Historical-critical methods - Revision history

Mxmsj: Text replacement - "--" to " — "

2022-12-10T10:04:10Z

Text replacement - "--" to " — "

Mxmsj at 23:39, 24 March 2011

2011-03-24T23:39:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 25 March 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"''' (St. Jerome [~345--420 AD])		'''"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"''' (St. Jerome, ~345--420 AD).

	We have nothing to fear from the truth.		We have nothing to fear from the truth.

Mxmsj at 23:39, 24 March 2011

2011-03-24T23:39:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:39, 25 March 2011
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The work of historians and linguists is irreplaceable in determining the ''original meaning of the Scriptures.'' We cannot use our modern meanings of words nor our modern context; we have to develop a good sense of the ancient meanings of the words used in Scripture and the historical contexts within which the books were written.		The work of historians and linguists is irreplaceable in determining the ''original meaning of the Scriptures.'' We cannot use our modern meanings of words nor our modern context; we have to develop a good sense of the ancient meanings of the words used in Scripture and the historical contexts within which the books were written.

	One of the dangers of the historical methods is that they can focus too much on the ''original meaning'' of the texts and blind readers to a later, extended meaning recognized by the Church.		One of the dangers of the historical methods is that they can focus too much on the ''original meaning'' of the texts and blind readers to a later, extended meaning recognized by the Church. Moreover, even though the authors of Scripture were people of their day, it does not follow that their thought was determined by their culture--any more than our thought is determined by modern culture; to teach otherwise is to fall into one of the many traps of '''historicism.'''

	== Critical questions ==		== Critical questions ==

Mxmsj at 23:36, 24 March 2011

2011-03-24T23:36:22Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:36, 25 March 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.		Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.

			The work of historians and linguists is irreplaceable in determining the ''original meaning of the Scriptures.'' We cannot use our modern meanings of words nor our modern context; we have to develop a good sense of the ancient meanings of the words used in Scripture and the historical contexts within which the books were written.

			One of the dangers of the historical methods is that they can focus too much on the ''original meaning'' of the texts and blind readers to a later, extended meaning recognized by the Church.

	== Critical questions ==		== Critical questions ==

Mxmsj at 16:05, 14 January 2011

2011-01-14T16:05:17Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, 14 January 2011
Line 8:		Line 8:

	Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.		Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.

			== Critical questions ==
			* What likelihood is there that the story, in whole or in part, reflects real events?
			* When was the story first told?
			* Who first wrote it down?
			* How many versions of the story are there?
			* Do the different versions support or contradict each other?
			* What was going on in the world of the tellers, recorders and editors of the story when they made their contribution to the text as we have it now--in other words, what was the ''sitz im Leben'' (life-situation) of the text as it developed?
			* What extra-biblical sources are there that might confirm or contradict the Scriptural accounts?

			== Biblical archeology ==

			James Pritchard (1910-1997) was one of the great biblical archeologists. He found hundreds of sites mentioned in the Bible in an effort to prove that "every word in the Bible was factually correct." I don't think he succeeded in that effort, but he showed that there are unquestionably a multitude of historical truths in the Bible.

	== Church teachings ==		== Church teachings ==

Mxmsj at 16:02, 14 January 2011

2011-01-14T16:02:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 14 January 2011
Line 5:		Line 5:
	Jesus is King of Truth.		Jesus is King of Truth.

	Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical events in salvation history, the history of the development of the Scriptures, the original meaning of the language used in the Scriptures, and the effect of various literary techniques used by the authors on the proper interpretation of the texts.		Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical events in salvation history, the history of the development of the Scriptures, the original meaning of the language used in the Scriptures, and the effect of various literary techniques used by the authors on the proper interpretation of the texts. It is one of the forms of [[Biblical criticism]] popularized in the last two centuries, all of which are related, in turn, to the advocacy of [[critical thinking]] in the humanities.

	Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.		Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.

Mxmsj at 14:13, 13 January 2011

2011-01-13T14:13:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:13, 13 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"''' (St. Jerome [~345--420 AD])

	We have nothing to fear from the truth.		We have nothing to fear from the truth.

Mxmsj at 14:03, 13 January 2011

2011-01-13T14:03:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:03, 13 January 2011
Line 3:		Line 3:
	Jesus is King of Truth.		Jesus is King of Truth.

	Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical events in salvation history, the history of the development of the Scriptures, the original meaning of the language used in the Scriptures, and the effect ~~of the use~~ of various literary techniques on the proper interpretation of the texts.		Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical events in salvation history, the history of the development of the Scriptures, the original meaning of the language used in the Scriptures, and the effect of various literary techniques used by the authors on the proper interpretation of the texts.

	Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.		Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.

Mxmsj at 01:46, 11 January 2011

2011-01-11T01:46:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:46, 11 January 2011
Line 6:		Line 6:

	Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.		Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism\|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.

