PART ONE

THE PROFESSION OF FAITH

SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"

CHAPTER TWO
GOD COMES TO MEET MAN

ARTICLE 3
SACRED SCRIPTURE

I. CHRIST - THE UNIQUE WORD OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

101 In order to reveal himself to men, in the condescension of his goodness God speaks to them in
human words: "Indeed the words of God, expressed in the words of men, are in every way like human
language, just as the Word of the eternal Father, when he took on himself the flesh of human weakness,
became like men."63

102 Through all the words of Sacred Scripture, God speaks only one single Word, his one Utterance in
whom he expresses himself completely:64

You recall that one and the same Word of God extends throughout Scripture, that it is one and the same Utterance that
resounds in the mouths of all the sacred writers, since he who was in the beginning God with God has no need of
separate syllables; for he is not subject to time.65

103 For this reason, the Church has always venerated the Scriptures as she venerates the Lord's Body.
She never ceases to present to the faithful the bread of life, taken from the one table of God's Word and
Christ's Body.66

104 In Sacred Scripture, the Church constantly finds her nourishment and her strength, for she welcomes
it not as a human word, "but as what it really is, the word of God". 67 "In the sacred books, the Father who
is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them."68

II. INSPIRATION AND TRUTH OF SACRED SCRIPTURE

105 God is the author of Sacred Scripture. "The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and
presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy
Spirit."69

"For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the
books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that,
written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author, and have been handed on
as such to the Church herself."70

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose
certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and
powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to
writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

107 The inspired books teach the truth. "Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers
affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of
Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation,
wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures."72

108 Still, the Christian faith is not a "religion of the book." Christianity is the religion of the "Word" of God,
a word which is "not a written and mute word, but the Word is incarnate and living".73 If the Scriptures are
not to remain a dead letter, Christ, the eternal Word of the living God, must, through the Holy Spirit, "open
[our] minds to understand the Scriptures."74

III. THE HOLY SPIRIT, INTERPRETER OF SCRIPTURE

109 In Sacred Scripture, God speaks to man in a human way. To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader
must be attentive to what the human authors truly wanted to affirm, and to what God wanted to reveal to
us by their words.75

110 In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of
their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and
narrating then current. "For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various
types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression." 76

111 But since Sacred Scripture is inspired, there is another and no less important principle of correct
interpretation, without which Scripture would remain a dead letter. "Sacred Scripture must be read and
interpreted in the light of the same Spirit by whom it was written." 77

The Second Vatican Council indicates three criteria for interpreting Scripture in accordance with the Spirit
who inspired it.78

112 1. Be especially attentive "to the content and unity of the whole Scripture". Different as the books
which compose it may be, Scripture is a unity by reason of the unity of God's plan, of which Christ Jesus
is the center and heart, open since his Passover.79

The phrase "heart of Christ" can refer to Sacred Scripture, which makes known his heart, closed before the Passion, as
the Scripture was obscure. But the Scripture has been opened since the Passion; since those who from then on have
understood it, consider and discern in what way the prophecies must be interpreted. 80

113 2. Read the Scripture within "the living Tradition of the whole Church". According to a saying of the
Fathers, Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and
records, for the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word, and it is the Holy Spirit
who gives her the spiritual interpretation of the Scripture (". . . according to the spiritual meaning which
the Spirit grants to the Church"81).

114 3. Be attentive to the analogy of faith.82 By "analogy of faith" we mean the coherence of the truths of
faith among themselves and within the whole plan of Revelation.

The senses of Scripture

115 According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter
being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its
richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.

116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound
interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal."83

117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God's plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about
which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their
significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ's victory and also of
Christian Baptism.84

2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they
were written "for our instruction".85

3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, "leading"). We can view realities and events in terms of their
eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the
heavenly Jerusalem.86

118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:

The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;

The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
119 "It is the task of exegetes to work, according to these rules, towards a better
understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture in order that their
research may help the Church to form a firmer judgement. For, of course, all that has
been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the
judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and
ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God."88
But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. 89

IV. THE CANON OF SCRIPTURE

120 It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to
be included in the list of the sacred books.90 This complete list is called the canon of
Scripture. It includes 46 books for the Old Testament (45 if we count Jeremiah and
Lamentations as one) and 27 for the New.91
The Old Testament: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings,
1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song
of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel,
Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah and Malachi.

