Class I: Class I: Biblical Criticism HistoryBiblical Criticism History

ApologeticsApologeticsGlenn GilesGlenn Giles

December, 2009December, 2009

Outline of the ClassOutline of the ClassClass I: Biblical Criticism History OverviewClass I: Biblical Criticism History OverviewClass II: The Issue of Objective HistoryClass II: The Issue of Objective HistoryClass III: OT Textual Criticism and ReliabilityClass III: OT Textual Criticism and ReliabilityClass IV: NT Textual Criticism and ReliabilityClass IV: NT Textual Criticism and ReliabilityClass V: OT Source Criticism: The Class V: OT Source Criticism: The

Documentary HypothesisDocumentary HypothesisClass VI: NT Source Criticism: The Synoptic Class VI: NT Source Criticism: The Synoptic

ProblemProblem

Outline of the ClassOutline of the ClassClass VII: Form CriticismClass VII: Form CriticismClass VIII: Redaction CriticismClass VIII: Redaction CriticismClass IX: Tradition CriticismClass IX: Tradition CriticismClass X: The Erosion of Inerrancy in Class X: The Erosion of Inerrancy in

EvangelicalismEvangelicalismClass XI: The Jesus Seminar and Radical Class XI: The Jesus Seminar and Radical

Higher CriticismHigher Criticism

Class RequirementsClass Requirements1.1. Read G. K. Beale, Read G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy in The Erosion of Inerrancy in

EvangelicalismEvangelicalism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008) (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008) 2.2. Study handouts and view powerpointsStudy handouts and view powerpoints3.3. Pass the take home examPass the take home exam4.4. Write a 8 to 10 page paper as outlined in the classWrite a 8 to 10 page paper as outlined in the class5.5. Optional extra credit: Optional extra credit:

a. Read Josh McDowll, a. Read Josh McDowll, The New Evidence that The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict Demands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1999 1999 or later version) chapters 11-31.or later version) chapters 11-31.b. Read my notes on “Canon Criticism.”b. Read my notes on “Canon Criticism.”

DefinitionsDefinitions• ----Historical criticismHistorical criticism or or higher criticismhigher criticism is a is a

branch of branch of literaryliterary analysis that investigates the analysis that investigates the origins of a text: origins of a text:

• ----as applied in as applied in biblical studiesbiblical studies it investigates the it investigates the books of the books of the BibleBible and compares them to other texts and compares them to other texts written at the same time, before, or recently after written at the same time, before, or recently after the text in question . . . Higher criticism treats the the text in question . . . Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text created by human beings at a Bible as a text created by human beings at a particular historical time and for various human particular historical time and for various human motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible motives, in contrast with the treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of Godas the inerrant word of God..[1][1] [1][1] From From Wikipedia, “Higher Criticism.”Wikipedia, “Higher Criticism.”

DefinitionsDefinitions• Higher CriticismHigher Criticism refers mainly to all literary refers mainly to all literary

analyses/methodologies except “textual” analyses/methodologies except “textual” criticism. This includes, Source, Form, criticism. This includes, Source, Form, Redaction, Tradition, Literary, Cultural/Socio-Redaction, Tradition, Literary, Cultural/Socio-Scientific, Canonical, as well as others.Scientific, Canonical, as well as others.

• Lower CriticismLower Criticism refers to “textual criticism” refers to “textual criticism” which deals with the study of manuscripts in which deals with the study of manuscripts in determining as close as possible the original determining as close as possible the original reading of a writing.reading of a writing.

TypesTypes ofof Critical MethodsCritical Methods • Textual CriticismTextual Criticism:: attempts to get to the original text attempts to get to the original text

by comparing and studying all the available copiesby comparing and studying all the available copies

• Source CriticismSource Criticism:: attempts to find the source(s) attempts to find the source(s) behind the extant documents. (E.g., Welhausen and behind the extant documents. (E.g., Welhausen and the JEDP theory for the OT Pentateuch, the Synoptic the JEDP theory for the OT Pentateuch, the Synoptic Problem in the NT).Problem in the NT).

• Form Criticism:Form Criticism: Stresses oral tradition and Stresses oral tradition and transmission behind the written texts of the Bible. It transmission behind the written texts of the Bible. It dissects the Bible into small bits of tradition. It dissects the Bible into small bits of tradition. It atomizes the text. It seeks to find the original oral atomizes the text. It seeks to find the original oral form.form.

