Historical Criticism
A couple of days ago we discussed the Genesis creation story, particularly in light of the two different stories one supposedly finds there (it is commonly assumed that they are in fact two aspects of the same story, rather than two seperate stories). The position the book takes on this issue is a theory known as Historical Criticism. The problem with this theory is that it uses a lack of information to make its assumption.
Let me explain. No one kept record of the writing of much of the Bible (and particularly the Pentateuch, or first five books), and so we do not know whether the tradition handed down is accurate. Critics have stepped in and decided to determine who wrote what, and thus we end up with what is known as the JEPD theory (named for the four supposed authors, the Yawist, Elohist, Preiestly, and Deuteronomic), and each other is named after a certain trait.
The first point I would like to make is that the book is primarily wrong on giving the title of Priestly to the 'first' account of creation. That segment is almost universally placed under the Elohist camp, for it uses the name Elohim, which is translated as LORD. Around the beginning of the 'second' creation story Yaweh is being used (translated God). The Priestly segments are primarily in the latter books (Leviticus, Numbers) and are directly concerned with priestly duties.
Now, the problem of historical criticism is that it makes it assumptions primarily off what the author wants to find. It is fairly evident that the original theorizer of the JEPD theory was trying to discredit the common assumption of the Pentateuch. This does not mean it is automatically a wrong theory, but that it's nature must be called into question.
Historical criticism is also used to attempt to discredity author authors. Critics go through the works of people such as Shakespeare and attempt to show that they were written by other authors (such as Ben Johnson). As in the case of the Biblical criticism, there simply isn't enough evidence to prove their theories (and often not even enough to really support them).
One of my favorite studies of historical criticism was an essay written by Ronald Knox, entitled "The Authorship of In Memoriam." He argues (rather proves), while obeying all the rules laid down by historical criticism, that Alfred, Lord Tennyson did not write In Memoriam, but Queen Victoria did (for more information, click here). This idea is absurd, but only because Tennyson was so recent. In a hundred and fifty years, the theory would be as acceptable as the idea that Shakespeare was more than one person is today (this does not mean it is widely accepted, just that one can still hold an academic chair while espousing this theory).
What this tells us, in the end, is that we cannot really use historical criticism to make any major points, or to support our primary ideas. Reinventing the past is a finiky, and dangerous business, and is more likely than not to turn out exactly the way the inventor wishes.
"For all your words, you have not wisdom."
Let me explain. No one kept record of the writing of much of the Bible (and particularly the Pentateuch, or first five books), and so we do not know whether the tradition handed down is accurate. Critics have stepped in and decided to determine who wrote what, and thus we end up with what is known as the JEPD theory (named for the four supposed authors, the Yawist, Elohist, Preiestly, and Deuteronomic), and each other is named after a certain trait.
The first point I would like to make is that the book is primarily wrong on giving the title of Priestly to the 'first' account of creation. That segment is almost universally placed under the Elohist camp, for it uses the name Elohim, which is translated as LORD. Around the beginning of the 'second' creation story Yaweh is being used (translated God). The Priestly segments are primarily in the latter books (Leviticus, Numbers) and are directly concerned with priestly duties.
Now, the problem of historical criticism is that it makes it assumptions primarily off what the author wants to find. It is fairly evident that the original theorizer of the JEPD theory was trying to discredit the common assumption of the Pentateuch. This does not mean it is automatically a wrong theory, but that it's nature must be called into question.
Historical criticism is also used to attempt to discredity author authors. Critics go through the works of people such as Shakespeare and attempt to show that they were written by other authors (such as Ben Johnson). As in the case of the Biblical criticism, there simply isn't enough evidence to prove their theories (and often not even enough to really support them).
One of my favorite studies of historical criticism was an essay written by Ronald Knox, entitled "The Authorship of In Memoriam." He argues (rather proves), while obeying all the rules laid down by historical criticism, that Alfred, Lord Tennyson did not write In Memoriam, but Queen Victoria did (for more information, click here). This idea is absurd, but only because Tennyson was so recent. In a hundred and fifty years, the theory would be as acceptable as the idea that Shakespeare was more than one person is today (this does not mean it is widely accepted, just that one can still hold an academic chair while espousing this theory).
What this tells us, in the end, is that we cannot really use historical criticism to make any major points, or to support our primary ideas. Reinventing the past is a finiky, and dangerous business, and is more likely than not to turn out exactly the way the inventor wishes.
"For all your words, you have not wisdom."
posted by J.M.R. Burgard | 9:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home