"Sciences of Sacred Scriptures"?

The title of William Grassie's Huffington Post piece "The Sciences of Sacred Scriptures" is rather misleading. What he is talking about is not really a field of "science" so much as a single isolated method used within the social science field of Theology. It is singular and has little that can be applied outside the study of religion. As he notes, it is the method of historical criticism within scriptural studies.

It is an interesting and potentially thought provoking method. I am in no way trying to belittle it. I just prefer when discussing it that it be expressed more accurately. There are, unfortunately, numerous myths that this method has in some ways helped prop up. Though, in fairness, it has also stripped away a few of those myths and misunderstandings as well. Grassie does not seem to be aware of this fairly ironic situation. Even when he concedes certain points he clings to other myths. For instance, in the second paragraph he states:

     "The truth is, we really don't know much about the historical Moses or the historical Buddha. The evidence for these persons from the ancient past is quite sparse and filtered largely through centuries of oral history, mythological elaborations and sectarian biases, before they were even recorded in written form by religious partisans."

He is right about Buddha having little evidence and none that is not tainted. Moses is different story altogether. Moses is, quite literally, a series of stories. There is no "evidence" of his existence. In point of fact, the aspects of the Moses myth cycle that can be checked against historical evidence has been clearly demonstrated to be false. This is something Grassie and a number of other scholars fail to realize. In many, if not most, instances where those studying scripture invoke the historical criticism method what they are really using is literary criticism.

What little history is contained in scriptures is largely cultural aspects. They may aid in understanding the overall circumstances/environment of a particular time frame but in no way establish "historical" facts. Grassie does seem to imply this to some degree but continues to use vague and misleading phrases. "...what we call here Big History, can be read as a kind of revelation", this choice of wording is horrible. History is not "revelation." Revelation is by definition already determined information. It is simply handed down. History comes from careful study and investigation. Science is also not a form of revelation for the same reasons.

Grassie also mentions that there are believers who view historical criticism as a form of heresy. It seems to be in this context he finds it necessary to comment that, "Historical criticism does not necessarily lead to atheism..." It never occurs to him that this statement is loaded with bias. Even if it did lead to atheism, why would that be bad? It also partially reinforces the interpretive nature of the method. It definitely has its uses but is best understood within the context of cultural studies.