Types of Critical MethodsTypes of Critical Methods• Redaction Criticism:Redaction Criticism: Studies the editing of the Studies the editing of the

biblical material by individual authors of the individual biblical material by individual authors of the individual books. It books. It looks at each book as a wholelooks at each book as a whole attempting attempting to determine the theological purpose intended by the to determine the theological purpose intended by the human author in putting together and editing the bits human author in putting together and editing the bits and pieces of tradition. It views Bible books as wholes and pieces of tradition. It views Bible books as wholes in contrast to Form Criticism which looks at small in contrast to Form Criticism which looks at small parts.parts.

• Tradition Criticism:Tradition Criticism: Studies the history of tradition Studies the history of tradition behind the text to see how the tradition in the text behind the text to see how the tradition in the text developed into what is extant. It has overlaps with developed into what is extant. It has overlaps with Form and Redaction Criticism and the History of Form and Redaction Criticism and the History of Religions School Method.Religions School Method.

Types of Critical MethodsTypes of Critical Methods• Literary Criticism:Literary Criticism: stresses the beauty of the stresses the beauty of the

Bible texts from an aesthetic point of view looking Bible texts from an aesthetic point of view looking at rhetorical devices, poetry, narrative, at rhetorical devices, poetry, narrative, development of plot, characters, structural text development of plot, characters, structural text components, etc.components, etc.

• Sociological MethodSociological Method:: Uses Social-Scientific Uses Social-Scientific methods to help interpret the text. Radical methods to help interpret the text. Radical elements glean freedom from various types of elements glean freedom from various types of slavery using Exodus and other scriptures as the slavery using Exodus and other scriptures as the focal point to their theologies, e.g.,focal point to their theologies, e.g.,– Feminist TheologyFeminist Theology– Liberation TheologyLiberation Theology

Types of Critical MethodsTypes of Critical Methods• Cannon Criticism:Cannon Criticism: Sees the whole canon as the Sees the whole canon as the

limitation and extent of revealed Scripture for the limitation and extent of revealed Scripture for the Church and attempts to interpret Scripture based on Church and attempts to interpret Scripture based on a books position in the canon.a books position in the canon.

• Postmodernism:Postmodernism: It is skeptical of human objectivity It is skeptical of human objectivity and our ability to know. It does not reject the and our ability to know. It does not reject the supernatural but takes a mystical approach to the supernatural but takes a mystical approach to the text. The text is not held to its historical meaning but text. The text is not held to its historical meaning but to whatever it means existentially to each individual. to whatever it means existentially to each individual. Thus there is a pluralistic meaning of each text. Thus there is a pluralistic meaning of each text. There is no one “correct” interpretation. Hence all There is no one “correct” interpretation. Hence all interpretations are correct, except one that claims interpretations are correct, except one that claims that this is not true.that this is not true.

Biblical Criticism History: Orthodoxy

A. New Testament Period through the A. New Testament Period through the Reformation (100 to around 1750)Reformation (100 to around 1750)1. Orthodox (right opinion) interpretation is 1. Orthodox (right opinion) interpretation is heldheld and is sustained even when challenged and is sustained even when challenged by Gnostics, Marcion from the NT times until by Gnostics, Marcion from the NT times until modern times.modern times.2. Jesus was real physically in history2. Jesus was real physically in history not a not a person created later by the church to support person created later by the church to support its belief that Jesus was both man and God. its belief that Jesus was both man and God. His true nature, character, earthly life history, His true nature, character, earthly life history, and will is revealed in the New Testament.and will is revealed in the New Testament.

Criticism HistoryCriticism History3. Scripture is God’s special inspired 3. Scripture is God’s special inspired revelationrevelation communicated in written communicated in written human language using human minds human language using human minds and hands under the direction of the and hands under the direction of the Holy Spirit. Holy Spirit.

B. After 1750 the Orthodox B. After 1750 the Orthodox interpretation begins to be challengedinterpretation begins to be challenged. .

Challenge to OrthodoxyChallenge to Orthodoxy: : The Birth of the Historical The Birth of the Historical CriticismCriticism• Historical Critical Approach: Historical Critical Approach:

Interpretation based on human reason Interpretation based on human reason and a naturalistic worldview.and a naturalistic worldview. In the In the radical forms, the Bible is not considered radical forms, the Bible is not considered God’s special revelation but written by God’s special revelation but written by human beings. Everything (especially human beings. Everything (especially miracles) had to be explained miracles) had to be explained naturalistically (through the laws of physics, naturalistically (through the laws of physics, biology, and chemistry, evolution, etc.). The biology, and chemistry, evolution, etc.). The supernatural is locked out of interpretation. supernatural is locked out of interpretation. The Bible is interpretatively approached as The Bible is interpretatively approached as any other human book.any other human book.

