But, but... in my understanding, literalism and historical criticism are not one and the same kingd of reading. I lean more towards how Wikipedia sums it up: "This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture [Biblical literalism that is] is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians, in contrast to the historical-critical method of mainstream Judaism, Catholicism or Mainline Protestantism." For me, combining a Christ-centred spiritual interpretation inspired by tradition and the historical-critical way of reading has deepened my understanding of the Word.
I meant suggest not that there is not any value to the historical critical method, rather I meant to emphasize more that using it especially with a fundamentalists presuppositions is dangerous. For me this was a problem growing up and I realize historical critical method has produced some better results than it did when I was still engaging more with it and it had hardly progressed from the Jesus seminar days. But I think that what I was trying to emphasize is important—that for Christians the ultimate point of reading scripture is to encounter Christ and see him as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. I’d argue that historical critical method can give us some data to chew on but the real meat is found when we see Christ everywhere in the Old Testament especially or I think we lose out on the Words major disclosure to us. I hope that clarifies that I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with reading academic biblical criticism. Origen was using the academic methods of his day, but also he sought not to encounter data but Christ. Does that make sense?
I just finished reading Mary Ford's book The Soul's Longing, which is an excellent in-depth explanation of the development of the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation and how the West went wrong in the way we read the Scriptures.
But, but... in my understanding, literalism and historical criticism are not one and the same kingd of reading. I lean more towards how Wikipedia sums it up: "This Christian fundamentalist and evangelical hermeneutical approach to scripture [Biblical literalism that is] is used extensively by fundamentalist Christians, in contrast to the historical-critical method of mainstream Judaism, Catholicism or Mainline Protestantism." For me, combining a Christ-centred spiritual interpretation inspired by tradition and the historical-critical way of reading has deepened my understanding of the Word.
I meant suggest not that there is not any value to the historical critical method, rather I meant to emphasize more that using it especially with a fundamentalists presuppositions is dangerous. For me this was a problem growing up and I realize historical critical method has produced some better results than it did when I was still engaging more with it and it had hardly progressed from the Jesus seminar days. But I think that what I was trying to emphasize is important—that for Christians the ultimate point of reading scripture is to encounter Christ and see him as the fulfillment of the law and the prophets. I’d argue that historical critical method can give us some data to chew on but the real meat is found when we see Christ everywhere in the Old Testament especially or I think we lose out on the Words major disclosure to us. I hope that clarifies that I’m not suggesting there is anything wrong with reading academic biblical criticism. Origen was using the academic methods of his day, but also he sought not to encounter data but Christ. Does that make sense?
I just finished reading Mary Ford's book The Soul's Longing, which is an excellent in-depth explanation of the development of the historical-critical method of Biblical interpretation and how the West went wrong in the way we read the Scriptures.
I’ll have to check it out.
Wow! This was fantastic!
I'm glad it was helpful!