Introduction and Thesis
This paper will seek to examine the “Historical-Critical” method as
it applies to the study of the sacred writings of scripture.
The goal will be to see whether or not the methods developed by
historic-critics are contemporary and relevant for interpreting scripture in the
Church today. After a concrete
definition of the “historical-critical method” has been established with
respect to its application to biblical studies, a brief outline of its history,
origins, and development will be given. Finally an objective evaluation will be
made concerning its strengths and weakness, which ultimately should determine
its relevance, benefits, and shortcomings, as it applies to doing sound theology
in the Church today.
Defining “Historical-Criticism”
According to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, the historical-critical
method is the indispensable method for the scientific study of the meaning of
ancient texts. Holy Scripture, inasmuch as it is the “word of God in human
language,” has been composed by human authors in all its various parts and in
all the sources that lie behind them. Because of this, its proper understanding
not only adheres to the use of this method, but actually requires it.
Furthermore, according
to Webster’s Dictionary the term “criticism,” as it is employed
here can be defined as: “the scientific investigation of literary documents
[such as the Bible] in regard to such matters as origin, text, composition,
character, or history."
In similar language, Catholic scholars define “criticism” in literary terms
as “the art of distinguishing the true from the false,” in an effort that
seeks to “establish the authenticity, the integrity, the genre of truth which
fits it,” so that the Bible, while it is believed to be free from all error,
“in the exact measure in which it is a human [and divine] work, is subject to
the criteria with which other human works are judged.”
The point is to put the entire emphasis upon the literary text itself, which
essentially puts the Biblical writers in a position that requires them to
objectively defend themselves. In
other words, sacred texts for instance, are examined in terms of “language,
composition, and origin,” which includes not only the linguistic and
etymological background of a particular text, but critical analysis of its core
contents as well as sources employed are examined in some detail; to the end
that, sound and objective
observations can be made.
In other words the goal of the critic is to draw objective conclusions based on
literary analysis. Whether this is possible or not will be examined in more
detail later. Lastly, it should be mentioned that the term, “critical” does not
mean debunking scripture in the skeptical sense, it means taking a serious and
hard look at scripture through the lenses of historical-methodology, unearthing
its core contents, separating the wheat from the chaff. It seeks to examine all
aspects of scripture through the spectacles of history, culture, society,
literary relationships, context, etc. Approaching the bible through this avenue
makes the discovery of truth interesting, alive, and even sometimes shocking.
Questions like, ‘where did the scriptures come from, who wrote them where were
they written, how were its documents collected and edited, all of which require
as well as make up the historical-critical process.
Moreover, when we increase our knowledge of the editorial process by
which our Bible came to us, we may come to understand how others found meaning
in its pages and applied that meaning to new situations.
Through this approach Christians will find themselves in dialogue with
the ancient people of faith, and secular individuals will find themselves coming
into dialogue with the biblical writers much as they come into dialogue with
Plato and Aristotle in a classics course.
History, Origins and Development
Certain elements of the historical-critical method are extremely ancient.
They were used in ancient antiquity by various Greek commentators of classical
literature, and much later in the course of the patristic period by authors such
as Origen, Jerome and Augustine. The method at that time was much less developed
than it is now. Its modern
development is the result of refinements which were brought about during the
period of the Renaissance as well as the Enlightenment period.
As mentioned above, hearkening back to the time of the Renaissance and
Enlightenment period, there were those who applied to the biblical text
principles of literary and historical-criticism similar to those applied to
classical works of antiquity (e.g. Plato and Aristotle). Over the course of time
many scholars began to encourage a more rationalistic approach to the
scriptures. At first, their goal was to show that the Bible was rational, but
there were many who came to the conclusion that much of what the Bible taught
was contradictory by nature -- particularly by science.
Others approached the scripture from a purely historical, literary, and cultural
context. For instance H.R. Reimarus’
publication, “Apology for the Rational Worshippers of God” in the
seventeenth century shocked the theological world of Germany by raising
questions about the historicity of the Bible, and by explaining away the
miracles found in the biblical records. By the nineteenth century, such
positions had become relatively common.
