I must that I was never all that enamored by the historical critical method of interpreting Scripture. But some of you may be wondering what the historical critical method is. If you want to skip my little lesson and some personal reflections of mine and go right to the Pope instead of mere Msgr.
Pope , the quote is at the bottom of the Page in bold italics. The historical-critical method investigates the origins of a text and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question.
Did other ancient texts, whether biblical or non-biblical, adopt similar forms, use similar ingredients, story-lines, allegories, metaphors and the like. The Historical Critical method focuses on the sources of a document to determine who wrote it, when it was written, and where. What do we know of the author and his times? How was he influenced by them? What was his personal story? What other texts did he write and how do they compare what is before us? How does the writing we are studying compare to similar documents of the time?
For example, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are all very similar in terms of their basic content of what Jesus said and did. However they also have significant differences. How do we understand and explain the differences?
Why is the Gospel of John so different in tone and content that the other three and what are we to make of this? And so forth. As such though, the historical critical method focuses primarily, almost exclusively, on the human origins of a text. Of itself this is not wrong, but it is incomplete. The Scriptures are a document of faith, more specifically of the believing community of the Church.
