www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Historical Criticism

Hello Everyone,

I would like to get some advice on a small dilemma I am facing. I attend a seminary and I am in my second year of college. Overall the place is fairly decent and I have grown spitiually since my arrival. However,this semester I am taking an introduction to the Bible course and we are using the Historical Critical Method to supposedely better understand the Bible and what was going on during biblical times. Well, I have been challenged in my faith because some of things that my professor brings up. I often wonder why I am studying to be a priest. He has told us that the Old Testament is basically myth that portrays some underlying meaning of God's love for us. He also said that we don't look at the New Testament, even the Gospels, as history, but more as homiletics on how we should live our lives. He is a little foggy on certain things and I am wondering about those things. If Jesus never said or did the things the Gospels say He did (I still believe He did), then why should I stay at the seminary? Its just little things like that they make me wonder of the sanity of some in the Church who put doubt where it need not be. If anyone wants to give any advice it would be much appreciated.

God bless,
Jenkins

As a former seminarian, my advice is to flee as far away as possible from there. This problem of liberalism, pseudo-orthodoxy, and outright agnosticism exists both in some Orthodox as well as Catholic seminaries. The Old Testament has been proven to be remakably accurate from a historical perspective. If you choose to stay, pick up a book on Biblical Archeology and challenge him on it. But one has to question how one can learn to become a priest when one is instructed by non believers?

Alexandr

AMEN ALEXANDER! That was my thought too, RUN!

satan is a lier and a theif, he comes quickly to rob, steal, and destroy. Don't let him!

Ask God and he will make a way where there seems to be no way.

Pani Rose

I second that Alexander.

Jenkins, my advice to you also is to get out of there and go somewhere else. ASAP. I can't see any good at all coming from staying in that institution.

Jason

I really appreciate all of your imput. I have many times thought of leaving this place, but for some odd reason, I feel that God wants me here right now. I could be wrong, but its almost as if He wants me here to pick up my degree and go from there because i will have more options with a college degree. On the other hand, this place drives me mad at times, and I would like to get as far from here as possible. This is where the controversy arises: I don't really want to be here, but I feel that I must be here.

Thanks Again,
Jenkins

Jenkins,

I am guessing that this is a Roman Catholic seminary, based on your religious affiliation. It is hard to say for sure how aberant the teaching is without really looking at what is taught in the other classes on doctrine, morals, etc. I am guessing that there will be differing opinions on this, but I don't think that a moderate use of historical criticism is wrong. The Scriptures are historical documents, the products of ancient cultures. The biblical authors employed all of the various literary genres available to them. I don't have a problem with there being a certain amount of "fiction" in the bible, if we mean by that parable, symbolic narrative, etc. For example, I think it is quite possible that the book of Jonah is a large parable, a work of fiction. Also, I don't see how we can interpret very much of Genesis 1-11 literally. Does that mean it is wrong? or just a fairy tale? No. We have to remember that the ancients did not write history the way that we attempt to write history. There were not concerned with scientific precision. For example, ancient authors had no problem offering a loosely correct chronology of events as long as the narrative expressed what they wanted it to express. What your professor says about the Gospels is correct. Now, in substance, the Gospels report what Jesus said and did. But we know that the individual evangelists modify sayings of Jesus and that that they don't seem so fundamentally concerned with chronology that they can't shift around events when they think that it is good pedagogically. It is quite plausible that the "I AM" sayings of Jesus in the Gospel of John are somewhat worked over by the evangelist, hence they diverge in tone and style from the way Jesus speaks in the synoptics. Now, I don't want to start a flame war over this. But you do need to know that being a traditional Catholic or Orthodox does not mean that you have to be a strict literalist in the way that many evangelical protestants are literalists. Peace in Christ,

Joe

Jenkins,

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You've now been exposed to one of the great unspoken issues in Catholic theological life - the almost wholesale unquestioning embrace of higher criticism. Not knowing the full extent of your situation or previous theological formation, I could recommend a few things.

1. If you do not have an orthodox Catholic spiritual father, get one. Since you are in your second year of college seminary, I would assume that you are attending a minor seminary and may already have one assigned to you for the purposes of discernment. If you do not feel that you can trust the one assigned to you, meet periodically with a priest known for his orthodoxy and NOT associated with the seminary. (Word can spread...). I'm unclear whether or not your are studying in your home diocese, so you may or may not know any good ones nearby. If you PM me, I might be able to help you confidentially locate a good one through my own network.

2. One professor does not an entire faculty of theology make. I don't know where you are studying, but there may be very orthodox professors there, so your decision should take into account your whole program.

