Historical Criticism
and the Biblical Witness

Posted June 2, 1996
 

The Definition of Chalcedon (451)
and the Two Natures of Jesus Christ

The definition of Chalcedon stated categorically that Jesus is both God and human:

He is of the same reality as God [homoousion to patri] as far as his deity is concerned and of the same reality as we are ourselves [homoousion hemin] as far as his human-ness is concerned; thus like us in all respects, sin only excepted.

Excerpt from the Definition of Chalcedon as quoted in John H. Leith, ed., _Creeds of the Churches_. Rev. Ed., (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1973) 36.

Chalcedon refused to resolve the paradox by stressing one nature at the expense of the other.

And this issue, far from being an obscure, theological problem, has major practical consequences for all aspects of Christian life and thought:

A doctrine of the person of Christ, for example, that did not take seriously the historic life of Jesus would not likely take history in general very seriously. (Leith, p.34) 

There are, IMHO, two realities in the Christian world that are our most tangible media for recognizing, sharing and responding to Jesus Christ, the Word of God, in this world: the Bible and the Church.

It seems to me that if one takes Chalcedon seriously, one is left with a Church (understood as the living witness to that Word) and a Bible (understood as the written witness to that Word) which is " like us in all respects, sin only excepted."

And as we are not inerrant or infallible, it seems both reasonable AND orthodox to consider both the writings of the Bible and the Creeds of the Church as neither inerrant or infallible regarding their human character.

This in no way compromises, again according to the Definition of Chalcedon, their divine or supernatural character as inspired and authoritative witnesses to the Word of God.

The Enlightenment as the Context for the
 Historical-Criticism of the Bible

What characterized the Enlightenment? What distinguished it from prior world views - and, in certain respects, distinguishes it from our own?

How did the new intellectual climate differ from the old? Concentrating on essentials, three points may be stressed. First, whereas medieval, Renaissance, and Reformation thinkers all assumed that past knowledge was the most reliable source of wisdom, the greatest thinkers from the seventeenth century onward rejected any obeisance to ancient authority and resolved to rely on their own intellects to see where knowledge would lead them. ... Second, the new breed of thinkers believed strongly that knowledge was valueless if it could not be put to use.
...
Finally, the new climate of opinion was characterized by the demystification of the universe. Up until the mid-seventeenth century, most people, learned and unlearned, assumed that the universe was driven and inhabited by occult forces that humans could barely understand and surely never control unless they were magicians. but around 1660 a mechanistic worldview swept away occultism, and pixies became consigned to the realm of children's storybooks. Thereafer nature was believed to work like the finest mechanical clock - consummately predictable and fully open to human understanding.

Robert E. Lerner, et. al., _Western Civilizations_. 11th Ed., (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1988) 643 - 644.

This rejection of ancient authority in favor of independent, rational enquiry, and the demystification of the universe revolutionized all social and natural sciences. And it was inevitable that it would have its effect on people's understanding of the Bible.

Three hundred and more years into the Enlightenment, what do many Bible scholars believe they have learned about the Bible?

Let's look at the Jesus Seminar's "Seven Pillars of Scholarly Wisdom"  as an example - paying particular attention to Enlightenment influences:

Two pillars of modern biblical criticism were now in place. The first was the distinction between the historical Jesus, to be uncovered by historical excavation, and the Christ of faith encapsulated in the first creeds. The second pillar consisted of recognizing the synoptic gospels as much closer to the historical Jesus than the Fourth Gospel, which presented a 'spiritual' Jesus.

Robert W. Funk, et. al., _The Five Gospels_. (New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1993) p.3

These first two pillars, IMHO, both show strong Enlightenment influences. The first in its assumption that there even IS a historical Jesus who can (or should) be distinguished from the Jesus of the Bible, and the second in its willingness to make critical judgments on the various books of scripture regarding their adequacy as historical sources.

And the Jesus Seminar project as a whole reveals a strong Enlightenment influence in its freedom from "ecclesiastical and religious control" ( Funk, p. xviii).

By 1900 the third and fourth pillars of modern critical scholarship were also in place. The recognition of the Gospel of Mark as prior to Matthew and Luke, and the basis for them both, is the third pillar. A fourth pillar was the identification of the hypothetical source Q as the explanation for the 'double tradition' - the material Matthew and Luke have in common beyond their dependence on Mark (Funk, p.3).

The third and fourth pillars reveal additional Enlightenment influence: the unwillingness to take the tradition's alleged testimony that the gospel accounts are the result of eyewitness reports, and the hypothesis of a long, complex history of tradition between those elements in the gospels which are historical and their presence in the text as we possess it.

