|
Catholic Bible Studies The Role of Biblical Criticism and the Catholic Church
|
|
Our Bible education was thorough, but it was fundamentalist. In other words, we believed the Bible was inspired by God and it was therefore not only without error in matters of faith and morals. It was also without error in matters of history and science. As a result, our Bible teachers used to go to some pretty extreme lengths to uphold a literal reading of passages that were clearly poetic. This approach to the Bible was challenged when I began to study theology at Oxford. Different types of Biblical criticismThere we learned about the different types of Biblical criticism. Literary criticism looks at the Scriptures as literature. It applies the same methods of analysis that are applied by literary scholars to any other text. Within literary criticism there are various subdivisions that look more closely at the Scriptural texts. Redaction criticism analyses how the texts were handed down and edited. Linguistic criticism analyses the language of the text. Form criticism assesses the type of literature, and what it means, while historical literary criticism analyses the historical background of the text itself. At the same time another form of Biblical criticism called historical criticism tries to understand the Scriptures in the light of archaeology, other ancient texts and known historical facts of the time. Over the last hundred years these forms of Biblical analyses have yielded much rich fruit. We now understand the historical background, development, language and primary meaning of the Scriptures better than ever before. However, built into this critical method was an assumption that not everyone would agree with. Many of the Biblical critics engaged in their study because they were convinced that any theological reading of the Scripture was naturally biased and therefore untrue. By analysing the Scriptures according to more objective methods they wanted to get back to the 'true' meaning of the Scriptural text. This was driven by the intellectual trends of the day that were largely scientific. It was thought that to find 'real truth' you had to approach your subject objectively and clear your mind of any bias of belief. The Biblical critics came up with some results that shocked and dismayed those with a more simple approach to the Scriptures. They questioned the traditional authorship of some of the books of the Bible. They questioned whether certain historical events really happened. Because they were conditioned by their scientific assumptions they automatically concluded that any miracle recorded in the Bible didn't really happen. To ordinary people these conclusions made it seem like the Bible simply wasn't true. The shock waves of this Biblical criticism were felt especially hard within Protestantism. Since the Reformation Protestants had based their religion on the Bible alone. When their own critics undermined the truthfulness of the Bible their source of authority was challenged and their whole faith trembled. Catholics understand that Scripture & the Church are inextricably interwined Biblical criticism also sent shock waves rumbling through Catholic circles. Most Catholics also had a mildly fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. Some of the results of Biblical criticism made them sit up and question their faith. However, biblical criticism never had such a devastating effect on Catholicism because Catholics had never based their religion solely on the Bible anyway. From the beginning the Catholics understood that the Scripture and the Church are inextricably intertwined. The Bible is the book of the Church and the Church is the community of the book. Catholics never swallowed the idea that the Bible should be read outside the community of faith. Of course you could always study the Bible academically in order to understand its language and history and development better, but this didn't really affect the use of the Scriptures in church. Neither did it mean that theological understandings of the Scriptures were invalid. To understand the different attitudes between Protestants and Catholics here is an example: From the beginning people argued about the authorship of the second epistle of Peter. Some said it was by Peter. Others said it couldn't have been. For conservative Protestants this debate is of utmost importance, because if the book is not by Peter then it isn't apostolic and it shouldn't be in the Bible. They then, quite sensibly ask, 'If this book is in the Bible, but isn't by Peter, how do we know that the whole Bible is trustworthy?' Catholics, on the other hand, simply say, 'It may be by Peter, or it may not be. The important thing is that it speaks with the authority of the Church. It came from the Church and the Church has decided that it is part of Holy Scripture. In that sense, it is apostolic in the largest way.' Don't be afraid of biblical criticism - there are no findings that can challenge the ultimate authority of God's Word that comes to us through the Church I'm beginning this short series on Catholic Bible Studies with this topic because any Catholic who starts to study the Bible will soon come across Biblical criticism. There is nothing to be scared about when you do come across findings that may challenge your simpler understanding of the Bible. Just remember that there are no findings that can challenge the ultimate authority of God's Word that comes to us through the Church. You may discover, for instance, that some people think that Moses didn't really write the book of Genesis or that some scholars think the gospel of John wasn't really written by John. They may be right, but that doesn't negate the fact that the book of Genesis was collected and preserved and prayed and preached by the Jewish people from the beginning of time. John's gospel may be written by a disciple of John, but it records John's teaching and speaks the mind of the Church. What is the true meaning of the text? I use these examples to challenge Bible study leaders to take the scholars seriously, but to keep their work in perspective. It is also perfectly fine to be critical of the critics. They might have lots of letters after their name, and they are undoubtedly learned and clever, but much of their work is guesswork. Many of their conclusions are only theories, and much of their work is biased by their own scientific and humanistic assumptions. Learn from them, but be cheeky enough to challenge them too. God gave them a brain, but he has also given you one. Remember that the Scriptures must be studied within the context of the teaching of the Church. The Scriptures don't stand alone. They were written by the Church, preserved by the Church, chosen by the Church, preached and prayed by the Church for two thousand years. Modern scholars have an excellent contribution to make, but their work needs to be considered along with the thought of the whole Church down through the ages. Finally, don't forget that the Scriptures are also best studied within the context of prayer and praise. The Scriptures were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and that same Holy Spirit who inspired the Scriptures wants to help us understand them and apply them to our lives today.
|
I'm
a Catholic now, but I am always grateful for my childhood in an Evangelical
Bible Church. As children we memorised Bible verses, learned all the
Bible stories and had to sit through long Biblical sermons. As a result,
when I came to England to study theology I was miles ahead of most
of my friends. I knew the Bible forward and backwards and they were
still trying to sort out the difference between Hezekiah and Ezekiel.