An example of this is the Catholic Distance University master's program. CDU is a pretty solid distance learning program, and yet one of the key courses on Sacred Scripture relies heavily on the later writings of the late Father Raymond Brown. I had the pleasure of studying under his nemesis, the late Father William G. Most - a man who would quote paragraphs of ancient Ugaritic off of the top of his head. Early Brown is generally pretty solid and creative stuff - for instance the parallels he identifies with the Gospel of John and the Book of Genesis. Later Brown is EXTREMELY problematic to say the least. He still had his flashes of insight, but he also laid out a few doctrinal time bombs that undermine the dogmatic foundations of belief.

3. If you choose to leave, be careful how you do it and the rationale you provide. You do NOT want to be blacklisted. There are those here who can provide some reasons to give. But avoid at all costs slash and burn. You may find it virtually impossible to be admitted to another seminary.

4. If you choose to stay, build your own program around the topic through supplementary reading of the Church fathers, orthodox Catholic exegetes and theologians, the Church's magisterium especially conciliar documents such as Dei Verbum (although watch out for a key mistranslation which some Catholic exegetes cite as opening the door to denying inerrancy - I'll pass it along when I get back to my library), some early 20th century papal encyclicals and documents from the Pontifical Biblical Commission, etc etc. I can provide a helpful reading list if you like. But BE careful who and what you cite in your papers.

My other advice is to PRAY. Immerse yourself in praying through your theological work. See the Scriptures for what they truly are - a sacrament of Christ's holy presence. Ask the Holy Spirit to reveal to you the truth, and to give you the wisdom to see through anything that denies the faith or its historical basis.

My advice if you stay? Reflect back (without denying any article of faith) what you have heard in class. Cite it as "one perspective" and provide sources. Don't feel that you need to provide a balanced view or to try to defend the faith. You may need to view yourself as one in an unjust dictatorship for the time being.

4. To quote Newman: "1000 difficulties do not constitute a single doubt." Just because you do not have an immediate response to your professor does not mean that there is no response or alternative perspective. Some things need to be taken to intense prayer and study. Phrases like "That's interesting." or "I have not considered that before." lets your professor know that you are paying attention and processing. But don't feel that you can challenge him. (Of course, I do NOT know the man. I only know others that do not like to be challenged.)

5. Stay focused on being faithful to Christ and His holy Gospel. If He has called you to priesthood, both He and His Holy Mother, Mediatrix and Advocate for her priests (and all the faithful) will lead you in the right way. Keep your eye on the prize. Smile and nod your head alot...but focus on getting ordained. Some may see that as cowardice. I say, if you can find another seminary that your bishop will agree to send you to, by all means. But understand that there are ecclesiatical politics involved even in the selection of seminaries by bishops.

6. Learn what you can from Higher Criticism. Apart from the fact that I personally believe this level of method does not belong in the undergraduate formation of future pastors, Higher Criticism (especially JEDP) can help provide insights into certain patterns in the Biblical narrative, even if you do not buy into all of the philosophical presuppositions of the Higher Critics (I believe that then Cardinal Ratzinger once said that it was high time to apply the methods of the Higher Critics to themselves!). Higher Criticism takes a prosecutorial posture towards the text, trying to force it to prove its "innocence" when it is very clearly GUILTY of all sorts of errors and falsehoods! Of course this is not the views of all higher critics, so again discernment is necessary.

One other thing to consider - you will probably NOT in any way shape or form need to use higher criticism as a homilist. (This is one of my BIG gripes with seminaries). A better method is the fourfold patristic method of exegesis. Check out the writings of Jean Danielou and Henri DeLubac (and John Henry Newman) for more information. I'll provide a list of good titles to consider later, although you may need to keep them in a box somewhere!

Here is an interesting discussion we had not too long ago on the topic of Scripture and Innerrancy.

https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=132653&page=1#Post132653

Anyway, sorry for going on. I will endeavor to put together a good list of texts and websites for your consideration. God bless you and your heart for Christ! He will not abandon you!

In Christ,

Gordon

PS: Also be sure not to confuse "literalism" with "literal meaning". One has to discern what the author is intending to convey, which, while being true history, may not be told in the same way we typically convey history.

