Foundations and Historical Criticism

Should the term “critical” be reserved for the area of biblical studies that seeks to determine the truthfulness or historicity of the biblical witness? Thus, to be critical is being critical of the primary sources. Or, as I suggested below, should ‘being critical’ also include being critical of secondary sources of explanation?

Mary E. Healy makes the distinction between ‘historical criticism’ and ‘historical-critical methods’. The former consists in breaking down the text and reconstructing history from a new standpoint, the latter concerns understanding the text, including history from its standpoint.[1]

Concerning the standpoint from which historical criticism (as she classifies it) approaches its task, we may question what privileges its standpoint over that of the Evangelists, if they were indeed concerned with the past. The foundational assumptions of the discipline are open to debate, that is, the supposed “findings of modernity” upon which the discipline stands are by no means ‘assured’, as consensus has not been reached within their respective fields of origin (e.g. does science rule out the possibility of miracles).

Thus, we should not, as a matter of fact, view the Evangelists as naïve in believing that Jesus performed miracle,[2] whereas from our vantage point we know better. We could do so of course, depending upon our standpoint concerning this matter. But we cannot make this the standpoint for academic or “critical” scholarship. In as much as some sort of shared perspective is required between scholars for fruitful dialogue and investigation to take place, I do not think that naturalism should constitute part of this shared perspective. Firstly, it dismisses too much data, data that is central to most of the biblical narratives.[3] Secondly, it would need to be demonstrated that naturalist assumptions lead to the most accurate results.

It must be affirmed that both miracles and the resurrection pose real problems for historians of any standpoint. How would one go about investigating whether in a given instance they occurred or not? A historian that believes miracles to be impossible (for what ever reason) need not enter such an investigation. What they would do however is investigate an alternative explanation for the historical consequences the gospel material.[4] But a historian who brings no such assumption to the historical critical task (that of reconstructing history from their standpoint; historical criticism) will not be able to avoid the investigation. What they must do is test the written testimony (‘can it be trusted?’), and this can be done along many lines. The results of this will be decisive, not any prior convictions.

---

[1] Mary E. Healy, “Behind, in Front of .. or Through the Text? The Christological Analogy and the Lost World of Biblical Truth”, 187, in Bartholomew, C. G., Evans, S. C., Healy, M., Rae, M., editors, ‘Behind’ the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation (Cumbria: Paternoster, 2003), 181-95. We must be upfront about the fact that all history is done from a standpoint that is constituted by certain assumptions about the world and reality in general. So she comments, “The idea of an absolutely neutral observer standing on some plane outside the repercussions of history, able to judge interpretations of the past with impartial certitude, is as mythical as the Gnostic ‘Primal Man’.” (184)

[2] Or more accurately, God performed miracles through Jesus.

[3] e.g. miracles and exorcisms to the gospels. To dismiss these would be to rule out a large and significant chunk of the material we have to work with.

[4] This may be explored on along two avenues. The first being textual (is it simply authorial/communal invention), the second being actual (some “natural” explanation for the event).

One Criteria for All? Word and Resurrection under the microscope

One of the points James and Rafael are discussing (as an example for a larger question I think) is whether the resurrection should be judged on the same grounds as the teachings ascribed to Jesus. I, with Rafael (see his posts), would maintain a distinction between the resurrection and sayings of Jesus in terms of assessing probable historicity. I hope I can add some clarity to the issue (although I doubt it) if any is needed.

Both Jesus' words and his resurrectionare come to us in written traditions concerned with actual happenings in Jesus life, and in this regard they are on the same level. But they do concern different happenings, and it is the possibility of these happenings which has the first say concerning historicity. Only then does probability come into play concerning whether they actually happened in a given instance.

Thus, although we are dealing with two written testimonies, this 'written' factor is put to one side for the initial judgement. This judgment works as an assumption for the discerning of probability. So, in one tradition it is claimed that Jesus speaks, in the other, that God raises Jesus to new life following his death. Most would have no trouble assuming that Jesus could speak. Many, however, would have trouble assuming that God could raise Jesus from the dead, primarily because they dont think that there is a God to do so (and if they did, some would still deny that he could "intervene" in the world like this).

Having made this initial assumption (usually sub-consciously), one would then go on to determine the probability of Jesus speaking and whether the particular tradition reflects what he actually said (the degree would range from exact replication to fiction). This stage is where one engages with the actuall text. For the second tradition, if one works with the assumption that there is a God, then one then goes about determining whether he probably did raise Jesus from the dead or not working with the evidence found in the written tradition.[1] If one assumes there is not, then one still needs to deal with the written tradition, but deems it inaccurate from the start, with no amount of argument to the contrary (concerning the written tradition) able to pursuade otherwise.


