, as a literary document, is no exception to this rule. It is very important for us to know who wrote the individual books of the Bible. We ask questions such as did Jeremiah write the book which carries his name, or did someone else write it, using Jeremiah's name to give it credibility?
2. Audience- If we do not bother to ask who the book was written to, or who the recipients were, we might miss out on something important. I have recently completed a book which took me two years to write, and one of the questions that my wife and I constantly asked was "who is the intended audience of readers?" In other words, who is bound to read this book?
3. Reason for writing- Every literary writer has a reason for putting her/his thoughts into writing. There is something or someone that will motivate that person to write. Furthermore, the writer expects or at least hopes for certain results that will happen as a consequence of the reading. Again, every writer of Scripture had a reason for writing and expected that her/his writings would result in some type of change in the lives of the readers.
4. Date of writing- Scholars are divided amongst themselves as to when certain books of the Bible were written. For example, because the second half of the book of Isaiah describes scenes that were familiar to people after the Babylonian Exile, some scholars believe that there were two writers named Isaiah, one writing before, and the other one writing after the Exile. New Testament scholarship reflects some scholars post-dating the Gospel accounts and the book of Revelation, while other scholars prefer to say that the books were written closer in time to the events described in the books.
5. Sources of information- Since we cannot approach the Bible as a book written in Heaven and thrown down to Earth, it is only logical that we ask what or who the sources of information were for the different authors of the Bible books. There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking "where did Mark get his information from in order to write his Gospel account?" Nor does it help to say that he got his information from God. To the best of our knowledge, God is not in the business of dishing out information that one can obtain by engaging in research and asking questions. The details in Scripture reflect that the authors did, indeed, engage in research.
6. Literary dependency- Because some of the books of Scripture reflect similarity with other literary documents, it is almost inevitable to inquire as to whether the writers depended to a certain extent on previous writings. For example, the Babylonian accounts of Creation and the Flood bear a lot of similarity to the Genesis accounts of these two events. One cannot help but wonder if the author or authors of Genesis "borrowed" from the Babylonian accounts which were written at least five hundred years prior to Genesis. And because the first five books of the Bible mention more than one name for God and focus on certain themes, raises the question as to whether there was more than author and whether the various authors had different agendas to promote. For example, the Documentary Hypothesis is that since Elohim and Yahweh are different names for God in the Pentateuch, there must have been more than one author writing, each one with a different interest in mind.
7. Style of writing- Each piece of literature reflects a certain style of writing. There is history, legend, myth, poetry, prose, and allegory. The various books of the Bible reflect these literary types. The reader has to then determine how the various literary types have an impact on how we receive, understand, and apply the message of the book.
8. Redaction-Very, very rarely does someone write without reviewing what he/she has written before putting it into final form and submitting it to be published and/or read. There is nothing wrong with believing that the authors of the Bible were not any different. Acknowledging this does not in any way mitigate against the belief in "divine inspiration." Inspiration in this case means, that the Holy Spirit acted as a "superintendent," guiding the writers, not through mechanical dictation, nor through suppressing their personality, or obliterating their culture, but rather, through the historical process
of research, reading, and writing. The acknowledgement of redaction goes against the notion that the writers of Scripture sat or stood passively while God dictated to them the words of Scripture.
9. Cultural Environment- If we bypass the linguistic and cultural origins of the books of the Bible, we miss many important points. For example, if we ignore the fact that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in Hebrew the twenty-third Psalms says "Yahweh is my shepherd, whereas in English it says "the Lord is my shepherd." If we ignore the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek and not in English, it would be difficult for us to know why in the first chapter of Colossians Paul uses the word "firstborn" for Jesus, leading the Jehovah's witnesses to demonstrate on biblical grounds that Jesus is a creature of God and is not God the Creator as most Christians believe that He is. If we don't understand the culture of the Bible writers it would be difficult for us to know why Solomon says that when we sit down at the dinner table we should "put a knife to our throat," or why foot washing was a symbol of hospitality in the Middle East. It would also be difficult for us to understand why a woman was considered property of the husband and why the Scriptures themselves appear to give approve to that notion which was widely held.
I am not say that the historical critical approach to the Bible is superior to the devotional approach. Neither am I claiming or pretending that the historical critical approach to the Bible will render us infallible. I've known many people who use the devotional approach and who have not even heard of the historical critical approach, but yet have a deep insight into the meaning of the message of the text. Conversely, I've known many people who use the historical critical method, and yet miss out on the main ingredients of Scripture. I believe that there is place and time for both. Having said that, I am firmly convinced that the historical critical approach opens up the door for a broader understanding of the Bible both as a literary document, and as a book of faith. It helps us understand "the story behind the story" by having us delve into culture, history, and language. To those who believe that the historical critical approach to the Bible will lead to a disbelief in its message, I would say that my exposure to the historical critical method has led me to believe in its message in a much stronger way. To those who believe that they don't want to go through all this "razzle dazzle" to study the Scriptures, I would strongly challenge them to go over and beyond the elementary and rudimentary approaches and open yourself to the adventures of looking at the Scriptures in different settings and to consider the diversity of theological perspectives within the body of the text itself.
Please feel free to comment on this approach to the Bible. Tell us if you think that it will erode and weaken your faith or will it make it stronger. Tell us if you think that it is a worthwhile effort, in spite of the risk of having you examine your assumptions and presuppositions, and in spite of the element of tediousness involved in rigorous study. Your contributions will be helpful.
Grace and peace,
Dr. Juan A.Carmona
7.
No comments:
Post a Comment