<snipped section which outline's Albert Schweitzer's hypothesis that the Jesus of history was eschatological believing in the immanent end of the age, and following the lead of John the Baptist>

The liberation of the non-eschatological Jesus of the aphorisms and parables from Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus is the fifth pillar of contemporary scholarship (Funk, p.4).

The fifth pillar MAY reveal an Enlightenment bias in that a Jesus who is a wisdom teacher is more palatable in our world than a Jesus who anticipates a cosmic war between heavenly and demonic powers and the immanent end of the world.

A sixth pillar of modern gospel scholarship. to be explored subsequently, consists of the recognition of the fundamental contrast between the oral culture (in which Jesus was at home) and a print culture (like our own). The Jesus whom historians seek will be found in those fragments of tradition that bear the imprint of orality: short, provocative, memorable, oft-repeated phrases, sentences, and stories (Funk, p.4)

Again, words are not accepted as being from Jesus simply based on attribution within the tradition: words attributed to Jesus must pass the test of orality to be accepted as authentic by the Jesus Seminar.

The seventh and final pillar that supports the edifice of contemporary gospel scholarship is the reversal that has taken place regarding who bears the burden of proof.
...
The current assumption is more nearly the opposite and indicates how far scholarship has come since Strauss: the gospels are now assumed to be narratives in which the memory of Jesus is embellished by mythic elements that express the church's faith in him, and by plausible fictions that enhance the telling of the gospel story for first-century listeners who knew about divine men and miracle workers firsthand. Supposedly historical elements in these narratives must therefore be demonstrated to be so (Funk, pp.4-5).

This overall critical stance towards the text is certainly unlike anything found in the pre-Enlightenment tradition.

Interpreting the Bible in the Context of Chalcedon and the Enlightenment Viewpoint

The biblical witness, IMHO, expresses particular worldviews of particular communities united - if in no other way - by their belief in Yahweh. These worldviews were historically conditioned and relative.

The natural and social scientists of the Enlightenment, again IMHO, expressed their particular worldviews of their particular communities united - if in no other way - by their belief that truth is to be found in the present, that the truth must be useful, and that the universe can be understood by rational enquiry. These worldviews were also historically conditioned and relative - as any modern physicist knows.

The historical-critical method, with its Enlightenment presuppositions, certainly does justice to the Bible as a human, historically relative document.

Does it allow the Bible to speak as the divinely inspired and authoritative Word of God?

I believe it does.

It is the Holy Spirit, not any doctrine of biblical or creedal inerrancy, that allows the Bible and the creeds to witness to Jesus Christ, the Word of God. Without the ministry of the Holy Spirit all Bible exegesis and theologizing is in vain. And that Holy Spirit is not bound to any age.

With the Holy Spirit, people using methods of interpretation as diverse as the ones used by the Apostle Paul, Origen, Augustine, Aquinas, D.L. Moody, Albert Schweitzer, Francis Schaeffer (sp?) and even John Dominic Crossan :-) can arrive at a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

The clear lesson of Christian Church history, again IMHO, is that there is no need to "guard"  Jesus Christ in the shell of a first century worldview anymore than our successors will find it necessary to "guard"  Jesus Christ in the shell of an Enlightenment worldview.

An interpretation of the passion narratives of the four gospels, to use an example, yield vastly different interpretations depending on whether one is reading the text traditionally or critically.

The traditional approach gives us an interpretation of the events from the viewpoint of authorized Christian doctrine (with all the bias that implies), and I believe that interpretation has its place.

But it is a mistake, IMHO, to take such an interpretation as a historical reconstruction of the events.

The critical approach gives us an interpretation of the events from the viewpoint of Enlightenment (with all the bias THAT implies), and I believe that interpretation has its place.

But it is a mistake, again IMHO, to take such an interpretation as a valid doctrinal confession.

And if the two interpretations contradict, it may be wise to ask whether they contradict in fact or whether, considering the vast difference in perspectives between the two approaches, they are merely talking at cross purposes to each other.

I do not believe either interpretation exhausts God's storehouse of natural and revealed truth, and I certainly do not believe it is necessary to condemn fellow believers who use a different hermeneutic in their encounter with God in the Bible.

Let us be open to the Church - the whole Church, not any one denomination - and its members as they all use the various talents - including historical-critical talents - that God has bestowed on them to witness to Jesus Christ as he has been encountered in the Bible, the Church and the world.

Return to top of page.

Return to Bible page.

Return to Archive

Return to The Inclusive Christian

Bill Bekkenhuis

Return to top of page.