[1] Is it a reliable testimony? Given what we can establish about 'God', is it likely that he would raise Jesus? What reasons would he have for doing so?

Being Critical, the discussion continues

In his continuing dialogue with James Crossley, Rafael Rodriguez has made these important comments:

"I think critical scholarship would be well served by shifting its focus to the process of biblical historiography rather than its product."

Although I previously commented that being critical should not correspond to always being skeptical, I think Rafael adds something important here. In discussion, the term "critical" is often used to categorize a certain group of scholars or the results which define this category ('critical' scholarship' over 'against conservative scholarship'). The results that fit this category are usually minimalist and reflect skepticism towards the hiistorical value of biblical narratives. In aligning "ciritical" with these results, we have made the mistake that the lecturers at my Bible college try to rule out at the very beginning of semesters, that being critical does not simply mean being dismissive. It means thinking through arguments and making informed judgements.

"But, a preference for certain sources can be the result of critical reflection (granted that, nevertheless, it frequently isn't)."

This statement coheres with what I tried to establish in my previous post, and I'd appreciate to hear your comments on it Rafael! The discussion continues and I suggest all interested check out the full posts at Rafael and James, as well as Michael Bird's blogs.

What Does it Mean to "Be Critical" in Studying the Historical Jesus

In the hope of sparking some discussion over the issue, i have decided to pose the question:

What does it mean to be "critical" in histoical Jesus studies and biblical studies in general?

The major issue I see here, and which has called fourth this post, is the question whether, to be "critical" do we need to assume a "skeptical" stance towards the texts and/or the authors? Does this mean assuming historical innaccuracy? If so, do we need concrete reasons for doing so? This may, although not necessarily, concerns the issue of burden of proof.

When I think of being critical, i think in terms of not being immediately trusting of ones own or anothers understanding, but testing its truthfulness or accuracy. When this comes to studying the historical Jesus, this works on two fronts: (1) testing my own and others interpretations of the primary data (directly concerning Jesus [e.g. gospels] and background data [e.g. other Jewish Literature]), (2) testing the primary data for its truthfulness or accuracy. Both of these are vital, the circumstances surrounding the latter, however, make it a tenuous task with tentative results.

How to go about the latter, which should of course be done first, is what concerns me the most. Inasmuch as being critical means not being immediately trusting, but testing, there are many reasons that suggest this process should not be taken when approaching each and every individual tradition concerning Jesus.[1] If one wishes to assume a stance of either trust or distrust towards the traditions (in terms of historical value) before testing them, one must have reasons to do so. And what I would argue is that we should take a stance of trust towards the individual traditions in the canonical gospels. But this is a stance we should take subsequent to the first stance of not being immediately trusting, but testing. This may be clearer if I outline it in the following steps:

1. Our default stance is "critical", in that we do not immediately trust or distrust our sources (as wholes), but we "test" them.
2. The results of our testing lead us either to a stance of general trust towards each source as a whole (e.g. the gospel of Mark), or one of general distrust.
3. If distrust, then certain criteria need to be employed to establish the probable accuracy or authenticity of each individual tradition before it can be used in reconstructing the Jesus of the past. But if trust is established as the general stance towards a source, then the criteria need not be employed for reconstruction to take place.
   

Now it should be questioned what justifies the claim that we should first determine whether to trust/distrust the sources as wholes (i.e. a gospel), rather than the normal approach of judging each individal tradition indipendently. Firstly, the latter approach assumes an answer to the former, whether recognized or not. The criteria of authenticity assume various things about early Christianity, the transmission of traditions about Jesus, and hence the nature of the canonical gospels in terms of their composition, purpose, genre, etc. In using the criteria then, one is working according to these assumptions whether one desires to or not, for they undergird the criteria.[2] What I suggest, is that many of the judgments that undergird the criteria are false.[3] Building upon more probable positions concerning early Christianity, transmission of traditions, and the nature of the canonical gospels, I suggest that we may take a stance of general trust towards the gospels, and hence the individual traditions they contain.

Thus, we are being "critical", but not aligning this with extreme skepticism or distrust. It is helpful to see it in terms of an activity rather than a stance.

The objection may also be raised that there is no middle position between "trust" and "distrust", and that to test something is to betray a "distrust" for it. I do wish to suggest a middle position however, because I want to make a distinction between two stages in the process, and reserve the terms trust and distrust for the second stage.