Personages in the Personages in the Development of Modern Development of Modern

CriticismCriticism 1. Johann Semler (1771-75).1. Johann Semler (1771-75).

a. Against “manipulative religion,”a. Against “manipulative religion,” the church or the church or Bible has no special authority. All practical Bible has no special authority. All practical belief in the inspiration of the Bible was set belief in the inspiration of the Bible was set aside aside b. Wanted to “free all historical inquiry from b. Wanted to “free all historical inquiry from issues of theology and doctrine.”issues of theology and doctrine.” c. In this way the New Testament would be c. In this way the New Testament would be liberated from “eighteenth-century ecclesial liberated from “eighteenth-century ecclesial assumptions”assumptions”

From From Joel B. Green, Joel B. Green, Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for InterpretationHearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 11-13 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 11-13

2. Gotthold Lessing Publishes 2. Gotthold Lessing Publishes Herman Reimarus’ Herman Reimarus’

Fragments Fragments (1774-78).(1774-78).a.a. “explicitly claimed that “explicitly claimed that every hint of every hint of

supernatural or other-worldly agency in the supernatural or other-worldly agency in the NT represented an additionNT represented an addition imposed by imposed by sheer illusion”sheer illusion”

b.b. It was claimed that the earliest It was claimed that the earliest Christians Christians made up fictitious accounts of the made up fictitious accounts of the miraculousmiraculous nature of Jesus’ life. nature of Jesus’ life.

c.c. The New Testament The New Testament Church distorted “the Church distorted “the history of Jesus to sustain its own power history of Jesus to sustain its own power interests.”interests.” (Green, 14-15).(Green, 14-15).

3. Johann Griesbach3. Johann Griesbach • Textual Criticism:Textual Criticism: published the published the

first critical edition of the Greek first critical edition of the Greek NT (1774-75)NT (1774-75)

• Originated the term “synoptic Originated the term “synoptic gospels.”gospels.” Felt Mark was dependent Felt Mark was dependent on Matthew and Luke. on Matthew and Luke. From F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., From F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and MethodsPrinciples and Methods (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 33. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 33.

4. Wilhelm de Wette4. Wilhelm de Wette (1780-(1780-1849).1849).

• proposed that there were three theological proposed that there were three theological strands in the NTstrands in the NT a. Jewish-Christian (depicted by the Synoptic a. Jewish-Christian (depicted by the Synoptic Gospels, most of Acts, James, Peter, Jude and Gospels, most of Acts, James, Peter, Jude and Revelation)Revelation)b. Alexandrian (Hebrews and John’s writings)b. Alexandrian (Hebrews and John’s writings)c. Pauline (Paul’s letters) c. Pauline (Paul’s letters) (Bruce, 39).(Bruce, 39).

• developed the idea of several “theologies”developed the idea of several “theologies” in in the NT (i.e., the NT (i.e., different interpretations of Jesusdifferent interpretations of Jesus and his message by proponents of these and his message by proponents of these three strands).three strands).

5. Friedrich Schleiermacher5. Friedrich Schleiermacher(1768-1864)(1768-1864)

• in his in his Lives of JesusLives of Jesus concluded that concluded that 1. “the resurrection of Jesus” was a 1. “the resurrection of Jesus” was a “resuscitation“resuscitation after apparent after apparent death” death” 2. “the supernatural features2. “the supernatural features in the in the accounts of his appearances to the accounts of his appearances to the disciples” disciples” were due “to were due “to presuppositionspresuppositions on the part of the on the part of the later”later”(Bruce, 40)(Bruce, 40)

6. David Friedrich Strauss6. David Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874)(1808-1874)

• His was the beginning of the “flight from His was the beginning of the “flight from history” history” (Green, 20).(Green, 20).

--bifurcates faith and history.--bifurcates faith and history. The Christ The Christ of faith is not the Jesus of history.of faith is not the Jesus of history.

--He replaced the rational understanding --He replaced the rational understanding of the Gospels with a of the Gospels with a “mythological “mythological interpretation.”interpretation.”