The New Testament: the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark,

Luke and John, the Acts of the Apostles, the Letters of St. Paul to the Romans,
1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2
Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, the Letter to the
Hebrews, the Letters of James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2 and 3 John, and
Jude, and Revelation (the Apocalypse).

The Old Testament

121 The Old Testament is an indispensable part of Sacred Scripture. Its books are
divinely inspired and retain a permanent value,92 for the Old Covenant has never been
revoked.

122 Indeed, "the economy of the Old Testament was deliberately so oriented that it
should prepare for and declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, redeemer of all
men."93 "Even though they contain matters imperfect and provisional,"94 the books of
the Old Testament bear witness to the whole divine pedagogy of God's saving love:
these writings "are a storehouse of sublime teaching on God and of sound wisdom on
human life, as well as a wonderful treasury of prayers; in them, too, the mystery of
our salvation is present in a hidden way."95

123 Christians venerate the Old Testament as true Word of God. The Church has
always vigorously opposed the idea of rejecting the Old Testament under the pretext
that the New has rendered it void (Marcionism).

The New Testament

124 "The Word of God, which is the power of God for salvation to everyone who has
faith, is set forth and displays its power in a most wonderful way in the writings of the
New Testament"96 which hand on the ultimate truth of God's Revelation. Their central
object is Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son: his acts, teachings, Passion and
glorification, and his Church's beginnings under the Spirit's guidance.97

125The Gospels are the heart of all the Scriptures "because they are our principal
source for the life and teaching of the Incarnate Word, our Savior".98

126 We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:

1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels,
"whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son
of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation,
until the day when he was taken up."99

2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to
their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they,
instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now
enjoyed."100

3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected
certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in
written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the
churches, the while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that
they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101

127 The fourfold Gospel holds a unique place in the Church, as is evident both in the
veneration which the liturgy accords it and in the surpassing attraction it has exercised
on the saints at all times:
There is no doctrine which could be better, more precious and more splendid than the text of the Gospel. Behold and
retain what our Lord and Master, Christ, has taught by his words and accomplished by his deeds. 102

But above all it's the gospels that occupy my mind when I'm at prayer; my poor soul has so many needs, and yet this is
the one thing needful. I'm always finding fresh lights there; hidden meanings which had meant nothing to me hitherto. 103

The unity of the Old and New Testaments

128 The Church, as early as apostolic times,104 and then constantly in her Tradition,
has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology,
which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefigurations of what he
accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his incarnate Son.

129 Christians therefore read the Old Testament in the light of Christ crucified and
risen. Such typological reading discloses the inexhaustible content of the Old
Testament; but it must not make us forget that the Old Testament retains its own
intrinsic value as Revelation reaffirmed by our Lord himself.105 Besides, the New
Testament has to be read in the light of the Old. Early Christian catechesis made
constant use of the Old Testament.106 As an old saying put it, the New Testament lies
hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New.107

130 Typology indicates the dynamic movement toward the fulfillment of the divine
plan when "God [will] be everything to everyone."108 Nor do the calling of the
patriarchs and the exodus from Egypt, for example, lose their own value in God's
plan, from the mere fact that they were intermediate stages.
V. SACRED SCRIPTURE IN THE LIFE OF THE CHURCH

131 "And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church
as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith,
food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life."109 Hence "access to
Sacred Scripture ought to be open wide to the Christian faithful."110

132 "Therefore, the study of the sacred page should be the very soul of sacred
theology. The ministry of the Word, too - pastoral preaching, catechetics and all forms
of Christian instruction, among which the liturgical homily should hold pride of place
- is healthily nourished and thrives in holiness through the Word of Scripture." 111
133 The Church "forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful. . . to
learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine
Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.112
IN BRIEF

134 All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all
divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh
of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8:PL 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9:PL 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired,
they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he
acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach
without error his saving truth (cf. DV11).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God
wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the
Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4,
5: PG 12, 320).

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament
and the 27 books of the New.

139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his
Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills
the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the
Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your
word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4).

