What do you think?
Rate this book
Birth of Modern Critical Theology: Origins and Problems of Biblical Criticism in the Seventeenth Century
English (translation)Original German
224 pages, Paperback
First published May 1, 1990
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
July 14, 2016
Scholder's aim is to demonstrate that a critical theology, in the sense of theology subordinated to non-theological criteria (reason), originated in the seventeenth century. The historical-critical biblical studies of the nineteenth century constituted in fact a theological attempt to mediate between the old assertion of biblical authority and the then-recent destructive biblical criticism.
The first few chapters are the most informative, as Scholder traces the origins of various types of problems. The split between confessions prompted the Socinians to identify reason as the primary interpretive principle of Scripture, even to the point of surrendering dogmatic orthodoxy. Empirical data gathered from astronomy (Copernicanism), the exploration of the globe, and investigation of other cultures' historical records increasingly conflicted with the accepted biblical-Aristotelian worldview. Kepler proposed accommodationist exegesis (the Bible speaks in terms of human perception); Isaac de la Peyrère's Pre-Adamites harmonized Genesis with the new geography and chronology. During this time reconciliation was the goal, but reconciliation involved altering religious beliefs to accept new "compelling demonstrations" in philosophy.
Cartesianism justified wholesale breaks with tradition. A center party of Cartesians tried to keep the Bible authoritative by recourse to double truth (or non-overlapping magisteria). Radical Cartesians simply critiqued the Bible on the basis of the supposed infallibility of their method. The anti-Cartesian orthodox, especially those who rejected accommodationist exegesis, became less and less able to deal with the empirical problems posed.
There's some discussion of Luther, of thirteenth-century Averroism, and of Spinoza, but I did not find these portions as strong as the rest. The main point is that in the seventeenth century the idea that scriptural authority extended to infallible pronouncements on history and science came under pressure, and attempts to maintain scriptural authority led either to gradual reductions in the scope of issues on which scripture was supposed to speak authoritatively or to unconvincing retrenchment.
Something Scholder should have stressed is that this book applies only to a very small elite of academics. The average person in eighteenth-century Europe, maybe even twentieth-century Kansas, did not realize that there were grave empirical impediments to accepting the literal biblical view of the world. I recognize that the dissemination of knowledge was outside the scope of his book, but his complete inattention to situating the narrative within a particular niche context could lead the reader to believe that by the Enlightenment everyone in Europe was deeply troubled about how to rescue the Bible's authority.
The first few chapters are the most informative, as Scholder traces the origins of various types of problems. The split between confessions prompted the Socinians to identify reason as the primary interpretive principle of Scripture, even to the point of surrendering dogmatic orthodoxy. Empirical data gathered from astronomy (Copernicanism), the exploration of the globe, and investigation of other cultures' historical records increasingly conflicted with the accepted biblical-Aristotelian worldview. Kepler proposed accommodationist exegesis (the Bible speaks in terms of human perception); Isaac de la Peyrère's Pre-Adamites harmonized Genesis with the new geography and chronology. During this time reconciliation was the goal, but reconciliation involved altering religious beliefs to accept new "compelling demonstrations" in philosophy.
Cartesianism justified wholesale breaks with tradition. A center party of Cartesians tried to keep the Bible authoritative by recourse to double truth (or non-overlapping magisteria). Radical Cartesians simply critiqued the Bible on the basis of the supposed infallibility of their method. The anti-Cartesian orthodox, especially those who rejected accommodationist exegesis, became less and less able to deal with the empirical problems posed.
There's some discussion of Luther, of thirteenth-century Averroism, and of Spinoza, but I did not find these portions as strong as the rest. The main point is that in the seventeenth century the idea that scriptural authority extended to infallible pronouncements on history and science came under pressure, and attempts to maintain scriptural authority led either to gradual reductions in the scope of issues on which scripture was supposed to speak authoritatively or to unconvincing retrenchment.
Something Scholder should have stressed is that this book applies only to a very small elite of academics. The average person in eighteenth-century Europe, maybe even twentieth-century Kansas, did not realize that there were grave empirical impediments to accepting the literal biblical view of the world. I recognize that the dissemination of knowledge was outside the scope of his book, but his complete inattention to situating the narrative within a particular niche context could lead the reader to believe that by the Enlightenment everyone in Europe was deeply troubled about how to rescue the Bible's authority.
Displaying 1 of 1 review