Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T17:43:38.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Historical Criticism and the Current Methodological Crisis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 February 2009

Archie L. Nations
Archie L. Nations
Affiliation:
Southeastern Baplist Theological SeminaryWake Forest, N.C. 27587.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

More than two decades ago T. A. Roberts wrote,

On the one hand, if Christianity is not to be cut adrift from its historical roots, the question … is the gospel true? must be answered at the first level by a rigorous application of historical criticism, with all its techniques and methods for assessing the reliability of evidence about the past. But historical criticism is essentially a secular tool, fashioned to meet secular interests, and thus by its very nature useless to evaluate the religious affirmations of Faith. Yet the very documents which we seek to examine historically were written from Faith to Faith, bearing witness to the Word which became Flesh, dwelling amongst us, and revealing the glory of the Only-begotten Son of God. How this dilemma is to be resolved is the most pressing problem in the field of Christian apologetic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , February 1983 , pp. 59 - 71
Copyright
Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

page 59 note 1 Roberts, T. A., History and Christian Apologetic (London: S.P.C.K., 1960), pp. 173–174.Google Scholar

page 59 note 2 Strauss, D. F., The Life of Jesus, Critically Examined. Edited with an introduction by Hodgson, Peter C.. Translated from the 4th German ed. by Eliot, George (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973).Google Scholar

page 59 note 3 Kuemmel, W. G., The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Translated by Gilmour, S. McLean and Kee, Howard C. (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972), pp. 120–205.Google Scholar

page 59 note 4 Morgan, Robert, The Nature of New Testament Theology, ‘Studies in Biblical Theology’, Second Series, No. 25 (Naperville, Illinois: Alec. R. Allenson Inc., 1973).Google Scholar

page 59 note 5 Bultmann, Rudolf, Theology of the New Testament. Translated by Grobel, Kendrick. 2 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1951–1955).Google Scholar

page 60 note 6 For a general introduction and bibliography, see Krentz, Edgar, The Historical Critical Method (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)Google Scholar, and Hasel, Gerhard, New Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978), esp. p. 19, notes 32–5Google Scholar. Relevant topics emerge clearly in the following essays and books: Achtemeier, Paul, ‘On the Historical-Critical Method in New Testament Studies; Apologia pro Vita Sua’, Perspective, 11 (1970), pp. 289–304Google Scholar. Achtemeier, Elizabeth et al. , ‘Symposium on Biblical Criticism’, Theology Today, 33 (1977), PP. 354–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Barr, James, The Scope and Authority of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980)Google Scholar. Childs, Brevard S., ‘Search for Biblical Authority Today’, Andover Newton Quarterly, 16 (1976), pp. 199–206Google Scholar. Crossan, John D., ‘Perspectives and Methods in Contemporary Biblical Criticism’, Biblical Research, 22 (1977), pp. 39–49Google Scholar. Edwards, O. C., ‘Historical-Critical Method's Failure of Nerve and a Prescription for a Tonic’, Anglican Theological Review, 59 (1977), pp. 115–134Google Scholar. Franzmann, Martin, ‘The Hermeneutical Dilemma: Dualism in the Interpretation of Scripture’, Concordia Theological Monthly, 36 (1965), pp. 502–533Google Scholar. Frye, Roland M., ‘A Literary Perspective for the Criticism of the Gospels’, in Jesus and Man's Hope, 2 vols. (Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, 1971), vol. II, pp. 193–221Google Scholar. Id., ‘On the Historical Critical Method in New Testament Studies: A Reply to Professor Achtemeier’, Perspective, 14 (1973), pp. 28–33Google Scholar. Hahn, Ferdinand, ‘Probleme historischcr Kritik’, Zeitschrift fuer die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 63 (1972), pp. 1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Hengel, Martin, ‘Historische Methoden und theologische Auslegungdes Neuen Testaments’, Kerygma und Dogma, 19 (1973), pp. 85–90Google Scholar. Id., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Translated by Bowden, John (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), pp. 50–58, 127–36Google Scholar. Kelsey, David H., The Uses of Scripture in Recent Theology (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975)Google Scholar. Minear, Paul S., ‘Ecumenical Theology Profession or Vocation?’ Theology Today, 33 (1976–1977), pp. 66–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Morgan, Robert, ‘New Testament Religious Studies’, Religious Studies, 10 (1974), pp. 385–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Steinmetz, David C., ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’, Theology Today, 37 (1980), pp. 27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Stuhlmacher, Peter, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. Translated by Harrisville, Roy A. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1977).Google Scholar

page 60 note 7 Hasel, New Testament Theology, p. 19, refers to the debate and says that the discipline is ‘caught up in a methodological crisis’. Fundamentalist objections to historical criticism have been analyzed by Barr, James, Fundamentalism (London: S.C.M. Press, 1977)Google Scholar, and Achtemeier, Paul, The Inspiration of Scripture (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980).Google Scholar

page 61 note 8 Hahn, , ‘Probleme’, p. 14Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, , Historical Criticism, p. 62.Google Scholar

page 61 note 9 Hahn, , ‘Probleme’, p. 13Google Scholar. Strauss, D. F., The Life of Jesus, p. 75Google Scholar, contended thai the universe forms a circle which endures no intrusions from anything outside that circle, and that events within it occur according to the natural chain of cause and effect.

