The Value of Biblical Criticism

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 314-325
Author(s):  
John Barton
Keyword(s):  
Biblical Text ◽  
1 Corinthians ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
Critical Enquiry

Biblical criticism is the application to the biblical text of critical enquiry such as can be applied to any other text, and especially to obscure or puzzling ones. This is illustrated through a short analysis of some of the background and context of William Blake’s ‘Jerusalem’, and the same questions are then put to 1 Corinthians 13. In both cases it is shown that we understand the text better by attending to its original context, its genre and the thought-world within which it was written. Such criticism gives depth to the study of the text, and does not reduce its power or profundity as is sometimes feared. Biblical criticism is an exciting pursuit, and even if not essential for all Bible readers it is very much to be recommended.

scholarly journals Making the States’ Translation (1637): Orthodox Calvinist Biblical Criticism in the Dutch Republic

2017 ◽  
Vol 110 (3) ◽  
pp. 440-463
Author(s):  
Dirk van Miert
Keyword(s):  
Seventeenth Century ◽  
Thomas Hobbes ◽  
Dutch Republic ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
New Science ◽  
The Past ◽  
Biblical Scholarship ◽  
The Enlightenment ◽  
History Of

In the study of the history of biblical scholarship, there has been a tendency among historians to emphasize biblical philology as a force which, together with the new philosophy and the new science of the seventeenth century, caused the erosion of universal scriptural authority from the mid-seventeenth century onwards. A case in point is Jonathan Israel's impressive account of how biblical criticism in the hands of Spinoza paved the way for the Enlightenment. Others who have argued for a post-Spinozist rise of biblical criticism include Frank Manuel, Adam Sutcliffe, and Travis Frampton. These scholars have built upon longer standing interpretations such as those of Hugh Trevor-Roper and Paul Hazard. However, scholars in the past two decades such as Anthony Grafton, Scott Mandelbrote and Jean-Louis Quantin have altered the picture of an exegetical revolution inaugurated by Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712). These heterodox philosophers in fact relied on philological research that had been largely developed in the first half of the seventeenth century. Moreover, such research was carried out by scholars who had no subversive agenda. This is to say that the importance attached to a historical and philological approach to the biblical text had a cross-confessional appeal, not just a radical-political one.

Adolf Schlatter's Interpretation of Scripture

1978 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-446 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Stuhlmacher
Keyword(s):  
Current Practice ◽  
Word Of God ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
Limited Capacity ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Missouri Synod ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Scientific Ethos ◽  
The Church

Four years ago Paul Ricoeur gave a lecture here in Tübingen on ‘Philosophische und theologische Hermeneutik’,and advised us theologians in particular to give thought to our current practice and teaching in regard to the understanding of the biblical text. A real understanding of texts means, according to Ricoeur ‘to understand oneself in the light of the text. It does not mean imposing upon the text one's own limited capacity for comprehension, but exposing oneself to the text…It is not the (understanding) subject who forms…understanding, but … the self is formed by the “subject matter” of the text’ If we follow Ricoeur and attempt to practise such a form of understanding of the biblical text, then in the present-day situation of theology and church we fall all too quickly into a dilemma. The splendid tradition of modern biblical criticism, founded in Tübingen above all by F. C. Baur, seems to conflict with Ricoeur's proposal. How are we, trained and dedicated as we are to the historical and critical investigation and analysis of the biblical texts, to return again to that readiness and capacity for exposing ourselves to the texts and understanding ourselves anew in the light of them, i.e. before the tribunal of the Bible? Would that not mean precisely to abandon the scientific ethos to which we have so long considered ourselves bound? It is a searching question and, as we well know, a source of distress to many. This distress is intensified when today we hear not a few Christians pronounce a decisive ‘No!’ to all scientific biblical criticism. For them ‘understanding oneself in the light of the text’ of the Bible is only possible when all the historical insights we possess in regard to the Bible have first been rejected. A study document of the Lutheran Missouri Synod affirms: ‘We reject the doctrine, which under the name of science has gained wide popularity in the church of our day, that Holy Scripture is not in all its parts the Word of God, but in part the word of man and hence does, or at least might, contain error. We reject this erroneous doctrine as horrible and blasphemous, since it flatly contradicts Christ and His holy apostles, sets up men as judges over the Word of God, and thus overthrows the foundation of the Christian church and its faith.’

scholarly journals Kristeva: The Individual, the Symbolic and Feminist Readings of the Biblical Text

Text Matters ◽  
2014 ◽  
pp. 132-144
Author(s):  
Joshua Roe
Keyword(s):  
Hebrew Bible ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Feminist Scholar ◽  
Conditions Of Possibility ◽  
The Individual

