From: REXLEX@linac.fnal.gov
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Limits to Criticism/1
Date: 21 Aug 92 04:25:24 GMT
Organization: Fermi Lab

As earlier noted, there will be a series of posting numbered 1-? taking the
inerrantist position.  A full outline was posted earlier, but here is a quick
over view.  I will try to hold these to a max of 5 pages.  I will not comment
until all postings are done, but if you wish, talk amongst yourselves. . . . .
Rex

A.  LIMITS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND OPPOSITION TO 
     PLENARY INSPIRATION

     1)  THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM
     2)  APPEARANCE AND TRIUMPH OF MODERN CRITICISM
     3)  BIBLICAL RENEWAL

B.  THE IMPOSSIBILITY THAT A FALLIBLE MESSAGE COULD
     BECOME THE WORD OF GOD

C.  EVANGELICALS SUPPOSEDLY NONSCIENTIFIC IN REGARD TO
     THE BIBLE

Excerpts from "The Inspiration & Authority of Scripture"  by Rene Pache,
copyright 1969, Moody Press.  Used by permission.

LIMITS OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM AND OPPOSITION TO PLENARY
INSPIRATION

WE CONTINUE HERE in a more general way the discussion already begun (chap. 6).
For the sake of clarity, we shall review some of the arguments cited regarding
various theories of inspiration.

THE MEANING OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM

The word criticism (krinein, "to judge") signifies a discussion having as its
aim the establishment, according to a logical examination, of the truth of
certain facts or documents. Let us say at the outset that it is perfectly
legitimate and even necessary to undertake a positive criticism of the ancient
texts. The Word of God presents itself to us in the form of a collection of
books written by various authors, in different languages, at different times,
and in various countries. It is quite proper for us to use our intelligence to
examine the manuscripts and their variants, to study the original languages,
and to establish the meaning of the sentences and the exact import of the
expressions. To this procedure, that of *lower criticism,* scholars have
devoted their entire lives, examining as under a microscope the smallest
details of the sacred Book.  Such men as B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, in
their Greek New Testament, have made a considerable contribution to the science
of textual criticism. In his time, so did B. Kennicott; and, still closer to
us, R.D. Wilson; these men labored indefatigably over the Old Testament.
By *higher criticism,* on the other hand, is meant the examination of the
literary style, the content of the message, and its rapport with customs, the
times, history and so on.  Do we not read in Luke himself that he "traced the
course of all things accurately from the first" (Luke 1:3) ?
     So criticism which leads to a better comprehension is not to be rejected,
and we have nothing to fear from a scientific research made in the light and in
truth.  But critical examination of the Bible admittedly does pose a very
special problem.  In this unique Book the believer has met God; both his
present life and his eternal destiny have been illuminated by the knowledge of
Jesus Christ.  Thus he cannot approach the Scriptures as he would an ordinary
human work.  For their study his Guide will always be the Lord, who inspired
the pages and who Himself gives their explanation. Intellectual knowledge,
then, will be completed and controlled by the living power which springs up
from the inspired text." (Pache, "Inspiration & Authority")
     L. Gaussen expresses himself as follows about the role of biblical
criticism:

    "That sacred criticism is indeed a noble science! It is so  because of its
object: to study the destinies of the divine   text, its canon, its
manuscripts, its versions, its witnesses,   and the innumerable authors who
have quoted it.... May God   preserve us, then, from setting faith here against
science-faith   which lives on the truth against science which studies it!
     But critical science does not keep its place when, instead of   being a
scientific inquirer, it would be a judge; when, not content   with collecting
together the oracles of God, it sets about   composing them, decomposing them,
canonizing them, decanonizing   them; and when it gives forth oracles itself! .
. . If, from this   Scripture, which calls itself inspired, and which declares
that it   is, at the last day, to judge you yourself, that wisdom of yours  
dares to take away anything; if, seating itself like the angels of   the last
judgment (Matt. 13:48, 49), it drag the book of God to the   seashore of
science, in order to collect in its vessels what it sees   in it to be good,
and to throw out what it finds in it to be bad, if it   pretend to separate
there the thought of God from the thought of   man . . . then, it is necessary
that it should be reproved.... It too   often happens that a prolonged course
of study devoted to the   extrinsic parts of the sacred book (its history, its
manuscripts, its   versions, its language), by entirely absorbing the attention
of the   men who give themselves to it, leaves them inattentive to . . . its  
meaning, its object, the moral power which displays itself there.   the
beauties that reveal themselves there, the life that diffuses   itself
there.... [Such a man] stifles his spiritual life.... How can a   man be
acquainted with the temple when he has seen but the stones and knows nothing of
the Shekinah [the glory of Jehovah, Exodus 40:35]? Can the types be understood
when he has not even a suspicion of their antitype: he has seen but altars,
sheep, . . . blood, fire, incense, costumes, and ceremonies; he has not beheld
the world's redemption, futurity, heaven, the glory of Jesus Christ! ("The
Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures")
     *Negative criticism.* It is indeed evident, unfortunately, that a certain
sort of criticism, the negative kind, has overplayed its role. Too often
originating in preconceived theological and philosophical notions and in
unproved theories, it has taken upon itself the right to dissect Scripture as
though the text were dead. We shall now examine some of the problems which have
arisen out of this type of criticism and shall see where this criticism leads.

Next post, Limits to Criticism/2:

APPEARANCE AND TRIUMPH OF MODERN CRITICISM