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 »

DIRTY LITTLE SECRETS CONCERNING “Q”

The Dirty Secrets about “Q” and the Synoptic Question (or Problem)

This blog discusses what is often referred to as the “Synoptic Problem”; however, you may notice that I refer to it as the “Synoptic Question.” Calling it a “problem” implies that there is something is wrong with the canonical Gospels; consequently, I refer to this issue as a question rather than a problem.  I call it a question because basically what we are seeking to answer is the question of which Synoptic Gospel was written first; and what if any literary relationships (i.e., “dependence”) did the other Synoptic Gospels have to that particular Gospel. Consequently, we are dealing with a question or a riddle instead of a “problem.” When attempting to answer this question, one particular conjecture/theory is always brought up, and it is a theory concerning a source commonly referred to as “Q.” Consequently, in this particular blog I want to briefly let you in on some dirty little secrets concerning controversies about this uncorroborated source. A cautionary note before continuing—not all Evangelical scholars that believe Q existed are “liberal.” I know many conservative scholars and I have many friends who believe that Q existed.  They are people that I admire and respect, they are not liberal in their theology or view of the canon—quite the opposite, they are conservative. This blog is not to be used as a litmus test for determining who is a conservative Evangelical and who is not.  You should understand that this blog specifically addresses the biases of scholars who have rejected the doctrines of inspiration and inerrancy. So please keep this in mind as you read.

First, please understand that only theological nerds (myself included) generally engage in this debate.  I seriously doubt that in your current or future ministries there will be many that ask you about Q.  That is not to say, however, that you will not have to deal with the fallout that this controversy often generates.  Some in your church will have been indoctrinated by liberal and/or unbelieving professors that assume that this document existed, and they also believe that the ancient church has changed this “original and more accurate source” to “create” a Jesus that met the ancient church’s immediate felt needs by the time the canonical Gospels were finally composed. Consequently, they argue that Gospels in the Bible are seriously flawed since they are filled with misinformation and myths.  These scholars will have passed their biases and suspicions on to their students, some of whom will end up in your churches.  Therefore, do not for a minute assume that this controversy is not relevant to your ministries—even if you are never specifically asked anything about “Q.”  Okay, so here are a few real problems concerning Q, as well as any other potential anonymous “source material” that may have been used to compose the canonical Gospels.

Secret #1: “Will the Real Q Please Stand Up?”  If you investigate Q with any depth you will quickly discover that there is a plethora of different schools of thought concerning what kind of document(s) it may have been.  In fact, there is so much diversity of opinion about Q that it’s difficult to have an intelligent discussion about it.  Ironically, scholars can’t even agree on who originally came up with the idea; but for the sake of this blog, we will go with C. H. Weisse.  When Q was originally conjectured by Weisse in 1838 he argued that it was a Greek document that contained some of the teachings and deeds of Jesus—a type of “Gospel narrative” if you will.  Initially, it was presented as an early Greek pre-Gospel that both Matthew and Luke used along with the Gospel of Mark while writing their respective Gospels (i.e., the Two Source Theory/Hypothesis).  However, there are two very real problems concerning this assertion.  First, it is only a theory that such a document ever existed.  Moreover, we have no hard historical evidence confirming that it actually existed.  Let me be clear, there is no historical reference to Q in the annuals of church or secular history, and no one has ever produced a physical manuscript or copy of it, not one.  The closest possible reference to Q is found in Luke’s prologue (see Luke 1.1-4).  But Luke did not say that he employed “many anonymous written sources” to compose his Gospel, but rather that he engaged in his own investigation and then wrote his Gospel based upon his interviews of specific eyewitnesses of Jesus’ ministry and teachings.  He did, however, mention the existence of other written sources.  Nevertheless, since Luke had access to the apostles (i.e., the “eyewitnesses and servants of the word”) he relied upon their testimonies rather than anonymous random sources that he could not verify and corroborate.  Moreover, Luke’s grammar clearly indicates that he was referring to a single group of witnesses, not 2 different groups. Luke did not write that he interviewed one group who were eyewitnesses and then another group that he referred to as “servants of the word.”  Luke’s grammar indicates that the two descriptions refer to a single group.  An example of this would be a solider describing his squad in the following manner: “We are soldiers and brothers in arms.”  We would not understand this description to mean that the soldier was referring to 2 separate groups, one of which are his biological brothers who are not soldiers, and the other being his fellow soldiers.  Instead, we understand that he is describing the same group in 2 different ways.  Similarly, Luke’s grammar indicates that he was referring to only one group of witnesses as his sources, not two.  To put it clearly, Luke wrote in such a way that it is clear that his primary sources were individuals who were both eyewitnesses of Jesus and those that he commissioned to preach “the word”; i.e., the good news about his sacrifice for forgiveness for sins (Luke 24.44-48).  However, the only written sources that the manuscript evidence reveals that Luke relied upon as he wrote his own Gospel are the Gospels of Mark and Matthew, and possibly Jesus’ genealogical records (which would have been stored at the Temple in Jerusalem), as well as possible some court records of Jesus’ interrogations and trials.  Furthermore, the manuscript evidence clearly indicates that he primarily relied upon the Gospel of Mark (commonly referred to as Markan Priority), which church history indicates was exclusively based upon the remembrances of the apostle Peter (cf. Papias, ca. AD 110).  Consequently, the assertion that Luke referred to an independent anonymous and mysterious Q document in his prologue is not well defended.