Here are a few interesting sites that may be of interest to you in your study:

http://www.rtforum.org/study/index.html

http://www.salvationhistory.com/ (Excellent!)

http://www.greatadventureonline.com/

Here is a search on an excellent website "The Crossroads Initiative". You will notice some familiar names - Henri deLubac, Jean Danielou, Joseph Ratzinger, etc etc.

http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com...3ebb73c307f&words=patristic+exegesis

That should probably be enough reading for now. Remember, grearer minds than ours have wrestled with Biblical texts...even before the development of 19th century German biblical schools! the higher critics' claim to sceintific objectivity is not always what it seems!

Another good book to look at is "Making Senses Out of Scripture" by Mark Shea. All of the authors I mentioned above were part of the ressourcement movement prior to (and following to a certain extent) Vatican II. Shea does a pretty decent job explaining the earthly and spiritual interpretation of biblical texts. For a more technical presentation, deLubac's Medieval Exegesis is second to none, although I believe that only two volumes ave been translated from the original Frech.

Anyway, hope that helps!

Godspeed!

Gordo

Let me second what Gordo has to say about preaching and higher criticism. There is generally very little reason ever to bring any historical critical issues into a sermon. And I would add that I am not wed to any particular "scholarly" theory about any particular book of the Bible. Much of what goes on in contemporary biblical criticism is highly speculative and I do think that professors do a great disservice to their students when they present the "findings" of biblical scholars in such a way as to suggest that there is no question about their opinions.

Our faith is based on the Church's proclamation of Christ. The Church, through her sacred tradition tells us what to believe. The Scriptures are a principle part of that Sacred Tradition, yet also dependent on it. To be honest, much of what goes on in biblical scholarship (such as whether Paul wrote 1 & 2 Timothy) is simply irrelevant to the life of the Christian. The resourcement thinkers that Gordo recommends are great. They are great not only because they understand the tradition, but they know how to interact with biblical criticism as well. You know, another way of looking at it is that you do need to know this stuff. You need to know what is out there being taught in secular universities and liberal protestant denominations. Being able to come to terms with higher criticism could help you as a priest someday when some college student comes in to your office to ask you about the things that he has been learning in his Intro. to Bible class at the local university. Peace in Christ,

Joe

What has me concerned is that the original poster identifies himself as a second year seminarian. Now a seminarian at that point in his formation should be developing and strengthening his faith, not being called upon by his instructors to be an apologist for the faith. I agree that critical review can be useful when confronting the heterodox, BUT one has to be grounded in the basics of the faith before one can pursue apologetical discources. Here I quote directly from the Orthodox Catechism:
"6. What is faith?

According to the definition of St. Paul, Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Heb. xi. 1); that is, a trust in the unseen as though it were seen, in that which is hoped and waited for as if it were present.

7. What is the difference between knowledge and faith?

Knowledge has for its object things visible and comprehensible; faith, things which are invisible, and even incomprehensible. Knowledge is founded on experience, on examination of its object; but faith on belief of testimony to truth. Knowledge belongs properly to the intellect, although it may also act on the heart; faith belongs principally to the heart, although it is imparted through the intellect."

My advice is to acquire faith, and then knowledge shall seek YOU out. And if the institution that you are enrolled in fails to provide you with a groundwork of faith, then knowledge will be of no avail to you. God has hidden salvation from the wise and learned and revealed it to little children.

1 Cor 1:20-22 Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.

Alexandr

Hi Jenkins,

Before you decide one way or another, I suggest reading the Second Vatican Council's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation ("Dei Verbum").

The Council strongly endorces the principles of the Historical Critical method.

I am not sure if the particular implementation you've been receiving is a good one, but I'd invite you to ask yourself these questions:

Is my faith based on history or on Divine Revelation?

Is faith about stories and tales or about theosis?

In your own life, does God act only with epic displays of power and majesty? What makes you think God treated Israel any differently?


Modern science seems to have evidence for a common female ancestor for all of us. Would it really upset you if it turns out her name was not Eve?

The tale of Cain and Abel is meant to teach that sin agains our brethren is just as bad as sin against God (that is why the tale of the forbidden fruit and the tal of Abel's murder have the same basic structure, God has the same basic role and the consequences are roughly the same for the sinners of each tale). Would it really matter if it turs out Cain and Abel were not direct children of Adam and Eve, or not even real, historic people at all? Would that change one bit what their story in the Bible teaches us?

Would the prophetic value of the Book of Daniel be any less if it turns out to be a novel, instad of a historical record?

Would the book od Isaiah be any less "The Word of God", if it was written by at least three different persons over a period of over two centuries?

The problem is that our modern concept of historical accuracy is not necessarily the same than that of the people who wrote the various books of the Bible.

