Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition?
#7
(04-03-2019, 02:12 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: 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.

Except it is evident in the Scriptures that the sacred authors themselves used other sources, many are explicitly referenced in the books of Kings. This in no way excludes God as the Divine author, so there is a valid way in which we can study the sacred texts from this angle. 

On the issue of a compiler or editor, why could he not have been inspired as well? Take the issue of the Torah, I'd say it's possible to both recognize Mosaic authorship as well as a later inspired editor/compiler who crystallized the books into their current form.

There are certainly unorthodox ways of understanding these things but I don't think the ideas of sacred authors using other sources (which is attested to in the Bible) or the influence of editors is something to be dismissed as un-Catholic.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Good Biblical Studies That Affirm Tradition? - by Florus - 04-04-2019, 12:24 PM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)