Since the early nineteenth century, much has been learned through the
historical-critical method. Today we know much more than ever before about the
cultural, social, and linguistic background of the Bible. For instance, many
historical sites which were excavated have revealed compelling evidence for the
historicity of the bible. Moreover,
lost languages have been recovered, giving us greater understanding of the
people and culture in which the bible was written. Even layers of composition in
the text have allowed us to understand its significance at various points in its
development. Thus, the historical-critical method has paved the way for a new
understanding and approach to the biblical records.
Like any so-called newly introduced theological system, the
historical-critical method has had its share of criticisms. In some cases, this
method led scholars to postpone or ignore all questions regarding the use and
authority of the Bible in the Christian community. On the other hand, many have
responded to the challenges raised by the historical-critical method by refusing
to allow it a place in biblical studies. They have insisted that the bible is a
Holy and Divine book, which is not subject to scrutiny by human methods.
This, however, should not discourage the pursuance of such a method, as
already mentioned, there is much to gleam and benefit from this approach. While
it is not without its weaknesses and faults -- as any new system will elucidate
-- it does have some redeeming qualities, which even the average church goer may
find worth delving into.
Methods of Employment
To understand the effect of the historical‑critical methodology on
the church and its message it is necessary to examine in some detail the various
types of criticism that have been popular in scholarly circles in the last two
hundred years or more.
This method employs several types of main criticisms which are as
follows: “textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, redaction
criticism, and tradition criticism…”
Textual Criticism
The question has often been put forward by the modern skeptic of whether
or not we can trust the bible since we do not have any of the original
manuscripts. If all that we have at
our disposal are extant copies of the biblical autographs, then, how can one be
certain of or put their trust in sacred scripture?
This is where the science of textual criticism becomes a valuable tool in
the hands of the modern interpreter. The accuracy of a text or manuscript
is contingent on several factors. For
example, how close it was written to the production of the original autographs.
It presupposes that a fourth century manuscript will contain less scribal
errors than an eighth century manuscript would contain. The more time that
lapses between the original text and subsequent copies, the less accurate the
text will be. However, along with the total number of extant NT manuscripts at our
disposal today, textual critics are able to reconstruct what the original
manuscripts might have looked like. According to Norman Geisler, “…the present Greek text [modern
versions]…is probably over 99% accurate in reproducing the exact words of the
autographs.”
Moreover, if we did not have any manuscripts today we would still be able
to produce a copy of the NT based on the writings of the early church fathers.
According to Peter Wegner, “It has been said that the church fathers
quoted the New Testament so extensively that if all our other sources of the New
Testament were to be destroyed, it could be reconstructed from the church
fathers’ quotations alone.”
Although many postulate that the New Testament is not a valid source
because it was written by imperfect beings, implying that there are too many
errors in it, which make it an unreliable document and source, a few things
should be mentioned about this. While
it is a proven fact that there are approximately 200,000 textual variants within
the 24,000 NT manuscripts available to us today, by definition, textual variants
are ‘the differences in text between one manuscript and another. The textual
differences or scribal errors in the verses below are known as “Textual
Variants.” These errors occur when a scribe is translating from one copy to
another. For instance, in
taking the following example, we will say that A, B, C, D represent a verse of
scripture taken from different manuscript families:
Manuscript A = Jesus Christ Died fro
us.
Manuscript B = Christ Jesus Died for us.
Manuscript C = Jesus Christ Died for su.
Manuscript D = Jesus Christ Deid
fo us.
It is certainly obvious that copyist errors were made from the original
text it was copied from, which enable us to see how the textual critic is able
to reconstruct what the original documents of the New Testament might have
looked. Of the 200,000 textual variants contained in the NT, surprisingly this
figure only represents about “…10,000 places in the New Testament. If one
single word is misspelled in 3000 manuscripts, this is counted as 3,000
variants.”
For instance, the word “Deid” which we know is “Died,” could have
appeared in over 3000 manuscripts, which would thus account for 3000 variants
out of a total of 200,000 variants. Norman
Geisler stated that “Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimated that only
one in sixty of these variants has significance.
