BRF Witness
January/February 1993
Volume 28, Number 1
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.