WHY FORM, SOURCE, AND REDACTION CRITICISMS ARE DANGEROUS TO STUDYING JESUS

Historical Criticism did not originate with biblical scholarship; nevertheless, its application to Gospel studies has produced disastrous results.  In order to understand the magnitude of this issue, it is essential to first understand the presuppositions that many liberal and/or secular scholars have about what Jesus “may have taught” and the “opinions” and “needs” of the church towards the end of the first century AD.  These scholars generally believe that the Gospel traditions originally circulated orally for a lengthy period of time after Jesus’ death (this is their “Stage 1” of the evolution of canonical Gospels), radical Form Critics would even argue this period lasted as long as 70 to 100 years.  However, toward the end of this period a number of these oral traditions began to be written down and preserved at different important churches in various regions of the Roman Empire.  Once the greater church realized that the generation responsible for orally transmitting these “traditions” was dying away, they began to congeal these materials, some of which were still oral and some of which were written, into fragmented narratives, which some scholars believe to be separate documents (this is Stage 2 of the evolution of canonical Gospels).  Some radical Source Critics refer to these materials as “Q,” “L,” “M,” and “proto-Mark.”  Furthermore, radical scholars assert that these fragmented narratives were predominately products of Christian communities instead of accurate records from actual eyewitnesses.  After another period of time, specific “redactors” (i.e., editors) gathered these materials and as used them as they composed their respective Gospels (this is Stage 3 of the evolution of canonical Gospels). Additionally, radical Redaction Critics assert that as these redactors used these anonymous sources they imposed upon them their own peculiar brand of theologies as they wrote.  I use the term “radical” for those who hold to these particular presumptions because their positions are unsupported by the historical data and because they abuse the very disciplines within which they are viewed as “experts.”  However, these disciplines are not exclusively used by liberal scholars.  There are conservative Evangelical scholars that use them to engage in constructive research of the Gospels, and they do so using a disciplined and unbiased research methodology.  The disciplines of Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism are actually neutral with respect to their specific fields of research.  The problem occurs when liberal and secular scholars abuse them to promote their own “radical” presuppositions and speculative theories about the trustworthiness of the Gospels.

And what are these dangerous presumptions of these radical scholars? As previously explained they are that the New Testament Gospels are not literary products from the eyewitnesses and immediate disciples of Jesus.  Instead, they are late compilations from multiple anonymous and fragmented sources that are more or less loosely based upon events involving an itinerant rabbi that the modern world refers to as Jesus.  Moreover, as these redactors (i.e., the authors of the canonical Gospels) composed their respective Gospels they imposed upon their sources the urgent felt needs of their Christian communities.  The Gospels are not, therefore, the accurate records of eyewitness accounts provided by Jesus’ immediate followers of what he actually taught and accomplished, but in general they are the “opinions” of regionally organized Christian communities concerning what Jesus might have said about what was really important to them during the time that the Gospels were being composed into their final form, which was almost a century later.

This model of literary development—which combines the disciplines of radical Form, Source, and Redaction Criticism—argues that the canonical Gospels are the products of oral and literary evolution.  Consequently, they suffered from serial redactions over a prolonged period of time in order to meet the ever changing and subjective felt needs of later Christian communities that were far removed from the original events that the Gospels actually document.  To liberal and/or skeptical scholars, therefore, these compositions cannot be trusted to provide any accurate historical evidence concerning the life of Jesus.  Instead, they merely reflect the “opinions” and theology of the organized church during the time in which they were composed.  Then finally, they argue, sometime in the late 4th and early 5th century the institutionalized church “christened” them with the status of “canonical.”

Some might ask, “Why would anyone promote such a ludicrous idea”?  Secular scholars make these conjectures simply because their worldview demands that everything changes and evolves, even things such as literature and religions.  Moreover, they approach all subjects such as philosophy, literature, culture, and religion with a bias against the existence of God and possibility of miracles.  They assert that since God does not exist or that He is not personal or knowable, then miracles cannot and do not occur.  There can be, therefore, only natural explanations for the origins of the Gospels found in the New Testament.  Consequently, they create evolutionary constructs consistent with their worldviews, while simultaneously ignoring all and any evidence to the contrary.  Consequently, their biases, conjectures, and conclusions are usually poorly defended.  Moreover, in many academic disciplines these types of conjectures and presuppositions are only applied to the research of religions, and especially with respect to the origin of Christianity.  For example, when reviewing copies of Chaucer poems, no competent scholar argues that the works of Chaucer have suffered from countless contaminations by the hands of multiple editors that have systemically changed or altered what the original author actually wrote—whoever he or she was.  They do, however, argue about the meaning of his poems, as do many New Testament scholars concerning the words of Jesus—and this is a legitimate endeavor.  Nevertheless, no one argues that the whole of Chaucer’s works are the literary products of serial redactors who did not actually know Chaucer, and the few that might are ultimately relegated to the trash heap of irrelevance—and rightly so.

