On Source Criticism and the High School Sacred Scripture Class

After having taught Sacred Scripture in high school for a little while, I recently took a close look at the USCCB framework for high school Sacred Scripture. I see for the most part a good framework for presenting the Biblical narrative to high school students. (As a result of the framework itself, I believe that much improvement will come to religious education in America.)

From the perspective of a Scripture teacher, however, there seems to me to be several problems, one major.

1. Ascension – the mystery of the Ascension of Christ is part of the mystery of redemption. It is an essential element of the Paschal Mystery. Without the ascension of Christ, there is no descent of the Holy Spirit. It’s explicitly emphasized again and again in his ministry and in his words of consolation to the Apostles. It’s unfortunate that this is not mentioned in the framework, as it is often omitted by publishers.

2. Sacraments? Granted, a semester class on the sacraments is part of the USCCB core curriculum, and the framework for that class is clearly rooted deeply in Scripture. Yet the connection between the time of Christ, of the Apostles, and the life of the Church should be connected explicitly in the Scripture class as well, otherwise there may be a disconnect for the students. Not only that, a class on Sacred Scripture should be likewise be oriented toward the sacramental nature of the Bible and of the Church. What about students who transfer in? Needn’t they know that the sacramental life of the Church is anchored in Scripture?

3. and then there’s Wellhausen – Oh, man. Why? I want to bang my head on a wall on this one. Wellhausen, more commonly associated with the letters J, E, D, and P, questions whether Moses is the true source of the Pentateuch. Merits (or the lack thereof) of such theories aside, I do not understand the insistence upon teaching source criticism to high schoolers. There are several problems here.

a. Hermeneutic of suspicion – outside of the life of faith, source criticism can be the gateway drug to a positivist approach to the Bible, that is, an approach that attributes miracles, theophanies, and prophecy to later redactors or excises such phenomena from the Bible altogether. This is not spiritually healthy for high schoolers trying to understand the Bible, who may not want their peers to notice that they are trying to have an encounter with Jesus Christ. What’s worse is that this talk of source criticism comes with the study of the Pentateuch, i.e., early in the term. It is not good to plant these seeds of doubt and suspicion so early on.

b. Displaced priorities – Wellhausen, being a scholarly theory, requires time to explain and support (and hopefully to refute). It’s a pedagogical nightmare. There is never enough time in a Scripture class. Why do JEDP when you show the beauty of the poetry in the Psalms? Why teach JEDP when you can teach the Liturgy of the Hours? Why explain JEDP when you can teach the development of Moses’ faith from call scene to his speech in Deuteronomy? It’s a waste of high school class time (sure, it’s worth studying, but not in high school).

This opens a door for another type of source criticism, that of “Q,” or the so-called “sayings of Jesus.” This is the alleged source of much of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. (The problem with Q is that the high school doors are then opened to the heretical gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas. Furthermore, much confusion results about the nature of Scripture itself.) Cardinal Ratzinger framed this problem well in a lecture in 1983:

“…a mother in Germany once told me that her son was becoming well acquainted in grade school with the Christology of Q [the supposed source of the sayings of Jesus], even though he had not yet heard a thing about the seven sacraments or the articles of the creed. …” (Handing on the Faith in an Age of Disbelief, p. 20).

c. Misplaced trust – I would not trust anyone to teach source criticism to my children—sorry. Placing such theories in the framework seems to be throwing a bone to those dissenting religious faculty employed at Catholic schools across the nation.

When the question comes up in class, who wrote the first five books of the Bible, the answer is simple, not complex, one, not four: Moses. Moses indeed wrote them. Moses, Moses, Moses. That is what a high schooler needs to know. Did Moses write every word of the Pentateuch with his own hand? Perhaps not. Did he write them with his hand or by word of his own mouth? Most certainly.

These are simple answers to simple questions. Yet, JEDP is a complicated scholarly theory. Are the religion teachers of America across-the-board qualified enough in religious studies to teach JEDP? No. Many are dissenting, and that is an unfortunate reality since 1968. There are many, many good religion teachers in America, but no. A teacher who dissents from the Catholic faith could do much damage upon a youth's faith by teaching source criticism.

More important, are high schoolers really mature enough to be indulging doubts regarding Biblical authorship without being scandalized? Maybe some are mature enough, maybe most, but let me ask this instead: If one student in the classroom may be confused or scandalized by sowing such seed, should we? No.

Leave JEDP for college and open up the meaning of another parable for the high schoolers. Trust me, I know and can testify, they’ll enjoy it much, much more.