I hope it works out.

"It's just grotesquely overrated as a way of getting at what Scripture actually says and means."

I don't know that I'd word it in that way. There are a few people who think you can build a house with just a hammer. The reality is you need a saw, screwdrivers, maybe a concrete mixer, and some other tools, too.

I think the summation of the recent synod expressed it well, that Biblical scholarship works well tempered with other aspects like prayer, connection of the Scriptures to daily life, liturgy, devotion, and similar aspects.

I don't know about the Scripture scholars you know, but I had a very good one in graduate school. He taught grad students, seminarians, and parish adult ed. He was a gifted preacher, which wasn't surprising. He was also profoundly insightful as a spiritual director, trying to connect people to the event of God in their daily lives. His mind was hardly buzzing, and he certainly didn't operate in a vacuum.

While I think some preachers and catechists have a clumsy approach to Scripture, I'm not sure I experience so much a misuse of scholarship as the lack of a deep grasp of the connections.

And as for the scholars of history, they were applying principles of curiosity, inquiry, the search for meaning two-hundred years ago. They didn't intend that a clumsy preacher fresh out of seminary would trouble the conservative souls in the back pew with an alphabet stew of interpretation.

Rather than guess at the history, Mark, (because we don't have the scholars of 1800 or 300 here, do we?) why not just outline what the ideal approach to the Bible in life, liturgy, and prayer might be? The Bible is clearly alive and working well for lots of Christians these days. You just have to look a little deeper.

...is that source-criticism addicts think you can build a house by taking the house apart.

If addicts are the issue, then the problem is with people, not methods.

My sense of the situation is that Americans do have a tendency to reject the intellect, go with the gut or the feelings. I'm leery about the tone I read in your essay and in the blogging of a few others. I think there's far greater danger treating the Scriptures as a literary/allegorical blend. Seems like we're just substituting one set of experts for another like it's some kind of election. I'm simply offering a reasonable caution to critics of the "higher criticism" method. If your problem is with individuals who are misusing it, then name names and take issue with specifics.

I'm simply going to suggest that the way the Church actually has read its Bible for two millennia is a good way to read it.

"I'm simply going to suggest that the way the Church actually has read its Bible for two millennia is a good way to read it."

Good. That would include "higher criticism" as part of the reading. Otherwise, we're only talking eighteen centuries, give or take.

good post!

historical reference has it's place,

but it's place shouldn't be to dissect, rather it should be to enhance.

Todd are you actually reading Mr. Shea’s work in its totality? (A rhetorical question)

Then I don’t know how you can make your opinions as written.

As you appear to not want stigmatize other historical writers by not judging what’s in their hearts, neither I do of you, but your postings here and else where clearly are confused or minimally idiocentric.

Your presumptive arguments that when applying “curiosity, inquiry, and the search for meaning” when studying scripture, God's public revelation, to be always benign or wholesome falls well short of human reason.

Todd who could argue that Christians need to apply a “connection of Scriptures to daily life, liturgy, and devotions.” But there is a danger when finite beings attempt to define the infinite creator in definite terms using their “intellect” and a "higher criticisms."

“faith in God, life on Earth, inspiration for the pilgrimage … the important things”
And I find your above web site caption just as confusing as your opinions typed on these threads.

To truly have faith in God is to focus on the end game of salvation and eternity.

The many literary forms of scripture are full of examples of what happens to men when too much focus is on life here on earth and not on eternity.

“Don’t allow your mind to be in the world. Your body is here, but your mind should be with the Lord, as if nothing else mattered.” EWTN’s Mother Angelica

"Todd are you actually reading Mr. Shea’s work in its totality?"

Yes, but I'm just addressing one point. I don't have a huge disagreement with Mark; I'm just advising caution on one point. It's likely he and I agree on about 98% of the substance of Catholic expression.

"But there is a danger when finite beings attempt to define the infinite creator in definite terms using their 'intellect' and a 'higher criticisms.'"

Sure. There's a danger for anything that ties up hubris and personal sin with God. There's even danger in avoiding the use of the intellect when it's God's gift to you.

The classic definition of theology is "faith seeking understanding." Some of that understanding is certainly intellectual, and I have no problem with the notion that we can use our minds to attempt to know God more deeply and serve God more faithfully. It's also not everybody's cup of tea, a sort of cafeteria Catholicism, if you will.

My web site caption is not intended to be anything more than a caption. It doesn't explain what I write about. It doesn't capture my fellow bloggers and our readers and commentariat. You're invited to read and contribute, as you do here. It's just a discussion.

Good piece, Mark.

After reading B16's "Jesus of Nazareth" I am coming to understand the limited value of the historical critical method, and I am alarmed at a couple of the conclusions frequently drawn by so many who use it -- namely that the Bible stories are nice (but not true); and, when we just understand how to interpret it, there is justification in scripture for whatever our favorite sinful behavior happens ot be.

Being stuck in space and time, it is very difficult to get one's head around God's simple yet profound message of mercy-tempered justice and salvation through grace working through faith in love. It's like CS Lewis (I think) described -- being a character in a book trying to understand what the author is up to while stuck on the written page.

Thank God for the Church.

"A person or a culture that aims for God gets the earthly stuff taken care of as a side benefit. The person or culture that aims for earthly goods not only doesn't get the things of heaven, they don't even get the earthly goods."

You gotta footnote Lewis on this one, doesn't he say almost exactly the same thing? I just cant think where at the moment. It was something about God leaving and demons arriving. Anyone know?