|
Hi Phillip,
Let me start by saying that it really doesn't matter who wrote
the text; it is nevertheless inspired.
So far as the Church is concerned, one can hold either the traditional
view or the view of some modern scholars.
I lean heavily towards the traditional view but we have to understand
that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc. probably all had scribes so it
is entirely possible that thoughts came from the author, but the actual
source of the language had the input of their scribes.
As for the Old Testament, in particular the first five books, the authority
behind it is most definitely Moses, but again, it was probably transmitted
orally for several generations so the scribes that eventually put it in
writing might have had some influence.
The problem I have with what I call the alphabet soup theory
for the first five books is that it focuses on the human intent when it comes
to ascribing names to God rather than God revealing Himself with different
names and different titles to reveal His own Glory through His Word.
In general, the Historical Critical Method seems to approach biblical interpretation
with suspicion. It seeks to rationalize the supernatural and it is over-focused on the
human contribution to Scripture.
As Catholics, we believe the Scriptures are inspired and without error.
We also consider that they contain certain literary devices, cultural idioms
and so forth but that is not a license to automatically discount their historicity
or authorship. Moreover, I think the overemphasis on the linguistic style
paints the authors with a monolithic brush.
People don't always use the same expressions or write or speak with
the same terms.
Additionally, the emphasis on authorship becomes a distraction from the
point of the text.
In some instances, the exegetes totally miss the point. For example, those
who date certain prophetic books later don't see the Scriptures being
fulfilled. The actual text might have been physically written later, but
that doesn't mean the Oral Tradition didn't precede it by centuries.
Personally, I try and let the Scriptures speak for themselves. What is
not clear in one text, is often clarified elsewhere. The primary author
of Scripture is the Holy Spirit. Prophets wrote what they were inspired
to write not necessarily knowing the exact fulfillment.
In short, there
is a beautiful unity to the Scripture, especially when understood in the
context of Sacred Tradition, hence, while the Historical Critical Method
is one tool in an exegetes tool box,
it is not the only tool.
Hope this helps,
John
|