63 DV 13.
64 Cf. Heb 1:1-3.
65 St. Augustine, En. in Ps. 103,4,1:PL 37,1378; cf. Ps 104; Jn 1:1.
66 Cf. DV 21.
67 1 Thes 2:13; cf. DV 24.
68 DV 21.
69 DV 11.
70 DV 11; cf. Jn 20:31; 2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:19-21; 3:15-16.
71 DV 11.
72 DV 11.
73 St. Bernard, S. missus est hom. 4,11:PL 183,86.
74 Cf. Lk 24:45.
75 Cf. DV 12 1.
76 DV 12 2.
77 DV 12 3.
78 Cf. DV 12 4.
79 Cf. Lk 24:25-27,44-46.
80 St. Thomas Aquinas, Expos. in Ps. 21,11; cf. Ps 22:14.
81 Origen, Hom. in Lev. 5,5:PG 12,454D.
82 Cf. Rom 12:6.
83 St. Thomas Aquinas, STh I, 1, 10, ad I.
84 Cf. 1 Cor 10:2.
85 1 Cor 10:11; cf. Heb 3:1-4:11.
86 Cf. Rev 21:1-22:5.
87 Lettera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia; Augustine of Dacia, Rotulus pugillaris, I: ed.
A. Walz: Angelicum 6 (1929) 256.
88 DV 12 3.
89 St. Augustine, Contra epistolam Manichaei, 5,6:PL 42,176.
90 Cf. DV 8 3.
91 Cf. DS 179; 1334-1336; 1501-1504.
92 Cf. DV 14.
93 DV 15.
94 DV 15.
95 DV 15.
96 DV 17; cf. Rom 1:16.
97 Cf. DV 20.
98 DV 18.
99 DV 19; cf. Acts 1:1-2.
100 DV 19.
101 DV 19.
102 St. Caesaria the Younger to St. Richildis and St. Radegunde, SCh 345, 480.
103 St. Thrse of Lisieux, ms. autob. A 83v.
104 Cf. 1 Cor 10:6,11; Heb 10:l; l Pet 3:21.
105 Cf. Mk 12:29-31
106 Cf. 1 Cor 5:6-8; 10:1-11.
107 Cf. St. Augustine, Quaest. in Hept. 2,73:PL 34,623; Cf. DV 16.
108 1 Cor 15:28.
109 DV 21.
110 DV 22.
111 DV 24.
112 DV 25; cf. Phil 3:8 and St. Jerome, Commentariorum in Isaiam libri xviii prol.:PL 24,17B.

What Is the Historical-Critical Method?

When biblical scholars write about the historical-critical method, they are using
shorthand for a whole collection of methodologies and strategies for understanding
the ancient texts in the Bible.

The "Historical" in "Historical-Critical"

It only makes sense that we should interpret ancient texts against the background of
what we can know of their historical settings. The crux of historical interpretation is
that our conviction that the ancient authors reflected their own historical situation and
wrote to address people of their own time and place.

The Book of Genesis in chapters 37 and 39-41 tells us that a Hebrew man named
Joseph had an altercation with his brothers and found himself in slavery in Egypt as a
result. The book goes on to tell us about how Joseph through his fundamental honesty
and an unusual ability to interpret dreams overcame his situation to become the first
assistant to the Egyptian king.

The story immediately raises questions. How could a semi-nomad from Palestine rise
to such heights in ancient Egypt with or without the ability to interpret dreams? Is this,
perhaps, a piece of fiction designed to show how God was able to save the Hebrew
people during times of distress?

Maybe. But it just so happens that there was a period, albeit a fairly short period, in
which Palestinians did indeed rule in Egypt in exactly the manner suggested for
Joseph. These people the Greek historian Herodotus called Hyksos, a name we now
understand to mean in Egyptian "rulers from foreign lands." The Hyksos period in
Egypt lasted roughly from 1720-1550, but the shepherd kings from Palestine did
indeed rule by insinuating their own leader into the position of vizier to the Pharoah,
exactly the position Joseph occupies in Egypt.

Does this prove the story is factually accurate? No. Yet it does suggest that whoever
penned the story of Joseph we read in Genesis had some knowledge of Egypt's
history. The story fits into a known historical period about which we have written
resources. Fiction or history, the author did some homework.

It's important, though, to recognize that the author did not write in the 18th century
BCE. Far from it. The material largely comes from two authors, J and E, sources
we've learned in class stem from the Iron II period, not the Middle Bronze Age. We
need to be at least as concerned about their historical situation as about the situation of
Joseph in Egypt.

If we are right about the dates for J and E, the Yahwist (J) penned his account in the
9th century as Judah was having to adjust to being a small, third-rate power in the
Middle East, a situation far different from the situation under the great kings David
and Solomon. J has to address the situation of disappointment and apprehension.
When Judah was only one portion of a large empire, it was easy to believe in the
future of the Hebrew people in Palestine and imagine the good favor of their God
upon them. It was not so easy to believe these things as the country began to shrink
into a small, almost landlocked nation with enemies on every side.

E, many believe, was a history that derived from Judah's northern sibling, Israel. Our
best estimation is that the author wrote just before the decimation of the nation by
Sargon in 722 BCE. Perhaps this work was an attempt to understand the serious peril
of the nation. Unlike most of the pentateuchal narrative, the Joseph stories preserve
extensive E material, so that we can see this author's mind at work in this section of
Genesis as in no other. God was able to save Joseph and bring him to prominence
even in the very worst of circumstances and in spite of some very real and very
powerful enemies. E holds the view that God has the ability once more to intervene in
Israel's history to save the nation, and the story of Joseph might encourage the reader
to look for that salvation.

If E wrote before 722 BCE and J wrote ca. 800 BCE, they were describing events
which transpired almost a millennium before them. It would be a task similar to
somebody today writing a history of the year 1000 CE only without the extensive
library and computer resources available to us. The diagram below illustrates the
situation.

How did J and E know what had happened? Oral tradition? Possibly. Legends can
certainly exist for hundreds of years -- but not without alteration over time. Written
records? That's not impossible. Both the court of Judah and the court of Israel
employed skilled scribes, and both kept extensive chronicles. Both nations, however,
are Iron Age, though. We're still a long time away from The Event. We may imagine
all of these possibilities: written records, oral tradition, courtly chronicles. We must
not, however, leave out the most important item: human conceptuality. Both J and E
have definite points of view, historical points of view. They differ from each other in
some important respects, but both share the belief that the God of Abraham, Isaac, and
Jacob is in charge of Israel's history and will save threm from their enemies.

What, then, does our historical method allow us to understand? We understand that
both J and E are writing about a period in Egyptian history we know about from
independent sources. We know too that they each shape their story to fit their own
historical situation. We recover the power of the ancient story to address later
generations through our knowledge of their history.
Historical research can seldom prove the accuracy of an account, though it may
sometimes reveal an inaccuracy. That leads us, to the "critical" part of the historical-
critical method.

The "Critical" in "Historical-Critical"

If we can seldom prove the historical accuracy of biblical texts but may sometimes
discover inaccuracies in it, then some might reasonably believe that the purpose of
historical criticism is to disprove the historical truth of the Bible. We cannot deny that
some early researchers may have been motivated in this way. Research on the life of
Jesus in the 19th century, for example,was replete with scholars who wanted to prove
that the Gospels were fabrications or, at least, exaggerated accounts of the life of a
simple Palestinian teacher. The 19th century scholar F. C. Baur named this approach
"negative criticism" and showed the serious limitations of such an agenda. He
suggested instead a "positive criticism" whose agenda would the historical
understanding of biblical texts against their background, and this approach has won
the day among biblical scholars.

What is "critical" in historical criticism is the application of our historical knowledge

to the ancient text unfettered by religious or ideological strictures that would destroy
the light history can shed upon the Bible. Biblical scholars have not only ressisted the
restraints of organized religious bodies but have also questioned their own dogmatic
assumptions about the biblical text. Some of the most important works of biblical
scholarship have addressed the ideology of scholars not clerics. Perhaps most
important in this regard was Albert Schweitzer's Quest of the Historical Jesus (Von
Reimarus zu Wrede, 1906; ET: 1911) that questioned the romantic notions scholars
had about the life of Jesus. Even the venerable historical-critical method itself has
undergone questioning as in Walter Wink's The Bible in Human
Transformation (1973).

