Higher criticism

[historia]

Over the past 300 years or so, biblical scholars have engaged in what is often referred to as "historical-critical" analysis of the Bible. Wikipedia notes that historical criticism, or higher criticism, includes:

the specific procedures used to examine the text's historical origins, such as the time and place in which the text was written, its sources, and the events, dates, persons, places, things, and customs that are mentioned or implied in the text.

This has led many Jewish and Christian scholars to conclusions that run contrary to some traditional assumptions about the Bible: for example, that the Pentateuch was most likely composed by several different authors; that Daniel was most likely written in the 2nd Century BC; that Mark was most likely the first gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke used it as one of their sources; that some of the Pauline epistles are likely pseudepigraphical, and so on.

Question for debate:

Is it in any way impermissible for Christians to hold some or all of these conclusions concerning these various books of the Bible? If so, why?

[historia]

I'm bringing a discussion concerning the epistle to Titus from an earlier thread over here:

The letter was included as part of the canon since there were lists of inspired Christian writings

This is simply mistaken. The very first "list of inspired Christian writings" ever put together was that of Marcion in the mid-2nd Century. His list did not include the Pastorals.

Marcion was a huge fan of Paul's. Paul formed the very center of Marcion's theology. So, if the early Christian community had recognized from the beginning that the Pastorals had been composed by Paul himself, it is quite unusual that Marcion did not include them.

A better explanation for their omission here is that they were written later -- perhaps in the early-2nd Century by a close disciple of Paul's -- and therefore had yet to attain the same status as the genuine Pauline epistles when Marcion was putting together his canon.

before the Catholic Church was officialized, it was already considered a letter written by Paul to Titus.

I don't know what you mean by "the Catholic Church was officialized." Prior to the Great Schism, there was a single orthodox Christian community. That community is sometimes referred to as the "Catholic Church" or the "Orthodox Church," and there really isn't a point at which it "officially" became known as that.

(I suspect this is just a bit of rhetoric on your part so you can appropriate the authority of early orthodox Christian authors to support your views. But that is a dubious move for a restorationist to make, which will become obvious to readers as our conversation unfolds.)

The Catholic Church takes no formal stance on the authorship of Titus or any other book of the Bible. Catholic scholars can, and do, reasonably disagree on this point.

The teachings of the "Catholic Church" are essentially the teachings of "Catholic Theologians."

Not exactly. Within Roman Catholicism, there is a hierarchy of authority when it comes to doctrine. Conciliar statements and papal encyclicals, for example, carry more authority than what an individual Catholic theologian has written.

You cannot simply point to what Catholic theologians may have said (or assumed) about a particular issue in the past and jump to the conclusion that their opinions necessarily form the official teachings of the Church today.

Throughout history, Catholic theologians have consistently upheld Paul's authorship of the letter to Titus without question.

Or, rather, prior to the 20th Century they didn't really think to question it. Since then, however, they have actually given careful consideration to the issue of authorship of various books of the Bible. And, as I mentioned previously, have come to different opinions as to whether the Pastorals were written by Paul himself, with many Catholic scholars today concluding they are pseudepigraphical.

Additionally, it's important to note that the majority of "scholars" do not identify as Christians.

Please cite evidence to support this assertion or retract it, as this is an extraordinarily dubious claim.

[H]igher criticism itself is just a set of historical and literary methods for better understanding the origin and historical context of a text. It doesn't entail either the acceptance or rejection of the inspiration of that text. And for that reason, you can find scholars employing an historical-critical approach to the Bible who also believe it is divinely inspired.

Higher Criticism dismisses the involvement of God's spirit in the inspiration or authorship of the Scriptures.

That is simply untrue. What historical-critical commentaries on the Bible have you actually read?

[1213]

...This has led many Jewish and Christian scholars to conclusions that run contrary to some traditional assumptions about the Bible: for example, that the Pentateuch was most likely composed by several different authors; that Daniel was most likely written in the 2nd Century BC; that Mark was most likely the first gospel to be written and that Matthew and Luke used it as one of their sources; that some of the Pauline epistles are likely pseudepigraphical, and so on.

Question for debate:

Is it in any way impermissible for Christians to hold some or all of these conclusions concerning these various books of the Bible? If so, why?

I don't think it is impermissible. I think it is not reasonable to take speculation as the truth, without good reasons.