Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?

HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE BIBLE: METHODOLOGY OR IDEOLOGY? REFLECTIONS OF A BULTMANNIAN TURNED EVANGELICAL

by Eta Linnemann and translated by Robert W. Yarbrough.

Historical criticism of the Bible is a method of interpretation that does not rely on the Holy Spirit as a guide. This is because, in the words of Rudolf Bultmann, "no one can guarantee at any time that he has him." (p. 87) So research on the Bible is conducted as if there is no God. (p. 84) The result of using this method is that "what the text clearly states can, by no means, be true. The exegete's task is to discover and solve 'difficulties' in the text of the Bible. The better the interpreter, the more ingenious this will be." (p. 87) In this way a professor/theologian can make a "name." Eta Linnemann observes that most of her former colleagues were personally rather humble and modest. "However, through the system of university theology, they are under compulsion to make a name for themselves and to strive for human honor." (p. 88)

Hypotheses

The way a professor/theologian uses his ingenuity is to make hypotheses about the Biblical text. For example, if one assumes that Jesus did not speak the parable about the ten virgins (Matt. 25:1-13), but rather that it arose in the early church, then the context changes. It is not information about Jesus or His teaching, but about the early church. And so to analyze the parable, the researcher compares it to what is known about the early church, not to what is known about Jesus and His teaching.

The above example shows how the whole historical-critical methodology works. It came to be because Eduard Reuss (1804-91) had an intuition about late dating the books of the Old Testament, which he passed on to his students. This idea became part of Julius Wellhausen's now-famous Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (1878). Thus a tradition began and continued without any proof. (p. 131) This tradition has variously been called the Wellhausen, or Documentary Hypothesis, or the JEDP Theory.

Dr. Linnemann became part of this "tradition without proof." She studied under prominent historical-critical theologians such as Rudolf Bultmann and Ernst Fuchs, as well as others such as Friedrich Gogarten and Gerhard Ebeling. Her first book was a best seller and was published in English as Jesus of the Parables, Introduction and Exposition (New York: Harper and Row, 1966). She also wrote a second book, Studien zur Passions geschichte and numerous articles (listed in a footnote on p. 20). She honestly thought she was doing a service to God with her theological work and "contributing to the proclamation of the gospel." (p. 17) She was a professor at Philipps University, Marburg, and was inducted into the society for New Testament Studies.

Conversion

Then Linnemann became a born-again Christian and gradually realized the truth about her chosen field. She understood that God's revelation cannot be judged by fleshly standards, which are "inherently and completely unsuited to evaluate that which is spiritual." (p. 108) The "fleshly standards" of historical-critical theology simply presuppose "that man could have no valid knowledge of God and the Bible, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Father of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ." (p. 18)

Linnemann sees a parallel between the fact that Lyell and Darwin had no proof for the uniformitarian hypotheses and historical criticism, which also had no proof. Thus, just as scientists come up with hypotheses, so do historical-critical theologians. Unfortunately the basic assumption in all cases is that God does not exist.

When Linnemann realized the error of her ways, she threw her books into the trash and urges all others to do the same. She left the discipline she had worked so long and hard in, and went to Batu, Indonesia where she taught (and possibly is still teaching) in a Bible institute. Hers is a lesson that all students of the Bible can take to heart. She was on both sides of the fence, so to speak, and understands better than anyone else the game that is being played in the name of Biblical scholarship.

Postscript

Linnemann is not alone in criticizing the historical-critical "methodology." R.K. Harrison also rejects what he calls the Graf-Wellhausen documentary hypothesis - for example, see p. 543 of his Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1969). Harrison also cites contradictions in this "methodology" - see pp. 568-5 of his book.

Gorden J. Wenham points out that there has been a significant change regarding the Wellhausen documentary hypothesis. In the past, rejection of this hypothesis had been from orthodox Jews and conservative Christians. However, questioning of the documentary hypothesis today has come from mainline scholarship. Wenham quotes several noted scholars. One is R. Rendtorff: "Every dating of the pentateuchal `sources' rests on purely hypothetical assumptions, which ultimately only have standing through the consensus of scholars." Another is W.H. Schmidt: "How united was O.T. scholarship for so long, how deeply divided now!" (See p. xxxv of G.J. Wenham, Word Biblical Commentary, Volume 1, Genesis 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1987).

The above references are of a scholarly nature. Josh McDowell takes a more popular approach to criticizing the documentary hypothesis on pp. 29-168 of More Evidence that demands a verdict, historical evidences for the Christian Scriptures (1975). Also, on pp. 183-291, he discusses the shortcomings of form criticism.