The Nature of Scripture
Biblical criticism, more often called historical criticism, is basically the act of taking a closer look at the Bible, trying to understand who wrote the books of the Bible, why and when they wrote, and to whom they wrote. Biblical criticism tries to understand the meaning and historical context of the books of the Bible. The Bible is God's Word in Human Words. God allowed His people to tell His story. Therefore the Bible is not infallible and inerrant. It does contain many contradictions because of its human element. Introductory article: Historical Criticism and Evangelicalism (Some of the following is from Peter Enns) 1. Biblical Origins The Old Testament we know today has a lengthy developmental history, both oral and written. The drawing together of these traditions did not commence in earnest until the Babylonian exile (6th c. BC) and did not come to an end until sometime during the Persian period (roughly 5th and 4th centuries BC) at the earliest. This does not mean that the Hebrew Bible was written out of whole cloth during this period. Some books or portions of books clearly were, but many others were added to or updated in some way. The creation of the Old Testament Hebrew Bible was an exercise in national self-definition in response to the Babylonian exile. It is possible that the stories of the Patriarchs, the Exodus, the Canaanite conquest, and the golden age of David and Solomon were created during the time of King Josiah in the 7th century B.C. Issues surrounding the formation of the New Testament are similar, but involve a much shorter period of time. If the books of the New Testament were placed in the order of their composition 1 Thessalonians would be first (circa 50 A.D.) followed by the other six books that Paul wrote. The last book to be written was 2 Peter between 120 and 150 A.D. Click here. 2. Historicity The Bible does not tell us what happened so much as what the biblical writers either believed happened or what they invented. This is not to say that historical critics think nothing of historical importance can be found in Scripture, but that any historical information is inextricably bound up with the perspectives and purposes of the biblical writers. The Old Testament is not always accurate history, but contains myths, fables, and poetic language. Much of the Old Testament was borrowed from the Ancient Near Eastern culture in which Israel existed. Examples include the creation stories were borrowed from Enumas Elish, Adapa, and Atrahasis. Noah's flood was based on Gilgamesh and Atrhasis. The Mosaic Law was based on Hammurabi's Code. Much of the Book of Proverbs was based on the Egyptian writing Instructions of Amenemope. Examples of stories in the Old Testament that were not real history are the seven days of creation, the Adam and Eve story, Noah's flood, tower of Babel, the Exodus, the Canaanite conquest, Jonah, etc. When speaking of their past, the Old Testament writers were not working as modern historians or investigative journalists to uncover verifiable facts (as we might put it). They were more storytellers, conduits for generations—even centuries—of tradition, which they brought together to form their sacred text. In the Old Testament we have Israel’s national-religious story as seen through the eyes of those responsible for giving it its final shape. This is not to say that they invented these traditions on the spot, but they “packaged” their past as they did to address their present crisis—exile, return, and an uncertain future. Israel’s inscripturated story both accounts for this crisis and also points the way forward to the hope that God has not abandoned his people but has a glorious future in store for them. A similar issue holds for the New Testament, where the Gospels reflect the experiences and thinking of various Christian communities a generation and more after Jesus’ ministry on earth. They, too, are presentations of Jesus and the early missionary activities that reflect the perspectives and needs to the respective communities. 3. Authorship Many of the books in the Bible were not written by the authors that we think wrote them. Many of them were pseudonyms. Examples include:
The Bible does not speak with one unified theological voice. It argues against itself and contains many contradictions. Given historical criticism’s focus on matters of biblical origin, the diversity of the various biblical texts is highlighted with no pressing concern, as we see in evangelicalism, to draw these diverse texts into a harmonious whole. Hence, historical criticism speaks freely of the different theologies contained in Scripture. One practical implication is that the evangelical hermeneutical methodology of allowing “Scripture to interpret Scripture” tends to fall on deaf ears among historical critics. Reading Genesis, for example, through the eyes of Isaiah or Paul in order to understand the meaning of Genesis would be like reading Shakespeare through the eyes of Arthur Miller and expecting to gain from it an insight into what Shakespeare meant. 5. Prophecy Prophecy in the Bible had more to do with the word of God in the present and near future than predicting the distant future. Biblical prophecy was mainly concerned about the near future rather than hundreds of years later. The message of the prophets in the Bible were unfailingly tied to their individual social and historical settings. They did not really predict the future, certainly not the distant future. Their words about the future were primarily about what would happen to their contemporaries if they did not repent. Sometimes the prophets were dead wrong about their prophecies. Ezekiel was wrong about the oracles against Tyre. The New Testament teaches that Jesus would return within the lifetime of the disciples. Both Jesus and the authors of the New Testament believed this. So it either happened in a spiritual sense (preterism) or the New Testament writers were wrong. It is possible that the Olivet Discourse and Revelation are ex eventu prophecies written after the destruction of Jerusalem which occurred in 70 A.D. Either way, futurism is not an option. The New Testament writers were not speaking of events in the distant future. 6. New Testament use of the Old Testament The authors of the New Testament routinely took the Old Testament out of context and thereby violated the grammatical-historical-contextual method of interpretation. They reinterpreted the Old Testament in light of the Christianity story. Click here and here. Books on Biblical Criticism at Amazon |
Introductory Articles
Historical Criticism and Evangelicalism 3 Ways to Read the Bible as an Adult 5 Insights About the Old Testament from Modern Biblical Scholarship 12 Ways Evangelical Leaders Avoid Dealing With Real Problems in The Bible Origins of the Bible Writers of the Bible Did Paul Write The Pastoral Epistles? A Chronological New Testament The Septuagint - Good Enough for the Apostle Paul Canon Wars Inerrancy Inerrancy Does Not Describe What The Bible Does The Modern Inerrancy Debate God's Word in Human Words (part 1) - C.S. Lewis God's Word in Human Words (part 2) - C.S. Lewis Ezekiel Was Dead Wrong About Tyre The Gospels and the Synoptic Problem Inerrancy and the Scriptures Inerrancy at Peter Enns Blog Contradictions in the New Testament A List of Biblical Contradictions Nature of the Bible Historicity The Exodus Canaanite Conquest The Book of Jonah New Testament Use of Old Testament Would Paul Have Made a Good Evangelical? Did Paul Have a High View of Scripture? Christians and The Old Testament Does Matthew Gild The Lily? . |