Edgework

In the church community in which I grew up, any talk of “biblical criticism” was tantamount to treason. The Bible in the King James Version (KJV) was the Word of God, pure and simple. To “criticize” it was to criticize God, which was in effect equivalent to blasphemy. To tinker with this “authorized” version was a dangerous endeavor. Had Jesus not said that not one “jot or tittle” would pass from the law until all was fulfilled (Matthew 5:18)? And was it not stated in the closing verses of the Bible that there would be eternal consequences for anyone tampering with the Word as given (Revelation 22:18-19)? Every word in the KJV of the text was given directly by God. If there was talk of human agency in developing this text, it was overshadowed by the concept of divine instrumentality.

As I grew older and began thinking and studying for myself, I discovered this understanding of the Bible to be a myth. This became increasingly evident to me as various newer translations of the Bible began to emerge. How well I remember the angry and defensive voices pointing out errors in newer translations. Unfortunately, the term “biblical criticism” represented an assault on the “holy book” of many sincere believers. It would have been helpful if someone would have explained, as J. I. Packer did in later years, that “The proper meaning of criticism is not censure, as such, but appreciation”(Quoted by Harry R. Boer in The Bible and Higher Criticism, p. 16).

At its root, biblical criticism is the process of asking hard questions of the biblical text related to the human agency involved in producing that text. If one holds to a “dictation theory” in which it is thought that God dictated every word of the Bible – as Muslims believe about the Koran – then, of course, there is no room for biblical criticism. But serious biblical scholars have always recognized that the different books of the Bible were written by human beings and intended for specific audiences. So while it is legitimate to propose that God is communicating with us through the biblical text, as J. C. Wenger does in God’s Word Written (1966), it is also appropriate to inquire about the role human beings had in producing it. If we don’t, we fall into the trap of “docetism,” a teaching that denied Jesus’ humanity. If we hold that Jesus was both fully human and divine, it should not surprise us that the Christian scripture would also bear the marks of both human and divine agency.

However, a word of caution is needed at this point. In his book, Biblical Criticism in the Life of the Church (1986), Paul M. Zehr says, “I have discovered that some forms of (biblical) criticism are helpful while others are not…but if used carefully can give one new insights into the meaning of the biblical text” (19). Some scholars involved with biblical criticism work from a “naturalistic” presupposition that in the end makes the Bible out to be a purely human book like all others. But such an orientation is not demanded of a sound and proper use of biblical criticism. Nevertheless, fear of naturalistic conclusions scares some people away from deeper inquiry into the biblical text. However,  Zehr warns “…that a simplistic approach to Bible study will meet the needs of persons on a certain level of understanding, but will not satisfy the needs of the church over a period of years” (19).

There are two kinds of biblical criticism. One is known as “lower criticism;” the other as “higher criticism.” Lower criticism, also known as textual criticism, is a study of all ancient, biblical manuscripts for the purpose of ascertaining as close as possible what the actual words of the original documents were. Those defending the King James Bible during my youth were not aware that since its first edition came out in 1611, many more and much older documents had been discovered than were available in the 17th century. The irony in this sometimes “desperate” attempt to get at the original written words is that many of those words originated in oral traditions that had various versions themselves.

While there may be value in getting at the oldest texts possible, such an endeavor can also impose a kind of modern, scientific, precision on the biblical text which simply didn’t exist in earlier centuries. That means that we should be careful not to base our faith on getting the wording of our biblical text exactly right. In other words, when reading the Bible, we must always have a larger picture in mind than a precise chapter, verse or phrase to make a theological point.

There are four kinds of higher biblical criticism: literary, form, historical and redaction. Without going into detail, we will simply say that these forms of criticism deal with what lies behind the text. For example, it examines the obvious differences, and even apparent contradictions, in the four Gospels such as their differing versions of the resurrection event. It tries to understand how and why different writers described the same event differently. Zehr notes that, “Differences in the accounts need not disqualify the trustworthiness of the Gospel records. One would suspect fraud if each of the synoptic writers were exactly the same. Differences indicate that each writer wrote authentically as he was guided by the Holy Spirit” (48).

In my personal study and teaching experience I have found the Gospels to come alive in new ways when simply accepting the message contained in each account without trying to create a synchronized version of the accounts in all four Gospels.

While serious Bible students must be aware of the dangers involved in biblical criticism, to simply accept the Bible in our hands as God’s direct world to us – no questions asked – will not take us into the deeper revelations of truth contained in the Bible.