The Historical Critical Method:
A necessary scriptural dichotomy or adversary to the word of God? There has been much debate over the function of the historical critical method as it is used in Biblical Studies. This debate stems from our confusion of the Bible as a literal or a literary text. Many followers of Christ believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, that every word is meant as it is written. Others believe in an allegorical conceptualization of the scriptures. Whatever the case, I personally believe that the historical critical method is a necessary and objective tool that should be implicated when reading and studying the word of God. Some believe that the implications of the historical critical method seek to deconstruct and disprove the gospel. I believe the first part of this is true. Historical Criticism does in fact deconstruct the scriptures. I believe as Aristotle believed, that deconstruction is the way one comes to true understanding. In this way, the deconstruction of the scriptures leads us to a better understanding and a more fervent faith. If anything the historical critical method seeks to look at the Bible as a historical text which is giving the text a great credence as an accurate account of history. This has proven to be a problem as many of the accounts in the Bible cannot be accurately validated. It is here where people begin to lose faith in the message of the scripture. I believe that this is a cop out for those who were looking for a reason to not believe. If in studying the Bible we come across things that are hard to understand, or don’t make sense, you ought not to simply run away or give up completely. I believe that when things are uncovered that change the way we view something in the Bible you can run from it, or you can learn from it. So what if Moses did not personally write the Torah? Did he not still lead Gods people out of slavery? Just because one way of understanding changes, it does not make...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document