It is important to note that Evangelical scholars do not reject the disciplines of Historical Criticism outright, but rather they reject the theoretical constructs and presuppositions that radical critics bring to their research of the Gospels.  For example, Evangelical scholars recognize that very early in church’s history there was an “oral” period of gospel proclamation, and that during this period these oral proclamations and traditions were the dominant vehicle for disseminating message and teachings of Jesus. However, this period only lasted for approximately 20 to 25 years before the first canonical Gospel was written. Moreover, this oral period continued to run concurrently as the canonical Gospels were being composed by their respective authors, two of which are literary products from Jesus’ personal disciples (e.g., Matthew and John), while other two were composed by their contemporaries, men with which the apostles were quite familiar (i.e., Mark being a disciple of the apostle Peter; and Luke being a travel companion of the apostle Paul).  Consequently, there is no hard evidence that the message that Jesus commissioned his disciples to proclaim (as documented in the Gospels), and which they faithfully disseminated during the “oral period” of the church’s history has ever suffered from constant subjective revisions or anonymous redactions. The very message that Jesus commissioned his immediate followers to preach is itself preserved and confirmed both in the book of Acts and the epistles of the New Testament. Consequently, Evangelical scholars do not reject the value of Form, Source, and Redaction Criticisms, instead they reject the speculative and undocumented late 3 stage evolutionary construct that radical Form, Source, and Redaction Critics promote while conjecturing about the development and untrustworthiness of the canonical Gospels. In short, the historical record documents that the same people who first orally proclaimed the gospel of Jesus Christ were also ultimately responsible for it being preserved in its current written form.

Consequently, when someone says that the Gospels are not historically reliable, then we should realize that they do not see them as we do.  Instead they are viewing them through a secular lens, whether intentionally or simply as the result of their passive education.  Regrettably, this perspective originated from the skeptical speculations contrived by radical Historical Critics.  These critics reject all objective historical evidence corroborating that the canonical Gospels are the compositions of Jesus’ immediate follows, and as such they provide eyewitness testimonies concerning him.  Consequently, the canonical Gospels are the only literary works that accurately document precisely what he taught and accomplished on our behalf, and any that reject them do so at their own peril.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2011

Read Full Post »

LITERACY, PAGAN RELIGIONS, AND JUDAISM

Occasionally while researching the historicity of the Old Testament you will come across scholars who argue that “Judaism” did not arise until the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile. The opinion of some liberal scholars is that the Jews did not really have their “religion” in literary form during the earliest periods in Hebrew history; instead the Hebrews relied almost exclusively in oral “forms” or stories to preserve their faith. Consequently, Judaism’s appreciation and obedience to its literature is a rather late development in Jewish spirituality and culture, a development that occurred when the Jews returned to the Southern Kingdom (i.e., Judea) from exile after the fall of the Babylonian empire at the hands of the Persians; thus the term “Judaism.”

Extremely radical and secular scholars would additionally assert that it was at this point that Judaism began to become distinctly different from pagan religions. Therefore, I wish to address this issue of orality (also aurality in some technical works) with respect to the pagan religions of the Roman world, as well as the true origin and basis of authentic Judaism, which always found its roots in its historical Hebrew faith and writings. For the remainder of the blog please understand that I am using the terms “the Hebrew faith” and “Judaism” as synonyms; consequently, understand that in this blog these concepts refer to the same belief system.

Judaism was very different compared to pagan religions because it was primarily a text-based faith—even in the very beginning during the time of Moses. Pagan religions, however, were all based on myths that were almost exclusively passed on via oral traditions and dissemination.  Pagan religions were different because unlike Judaism they were not based upon actual historical events (e.g., the Exodus; the Great Flood; the 40 year wanderings in the desert).  That is not to say that some pagan religions do not refer to actual historical events (e.g., the flood), but that at their core they are not based in reality, instead they are grounded in myths and legends about the mortal life and the pantheon.  Judaism, however, is based upon the historical reality of God’s personal intervention within human history.  Exclusive orality of tradition, therefore, has never been the basis of the Jewish faith (see Duet 4.1-2, 13-14; 6.4-9; Josh 1.6-9). From as early as the time of Moses, Judaism was founded upon written texts that are contained in the Old Testament, specifically beginning with the Pentateuch. Moreover, Jews were expected to be able to read and understand their religious texts if they wished to correctly obey them. Consequently, the literacy rate among Jews was in all probability higher than that of polytheistic Gentiles whose worldview consisted of a belief in the pantheon and mystery religions, which all were primarily rehearsed and preserved through oral mediums. Some modern scholars have suggested that the literacy rate during the Roman empire was around 10%, and even lower among Jews.  However, more recent scholarship has observed historical data that contradicts this assertion, as well as the apparent weaknesses and significant gaps in the research techniques of those who promote such a conjecture concerning Jewish literacy rates.

Nevertheless, this is not to say that oral traditions were not important in Judaism, for clearly oral traditions were a part of the practice of Judaism since Jews often depended upon priests, scribes, and Pharisees to explain the correct application of God’s word—and many of these later explanations were originally communicated orally. However, it is to say that unlike the pagan religions that surrounded Israel, Judaism was grounded in a written text that was fixed and not subject to change. This is evident in Jesus’ rebukes of his opponents for either their outright disobedience of God’s written word (Mark 7.1-13) or their misunderstanding of the emphasis of God’s Word (Matt 23.23-28).  Furthermore, Jesus, his opponents, and Paul all referred to the Law of Moses as being originally composed by Moses himself and containing the correct practice and theology of Judaism, as well as prophecies concerning the coming of the Messiah (Luke 20.28 & 37; Rom 10.5).  Most importantly, Jesus himself believed that Moses was the actual human author of the Mosaic Covenant in its original written form; consequently, his writings preserve the origin and correct practice of the Hebrew faith, which is referred to by Second Temple period scholarship as “Judaism.”  Jesus never credited Ezra or any of the scribes and priest from the Babylonian exile with the origins of Judaism (i.e., the original authentic beliefs and practices contained in the Mosaic Covenant). Jesus knew the progenitors of the Jewish nation were Abraham and Sarah, and the authentic Judaism began with the Mosaic Law, which was recorded and preserved by Moses himself (such an assertion does not deny that Moses may have used scribes to assist in recording the Mosaic Covenant; e.g., Joshua or Aaron).  Most importantly, Jesus argued that Moses actually wrote about him (John 5.45-47); consequently, if one is inclined to reject that Moses was the original author of the Torah, then they must also conclude that Jesus did not know what he was talking about, and thus Jesus was also a bumbling idiot and a fraud. It is more likely, however, that the incarnate God knew what he was talking about.

Some liberal scholars argue that there was no such thing as “writing” during the time of Moses, and whatever type of writing existed in that era the average Jew could not read it. This is a poorly defended argument; most scholars recognize that even in Moses time there existed styles of written communication among both the Egyptians (hieroglyphics) and the Hebrews (pre-paleo-Hebrew). Moreover, an very obscure passage in Judges 8.14 reveals that when Gideon capture a “young” man (or boy) that he was able to “write down” the names of the leaders of the city, which numbered more than 70 men.  It is not likely that later copyist would insert such an obvious potential anachronism into a text that they were inventing. It is more probable that they would have simply recorded that the boy “told” them the names of the leaders of the city.  However, the text states that it was the young boy that “wrote down” the names of the men that Gideon was seeking.  Consequently, to assert that these were not written forms of communication is simply ludicrous. In fact, in our technologically advanced modern era we are now returning to a similar method of communication with our Smartphones that is eerily similar to Egyptian hieroglyphics, which we call “emojis” and/or “memes.” For example, if you text to me a time and a place to have coffee and while doing so you insert an emoji of a cup of coffee with the following symbols “@ 9am @ McD’s”, and I text back to you a “thumbs up,” we both have communicated in written form even though we have not actually used English words.  Another example is a cigarette encircled in red with a red strip across it. Everyone knows that this symbol means that cigarette smoking is prohibited in that area. Consequently, Evangelical scholars should recognize that Moses communicated in some type of written form to the Hebrews the covenant that he received directly from God, and he expected them to be able to read and obey it for themselves.

This is not to assert, however, that we do not have “progressive revelation” from God contained in the scriptures. By progressive revelation I mean new prophetic writings inspired by God that reveal his will for his people during the rise and fall of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Consequently, the people of God received new prophetic and historic books that also became part of the canonical the Old Testament (e.g., Psalms, minor and major prophetical writings, and historical writings such as the books of Esther or Nehemiah). God continued to reveal himself to the Jews by speaking to them through his prophets who continued to faithfully preserve God’s commands and directives in written form. The preservation of God’s word into written form occurred before the exilic period, during the exilic period, as well as after the exilic period. It is to argue, however, that authentic Judaism was not “invented” during the exilic or post-exilic periods, as many radical liberal scholars assert. Consequently, the paradigm that radical Form Critics use to explain the “development” of the Old and New Testaments (i.e., that the sacred texts of both Jews and Christians “evolved” and changed over time) is severely flawed. The bottom line of this blog is that Jesus believed and taught that Moses was the original author of the Mosaic Covenant (i.e., the Pentateuch). It is this covenant, which was preserved in written form during the earliest periods of Jewish history, that provides the authentic origin and basis of the Hebrew faith. Moreover, the Hebrew faith, commonly referred to in biblical research as “Judaism,” was not originally preserved in written form until the exilic or post-exilic periods; instead it finds its origins from the very hand of Moses himself. Consequently, since Jesus believed and taught that the recording of Judaism originally began with Moses, this should be our conviction as well.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2012

 

Read Full Post »