page 61 note 10 Hengel, , ‘Historische Melhoden’, p. 86Google Scholar, and id., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, p. 130. Cf. also Hahn, , ‘Probleme’, p. 5.Google Scholar

page 61 note 11 Stuhlmacher, , Historical Criticism, pp. 71–75Google Scholar, sets forth the following: (1) Uncertainty about the preaching of the primitive community. (2) Extreme redactional theories about the NT epistles. (3) Theological pluralism everywhere in the NT documents which makes impossible any notion of theological unity. (4) The biblical canon as merely a product of the self-preservation instinct functioning against heresy. (5) Uncertainty about the historical Jesus and his message. On the last item, cf. Sloyan, Gerard S., ‘Recent Literature on the Trial Narratives of the Four Gospels’, in Critical History and Biblical Faith: New Testament Perspectives, edited by Ryan, Thomas J. (Villanova University: The College Theology Society, 1979)Google Scholar, who refers to his shift away from concern for historical data because ‘the step from traditional materials back to historical reminiscences is almost impossible to make, except for the basic historical realities’ (p. 137). Via, Dan O. Jr., Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament: A Structuralist Approach to Hermeneulic (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), p. 6Google Scholar, mentions recent misgivings on the question of Markan priority and stales his opinion that equally good reasons can be given for establishing the priority of Matthew. For him a structuralist approach is not dependent upon either position since it can be carried out without regard for genetic relationships. To give further examples about the fluctuation of critical opinion would unnecessarily overload this paper with a vast bibliography.

page 62 note 12 Jowett, Benjamin, On the Interpretation of Scripture and Other Essays (London: C. Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1907), p. 7.Google Scholar

page 62 note 13 Steinmetz, ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’.

page 62 note 14 ibid., p. 32. Cf. also de Lubac, Henri, The Sources of Revelation. Translated by O'Neill, Luke (New York: Herder and Herder, 1968).Google Scholar

page 62 note 15 Frye, ‘A Literary Perspective’; Crossan, , ‘Perspectives and Methods’, p. 44.Google Scholar

page 62 note 16 Steinmetz, , ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’, p. 38Google Scholar; Childs, , ‘Symposium on Biblical Criticism’, p. 358.Google Scholar

page 62 note 17 Hengel, , ‘Historische Methoden’, pp. 85–86Google Scholar; id., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, pp. 129–30. Cf. Bloch, Marc, The Historian's Craft. Translated by Putnam, Peter (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1954)Google Scholar, for principles utilised by modern historians.

page 62 note 18 Childs, , ‘The Search for Biblical Authority Today’; id., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), p. 79Google Scholar. Morgan, , ‘The New Testament in Religious Studies’, p. 396Google Scholar, says that unless historical critical study is supplemented by theological interpretation of the NT, then it will produce only ‘the liberal protestant phase of intellectual adolescence’, and the NT will no longer stand ‘at the center of… theological thinking’. Similarly, cf. Minear, ‘Ecumenical Theology’. Pannenberg's critique also seems to be related to this point; he speaks of the ‘anthropocentric’ character of historical criticism. Cf. Pannenberg, Wolfhart, Basic Questions in Theology, 3 vols.; vol. I translated by Kehm, George H. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970), pp. 15–80.Google Scholar

page 63 note 19 Fryc, ‘A Literary Perspective’; Stephen Smalley, S., Review of Norman Perrin's Introduction to the New Testament, in Expository Times, 86 (1975), p. 216Google Scholar; Patai, Raphael, Myth and Modern Man (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972).Google Scholar

page 63 note 20 Frei, Hans VV., The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974)Google Scholar; cf. Edwards, , ‘Historical-Critical Method's Failure of Nerve’, p. 129.Google Scholar

page 63 note 21 Crossan, , ‘Perspectives and Methods’, p. 44.Google Scholar

page 63 note 22 Hengel, , ‘Historische Methoden’, p. 85Google Scholar; id., Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, p. 129. When Hengel mentions specific methods designed to deal with particular objects of research, he apparently has in mind the variety of techniques which have been developed for determining the meaning of those objects, such as the procedures used in the ‘cross-examination’ of sources or in linguistics.

page 64 note 23 Considerc sp. Criticisms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 11.

page 64 note 24 A point made strikingly clear by Kclsey, The Uses of Scripture, and Barr, The Scope and Authority of the Bible.