This would leave a text 98.3% percent pure.”
Thus, of the total number of variants within the NT the text is 99% accurate and
clean from any major doctrinal errors. In
comparison to other ancient books the New Testament is by far the most accurate.
Bruce Metzger estimated, “that the Mahabharata
of Hinduism is copied with only about 90% accuracy and Homer’s Iliad with about 95%,” which by comparison the NT is about 95.5%
accurate.
If the bible cannot defend itself as a basically reliable historical
document, then why should anyone put their trust in it? Thus the benefit of
textual criticism for the Church is that it enables the theologian to aptly
defend the bible as just that -- a reliable, religious and historical document.
From an apologetic standpoint, as Calvin once wrote, “it enables us to
stop the mouths of the obstreperous.”
Source Criticism
Before the First World War practically all historical
criticism could be characterized as source criticism. This type of criticism
studied the Biblical record in order to determine what sources had been used by
the men who gave the books of the Bible their present form.
Source criticism began in the field of Old Testament and its beginning is
usually associated with the name of Jean Astruc, a French doctor of medicine,
who in 1753 published a book in which he set forth what he called his
conjectures about the original documents that Moses had used to compose the book
of Genesis.
While source criticism began in the Old Testament field,
the New Testament has not been spared. Even though efforts have been made to
find several separate documents in a few of the letters of Paul, yet in the
main, New Testament source criticism has limited itself to the study of the
Gospel, especially the synoptic Gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Since these
three follow the same general outline, contain much of the same material, and
often in telling the same story use many of the same words and phrases, it is
assumed that they must have copied from each other or from a common source.
In a general way it may be said that, according to the most
widely accepted form of New Testament source criticism, Mark, or a book very
similar to Mark, copied and revised by the author of our present Mark, was
written first. Since both Matthew and Luke have much material also found in
Mark, they must have copied Mark or Mark's predecessor. Since they have much
material in common which is not found in Mark, they must both have used a common
source, called Q. Q is the first letter of the German word, Quelle, which
means source, and when the scholars say that the source of the common material
in Matthew and Luke is Q, this is simply a scholarly way of saying that the
source of the material that is found in both Matthew and Luke is the source.
Finally since Matthew has some material that is found in neither Mark nor Luke
there must have been a third source and since no one knows what that source was
it is simply called M. And since Luke has material that is found in neither Mark
nor Matthew, there must be a fourth source, which is called L.
The down side to source criticism is that it takes for
granted that the books were not written by eyewitnesses of the events which they
record, that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses and that the Gospels were
not written by apostles or close associates of the apostles. However, the upside
is that there is something beneficial, in my view, to gleam from, and that we
need to take the time to sift and separate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
Form Criticism
Form Criticism focuses upon the period before the Gospels were written
down, the so-called oral period. It
seeks to investigate the transmission and development of the gospel stories
before they were written down. It
was introduced by K.L. Schmidt (1919), M. Dibelius (1919) and Rudolph Bultman
(1921) in Germany, with a significant contribution by the famous British
theologian V. Taylor (1935).
This method categorizes stories in the gospels into various
groups:
|
Dibelius
|
Bultman
|
Taylor
|
Examples
|
|
Paradigms
|
Apophtegms
|
Pronouncement stories
|
Mark
6:1-4; 12:13-17
|
|
Tales
|
Miracle
stories
|
Miracle
stories
|
Mark
1:29-31; 5:1-20
|
|
Exhortations
|
Sayings
|
Sayings
and parables
|
Luke
10:7, 23f.; Mark 7:15
|
|
Legends
|
Historical
stories or legends
|
Stories
about Jesus
|
Mark
1:9-11; 9:2-8; Matt. 4:1-11
|
Form
Criticism, however, assumes that these stories as we have them
today were not preserved by the apostles, who were eyewitnesses of the words and
works of Jesus. Instead it is held that these stories were in large measure
spread by people who made all sorts of changes in the stories as they were
passed from one individual to another and from one community to another and from
one culture to another. It was the conviction of the form critics that
“even the earliest Gospel (Mark) was not a simple historical narrative but was
impregnated with the theological interpretation of the Christian community.”
