THE BIBLE'S DEADLY ENEMY:
THE HISTORICAL CRITICAL METHOD OF
INTERPRETATION
By Harold S. Martin
The purpose of this essay is to tell what the historical-critical method
is, and also how it works. I am convinced that the historical-critical
method of Scripture interpretation is the greatest of all the enemies of
the Christian faith.
The question is often asked, "Why have so many revolutionary changes
taken place in the church during the past century?" Multitudes of pastors
seem unsure and confused about what they should believe. Preaching is hazy.
Doubts about the veracity of the Bible are plentiful. What lies behind
the shift from a simple Biblicism (if the Bible says it, we seek to practice
it)-to a position that seems to question and reinterpret much of the Bible's
message? The primary answer lies in the historical -critical method of
Bible interpretation.
The changes that have taken place in the church have not come upon us
suddenly. They are the result of forces which have been at work for many
years. Already in the 1700s there arose in Europe a revival of intellectualism
known as The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment had a chilling effect
upon the spiritual movements of the time. Prominent Enlightenment thinkers
were hostile to traditional Christianity. They did not abandon religion,
but they accepted as reality only that which appealed to human reason.
There was a search for scientific explanations that would interpret life
in terms of physical laws. Scientific explanations began to replace religious
explanations. The ideas that undergirded The Enlightenment were penetrating
all of life.
The Enlightenment-with its emphasis on science and reason-could only
regard the Bible as a human book, not as a revelation from God. Out of
The Enlightenment grew a religious discipline called historical-criticism,
which
is a method of interpreting the Bible based on premises that tend to accord
with human reason. Some of the primary assumptions held by most scholars
who use the historical-critical approach to Bible interpretation are these:
1) The books of the Bible may not have been written by the persons to
whom tradition (or the Bible text itself) assigns them.
2) Certain passages in the Bible could have been interpolated (altered
or corrupted) by someone other than the author.
3) Some statements ascribed to Jesus may be the writer's idea of what
Jesus might have said, rather than a record of His actual literal words.
4) A number of Scriptural statements are the result of cultural conditioning,
rather than a definite word from God.
5) The Bible is the result of an evolutionary process; early Christians
used pre-scientific depictions of reality in formulating their beliefs,
and so today one must use critical reason to decide what is reality in
the Bible and what cannot be reality. (To scholars this process is known
as "demythologization.")
In keeping with the above presuppositions, the method of historical
-criticism is often used to make the Bible say something different from
what orthodox Christians have understood it to say.
The historical-critics have questioned the authorship and the dating
of much of the biblical literature, and have often rejected the traditional
understanding of the great doctrinal truths and ethical principles of the
Scriptures. (There is value in seeking to discover who the writers of the
Bible books were, and what sources they may have used in constructing their
documents, and what their aims and purposes were for writing--but we must
remember that Jesus accepted the Old Testament much as we have it today,
and in the New Testament, He promised that the Holy Spirit would bring
to the apostles' remembrance the data related to His activities and ministry.
And so the Bible is not the product of the minds of brilliant human authors,
but a revelation of the will of God.)
Harold Lindsell illustrates how the careful student of the Bible works.
He says that every diligent student of the book of Ephesians, for example,
asks the question, "Who wrote the Book of Ephesians? The historical-critical
advocate phrases the question differently. He asks: Did Paul write the
Book of Ephesians? Asking the question this way demonstrates the negative
spirit with which the questioner comes to the Book of Ephesians. Of one
thing there can be no doubt. The Book of Ephesians itself claims to have
been written by the apostle Paul. Therefore no responsible evangelical
could ask the question as to whether Paul wrote the book. His faith-approach
to Scripture and his presupposition that it is truthful, compel him to
conclude that Paul wrote Ephesians. He can give reasons why Paul wrote
the Book of Ephesians, but the question 'Did Paul write the book?' is no
question for him." And then Lindsell concludes (in his book, The
Bible in the Balance, page 284), that we should compare the likenesses
and the differences between one Pauline book and another, but the moment
that we use these differences to conclude that Ephesians was not written
by Paul, we have surrendered our basic presupposition that the Bible is
true in all its parts.
