Packman

Sells knowledge of Biblical Criticism might be more extensive than is revealed by this article but his characterisation of it as a faithless dissection of scripture suggests a very conservative bias and even a 'fear' of the findings of Biblical Criticism.
His 'rebuttal', if you could call it that, of BC is something of a straw man argument. There is far more to BC than Sells is willing to admit in this article and his diminution of the faith of Biblical scholars is hardly a shining example of Christian charity.
In general his articles reflect the apologetic/defensive approach of a conservative church that is losing power and influence and simply does not understand why it no longer carries the authority it once believed was its god-given right.

This link may give the public a general view as to where this story is actually headed. http://www.sexparty.org.au/index.php/news/feature-stories/526-the-influence-of-the-religious-right The next step is the authors push to have Mary McKillop up there with the so called Saint's.

Thanks for your comment, Waterboy

I have a generally more sympathetic reading of Peter Sellick's articles but I think I agree with you a little on this, though I would suggest Sellick is no straighforward conservative. I reckon this article could have done with a bit more work and nuance in the argument. I think there is something important here but it does not emerge clearly

Sells

You clearly have a strong sense of the role of the Church in propagating the narrative of salvation. You repeatedly refer to the Canon of Scripture and seem to be aware of the strong relationship between Scripture and Liturgy. Why then do you so fear Biblical Criticism?

I see no problem with the way Biblical Criticism has made us aware of the limitations of Scripture and alerted us to the fact that tradition plays a crucial role in the synthesis of the Salvation narrative. There can, of course, be no complete record of salvation history as 'history' remains a 'work in progress' whose 'end' is not yet known or knowable.

The Church both conveys the salvation narrative and is the vehicle of salvation in history so that the process of salvation is told and felt through the liturgy. The Bible cannot do this and BC alerts us to this fact. The 'dissection of Scripture' does not imply a loss of the narrative but forces us to look for the narrative in the right place ie in the liturgy and its relationship to Scripture.

You are too pessimistic by far! It is not necessary to defend the indefensible or to cling to traditional constructs once they are shown to be flawed. The Church will not be saved by apologetics and knee-jerk reactionaries. It will be saved by its harshest critics, those who challenge, question and criticise.

There are Psychiatrists out there that can help you Waterboy. And you definitely need to do something about that deep seated depression.

Sells wrote:

"Thus Collins insisted that there was an authorial voice in the Bible and that it had to obey the normal of rules of language and refer to things in the world that we all know and see. Thus all statements, including those in the Bible, must be judged by a reality outside of the text that is common to all people. One could no longer use figurative or typological or allegorical interpretations because one could make up any meaning that one desired. This was upsetting to the clergy of the time who believed that the Bible was divinely inspired by God and was thus the foundation of Christianity.
This was the beginning of historical criticism and all of the other kind of critici'david f', I don't see any evidence that Peter Sellick (or Hans Frei for that matter) is unaware of earlier biblical criticism or that he would contradict you on your points. It may be you have been too quick to jump on him and missed his specific point. sms of the Bible. Simply to assert that biblical authors had a voice of their own was huge move away from the idea that the text of the Bible was inspired by God."

Packman wrote:

'david f', I don't see any evidence that Peter Sellick (or Hans Frei for that matter) is unaware of earlier biblical criticism or that he would contradict you on your points. It may be you have been too quick to jump on him and missed his specific point.

Dear Packman,

Sells claimed that Collins began historical criticism. It wasn't as the examples I cited showed. It's that simple.