----all supernatural conceptions of Jesus all supernatural conceptions of Jesus were “read back” onto the historical were “read back” onto the historical JesusJesus by the early churchby the early church

(Green, 22-23)(Green, 22-23)

7. Ferdinand Christian Bauer7. Ferdinand Christian Bauer (1792-1860)(1792-1860)

• Embraced the Hegelian dialecticEmbraced the Hegelian dialectic of thesis and of thesis and antithesisantithesis arguing that the NT depicts a Petrine arguing that the NT depicts a Petrine (Jewish) vs. Pauline (Gentile) theological (Jewish) vs. Pauline (Gentile) theological community tradition conflict (Gal. 2)community tradition conflict (Gal. 2)

• So he dates ActsSo he dates Acts (where Peter and Paul seem to (where Peter and Paul seem to be united, esp. chapter 15) be united, esp. chapter 15) in the second centuryin the second century AD to allow enough time for the synthesis to AD to allow enough time for the synthesis to occuroccur (Green, 34).(Green, 34).

• Ascribed a second century date to the GospelsAscribed a second century date to the Gospels and reduced their historical value concerning Jesus and reduced their historical value concerning Jesus (Bruce, 42).(Bruce, 42).

• Did not allow any supernatural elementsDid not allow any supernatural elements as historyas history

8. William Wrede8. William Wrede The Messianic SecretThe Messianic Secret (1901) (1901)

• Claimed that Claimed that Mark’s emphasisMark’s emphasis on on keeping the knowledge of Jesus as thekeeping the knowledge of Jesus as the Messiah a secretMessiah a secret was an attempt “to was an attempt “to reconcile the church’s belief that Jesus reconcile the church’s belief that Jesus was Messiah and Son of God from the was Messiah and Son of God from the beginning with the fact that this belief beginning with the fact that this belief did not emerge until after the did not emerge until after the resurrectionresurrection”” (Bruce, 46).(Bruce, 46).

• Father Father of Gospel Redaction Criticismof Gospel Redaction Criticism (Bruce, 46).(Bruce, 46).

• Jesus was only a “Galilean teacher Jesus was only a “Galilean teacher or or prophet who did some striking things prophet who did some striking things and was eventually executed”and was eventually executed” (N. T. Wright, (N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory Jesus and the Victory of God, of God, 20)20)

9. Albert Schweitzer9. Albert Schweitzer The Quest for the Historical The Quest for the Historical

JesusJesus (1910)(1910)• Claimed Claimed the life of the historical the life of the historical

Jesus could not be writtenJesus could not be written. It has . It has been lost in history.been lost in history.

• Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic prophetprophet who proclaimed the kingdom who proclaimed the kingdom of God but of God but died disappointedly when died disappointedly when that eschatological kingdom did not that eschatological kingdom did not come.come.

10. Rudolf Bultmann10. Rudolf Bultmann (1921) (1921) and Martin Dibelius (1919).and Martin Dibelius (1919).

• Pioneered in NT Form CriticismPioneered in NT Form Criticism • Bultmann promoted Bultmann promoted demythologizingdemythologizing the the

New TestamentNew Testament• ““New Hermeneutic”New Hermeneutic” and “existential and “existential

exegesis.” NT not to be approached exegesis.” NT not to be approached historicallyhistorically

• The emphasis is on The emphasis is on “Jesus as ‘the “Jesus as ‘the proclaimed’ rather than the historical proclaimed’ rather than the historical ‘proclaimer’”‘proclaimer’”

11. 11. B. H. StreeterB. H. Streeter The Four GospelsThe Four Gospels (1924) (1924)

• proposed the proposed the four-source hypothesisfour-source hypothesis of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels:of the origin of the Synoptic Gospels: ----MarkMark, , ----QQ (material common to Luke and (material common to Luke and

Matthew), Matthew), ----MM (material unique to Matthew), (material unique to Matthew),----LL (material unique to Luke). (material unique to Luke).

12. Ernst Kasemann12. Ernst Kasemann (1953) (1953) and and

J. M. Robinson (1959)J. M. Robinson (1959) • Kasemann, Bultmann’s student,Kasemann, Bultmann’s student, proposed a proposed a

“new quest”“new quest” for the historical Jesus. He for the historical Jesus. He felt that Bultmann had gone too far in felt that Bultmann had gone too far in claiming that history and the historical claiming that history and the historical Jesus had nothing to do with faith.Jesus had nothing to do with faith.