The historical-critics have not only questioned the authorship and dating
of many of the Bible books; they also have often rejected the great ethical
principles of the Scriptures. Lindsell, in the same book, page 294, illustrates
a typical revolt against the standards of the Bible by citing a common
view held by scholars toward homosexuality. He says, "Any objective approach
to the phenomena of Scripture must result in the conclusion that ... the
Bible does teach that homosexual conduct is intrinsically wrong and forever
forbidden." He observes however that today homosexuality is being defended
as an alternate lifestyle and that it is in accord with the will of God.
Many Bible teachers are saying that homosexuality has God's divine sanction
and blessing. Those who come to this conclusion use the historical-critical
approach to Bible interpretation. If what the Bible says about homosexuality
is no longer binding, then the standard set up in the Bible is lost, and
it is not the word of God for us today. The historical-critical approach
in essence tries to "find the canon within the canon"--that is, not all
Scripture is the Word of God, but we must seek to find God's word hidden
within the Scriptures. To the historical-critic, "critical reason decides
what is reality in the Bible, and what cannot be reality" (Eta Linnemann,
Historical
Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology, page 88).
The presuppositions of the historical-critic lead to devastating results.
Instead of objectivity, there is almost unrestrained subjectivity. Final
authority regarding what is true, according to the historical-critics,
is determined by the trained, informed, critical intellect. And so Scripture
is subordinated to human reason. The historical-critical method humanizes
the Bible and downgrades the concept of divine authorship. The method is
frequently used to radically change the traditional understanding of Bible
truth.
BIBLICAL
SCHOLAR GETS CONVERTED
During the 1980s, a German theology professor named Eta Linnemann, created
shock waves throughout the academic community by renouncing the historical-critical
method of Bible study which she has so ardently advocated-and turned to
a simple faith in Jesus Christ and to belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
Eta Linnemann had studied under the prominent historical critical theologian
Rudolf Bultmann, and after completing the rigorous requirements for a European
university lectureship, she was promoted to high positions of responsibility
in the German community of scholars. Mrs. Linnemann became the honorary
professor of New Testament at Philipps University in Marburg, West Germany.
But in the 1970s she drifted into a personal crisis of faith, and later
came in contact with an enthusiastic group of born again believers who
were instrumental in leading her to a vital relationship with Jesus Christ.
Her conversion has led her to renounce everything she had said and written
about the Bible (all of which was presented from the historical-critical
point of view). Eta Linnemann wrote two scholarly books, Gleichnisse
Jesu, and Studien zur Passionsguschiechte, and a
number of learned articles in theological journals. But now she has given
up her responsible position at Marburg, has distanced herself completely
from historical-critical theology, and has become a missionary teacher
at a Bible Institute in Batu, Indonesia.
In a new book, published in English for the first time in September,
1990, Eta Linnemann tells her story and explains why she has said a resounding
"No" to the historical-critical method of Bible interpretation. The book
is entitled,
HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE: METHODOLOGY OR IDEOLOGY,
and is published by Baker Book House. In the book, Eta explains why she
has rejected the historical-critical method, and says that "because of
the testimony of the Holy Spirit in my heart, I have clear knowledge that
my former perverse teaching was sin ... I regard everything that
I taught and wrote before I entrusted my life to Jesus, as refuse. I have
pitched my two books ... along with my contributions to journals,
into the trash with my own hands ... I ask you sincerely to do the
same thing with any of them (that) you may have on your bookshelf" (page
20).
Over and over again Mrs. Linnemann testifies to the personal joy which
she has found in coming to a knowledge of Christ, and on page after page
she explains that the historical-critical approach to Bible study "is a
series of prejudgments which are not themselves the result of scientific
investigation" (page 111). She maintains that historical-critical theology
is in no sense a neutral method of Bible interpretation. On the contrary,
she says it has developed into its own "religion" with its own set of values.
The book, HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE: METHODOLOGY OR IDEOLOGY,
should be read carefully by every seminary professor, every seminary trained
pastor, and every Bible instructor in our church colleges. Eta Linnemann's
analysis of the historical-critical approach to Bible study should be eye
opening to those who have been caught in its grip.
--Harold S. Martin