I haven't forgotten my promised scripture post on Historical-Critical criticism. I have pondered writing it up several times but for one I haven't had time to do it justice and for two the more I read the more my opinion develops. Last week I checked out of my parish library "Where we got the Bible: Our Debt to the Catholic Church", published by TAN Books to see if I could glean any more insights from it. Since it has to go back, the clock is ticking on that one.
Tick tick tick...
But perhaps I should give you where I stand at the moment eh? Here goes, I'm going to keep it short so I don't make a fool out of myself later down the line by having to retract something...:-)
Matt's opinion as of 5/28/2008:
The Bible was not written to be picked apart by the Historical Critical Method. That's why it ultimately falls short and can never fulfill its goal. The Holy Father is right to say that its use is therefore limited. To the extent that it can be used, it is very valuable. I probably dismiss 50% of the NAB commentary immediately when I read it. Many of the notes are pure speculation and offer zero (yes, zero) benefit to the reader. However, people who completely dispose of the Historical Critical Method due to things like the rancid NAB commentary are also in error as much as those who take it too far.