God's main purpose in inspiring Scripture was not to compete with CNN, but to reveal Himself and ourselves to us. Sometimes that is better accomplished with a story than with a journalistic account.


I guess what I am trying to say is: Is your faith in God firm and mature? If so, then history should be the least of your worries. If not, then history should be the least of your worries as well.

You will be in our prayers.

Shalom,
Memo

Memo, Very well said.

Joe

Memo,

I'm not clear what translation of Dei Verbum you have, but I see no blanket endorsement of the Historical Critical method. There is, however, a discussion about the need to attend to literary forms:


Also, according to the Genesis narrative, it matters quite a bit that Cain and Abel are the offspring of Adam and Eve and given the fact that Cain becomes the forefather to one of two lines of generations (the evil line) it does become critical to the overall narrative.

Somewhere between your view of completely mythologizing the text (reducing it to the level of spiritual fables) and modern journalism like CNN there are other possible approaches to consider that come closer to the authors' (both divine and human) intent. Again, I return to the view that the Scriptures are primarily liturgical texts on historical and revelatory events and need to be read through that particular lens.

Your point about the purpose of Sacred Scripture being God's self-revelation is well made, and is a central theme of Dei Verbum. But is God not Truth itself? Does the Source of all truth have any communion with error? It is a toxic combination and casts into doubt far more than just the historicity of any one story, but rather the entire value of revelation.

The bottom line is that we worship the one true God who has, as you say, revealed Himself in sacred scripture and sacred history. If we are to doubt Cain and Abel where does it stop? Christ's Resurrection?

And what then are we to say about the salvific nature of our sacramental theology as "signs"? If there is no Noah's Ark, no Exodus, how can they prefigure anything accomplished by Christ in His earthly life and through Holy Baptism? Fables cannot be types of historical events. The literal meaning is the foundation to any spiritual interpretation, and the Gospel itself is the spiritual interpretation of the Old Testament.

When faced with difficult passages, apparent contradictions or events that are not demonstrated by other available evidence, it is always far better to approach it with a sense of humility and say "I do not fully understand the meaning of the text" or "I have not found any secondary evidence to support this" rather than playing the prosecutor and casting the historical accuracy of texts into doubt by placing the burden of proof on what is truly the revealed Word of God. Mature faith often means accepting what is revealed but not always understood properly. Mature faith also means respecting the integrity of revelation, including its event character.

All this is upheld by Dei Verbum. For a good read on the subject I HIGHLY recommend Augustine Cardinal Bea's "The Word of God and Mankind". Bea had quite the hand in the draft and final form of Dei Verbum (and was believed to have been the ghost writer for Divino Afflante Spiritu).

God bless,

Gordo

Hi Gordo,

What are the consequences for you and I, that Cain was the forefather of what you call "the evil line"?

And why "evil"? Who commits evil among his offspring? Lamech kills, but it is explicit he did so in legitimate self-defense.

The mythical character of Cain is further evidenced in the offspring listed by the Bible:

Surely ALL those "who dwell in tents and keep cattle" and "who play the lyre and the pipe" and "who forge instruments of bronze and iron" cannot share, just because of their office, a common carnal ancestor.

I am not saying there is no Noah, but perhaps his survival story refers to a local disaster, rather than a world-wide catastrophe.

I am not saying there was no Exodus, but maybe Moses' group was not as numerous and was one of several Semitic groups migrating from Egipt to Palestine and maybe God's salvific actions with Moses' group are not exactly as portrayed by Charlton Heston.

On the other hand, if every passage of the Bible is to be interpreted literally, then are we to understand every time Our Lord starts a parable with "There was a man...", that He is talking about a real person living a historical, factual event?

If Our Lord took the liberty to use tales to convey the fullness of His revelation, what is there to prevent Him from using tales before that?

And yes, your quote from DV is what I was talking about. If we "should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended", it is because this real intention may not be obvious from the text itself and, if contextual research indicate the real intention might not have been served with an historically accurrate narrative, then we should be ready to at least consider the possibility that the narrative is not historically accurrate.

Read the Gospel. Everything you read there is Truth, however, not all is Fact. Truth and Fact are not synonyms. God speaks Truth, always, by definition. However, as the Gospels clearly show, God doesn't always speak Fact. What is true in the Gospels, is also true in the OT.

Shalom,
Memo

I do appreciate the advice. however,putting aside the Old Testament, if the Gospels are stories that do not tell of Jesus' life on earth and the miracles He performed, than what we ae living is a lie. As St. Paul puts it,(paraphrasing) "We would be the most pitied of all people if what what we were taught was not true."