			== Church teachings ==
			* [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4966 Divino Afflante Spiritu (On Promoting Biblical Studies)]--Pope Pius XII, 1943.
			* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html "Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation"] (1965).
			* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm "The Transmission of Divine Revelation"] (§74-100).
			* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm "Sacred Scripture"] (§101-141).
			[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.pdf Verbum Domini]--2010 Apostolic Exhortation by Bendedict XVI.

	To do:		To do:

	* Papal teachings.
	* Handout on exegesis.		* Handout on exegesis.
	* Examples.		* Examples.

	[[Category:Scripture Studies]]		[[Category:Scripture Studies]]

Mxmsj: Created page with "We have nothing to fear from the truth. Jesus is King of Truth. Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical ev..."

2011-01-10T23:41:50Z

Created page with "We have nothing to fear from the truth. Jesus is King of Truth. Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical ev..."

New page

We have nothing to fear from the truth.

Jesus is King of Truth.

Historical-critical reading of the Scriptures, in principle, is meant to learn the truth about the historical events in salvation history, the history of the development of the Scriptures, the original meaning of the language used in the Scriptures, and the effect of the use of various literary techniques on the proper interpretation of the texts.

Many scholars who use the methods of historical criticism are [[Modernism|Modernists]]. They systematically distort the gospel message by driving a wedge between history and revelation. They take a tool which, in the right hands, can open deeper meanings in the Scriptures and use it as a weapon against the faith.

To do:

* Papal teachings.
* Handout on exegesis.
* Examples.

[[Category:Scripture Studies]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 10 December 2022
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"''' (St. Jerome, ~345--420 AD).		'''"Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ"''' (St. Jerome, ~345 — 420 AD).

	We have nothing to fear from the truth.		We have nothing to fear from the truth.
Line 11:		Line 11:
	The work of historians and linguists is irreplaceable in determining the ''original meaning of the Scriptures.'' We cannot use our modern meanings of words nor our modern context; we have to develop a good sense of the ancient meanings of the words used in Scripture and the historical contexts within which the books were written.		The work of historians and linguists is irreplaceable in determining the ''original meaning of the Scriptures.'' We cannot use our modern meanings of words nor our modern context; we have to develop a good sense of the ancient meanings of the words used in Scripture and the historical contexts within which the books were written.

	One of the dangers of the historical methods is that they can focus too much on the ''original meaning'' of the texts and blind readers to a later, extended meaning recognized by the Church. Moreover, even though the authors of Scripture were people of their day, it does not follow that their thought was determined by their culture--any more than our thought is determined by modern culture; to teach otherwise is to fall into one of the many traps of '''historicism.'''		One of the dangers of the historical methods is that they can focus too much on the ''original meaning'' of the texts and blind readers to a later, extended meaning recognized by the Church. Moreover, even though the authors of Scripture were people of their day, it does not follow that their thought was determined by their culture — any more than our thought is determined by modern culture; to teach otherwise is to fall into one of the many traps of '''historicism.'''

	== Critical questions ==		== Critical questions ==
Line 19:		Line 19:
	* How many versions of the story are there?		* How many versions of the story are there?
	* Do the different versions support or contradict each other?		* Do the different versions support or contradict each other?
	* What was going on in the world of the tellers, recorders and editors of the story when they made their contribution to the text as we have it now--in other words, what was the ''sitz im Leben'' (life-situation) of the text as it developed?		* What was going on in the world of the tellers, recorders and editors of the story when they made their contribution to the text as we have it now — in other words, what was the ''sitz im Leben'' (life-situation) of the text as it developed?
	* What extra-biblical sources are there that might confirm or contradict the Scriptural accounts?		* What extra-biblical sources are there that might confirm or contradict the Scriptural accounts?

Line 27:		Line 27:

	== Church teachings ==		== Church teachings ==
	* [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4966 Divino Afflante Spiritu (On Promoting Biblical Studies)]--Pope Pius XII, 1943.		* [http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=4966 Divino Afflante Spiritu (On Promoting Biblical Studies)] — Pope Pius XII, 1943.
	* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html "Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation"] (1965).		* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html "Dei Verbum: Dogmatic Constitution on Revelation"] (1965).
	* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm "The Transmission of Divine Revelation"] (§74-100).		* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm "The Transmission of Divine Revelation"] (§74-100).
	* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm "Sacred Scripture"] (§101-141).		* [http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a3.htm "Sacred Scripture"] (§101-141).
	[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.pdf Verbum Domini]--2010 Apostolic Exhortation by Bendedict XVI.		[http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20100930_verbum-domini_en.pdf Verbum Domini] — 2010 Apostolic Exhortation by Bendedict XVI.

	To do:		To do: