Not the end all. . .

One of the most significant problems with the historical critical methodology is that it seems intent upon robbing the Scriptures of anything that might approach a harmony of teaching and doctrine.  If anything, it insists that there can be no such thing, that even within books of Scripture there is conflict, division, and contradiction -- much less within the whole canon.  It is tiresome, to be sure, but over and over again the historical critical methodology unravels as much of Scripture as is possible in pursuit of something hidden or something behind the text that always is more important than what the text itself says.

Over the course of time, most Biblical scholars have adopted some form of it in their work and it is obligatory for exegetes to pay some sort of homage to the method even if they do diverge from it in one place or another.  This has certainly been true of Protestants and even of a great many Lutherans but it is no less true of Rome.  The traditional high view of inspiration and inerrancy that was once associated with Roman words in the past is nowhere to be found among those who advocate for the historical-critical method.  In fact, it seems the prerequisite of those who use the method to dismiss the traditional way the Church has approached Scripture and, oddly enough, seems to hold it against the Biblical scholars of the past who did not use the methodology that had never even been invented when they were alive.

The stance of most modern scholars is that the historical-critical method is the end-all-be-all of Biblical exegesis and that an educated exegete cannot possibly do any credible work without it.  I wish that the hubris of such scholars could be exposed but we are not there yet.  Even in schools of conservative Bible scholars there is the need to first address the historical critical method and its principles and conclusions before providing a different conclusion.  How sad is that!  Because the other side seems to have no need to deal with traditional Biblical exegesis except to debunk it as a pro forma start to any academic paper or book.

It is hard to say you hold Scripture in high regard when it seems like the job of the historical critical method is to insulate the Bible from the realm of ordinary faith in its words, history, and truth.  The need for some scholars have to preserve the historical-critical method from the infection of orthodox Christian belief reveals the fact that this methodology is hardly useful to the preacher or teacher of the Church except to reject traditional and orthodox Christian teaching.  The arrogance of those who presume that no one can know Scripture as they do and that they will not condescend to the realm of ordinary Christians reading the Scriptures and believing their words is hard to overestimate.  It is as if the literal words and the presumption that the Bible has a unified message is the realm of those little people who must cling to their myths and legends while the real scholars chuckle over such incredible ignorance about what the Bible really says and really means. 

It is for this reason that it is hard to justify spending any real money on commentaries.  Most of them have little to nothing to offer the preacher and nothing that a few orthodox Christian commentators cannot provide.  The text is no longer the object but what lies behind it.  The preacher cannot afford the luxury of dealing with what might be in the face of what is actually said.  Okay.  I will admit that this is a common theme with me.  All it seems to take is reading another article from a higher critic to set me off.  But I feel better now even if you don't.