In principle, form
criticism differs from source criticism only in that while source
criticism looked for written sources that it could never examine because no
copies of these written accounts were ever found, form criticism is concerned
with examining “the oral tradition which lies behind our Gospels.” While there are certainly problems with the study of form criticism and
its approach, it nevertheless yielded some benefits for the Church.
For example, in identifying different forms of the gospel stories, a
parable should be interpreted differently than a story about Jesus or miracle
story. In other words, isolating the different units of scripture fosters a
greater ability to interpret within context, which in essence keeps one from
error. The problem, however, with
employing a form critical method to biblical studies is that it may lead to too
rigid interpretation, where the life of the Spirit is quenched from the Gospel.
The goal in employing this method should be to aim for balance.
Redaction criticism
Redaction criticism seeks to correct some of the weaknesses of form
criticism, which put too much emphasis upon the so-called influence the
Christian community had upon the developing tradition in shaping the Gospels
into the form in which we have them today.
Redaction Criticism in an effort to balance the scope put more onus upon
the editorial process, especially with regard to the Gospels.
The redaction critic affirms that the final editorial work took place on
the basis of an individual or school of thought working as an author within his
or their own right. Thus it attempts to discover and describe the life setting
theological themes, and motives which determine the basis upon which the
redactor selected, modified, and shaped the materials into their final form. In relation to the Gospels the traditions concerning Jesus were
collected, interpreted, and modified according to various cultures. In order to
have an authoritative saying as the basis for church action, words were placed
in the mouth of Jesus so that the church could confidently face its contemporary
situation. The goal of the biblical critic, then, is to sort back through the
process of collection, interpretation, and modification, attempting to
understand these various aspects within their particular cultural context, for
the purpose of finally arriving at the so-called historical Jesus. In order to
do this it is necessary to remove everything that can be accounted for on the
basis of the Palestinian, Hellenistic, or Roman culture. Once the critic has
arrived at a critically assured minimum, as some scholars argue, it is possible
to reintroduce data which are consistent with this, but which can also be
accounted for on the basis of the contemporary culture. After all, scholars say,
it was possible for Jesus to say something which could have been said by someone
living within a Palestinian context.
Tradition Criticism
Tradition criticism accepts the results of source criticism and form
criticism, but attempts to place emphasis upon the history of a unit of
literature. Tradition criticism
attempts to trace the process by which a piece of literature moved from stage to
stage until it reached its final form. Tradition criticism thus attempts to
study the long history which lies behind a pericope within our present Bible. In
the Pentateuch, for example, tradition criticism may think in terms of small
units of literature being produced within varying cultures under specific life
settings (Sitz im Lebem). As these traditions or units of literature are passed
on from generation to generation they are transformed within new life settings,
and as cultures merge, traditions also merge. Thus the unit of literature as it
occurs in our current Bible resulted from merging traditions which were
transformed within each new life setting. If the preacher is to rightly
interpret the Bible as a basis for his sermons (according to the tradition
critic) it is necessary for him to ascertain the tradition history which lies
behind the current text in order to determine the varying life settings within
which this tradition was transmitted, and to isolate those aspects which come
from different life settings. It is only on this basis that he can understand
the historical setting of the text, and thus interpret it rightly so that he
might understand its appropriate meaning for our contemporary generation.
Conclusion
In sum, it is my contention that the historical-critical method, like any
new methodology must be sifted and stamped with the revelation of truth – the
Gospel of Jesus Christ – before it can be validated and used for the glory and
benefit of the Church. If it is to become palatable to the average church
attendee, it must undergo further refining before it can be used for the
furtherance of the Gospel. While it
is not faultless, it certainly can and should be used to help explicate and
advance the faith. Like the nation of Israel who took spoils from Egypt, the
Church must take the value and dividends offered from the Historical-Critical
method and use it to its advantage.
Works Cited
Becker, Siegbert W. The Historica-Critical Method of Bible
Interpretation. Vol I, Wisconsin: Lutheran Seminary, 1999.