The aim of this study is to develop from Kristeva’s account of time and semiotics the conditions of possibility for a new approach to interpreting the Bible. This will be set against the background of feminist biblical criticism, beginning from Esther Fuchs’s assessment of deception. She bases her comparison on the concept of deceptiveness but I will argue, using Lacan, that the aporia of desire undermines this comparison. Through Kristeva’s framework of the phases of feminism it will be shown that Fuchs’s argument weakness lies in her presupposition of the determinate identities of men and women. By examining passages in Genesis it will be shown that such determined identities are also not easily found in the Hebrew Bible. Then by considering another feminist scholar, Alice Bach, it will be shown that overcoming identity requires a more nuanced approach. In the first version of “Women’s Time” Kristeva suggests that identities could be overcome through moving towards the individual but this also operates in the same structure of identity. In fact Kristeva appears to recognize this problem as when she republishes the essay she considers a different way forward. It will be instead suggested that a type of feminism that recognizes its own weakness is needed. This will be used to interpret Proverbs 31 but in doing so it will become evident that this alone lacks the potency to overcome the diffuse nature of the symbolic.

Interpréter Paul au pluriel

2016 ◽  
Vol 45 (4) ◽  
pp. 600-611
Author(s):  
Ronald Charles
Keyword(s):  
Postcolonial Studies ◽  
Biblical Studies ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
1 Corinthians ◽  
Critical Approach ◽  
The Social ◽  
Scientific Approach ◽  
Methodological Approaches ◽  
Social Scientific

The aim of this article is to show the advantage of submitting one biblical text to a variety of methodological approaches that will allow a reader to have a fuller understanding of the text. This article proposes to read a particular Pauline text (1 Corinthians 5:1–5) by using different methodological approaches that have been adopted and developed in biblical studies (the historical-critical approach, the “social-scientific” approach, the feminist and postcolonial studies approaches) to illustrate the benefit of using a multiplicity of exegetical tools in the hermeneutical tasks, instead of adopting just one.

Jewish Antiquity in the Sixteenth Century: Calvin's Reception of Josephus

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 668-694
Author(s):  
Kirk Essary
Keyword(s):  
Sixteenth Century ◽  
Historical Data ◽  
Overwhelming Majority ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
Biblical Criticism ◽  
Biblical Story ◽  
Reliable Source ◽  
Jewish Historian ◽  
And Function

An analysis of Calvin's multifaceted use of the Roman-Jewish historian Josephus reveals several things of importance both for scholarship on Renaissance historical and biblical criticism generally, and for Calvin studies in particular. Calvin's reception of Josephus was quite extraordinary in its breadth, and complex in its employment and function. References to the historian are peppered throughout his works in a wide array of contexts, from the special authority of Moses to the length of the Sea of Galilee. Significantly, Calvin not only used Josephus as a source for raw historical data, but also employed him to philosophical, theological, and political ends as well. And while the reformer is not unequivocally positive in his judgment of the historian as a reliable source, an overwhelming majority of the instances where Calvin cites Josephus's texts are used to augment his exegetical works, and at times Josephus's authority comes close to overriding that of the literal biblical account. The purpose of this paper is to show how Calvin's engagement with Josephus in his commentaries reveals him to have been an able and discerning critic who would at times go to great lengths in order to sort out perceived discrepancies or to fill in historiographical lacunae pertinent to the biblical story, but also an opportunistic humanist who would use whatever resources he had at his disposal for clarifying the historical background of the biblical text.

scholarly journals Analisis Perbandingan Gramatikal-Historis Bahasa Lidah dalam 1 Korintus dan Kisah Para Rasul

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-204
Author(s):  
Yohanes Hasiholan Tampubolon ◽  
Aeron Frior Sihombing ◽  
Geri Gehotman Mangasake ◽  
Hafa’ Akhododo ◽  
Maria Mayda Bunge Tana ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Comparative Method ◽  
Biblical Text ◽  
1 Corinthians ◽  
Speaking In Tongues ◽  
The Bible ◽  
Hermeneutic Approach ◽  
Relevant Topic ◽  
Current Context

Glossolalia is currently a relevant topic. There is much controversy and debate about the practice of speaking in tongues. This paper will conduct a comparative analysis of tongues in 1 Corinthians and Acts. The practice referred to is specifically whether the Bible allows simultaneous speaking in tongues based on both books. Also regarding the speaking in tongues, whether it must be understood by others or is it necessary for someone to interpret it. This situation also occurs in the current context. Believers in some churches when in a worship (singing or praying) together speaking in tongues and without interpretation. The author finds that there are significant differences regarding the practice of speaking in tongues as instructed by Paul in 1 Corinthians and the story of speaking in tongues as written by Luke in Acts. In fact, there is an interpretive vacuum that contemporary interpreters must fill. The author uses a comparative method and a grammatical-historical hermeneutic approach to the biblical text.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document