|
Post by erinwhitlow on Jun 4, 2009 17:53:31 GMT -5
Alright, so, while working on apologetics, I came across something that I was having trouble with. Namely: "Explain the meaning and significance of higher criticism and lower criticism." I think I understand what they are, essentially. Lower criticism = textual criticism, having to do with studying what the original text said... the examination of the text itself? Higher criticism is an examination of the source of the text? (For all I know, I could be completely off base. My sources thus far have been A General Introduction to the Bible and the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics by Norman Geisler) Where I became confused was when the different branches of criticism were discussed. Do they all fit under both higher and lower? Do some of them fit under one and some under the other? Then I started reading about the opinions about higher criticism. Some said that, because of its philosophical origins, higher criticism is only harmful to a high view of Scripture; others argued that higher criticism can be used to aid study of Scripture when used in an evangelical context. Is the second view correct? I read about constructive and destructive criticism as well, so it seemed like it just depended on presuppositions... What is your opinion? Where do I stand in need of correction?
|
|
|
Post by Mike Miller on Jun 8, 2009 16:28:15 GMT -5
First, I should say for others reading this that "criticism" does not mean criticizing the Bible. The term refers to critical areas of study for the purpose of understanding the Bible. Therefore, biblical criticism is necessary for all biblical scholarship.
Textual criticism, also sometimes called "lower criticism" is concerned with determining the best and most reliable biblical manuscripts. Since we do not have the original manuscripts of any book of the Bible, textual criticism is the field of study that examines the numerous available manuscripts, as well as quotes of the Bible from other sources, in order to ascertain the most likely readings. Because of the work done in this field, we can be very certain that the Bible we have before us today is very reliable and accurate. Though our doctrine of inerrancy only extends to the original manuscripts (which we don't have), we can trust what we do have because of the evaluative methods employed in textual criticism. Typically, the only people who criticize textual criticism are cults, Catholics, King James only-ites, and any others who want to hold to a particular translation. They don't like textual criticism, because it might reveal flaws in their favored translations.
Higher criticism is concerned with studying the origins of a particular text. Narrative criticism, source criticism, form criticism and others fall under the umbrella of higher criticism. To paint with a broad brush, however, the various forms of higher criticism look at the language, form, structure, and contents of the material to learn about its author, time period, and motives. In other words, we might look at certain phrases or events mentioned to determine a date of a book by comparing it with other literature of the same era. Or we might learn about the recipients, or intended readers, of a particular book by the information the book contains. For example, we can infer from the subject matter of the book of Hebrews that its intended recipients were likely people with a Jewish background. This helps us to understand and apply the teachings it contains. And what can we learn about an author by what and how he writes? Why does he give great detail about certain characters and events and not others? Is it because his readers already know about those people and events, or that he needs to explain some things? (Example: the readers of the Gospel of John seem to be familiar with Mary and Martha, but the author describes Lazarus. Why? To whom is he writing?) And is there any theological significance in the author's focus on certain things, while he might just casually skim over others? Indeed, the tools of higher criticism can help us to understand the Bible more fully.
Now, as helpful as higher criticism is, some don't like it. Indeed, there are those who try to use the information gleaned from these methods to try to discredit the Bible. However, this all depends on our presuppositions. If you don't believe the Bible, you can find reasons to continue not believing it. But if you do believe it, higher critical methods can help you understand it better. For example, the form , language, and structure of Deuteronomy strongly resemble the form, language, and structure of suzerainty treaties of the Hittites in the ancient Near East. This can help us to understand much of the wording and come to some conclusions about its dates. In addition, there are some theological lessons about God's grace. This helps me to understand why Deuteronomy is laid out like it is--in language the people of that time would have understood--and to see God as this great protector of His people. On the other hand, people who don't want to believe the Bible will say that this proves that Deuteronomy is fabricated by people who were familiar with secular treaties. Our presuppositions will always determine how we use the information we obtain in our studies.
Therefore, textual criticism (lower criticism) is significant in that it helps us to determine the most accurate reading of Scripture, and it reveals the reliability of the Bible we have. Higher criticism helps us to understand the author, readers, times, and language of the Bible so that we can better understand the text and more fully develop our theology.
I know this is a lot of info, so feel free to follow-up.
|
|