[1] The seperating of the present tradition (i.e. each gospel) into smaller ones (i.e. sayings, events) of course reflects the conclusions regarding questions of composition and transmission.
[2] Stanley Porter points out how the efforts to develop the "criteria of authenticity" corresponded with the growth of form criticism which is on the demise for good reasons. ("Reading the Gospels and the Quest for the Historical Jesus", 35, 49-50, 53, in Porter, Reading the Gospels Today (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 27-55)
[3] One should consult both Bauckham, The Gospels for All Christians, and Lemcio, The Past of Jesus in the Gospels, as well as Porter (ed.) Reading the Gospels Today. Particularly, McDonalds essay, "The Gospels in Early Christianity: Their Origin, Use, and Authrotiy", 150-178

Diversity and Contradiction in the Bible

Some quarters of biblical scholarship have exaggerated supposed contradiction and diversity within both the Old and New Testaments. Much of the diversity however does not amount to mutual opposition. Nevertheless, genuine contradictions do occur. Given this emphasis placed upon diversity and contradiction in recent scholarship, John Goldingay provides a helpful and revealing analysis of the "degrees of diversity and forms of contradiction" in the Old Testament. He outlines a four-fold typlogy:[1]

• Formal Contradiction - "Formal contradiction involves a difference at the level of words which is not a difference at the level of substance." (16)
• Contextual Contradiction - "Contextual contradiction denotes a difference reflecting the variety in circumstances which different statements address." (19)
• Substantial Contradiction - "Substantial contradiction involves a true divergence in viewpoint on the part of the speakers whose disagreement is neither merely verbal nor merely contextual." (21)
• Fundamental Contradiction - "Fundamental Contradition denotes a dissagreement which is a matter of substance and which indicates a basic disharmony at the level of "ethical stance" or "religious outlook"." (24)

Much of the evidence for contradiction marshalled by scholars falls in the first two categories. However, all of them occur in the Old Testament.

[1] Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 15-25

bible as literature -quote-

To read the Bible as literature is not to refuse to take it seriously as a revelation of God's action in history. that would be to miss the whole point of the book.

T. B. Wright, Theology and Literature (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988), 41-22

Exegesis as Self-Criticism

Exegesis as self-criticism consiously focuses on the reader before it focuses on the text. Because knowledge (and hence understanding of texts), although concerned with objects external to the knower (e.g. texts) is never independent of the knower (it is part of their cognitive framework), the discipline of testing knowledge is first and foremost an exercise in self-criticism.

Thus, this appraoch would begin with the readers intial or current interpretation of a text and then ask questions of the origin, justification, and correctness of it. The reader will ask: Why do I read it this way? and may take a sceptical stance towards their reading, Why is may reading wrong? The reader will examine their logic and judgements, how their emotions and commitments (theological and institutional) may impinge on these, and their knowledge base of the various contexts related to the text.

In the process of questioning the self and the interpretation, the text is examined in all of its contexts (linguistic, historical, etc.) and adjustements are made to the intial interpretation, or it is abandoned altogether and replaced with another. Although the task may seem an overly negative one, the postive side is the response to the findings. Thus, for example, if knowledge of a particular context is found to be lacking, then positive accumilation needs to take place. The reader therefore tests their interpretation by means of the text's various contexts, and the readers various contexts.

This approach acknowledges the role presuppositions play in reading and is conscious of the reception history of texts. One does not read in isolation, either from previous readings (reception history) or from ones own knowledge base and framework. not all presuppositions are hidenrances of cource, as all knowledge constitutes presupposition and factors in interpretation.

I suggest this because as I percieve the state of interpretation in current biblical studies, although the role of presuppositions are acknowledged, they are rarely factored into the intepretive process. Although one cannot "step out of them" and into another set, one can become aware of them and the affect they may have or be having on ones interpretation of a given text. Talk of them being inescapable therefore lets just ignore them honestly frustrates me.

blog role update

I have added a new blog to my bogroll. It is called Verily Verily: A place for my public musings re: what it means to remember Jesus within a community of faith and a community of scholarship, and is the work of Rafael Rodriguez. Both his subtitle, and his "maiden post" have grabbed my interest.

Welcome to my blog. I'll occasionally post thoughts pertaining to my own research (social memory theory, healings/exorcisms traditions in the synoptics, and historical Jesus research), current events/cultural phenomena, and the various discussions in other blogs I frequent. Feel free to leave comments as you feel inclined.

Well worth a look. The last two blogs discuss the idea of authenticity in historical Jesus study. And he references my recent post on the topic, how flattering!

