Higher Criticism. Pt.1. (Roots) Higher criticism, arising from 19th century European rationalism, generally takes a secular approach asking questions regarding the origin and composition of the text, including when and where it originated, how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced, what influences were at work in its production, and what original oral or written sources may have been used in its composition; and the message of the text as expressed in its language, including the meaning of the words as well as the way in which they are arranged in meaningful forms of expression. The principles of higher criticism are based on reason rather than revelation and are also speculative by nature. (Theopedia) The Dutch scholars Desiderius Erasmus (1466? – 1536) and Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) are usually credited as the first to study the Bible in this way. When applied to the Bible, the historical-critical method is distinct from the traditional, devotional approach. In particular, while devotional readers concern themselves with the overall message of the Bible, historians examine the distinct messages of each book in the Bible. Guided by the devotional approach, for example, Christians often combine accounts from different gospels into single accounts, whereas historians attempt to discern what is unique about each gospel, including how they are different. The phrase higher criticism became popular in Europe from the mid-18th century to the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars as Jean Astruc (mid-18th century), Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91), Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Julius Wellhausen (1844–1918).[13] In academic circles today, this is the body of work properly considered higher criticism, though the phrase is sometimes applied to earlier or later work using similar methods. Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars of the Tübingen School. After the path-breaking work on the New Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation – which included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–72) – in the mid-19th century analyzed the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times in search of independent confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter scholars built on the tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke, David Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel and the French rationalists. These ideas were imported to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, in particular, by George Eliots translations of Strausss The Life of Jesus (1846) and Feuerbachs The Essence of Christianity (1854). In 1860 seven liberal Anglican theologians began the process of incorporating this historical criticism into Christian doctrine in Essays and Reviews, causing a five-year storm of controversy which completely overshadowed the arguments over Darwins newly published On the Origin of Species. Two of the authors were indicted for heresy and lost their jobs by 1862, but in 1864 had the judgement overturned on appeal. La Vie de Jésus (1863), the seminal work by a Frenchman, Ernest Renan (1823–92), continued in the same tradition as Strauss and Feuerbach. In Catholicism, LEvangile et lEglise (1902), the magnum opus by Alfred Loisy against the Essence of Christianity of Adolf von Harnack and La Vie de Jesus of Renan, gave birth to the modernist crisis (1902–61). Some scholars, such as Rudolf Bultmann have used higher criticism of the Bible to demythologize it. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism) ([PDF]The Influence of Spinoza in the Higher Criticism of the Old biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/eq/1978-1_023.pdf) As you do your own search you will find an inexorable link between Higher Criticism and Rationalism which was later spurred on by The Darwininan Origin of Species.. Higher criticism came out of rational scholasticism of which both Spinoza and Descartes made possible due to the resurgence of Neo-Platonism in the mid 1600s following after Calvin, Erasmus and Augustine much earlier. The scholasticism of these centuries and that which has been built upon them in more modern times by modern scholars is nothing more than an outgrowth of Neo-platonic philosophy as well as mixing this with Aristotlean philosophy as well! The basis of Higher Criticism is mere Naturalism, by which the Ancient Greek Philosophers by their own human wisdom attributed to all things determinatively! Even to anything that may or may not be outside of nature were attributed Natural attributes which by the philosophers could be sensed by the five senses. In the platonic view, all things were determined by the gods or a higher being; whereas, Aristotle rejected the idea of gods or a higher being seeing them as MYTH. Within the Greek understanding of gods it is true to say that myths and legends surround the ideology of the Greek gods, and thus while it was right in essence to reject these as they were (myths) it was then not also right to use the same determinative basis to say that material things are determinative upon man.. Which is thoroughly materialistic and Naturalistic. Democritus alongside Pythagorus took Aristotelean materialistic, naturalistic determinism as correct and it was Democritus that formulated the idea that it was ATOMS that not only made up everything but determined everything! To try to get out of the perennial problem of material or atoms merely coming from nothing, Democritus proposed a series of universes ( modern multiverse hypothesis ) and was still left with what we now know as void hypothesis, which is, everything that is came from absolutely nothing! It is this theory of Democritus which is the real basis of both Darwinian macro evolution and rationalistic thought! Now, this may sound confusing since rationalism came out of Neo-Platonism and now also Aristotelean philosophy.. How can it be both? How can it be from a philosophy that accepts a higher being or higher beings and also from a philosophy that rejects a higher being? The answer to this is found in the fact that both philosophies are bound in material and naturalistic determinism; however, till the resurgence of the philosophy of the Aristotelianism of Democritus through Darwin, scholasticism focused on so-Platonism. What happened was that scholasticism was forced by the Aristotelianism of Democritus through Darwin to view this Ancient Greek philosophy as more scholarly! Determinative mechanical naturalistic materialistic Rationalism won the day over the other materialistic natural determinative philosophy.. How? Well, it took Aristotelean philosophy through Democritus via Darwin as fact and stated that belief in a higher being was MYTH! ( Aristotle restated). This is why Higher Criticism sees itself as the liberal approach in that it ACCEPTS without question and liberally the philosophy of Aristotle as the foundation and then it APPLIES that understanding or philosophy to Neo-platonic ideology and everything else! Because the followers of Higher criticism see themselves as more scholarly they will reject, deny, sneer, snicker and look down their scholarly noses at those deemed less scholarly! Literalism is seen as beneath contempt as it is seen as not scholarly at all. However, it is not quite correct. It is about what school one comes from! One school is of rationalism rejecting the Scriptures while the other school is of acceptance of the Scriptures as Gods Word. The charge that fundamentalism (literalism) comes or came out of Calvinism is a false charge. The fundamentals came as a result of fighting against liberalism and out of Winona Lake conferences. The men who met were of different theological persuasions and the books by the name The Fundamentals were a collection of a series of messages given at the conferences. These set out what is believed to be the basics or foundations to the Christian Faith. There is nothing within these series of messages that is innately Calvinist at all, nor are they innately Arminian. Even a Catholic would agree to most if not all of what was written! What these messages do, is take God at His Word. But to say there is no scholarly work done by literalists is also not true as many scholarly works have been produced that back up the literalist position as being correct historically and that it is accurate. That a person who will say they reject Platonism and yet also say they are liberal is a complete living contradiction.
Posted on: Mon, 01 Dec 2014 05:08:40 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015