"Critical" does not mean debunking scripture, and it does not mean proving its truth.
Religious people should and will find truth in their scriptures, but they may also be
interested to learn something about where their scripture came from, who wrote it, and
how editors collected it for them to read. For that only a historical-critical inquiry will
do the job. As we increase our knowledge of the editorial process by which our Bible
came to us, we may come to understand how others found meaning in its pages and
applied that meaning to new situations as did J and E. People of faith will likely find
themselves in dialogue with ancient people of faith. Secular folk will find themselves
coming into dialogue with the biblical writers much as they come into dialogue with
Socrates and Plato in a classics course.
Other Criticisms
Other scholarly approaches can take the name "criticism" as well. To the untutored
this name may suggest a critique or doubting of the scriptures, but this is far from the
way scholars employ such critical tools. We distinguish two fundamental kinds of
criticism:

Lower Criticism

Textual Criticism
This is the study of the transmission of the text, not its content. The Gospel of
Mark, for instance, begins with the words, "The beginning of the Gospel of
Jesus Christ, Son of God." Or does it? Some excellent manuscripts lack "Son of
God," most notably Codex Sinaiticus as the scribe originally wrote it. (Later, as
infared examination shows us, a later hand inserted these words.) The study
of the text is exceptionally important for New Testament studies because the
Christian scriptures circulated widely and rapidly in the ancient world without
much control over the uniformity of their contents. The Hebrew Bible, on the
other hand, is remarkably stable although there are important variant
readings in manuscripts and translations of the Hebrew Scriptures as well. For
an interesting introduction to the study of textual transmission in the Middle
Ages see "A Brief History of Scriptoria" from the Benedictine Monastary in the
Desert.

Higher Criticism

Source Criticism
We use the word "source" in biblical studies to refer to written texts
employed by ancient authors. J and P, for instance, are sources for the Book of
Genesis. The authors of Matthew and Luke both employed Mark as their basic
story of Jesus. So Mark is a source for both Matthew and Luke.
Form Criticism
Form Criticism stems from the pioneering work of Jakob (1785-1863) Wilhelm
(1786-1859) Grimm in the study of folklore led to the development of a critical
method called in German Formgeschichte and in English "Form Criticism." The
pioneer of Form Criticism in the arena of Hebrew Bible was Hermann Gunkel
(1862-1932). In New Testament studies three important scholars share the
spotlight: Martin Dibelius (1883-1947), K. L. Schmidt (1891-1956), and Rudolf
Bultmann (1884-1976). The interest of these scholars was to penetrate behind
the written text to discover the oral form of the biblical tradition. They
believed that associated with each form was a definite human situation or Sitz
im Leben. So it was important not only to recognize the oral forms
encapsulated in the written sources but also to associate these forms with
specific situations in the life of ancient Israel or the early Christian church.
Form Criticism has been especially helpful in understand Psalms and prophecy
as well as the Synoptic Gospels.
Redaction Criticism
Redaction Criticism is sometimes called "editorial criticism." No matter what
the oral traditions and written sources lying behind a given passage of
scripture, some author, a redactor, shaped those materials into what we read
as the biblical text. Redaction criticism teaches us to look at the big picture, at
the way in which the author organizes the data to accomplish a literary
purpose. Form critically, for instance, the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5-
7 is a loose collection of sayings, organized principally in ways that will make
them easy to memorize. Yet within the whole context of the First Gospel, the
Sermon on the Mount is a summary of the Torah that Jesus, the greatest of
the Rabbis, taught his students.
Historical Criticism
This is the twofold historical inquiry I've presented to you. The interpreter
tries to understand both the historical situation to which the text points and
the historical situation of the author. Sometimes these are the same, but most
often they are not. There is an ambiguity in using the term "Historical
Criticism." At one level Historical Criticism is the whole work of Lower and
Higher Criticism. At another level historical criticism is simply one method
alongside Source Criticism, Form Criticism, and Redaction Criticism for
understanding the text.
Other Criticisms
Depending on their interests, scholars may employ other kinds of criticism to
texts. Among the many kinds of criticism are rhetorical criticism, audience-
response criticism, feminist criticism, and many forms of modern literary
 criticism. These have all made valuable contributions to specific areas of
biblical study.

