Historical Biblical Criticism

Oliver wrote what I consider an excellent response to J.B.'s post on our Margaret Fell reading. J.B. brought up a few different points, but they all basically boil down to whether or not the Bible is divinely inspired, and what that means for people who try to follow it. I agree with what Oliver said, but I have a few things to add. I think historical Biblical criticism, as a movement, is the key in interpreting the Bible as it was meant to be read and that after this interpretation, there won't be those apparent criticisms J.B. mentions.

First of all, there are disagreements within the Christian church as to what it really means that the Bible is divinely inspired. Some say that every single word has been chosen by God (similar to dictation), while others maintain that God's Holy Spirit inspired the Bible writers with the ideas but let them express those ideas through their own words (and, accordingly, through their own perspective derived from personal experience). In the second view (which is what I believe), the Bible is all true because it came from God, who is perfect. But that truth is expressed in different ways depending on the mindset of the writer and must be interpreted accordingly.

Therefore, most modern Biblical scholars use historical biblical criticism when examining the Bible. To do this, they study the historical context around each passage--who the writer was, who the intended readers were, what was happening historically at the time, and what the current systems of belief and thought were. They then use this information as a lens through which they examine the passages. Looked at in this way, some statements make more sense in light of other passages in the Bible. When Oliver said that Biblical commands are based on reason, this type of criticism brings out the reason. What is unreasonable about looking at the context of a text? It's what historians do all the time. It may be a lens, and lenses can be very subjective (like Augustine's love-lust theory), but this particular lens is the lens of objectivity (at least as much objectivity as it's possible to have). People who don't use historical criticism are making the mistake of applying their own modern lens to ancient texts.

Margaret Fell's commentary illustrates historical criticism very well. She notes that when Paul wrote that women should not speak in church, he was trying to keep order in the church and prevent confusion (1 Cor 14:34-35). Fell claims that the women Paul was addressing were "tatling and unlearned" and "busie-bodies," and while this isn't expressely stated in 1 Corinthians 14, it is a very logical assumption based on Paul's discussion of only preaching intelligibly and in an orderly fashion. Writing to the Corinthians with their presumably uneducated and gossipy women, it was most effective just to say "women" should be silent in church since Paul didn't intend for the letter to be read by people all over the globe for the next 2,000 years.

On a slight tangent, I'd like to express my view on J.B.'s point that Christianity is so rooted in the Bible. What Oliver said is true--it's no more unreasonable for someone to believe in a divinely inspired sacred text than it is to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being. And if someone does happen to believe that, what incentive is there to deny the authority of the sacred text? (Especially when it makes so much sense... interpreted with context in mind, that is.) But at the same time, different branches of Christianity have different ideas of what form the basis of their religions. For Catholics it is scripture + tradition, for many Protestants it is (or started out as) scripture alone. I'm United Methodist, and our doctrine has a so-called quadrilateral of sources: scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. So while we believe in the authority of the Bible, we don't always take it at face value or literally; we use our reason and personal experience (as well as traditions formed by others' reason and experience) to discover what [we think] scriptures really mean.