Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition?
#5
(04-03-2019, 01:28 AM)Crowe Wrote: It seems like the entire field of Biblical studies and "textual criticism" exists to undermine the authority of Scripture and the traditional interpretations. Most things written before Vatican II are pretty good but they don't really respond to any of the arguments from more recent years and studies. Are there any good studies of the Bible from recent years which do a good job at responding to textual criticism and affirming tradition?

The problem is the system itself.

Textual criticism is merely the scholarly field that looks at extant copies and variant readings and is looking to determine a text which is more literally faithful to original. Since we know that the original books of Scripture are far from extant, and we do have variations, that is not a bad thing, but it is not very useful for interpretation, since the variant readings do not affect doctrine or dogma. Thus textual criticism, correctly studied, will never change our interpretation of Scripture, because we're not Protestants. The Fathers and Magisterium are the interpreters of Scripture.

Seeing as textual criticism isn't about interpretation, then the problem must be something else, either using textual criticism as a basis, or the abuse of textual criticism to make interpretations. If this is the case it is not textual criticism which is the issue, but its abuse.

The bigger issue is "higher criticism" or the historico-critical method. The foundational assumption for this method are the issue. It is a Modernist (in the proper heretical sense) critique, because it asserts in its foundational principles that Scripture is sourced from some other texts, or each book is a melee of compiled stories and forms assembled by some compiler, etc.

This undermines the inspiration of Scripture which, while it has the human textual element worthy of study and mediate instruments who penned the original text, ultimately has God as its author, which cannot be discovered by material criticism of a text or historical analysis.

To argue with textual critics of a Modernist bent is already to cede too much ground. Their problems are not their interpretations, but the method they use. To argue with them is like arguing about whether abortion should be allowed when there is a risk to a mother's mental health, when your interlocutor actually thinks abortion up to birth for any reason is fine. It's already conceding too much.
[-] The following 2 users Like MagisterMusicae's post:
  • Crowe, jovan66102
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - by MagisterMusicae - 04-03-2019, 02:12 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)