AP photo
Apologetic Articles
The on-going battle between faith and rationalism
Within the term “biblical higher criticism,” the word “higher” is merely relative, to distinguish what was once called “lower” biblical criticism, and is now commonly called textual criticism, but hearing it, in the private words of one fellow Examiner, sounded “esoteric.” The short definition is that it is literary -- more or less, depending on the practitioner -- criticism applied to biblical and extra-biblical writing, mainly concerning Abrahamic religions in the West. It is also contrasted to radical criticism.
Such critics can be theist or non-theist, even agnostic; there are many excellent introductions to the field of higher criticism available on the Internet. One, however, has been available online for a while and is considered very influential, written for the average person early in the 20th century. The History of the Higher Criticism, by Canon Dyson Hague, M.A., Rector of the Memorial Church, London, Ontario, asked the question: “How is it, then, that the Higher Criticism has become identified in the popular mind with attacks upon the Bible and the supernatural character of the Holy Scriptures?” The answer is that belief, faith and spirituality, formerly primary, “fortifying faith in the Bible, not rationalistic,” over time succumbed in many scholarly minds to science, human reason, literary criticism, linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, philology and even philosophy. Canon Hague compared the pious critic with the artist, as opposed to the “merely technical and mechanical and scientific mind….”
Indeed, he maintained, “the Bible is to be treated as unique in literature, and, therefore, that the ordinary rules of critical interpretation must fail to interpret it aright.” Why must the scriptures of Christianity and Judaism, or even Islam, be exempt from science? Most holy writ has historically enjoyed an invulnerable and commanding, mostly unquestioned, authority, but modern peoples used to freedom of religion, speech, and thought may be surprised at the veiled authoritarian baggage that comes from the conservative viewpoint. The entire work of Hague is rife with such condescending remarks such as these:
- Recommended: “the simplicity of the believing child of God”
- Point: “without faith no one can explain the Holy Scriptures”
- Argument: the “merely” scientific approach is “subjective “ and “destructive,” lauding Isaac Newton’s “’Non fingo hypotheses’: I do not frame hypotheses.” Critics would say it is “deconstructive.”
- Disparaging the most critical scholars, he targets the Germans derogatorily because they have “supposed literary qualifications”; what’s more, “it is notorious to what length the German fancy can go in the direction of the subjective and of the conjectural.”
- Point: what matters is “spiritual insight.”
Although higher criticism has progressed even further towards becoming more scientifically rigorous, apologetics unfortunately has not (see Apologetic Articles above). Canon Hague remarked, “The Bible, as has been said, has no revelation to make to un-Biblical minds.” A very revealing comment concerning what many consider to be the very word of God, and an imposed limit, to be sure, upon the power of the Almighty. The entire work hinges on the most extensive use of the “straw man” logical fallacy ever committed to paper, or Web page. For Hague, not only are the Germans caricatured, the hypothesis that such works as the Bible can be explained without recourse to the supernatural is anathema. Critics cannot be unbiased; they must be “anti-supernatural,” rather than just skeptical or striving to be neutral, i.e., not a priori positing a religious interpretation, the essence of the scientific approach in general, including modern physical theories of origins. He will have none of that usage either: “they are so preoccupied with a theory that their conclusions seem to the average mind curiously warped.” If you are not with us, you’re against us.
Moby Dick, a case study
Herman Melville’s undisputed American literary classic, Moby Dick, has a definite structure, most notably the “journey” motif. Most literary critics understand it has a definite purpose to achieve, a message to impart, and lessons to teach covering a wide swath of human nature and values. It is known for example, he opposed Christian missionary activities among island-bound native peoples. It is high drama, high meaning stupendously great, expressed in the movement of incident, and even includes foreshadowing – one might be tempted to say prophecy – as an essential tool to move the reader to the conclusion. It makes near-peerless reference to the Hebrew and Greek scriptures, casting characters and even ships in the mold of the familiar Biblical characters the faithful might readily recognize, and can quickly understand, through symbolic association. Many of the incidents recorded in its pages were not only based on his eye-witness whaling adventures, but also based on Melville’s reworking of whalers’ tales common of the era, especially the famous “Mocha Dick,” and scholars have researched those earlier accounts as the basis of Melville’s convincing re-working in service of his tale. The events of the story are placed in a definite period of history, and done so convincingly, a credit to the immeasurable style of the writer.
All these explorations are the stuff of literary criticism.
I invite readers to peruse an article, such as this examiner.com piece, a well-written defense by the Rockford Methodist Examiner, with the above observations firmly in the back of their minds. The literary nature of the Gospel of Matthew literally jumps off the page, when presented in the manner chosen by the author. Indeed, the appearance of biblical allusion, dramatic structure, and symbolic representation: the identification of all these things were not suddenly exposed by higher criticism; they were the very things present in the Bible that birthed the ideas of higher criticism in the first place!
Comments