Exposition and Exegesis

In this course I am asking you to provide exposition of selected biblical texts. I hope
you will provide all of the data you can to support your interpretation of these texts,
but by its nature an exposition is open-ended. An exegesis, on the other hand, is a
structured exercise usually taught in a theological school that ordinarily has the aim of
preparing a passage of scripture for preaching. Exegesis is an exercise in both Lower
Criticism and Higher Criticism. As such, only one able to read the ancient languages
can do the work of Lower Criticism necessary to do exegesis. Within the realm of
Higher Criticism the exegete (one who does exegesis) will attempt to understand the
text within its historical, religious, and literary context using the critical tools I've
discussed above. Although complete exegesis is not always the rule in the preparation
of sermons by clergy, an excellent sermon based on thorough exegesis is easy to spot
and almost always enlightening.

An expoisition is a less structured undertaking than exegesis and may have many
goals. It is simply the explanation and interpretatio

1. Introduction
The use of historical criticism and critical methods have dominated much of the
Biblical research undertaken this century. The practitioners of these methods have
arrived at some interesting, surprising and astounding conclusions about the Biblical
authors and what they wrote. Many of these conclusions pose a serious problem to
conservative evangelical Christians who hold that the Bible is the fully inspired,
authorative, inerrant word of God.

The purpose of this essay is to survey and evaluate the most important critical
methods. Various weaknesses and dangers will be highlighted and suggestions given
about how these methods may be used by evangelicals to aid in Biblical interpretation.
Most the methods in question relate primarily to the New Testament, and in particular
the Gospels. Although some principles may apply to all scripture, this essay will focus
only on critical methods relating to interpretation of the synoptic gospels (ie.
Matthew, Mark and Luke).

2. Historical-Critical Methods
2.1 History, Historical Criticism and Presuppositions

The Bible is an historical book. It records the history of Israel, the life of Jesus of
Nazareth and the history of the early church (Krentz 1975, p. 1) in the words of
humans who were inspired by God (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 76). Because the Bible
is an historical work, it is subject to historical investigation and the results of
historical research (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 73-74).

The overall purpose of historical-critical methods is to investigate what actually

happened in the events described or alluded to (Marshall 1985, p. 126). Krentz (1975,
p. 35-36) gives the following goals of historical investigation:

1. Present a body of facts that show what actually happened and why.
2. Illuminate the past, creating a comprehensive picture of a culture's own
record of history.
3. Understand the significance of events and interpret them.
4. Understand motives as well as actions.

Marshall (1985, p. 128-130) points out that reading Biblical accounts raises the
following historical problems or questions:

1. Discrepancies with parallel Biblical accounts.

2. Discrepancies with non-Biblical material.
3. Historical improbabilities.
4. Supernatural occurrences.
5. Creation/Modification by the early church
6. Literary genre.
7. Insufficient evidence.

These problems and questions may only be resolved by historical study (Marshall
1985, p. 131). Using critical methods it is possible to determine all relevant sources of
historical data, the accuracy and credibility of these sources and the development of
the material in these sources. Using this information it is possible to determine what is
historically probable and form an historical hypothesis which successfully accounts
for what the sources say and build a coherent picture of what probably happened
(Marshall 1985, p. 127). It is not always possible to arrive at certainty. Complex
events are difficult to record in detail and often the sources are missing or incomplete.
History is limited - historians only produce a limited or reduced representation of the
past (Krentz 1975, p. 37). There may be several possibilities available each of which
is equally probable, so reasoned assessments and conjectures are often called for.
However, this results in a problem with presuppositions because they will determine
what may or may not be possible and probable (Marshall 1985, p. 127).

This is where historical criticism has been abused. Many practitioners take a "purely
scientific" view which excludes any possibility of the supernatural and results in a
purely naturalistic interpretation of Biblical events and people. Because of these
presuppositions, this view is prevented from saying anything at all about God or the
miracles and supernatural works of Jesus Christ (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 74).
These scholars hold that all supernatural events described in the Bible are inventions
of the early church. Therefore they attempt to get behind this mythology and get at the
"real" historical Jesus. Schaeffer (1985, v. 1 p. 52) highlights the problem with this
approach: "Naturalistic theology has ..... begun by accepting the presupposition of the
uniformity of natural causes in a closed system. Thus they rejected everything
miraculous and supernatural including .... the life of Jesus Christ. .... they still hoped
to find an historical Jesus in a rational, objective, scholarly way by separating the
supernatural aspects of Jesus' life from the 'true history'. But they failed ..... Their
search for the historical Jesus was doomed to failure. The supernatural was so
intertwined with the rest that if they ripped out all the supernatural, there was no Jesus
left!"