page 64 note 25 Troeltsch, Ernst, ‘Historiography’, in Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. Edited by Hastings, James. 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribncr's Sons, 1951), vol. VI, pp. 716 23Google Scholar, dissociates himself from positivism. Troeltsch describes his three principles of criticism in ‘Ueber historische und dogmatische Mcthode in der Theologie’, in Gesammelte Schriften, 4 vols. (Tucbingcn: J. C. B. Mohr, 1912–1925), vol. II, pp. 729–753Google Scholar. Cf. also Morgan, Robert, ‘Troeltsch and Christian Theology’, in Ernst Troellsch: Writings on Theology and Religion. Translated and edited by Morgan, Robert and Pye, Michael (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1977), pp. 208–233.Google Scholar

page 65 note 26 cf. Ricoeur, Paul, The Symbolism of Evil. Translated by Buchanan, Emerson (Boston: Beacon Press, 1967), p. 351Google Scholar; Myth and the Crisis of Historical Consciousness. Edited by Gibbs, Lee W. and Stephcnson, W. Taylor (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1975)Google Scholar; Mudge, Lewis S., ‘Paul Ricoeur on Biblical Interpretation’, in Ricoeur, Paul, Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Edited with an introduction by Mudgc, Lewis S. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), p. 6.Google Scholar

page 65 note 27 cf. above, No. 4, n. 11.

page 65 note 28 Wink, Walter, The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1973)Google Scholar, who, among other things, refers to the bankruptcy of historical criticism, is an example of what has been called ‘rhetorical terrorism’.

page 65 note 29 Steinmetz, ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’; Lubac, The Sources of Revelation.

page 66 note 30 Hengel, , Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity, pp. 56, 57.Google Scholar

page 66 note 31 Steinmetz, ‘The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis’, wholly ignores the modern study of the parables, which, while certainly not exhausting the meaning contained in them nor answering all possible questions, has illuminated the proclamation of Jesus far more than such medieval exegesis as cited by Steinmetz.

page 67 note 32 Collingwood, R. G., The Idea of History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956)Google Scholar, argues against ‘substanlialism’ in the enlightenment view of human nature; i.e. that in human nature there is a ‘static and permanent, an unvarying substratum underlying the course of historical changes and all human activities’ (p. 82). He states that Herder was the first to hold ‘that human nature is not uniform but diversified’ (p. 91). Berlin, Isaiah, Against the Current: Essays in the History of Ideas (New York: Viking Press, 1980), pp. 1, 100–3, 139–40Google Scholar, traces the concept of diversity in human nature to Vico. Cf. The New Science of Giambattista Vico. Translated from the 3rd edition (1744) by Bergin, Thomas Goddard and Fisch, Max Harold, abridged and revised with a new introduction (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., Inc., 1961), pp. 57ff.Google Scholar

page 67 note 33 Childs, Brevard S., Biblical Theology in Crisis (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1970)Google Scholar; id., Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, esp. pp. 40–1, 74–6, 79, 83. For a related but not identical emphasis, cf. also Saunders, James A., ‘Biblical Criticism and the Bible as Canon’, Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 32 (1977), pp. 157–165.Google Scholar

page 67 note 34 e.g. consider the rather negative analysis of structuralist exegesis in Perrin, Norman, Jesus and the Language of the Kingdom (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), pp. 168–181.Google Scholar

page 68 note 35 Pannenberg, Wolfhart, ‘Redemptive Event and History’, in Basic Questions in Theology, vol. I, pp. 15–80Google Scholar; id., ‘The Revelation of God in Jesus of Nazareth’, in Theology as History, vol. III of ‘New Frontiers in Theology’, edited by Robinson, James M. and Cobb, John B. Jr. (New York, Evanston, and London: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1967), pp. 101–133Google Scholar; id., Jesus, God and Man. Translated by Wilkins, Lewis S. and Priebe, Duane A. (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1968), pp. 74, 97–9Google Scholar. Cf. also Peters, Ted F., ‘The Use of Analogy in Historical Method,’ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, 35 (1973), pp. 475–483Google Scholar; Michalson, G. E. Jr., ‘Pannenberg on the Resurrection and Historical Method’, Scottish Journal of Theology, 33 (1980), p. 347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

page 68 note 36 Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.

page 69 note 37 Barr, , The Scope and Authority of the Bible, pp. 1–17, 52–64, 111–33.Google Scholar

page 69 note 38 ibid., p. 60. Or, as Barr says, is revelation to be found also in the community of faith which possessed the traditions, had experiences of a revelatory character, and formulated texts which embraced both?

page 69 note 39 A Little Treasury of Modern Poetry. Edited with an introduction by Williams, Oscar (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1946), p. 604.Google Scholar

page 70 note 40 Ricoeur, Essays on Biblical Interpretation.

page 70 note 41 Stuhlmacher, , Historical Criticism, p. 84.Google Scholar

page 71 note 42 cf. Roberts, , History and Christian Apologetic, pp. 49–143Google Scholar, for an analysis of three works by F. C. Burkitt, C. H. Dodd and Austin Farrer in this connexion. These writers are by no means exceptional in functioning in such a manner.