Historical Interest and the Criteria of Authenticity

There are two assumptions that make the criteria of authenticity appear productive as a tool:[1] (1) The authors[2] of the gospels were uninterested in the actual happenings of Jesus life, deeming them irrelevant for their beliefs about him, or (2) the evangelists were poor historians, unreliable in the task of inquiry and presentation.

The first of these stands in contrast to the available evidence we possess concerning early Christian belief.[3] This can be quite clearly seen from passages such as 1 Cor 15, where the actuality of Jesus death and being raised back to life is foundational to the Christian hope.[4] In the opening verses to Luke’s gospel, he expresses his concern for the truth concerning Jesus (Luke 1.1-4). If the gospels embodied the conviction that Jesus actual words and actions were irrelevant in fiction, then it follows that the earliest Christian communities felt likewise, otherwise it is highly improbable that the gospel would ever have gained such a standing within the church as narratives concerning Jesus life. Indeed, they might be considered an insult?

The second assumption is unduly sceptical. Although it may gain strength from the variations[5] between the gospels, the solution seems rather to be that such variations were of no concern to the evangelists. Nevertheless, accepting that the evangelists were interested in the actual happenings of Jesus life, the second assumption assumes that they nevertheless did a poor job in gathering and presenting accurate information. In other words, they did poor history and have distorted the past as a result. The next move is then to purge the sources of inaccuracy by establishing, through the use of the "criteria of authenticity" (or at list indicate probability), what words recorded in the gospels actually came from Jesus lips (or his opponents?), or represent his words accurately,[6] and what actions he actually performed (and his opponents?). And more subtly, establishing the "original form" of these words, the actions, and the settings they most likely occurred in, given the redactional work of the evangelists and possibly the effects of oral memory, transmission, and performance upon the traditions.[7]

But working with the opposite assumption, we can see how the criteria for authenticity are of no real value for historical reconstruction. Upon examination of the criteria, we can see that the evangelists would have been in a far better position to employ them than any historian centuries removed.[8] The criteria of plausibility suggests that Jesus both fits somewhere within the variegated Judaism of the Second Temple period, and somewhere within earliest Christianity, that is, he reflects elements of continuity (and discontinuity) with both. There must be a level of continuity on both sides for a picture of Jesus to be plausible on a macro level. This criterion is also applied on a micro level, to the words placed on the lips of Jesus. Living within both the world of first-century Judaism and earliest Christianity, the evangelists would likely possess a superior understanding of both their Jewish and Christian neighbours, and so be at a far more advantageous position to test the sources by this criteria.[9] Hence it would be fair to assume that none of the material can be ruled out on the grounds that it is foreign in this respect, they would have picked up on something so out of place.

The criteria of multiple attestation is the test of whether a saying occurs in multiple sources or in multiple forms within the same or different sources. Thus, a saying is more likely authentic if it occurs in more than one of the gospels (and other early literature). The evangelists too, may have employed this criterion to their sources (whether written, but most likely received orally from people). This raises the possibility that although they have not cited their sources, they would not have made use of a saying which could not be verified by more than one source.[10] This could leave our employment of the criteria redundant and unnecessary as the job has been done at an earlier level much more effectively.

Further, whether we have any real hope of establishing the "original" or most accurate wording, setting, or place within the chronology of Jesus ministry for any one saying/event that we desire to have, and which the gospel producers were seemingly not interested in having, is highly doubtful.

If what I have argued above is correct, and the early Christians, including the producers of the gospels, were interested in the actual happenings of Jesus life to the degree that their religion was built upon them, then we can only assume that in their quest to stand true to this they did what they could to make sure of the reliability of their written testimony. We should not ascribe to them an undue gullibility, nor should we think the criteria to be too sophisticated for them, as they are obviously very simple. We are on no better grounds (in fact worse) than they were for verifying the actual words and actions of Jesus, or their settings.

The conviction that the producers of the gospels were either uninterested in the actual happenings of Jesus life and deemed them of no significance for their beliefs concerning Jesus is built not upon evidence but on an undue scepticism about the abilities or motives of the authors of the gospels and the early Christians. Consequently, the criteria of authenticity are of little value for establishing either authenticity or probable authenticity. I suppose we just need to be more trusting...

This is largely an experiment in thought and rests on establishing the early Christian conviction that their religion is rooted in history and that Jesus as he actually was is their Lord. I would appreciate your comments and criticisms.

---

[1] One holds either one or the other.

[2] I use the phrase “author” as a simple label without making any judgements about whether there are only one author behind each gospel.

[3] That the producers of the gospels were different in this account, and that they some how produced largely fictional works which came to be understood as historical, is unlikely, and requires some form of evidence. The simple possibility of it occurring, does not warrant us thinking that it did in the face of evidence to the contrary.