• Robinson followed in Kasemann’s Robinson followed in Kasemann’s footsteps.footsteps.

• Both reacted against the extreme Both reacted against the extreme negative view of history in the Gospels negative view of history in the Gospels advanced by Bultmann.advanced by Bultmann.

13. Robert Funk and Others13. Robert Funk and OthersThe Jesus SeminarThe Jesus Seminar

1980s-2000s1980s-2000s• Many Scholars Fully Embrace Many Scholars Fully Embrace radicalradical Biblical Biblical

Criticism Criticism • Faith and History are SeparateFaith and History are Separate• They Wrap Biblical Criticism in Post- They Wrap Biblical Criticism in Post-

Modern Garb. The Bible is “deconstructed”.Modern Garb. The Bible is “deconstructed”.• The Canon is OpenThe Canon is Open• The True Words of Jesus in the NT are obscureThe True Words of Jesus in the NT are obscure• All Truth is Relative, Nearly any Interpretation All Truth is Relative, Nearly any Interpretation

is Viableis Viable

Biblical Criticism Biblical Criticism Historical SummaryHistorical Summary

• By 1860By 1860 “criticism had come to stay, “criticism had come to stay, and . . . henceforward the Bible would and . . . henceforward the Bible would be treated like any other book” i.e., be treated like any other book” i.e., uninspired, non-God breathed. uninspired, non-God breathed. (Neill and Wright, 33-34),(Neill and Wright, 33-34),

• By 1900By 1900 the historical Jesus could not the historical Jesus could not be found by Biblical critical scholars be found by Biblical critical scholars

Biblical Criticism Biblical Criticism Historical SummaryHistorical Summary

• By 1950By 1950 --faith was divorced from history--faith was divorced from history

--miracles (including Jesus’ resurrection) were myths--miracles (including Jesus’ resurrection) were myths, , non-historical creations of the early church. non-historical creations of the early church.

--Naturalistic interpretation reigned--Naturalistic interpretation reigned and God was locked and God was locked out of reality and history. out of reality and history. --The physical Jesus of history is lost and the Christ of --The physical Jesus of history is lost and the Christ of existential existential faith is created.faith is created.

• By 1990sBy 1990s pluralistic Post-modern interpretation of the pluralistic Post-modern interpretation of the Bible is embraced. Bible is embraced. All truth is relativeAll truth is relative. .

The Historicity of the The Historicity of the Bible DefendedBible Defended

• Not all Scholars Went the Route of Not all Scholars Went the Route of Radical Anti-Historical Biblical CriticismRadical Anti-Historical Biblical Criticism

• ManyMany held to inspiration of the NT, focus held to inspiration of the NT, focus on word and grammatical study, context on word and grammatical study, context study, historical/cultural/background study, historical/cultural/background studies, biblical theology input, studies, biblical theology input, systematic theology input, archaeological systematic theology input, archaeological input. input. Assume the historicity of the text.Assume the historicity of the text.

The Historicity of the The Historicity of the Bible Defended: Some Bible Defended: Some

PersonagesPersonages• Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)• John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) • Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-1889) Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-1889) • All of the Cambridge School All of the Cambridge School

--re-established the NT to be dated in the --re-established the NT to be dated in the first century AD and thus first century AD and thus

--supported its historical reliability.--supported its historical reliability.

The Historicity of the The Historicity of the Bible Defended: Some Bible Defended: Some

PersonagesPersonages• Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939), archaeologySir William Ramsay (1851-1939), archaeology

--helped establish the historicity of Acts and the --helped establish the historicity of Acts and the Pauline epistles.Pauline epistles.

• Old Princeton School in the 1920’s with B. B.Old Princeton School in the 1920’s with B. B.Warfield and J. Gresham MachenWarfield and J. Gresham Machen

• New Conservative Evangelicals (later 20New Conservative Evangelicals (later 20thth Century): Century):--Defended Inerrancy and Historicity.--Defended Inerrancy and Historicity.--Sign Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978.--Sign Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978.

• Many other modern day evangelical scholars and Many other modern day evangelical scholars and schools schools

Where do We Stand Today?Where do We Stand Today?• There is today in evangelicalism a There is today in evangelicalism a

trend toward the erosion of inerrancy trend toward the erosion of inerrancy and an embracement of only and an embracement of only infallibility.infallibility.

• More to come later.More to come later.