Blackman, E.C. Biblical
Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1957.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book I,
Chapter 7. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Pittsburgh, PA., 1995.
Davies, W.D. Invitation to
the New Testament. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1966.
Guarino, Thomas Revelation and Truth.
Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1993.
Geisler, Norman L., Nix, William E., A General Introduction To The
Bible, Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1968.
Gonzalez, Justo L. The New Interpreters Bible. Vol I.
Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon, 1994.
Krentz, Edgar. The
Historical-Critical Method.
Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2002.
Lyonnet, S. Encyclopedia: Critical Biblical. Vol. 4, Sansoni:
Florence, 1950.
McArthur, Harvey K. In Search
of the Historical Jesus. New York, NY: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969.
Neil, W. The Cambridge History of the Bible: “The Criticism and
Theological use of the Bible,” 1700-1950, 3:281.
Pope John Paul II, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,
Pontifical Biblical Commission: Origins, January 6, 1994.
Vaganay, L. Cf. Guide to
the Bible: Catholic Exegesis. Desclee: New York, 1960.
Webster's Third New
International Dictionary Springfield. Massachusetts: Merriam-Webster,
Incorporated (1996).
Wegner, Paul D. The Journey from Texts to Translations: The Origin and
Development of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1999.
Wenham, David and Walton, Steve. Exploring the New Testament: A Guide
to The Gospel and Acts. Vol. I., Downers Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity
Press, 2001.
White, Ellen G. The Acts of
the Apostles.
Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2002.
Youth Update Glossary. www.disciplesnow.com/catholic/html/article240.html.
St. Anthony Messenger Press, 2002.
Bibliography
"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" Presented
by the Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993 (as published in Origins,
January 6, 1994)
Thomas Kuhn, for example, discovered that where the natural sciences were
concerned, that facts are predicated upon determinate theories which are
essentially influenced by a person’s background and worldview; making the goal of strict objectivity
impossible. In other words, “Kuhn seeks to demonstrate that the scientist
is never exempt from the “limitations” of his or her history, culture,
tradition, prejudice, and ideology.”
Thomas Guarino, Revelation and Truth
(Scranton: University of Scranton Press, 1993) , p.83-84.
"The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" Presented by the
Pontifical Biblical Commission
to Pope John Paul II on April 23, 1993 (as published in Origins,
January 6, 1994)
From: González, Justo L. “How the Bible Has Been Interpreted in
Christian Tradition.” The New
Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 1, 83-106. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994.
W. Neil, "The Criticism and Theological Use of the Bible,
1700-1950," The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3:281.
See the article by C. R. Holladay, “Contemporary Methods of Reading the
Bible,” in which he lists the following methods that have resulted from
this approach to Scripture, or at least hate been enhanced by it: textual
criticism, source criticism, traditio-historical criticism, form criticism,
redaction criticism, composition criticism, audience criticism, and
canonical criticism.
Norman L Geisler. A General Introduction To The Bible, (Chicago,
Illinoise: Moody Press, 1968), 346.
[13]
Paul D. Wegner. The Journey from Texts
to Translations: The Origin and Development of the Bible. (Grand Rapids:
Baker Academic, 1999), 227.
This illustration is my own.
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, book 1, Chapter 7. Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing Co.; Pittsburgh, PA., 1995.
E. C. Blackman, Biblical Interpretation, Philadelphia, Westminster
Press, 1957, p. 146.
W. D. Davies, Invitation to the New Testament, Garden City N.Y.,
Doubleday and Company, 1966, p. 121.
Wenhan and Walton, Vol 1. 70.
See Wenham and Walton, 71.
Harvey K. McArthur, In Search of the Historical Jesus, New York,
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969, p. 5.
W. D. Davies, Invitation to the New Testament, p. 129.
Siegbert W. Becker, The Historica-Critical Method of Bible Interpretation,
Vol I, 1999, Wisconsin Lutheran Seminary, 37.
Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, Eugene, Oregon: Wipf
& Stock Publishers, 2002, 56.
Ellen G. White, The Acts of the Apostles, Mountain View, California,
Pacific Press Publishing Association, 2002, 474.