[4] That this is not simply "Paul’s thing" is clear from the fact that he appeals to it as established tradition, witnessed to by those at the heart of Christian movement from the beginning (vv.3-7). This passage of course says nothing of Jesus words and actions during his initial life. See Michael Birds blog entry, Jim West and Interest in the Historical Jesus.

[5] The variations are of three basic types: wording, narrative placement, and setting.

[6] There are other criteria than the two examples mentioned below, see John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew vol.1. But the criteria of embarrassment for instance, as a purely positive criteria does not interest us. Still, a similar line of argument as applied to the two examples could follow. as being closest to the beliefs of the earliest Christians, the producers of the Gospels would be in a better position to observe what saying or actions would have actually caused difficulty or embarrassment for them, sayings or actions we may not pick up on from our perspective.

[7] These are evidenced by the variations in wording, setting, and order of the telling of the purportedly single events between the gospels.

[8] I prefer the term "teachings" here over "words" because of the distinction between ispsissima verba and ipsissima vox noted above. By “teachings” I mean to refer to all of the words ascribed to Jesus in the written sources.

[9] Even if they were unaware of all the writings of the Pseudepigrapha or those found at Qumran

[10] If a saying came from some one who claimed to be an eye witness, then if the gospel producer was satisfied by some means of criteria that they were indeed, then multiple sources may have been deemed unnecessary.

John and Jesus Making History

Fllowing some recent blogging on the value of John's gospel for the study of the historical Jesus (Euangelion, Primal Subversion), I have decided to delve into the issue myself. I think the best way to start would be to understand the gospel itself, and only then ask secondary questions such as its value as a source for studying the historical Jesus. [1]

So, I have decided to do some research into the exegetical methods used in the study of John's gospel, beggining with Narrative Criticism. Following investigation into these methods I will then apply them with the due caution, and see what I find. Then, finally I will offer some suggestions concerning the fourth gospel as a source for the Jesus of history.

[1] In as much as the study of the historical Jesus is a study of his memory recorded in literature, the historian cannot simply skip over sources such as John's gospel, but must consider them all, even if the result is to deem them unhelpful as a source because they are not concerned with actual happenings or because they are too "artistic" in their representation. Nothing is irrelevant, as we are dealing with perceptions of Jesus, that is, Jesus remembered. The phrase "Jesus remembered" of course is Dunn's

If Not Pragmatism, What else?

My previous quote has got me thinking. The quote is concerned with ministry on a university campus. My questions is, how much instruction have we actually recieved from God on doing ministry? By ministry I mean all that could be encompased by the word mission, that is, making disciples of everyone everywhere.

I think that to be a disciple is to be on the journey of growing to love God and love others more and more.[1] The activities that the disciple then does serve this end and include studying the scriptures, being prayed for, praying for and praying with others, telling others the goodnews about Jesus and the kingdom, looking out for peoples needs and seeing that they are taken care of.

Our official ministries (church and para-church if one is willing to make the distinction at a practical or theological level) are then to be shaped to this end, to facilitate the above. But as I asked, how much instruction have we actually recieved from God on doing this? What we see in the NT is a contextual outworking of God's purposes and will. It is an example of how to embody his purposes faithfully. I think our task is to do the same, taking these examples as suggestive guides and tests for whether our embodiment is indeed faithful to God's purposes. Hence context will play a large factor, and so this translates into being contextually pragmatic. The NT has nothing about mission on a university campus, thats our field of creative embodyment.

The real problem I think arises when we misunderstand our mission. For example, if we think our task is to convert as many people as we can, then we may seek to fill our churche services with as many people as we can so that they can hear the truth. We then shape our church services according to the best way to do this, we are pragmatic about it.

When it comes down to it, what God is seeking is transformed lives in community. The only way this is going to come about in a real and lasting way is through the power of the Spirit constantly working among us. That is pragmatic! We must always "soak" our lives and ministries in prayer, sincerely seeking the Spirit's guidence. But when the voice does not whisper, we can only go with what works.

[1] See Scot McKnight, "The Jesus Creed: what is the focus of spiritual life?" Christian Century vol.121 issue.18

unpragmatic pragmatism -quote-

"Unprincipled pragmatism is in the end not only unfaithful, but also unpragamatic. We must be driven by what God calls us to do, not simply by what we think works, because God alone ultimately knows what works. We must trust him and follow his instructions."

Jenson, P. D. and Payne, T., "Church/Campus Connections: Model 1", 195, in Carson, D. A. (ed.), Telling the Truth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000) 195-205