We have to find the difference between what is called ‘Text critique’ and the so-called ‘historical critical method’ of interpretation. Text critique is the science, which is established to determine the exact text of an original document, and to sift out any possible corruption of a given text or any copy mistakes that might have slipped in over the many centuries in which these manuscripts have been copied by hand. It also attempts to rectify incorrectly understood words, phrases and figures of speech. Many scholars, Christian and other, have critically and thoroughly studied each of the old manuscripts. This helped to identify any error, and to trace it back to where it had originally slipped in. This gives us the assurance that today we have in hand a close to perfect replica of the original revelation.
The ‘historical critical method’ is of quite a different nature. It attempts to ‘correct’ a text by assessing its feasibility, if I may put it this way. The Bible teaches, for instance, that the Jews went through the Red Sea on dry foot, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, that He walked on a lake and raised dead people to life. Since that is impossible, reason the critics, one has to classify such a text as myth. By various ways and means their pens have censored the Bible for anything supernatural. As expected, their critique largely contributed to the spiritual decay in the Western world. Through this God was erased from the minds of many people. Intentionally or not, these critics made their own finite minds the judge over the infinite God, assessing and stipulating what He can do and what not. This resulted in a very human interpretation of the divine Book and its author. We call that ‘secular humanism’. As lamentable as it is, this has become the dominant way of thinking as reflected by the Western media.
Recent Comments