Nevertheless, in spite of the dearth of evidence for Q’s existence, opinions concerning its nature and contents are all over the map.  Consequently, there is no longer any possible way to have a meaningful conversation about Q since there is no real consensus concerning it and its contents.  This means that having a productive dialogue about it is virtually impossible.  Ironically, there are even a few scholars that argue that Q also contained a “pool” of oral traditions as well.  Regrettably, this lack of evidence and consensus concerning Q has never stopped some secular scholars from making wild conjectures that cast suspicion upon the possible sources and historicity of the canonical Gospels.  Given the current environment of this debate, it will be hard for you to adequately answer questions involving the canonical Gospels if you first grant that Q actually existed.  The difficulty of discussing the origins and sources of the canonical Gospels arises simply because this mythical document is an ever-evolving moving target.  Essentially, it is like trying to knockout your own shadow, no matter how many punches you throw you will never land the first blow.

Secret #2: Q Is Not an Inspired, Infallible, or Inerrant Document!  Here is the biggest problem with granting that Q really existed, let us say for the sake of argument that Q is discovered—should it be added to the list of canonical Gospels?  The answer is no since theoretically speaking no one knows who wrote it (c.f., the canonical test of apostolicity).  However, there exists excellent historical evidence concerning the authorship of all 4 canonical Gospels.  But therein lies the problem, liberal and/or secular scholars will view Q as the most accurate source for information about the man history refers to as Jesus of Nazareth because they will view Q as the more ancient source.  Armed with this very conjecture liberal scholars consistently assert that Q is really the basis from which all of the Synoptic Gospels were composed.  But some might say, “So what, what’s the big deal?”  The big deal is this—what if Q contains misinformation concerning Jesus?  For example, let’s assume that several months after Jesus’ crucifixion that the Jerusalem Times published “fake news” about Jesus and what happened during his trials, which was an exposé funded and directed by the Sanhedrin and some leading Pharisees.  Liberal scholars will not assert that the writers of the canonical Gospels have corrected the “mistakes” or “errors” contained in the article published by the Times.  Instead they will argue that it was the authors of the canonical Gospels that have changed and edited their more primitive source in order to create the Jesus that we read about in our Bibles.  In other words, the Jesus found in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is really just a “media” creation of the early church rather than the most accurate record of the historical person known as Jesus of Nazareth.  They will assert that the best we can know about Jesus is that he was a first-century radical itinerant rabbi that the Roman government executed for some unknown but politically expedient reason.  You can now see the catastrophic problem such a document would create.  It would forever cast doubt on the canonical Gospels, which history documents were composed by Jesus’ closest disciples (i.e., Matthew and John who participated in his ministry and witnessed his resurrection), or their close associates (i.e., Mark being a disciple of Peter and Luke being an associate of Paul).  Moreover, we believe that only the canonical Gospels are historical biographies concerning the life and ministry of Jesus of Nazareth that are inspired by the Holy Spirit.  It is the canonical Gospels together, therefore, that provide the truth about Jesus, his teachings, and what he accomplished on behalf of the world.

Secrete #3: “Q Is the Dream of Skeptics Everywhere.”  Finding any historical data implying that Q actually existed is the hope and dream of all unbelieving scholars who despise the message of Jesus Christ.  They would use such a document to forever cast dispersion on the more accurate historical accounts written by the immediate followers of Jesus; thus proving in their eyes that the canonical Gospels are nothing more than fallacious propaganda created by crazed fanatics who propagated upon a naïve world history’s greatest hoax.  And when liberal Christian scholars engage in baseless speculations involving existence and nature of uncorroborated sources for the canonical Gospels (such as Q), they are unknowingly playing with a raging fire.

Secret #4: Any potential evidence for Q actually provides greater evidence that either Luke depended upon Matthew’s Gospel or vice versa!  This is by far the best kept secret concerning Q!  For the sake of the following discussion, let’s assume Luke’s dependence upon the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  Once someone interjects Q in between Matthew and Luke, all they really have done is provide additional support that Luke had access to and depended upon Matthew’s Gospel in a similar manner as he did with Mark’s Gospel.  But some scholars point the differences in Luke’s portrayal of events that are also documented in Matthew’s Gospel.  They argue that Luke would never have redacted Matthew’s work; consequently, these differences suggest that there must have been an additional source to account for the changes between their shared material.  That would be compelling argument if it were not for the fact that Luke often redacted material he used from Mark’s Gospel. Luke was not just a scribe or copyist, he was an author, a historian, and a theologian in his own right.  He had his own Spirit inspired emphasis with respect to the events that he documented in his Gospel, many of which are also documented in the Gospels of Mark and Matthew.  Consequently, there is absolutely no evidence from Luke’s Gospel supporting the existence of the uncorroborated document known as Q that does not first provide greater evidence that Luke depended upon an existing document that scholars today have access to, which is the Gospel of Matthew.

The bottom line for this blog is this: we do not affirm inspiration and inerrancy upon whatever now lost non-canonical literary sources the Gospel authors may have used as they wrote the canonical Gospels.  We only recognize the reality of inspiration upon the canonical Gospels, and we have solid grounds to do so since we have reliable historical evidence corroborating their authorship and when they were composed.  Consequently, they and they alone are the earliest and most accurate contemporaneous historical biographies on the life of Jesus of Nazareth.   Only the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John are inspired, not any non-canonical source(s) they may have used—and this is especially true with respect to the mythical document often referred to as Q.  This is what we affirm, and this is what the early church affirmed with respect to the canonical Gospels as well.

Doc.

Monte Shanks Copyright © 2013

Read Full Post »