few questions...?

Question

I was wondering what was a historical method. I have a bible assignment due and i have to know why it was useful. I also need to distinguish between a "devotional" and a "historical" approach to the Bible and know what is the difference? Any help please?

Answer 1

The historical method of criticism was developed to its fullest by Rudolph Bultman. It dismissed the idea that the scripture could be taken at its face value and suggested that we needed to evaluate the scripture to understand it better.

So if Mark is the oldest Gospel then we begin with the assumption that Mark is historically most correct. Additions to other Gospels then become suspicious. So as an example, Mark does not have a resurrection story. He ends the original manuscript with the fear of the disciples. So now we must question whether the resurrection is historically accurate. Was it added by later writers to support their own belief. What events caused them to add it? What was happening historically that they were trying to explain?

We can then look further and say that John is the oldest gospel. It has a different account of the resurrection than does Matthew. So the story of the resurrection has been changed further by the time John wrote his gospel.

By the same token there are two accounts of the creation of man in Genesis. Historical criticism says that the more complex the story the newer it is. So the one story says simply that God created man. Male and female he created them. This is simplest, so it is likely to be the oldest story. The other story embellishes and is therefore likely to have been changed to explain things. Thus the story nicely tells us that Eve's sin explains why women have pain in childbirth, etc.

I am not a strong fan of all forms of historical criticism. I do believe that it is important to understand the author and the historical context in which the author was writing. So for an example, John was writing during the early Gnostic heresies. This helps us understand why John would emphasize the spiritual aspects of Jesus' ministry over the human aspects.

The difference between a devotional and historical approach to the Bible I believe would be relatively simple. The devotional style would simply take the words the author wrote and say, "What does this mean to me". So you meditate on the words and you seek how to apply them to your life.

In the historical approach to scripture you are seeking the "truth". The so called "Quest for the Historical Jesus" is an example of this. They are seeking to find the "real" Jesus by stripping off the layers "added by the church" and come down to the simplest stories of Jesus to see him as he really was.

Of course this approach ignores the fact that all the gospels were written by those who witnessed the events. They were not modified by the church.

I hope this helps. You can hopefully sort our my own prejudices to look for your own truth. Thus, you can do your own historical criticism of my answer. :-)

Pastor John

Addendum: This paragraph is from a book: "...it was put to the text too soon, since with every single unit of tradition the first questions which should occupy us are these: Who is reporting it? What is the standpoint of the report, and what is the reporter's probable historical and theological position? What led him to report as he did? With what viewpoint and tradition is he aligning himself? In a word, we are encountering sacred traditions of the most varied kinds, each of which demands its own special form of examination if we are to arrive at the historical fact reported."

Answer 2

A devotional approach to the Bible, would be an effort to tell of a Biblical event and show the moral value of that event.

A historical approach would be to show when an event happened and what effect it had on history, if any.

The Bible, through out history has been the standard for morality. In the Ten commandments, found in Exodus, we have a basic outline for the laws of our nation.

Answer 3

The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).

The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.


In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.

The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.

The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.

Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.


But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.