Many liberal theologians have used critical methods to show the Bible is not
historically accurate. The authors were primarily theologians not historians so the
"Jesus of history" is nothing like the Jesus of the Bible. This means that if there is a
discrepancy between the Bible and other historical material, it is the Bible that is most
probably in error. A Biblical account must be proved historically accurate
rather than accepted as so (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 82). But this scepticism is
unwarranted since the Bible has shown itself time and again to be historically
accurate. Historical criticism should pursue without restriction the explanation that
best explains the phenomena in question. This includes supernatural explanations
(Black & Dockery 1991, p. 89).

2.2 Source Criticism

2.2.1 Explanation of Source Criticism

The author of Luke states that "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the
things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those
who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word." (Luke 1:1-2, NIV)
This implies that in the early church period there were many different sources of
material concerning the life of Christ. Luke also states that he "carefully investigated
everything from the beginning" (v. 3), so it is reasonable to assume that Luke knew
about these sources, read them and used them to compose his own account (v. 3). It is
also reasonable to assume that the other gospel writers did the same (Marshall 1985,
p. 139). Also, internal evidence such as the similarity/dissimilarity of wording (for the
same events), content and order suggests the gospel writers had common sources
(Black & Dockery 1991, p. 139). To assume that the synoptic gospels were written
completely independently is not a sensible option - there is just too much internal
evidence indicating otherwise (Fee & Stuart 1993, p. 122).

The search for sources is much easier and less speculative when there are several
parallel accounts, like those found in the synoptic gospels. By examining parallel
accounts and noting the agreements and disagreements in wording, ordering of
material, omissions, style, ideas and theology and taking into account statements made
by church fathers, it is possible to derive hypothetical sources of the synoptic gospels
(Marshall 1985, p. 140-144). If a story is unique to a particular gospel then searching
for breaks and dislocations in narrative sequence, stylistic inconsistency, theological
inconsistency and historical inconsistency may also be helpful in determining possible
sources (Marshall 1985, p. 144-145).

It will not always be possible to identify the written or oral sources of a particular
account. This does not mean that the account should not be trusted (Marshall 1985, p.
146). In any case, several gospel writers (Matthew, John and perhaps Mark) were
actual eye-witnesses.

The Two-Source or Oxford hypothesis is the one accepted by the vast majority of
scholars (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 144). This hypothesis states that Mark and a
hypothetical document called Q, were the basis for Matthew and Luke. It is suggested
that Q contains the verses common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark.
Matthew and Luke were composed using a combination of Mark, Q and possibly
other sources (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 143-144).

2.2.2 Evaluation of Source Criticism

If the sources of an account can be identified, it is possible to learn a great deal. The
fact that Matthew and Luke usually agree with Mark on the actual words of Jesus
indicates they both wanted to preserve Mark's tradition rather than just make up there
own. Source criticism can reveal something about the author's method of writing and
particular interests and ideas (Stein 1988, p. 144). For example, Matthew seems to
focus on the Jews but to be sure of this we need to know what his sources were. If his
source was Mark, then this is a reasonable conclusion but if it was the traditions of the
Jerusalem church, then this Jewish focus would be inherent in the source rather than
Matthew's interest (Marshall 1985, p. 147).
Hermeneutical insights may also be gained. If the earliest text form of an event can be
recovered, then it will be possible to see how each gospel writer interpreted that event
and how they modified it to emphasise that interpretation (Stein 1988, p. 151).

Many critics have viewed source modifications as corruptions or errors but these
changes were made under the inspiration of the Spirit and are still authorative. It
should also be noted that the canonical text form is inspired. A hypothetical
reconstruction of the text is not. It is unwise to make hypothetical sources the basis for
theology.

The Two-Source hypothesis makes some questionable affirmations in regard to Q

material and material unique to Matthew or Luke. Q is a purely hypothetical
document and it is highly unlikely that it was a single written source. It is far more
probable that it was a collection of documents. However, the possibility of the
existence of Q-like documents is beyond doubt since the discovery of the Gospel of
Thomas (Stein 1988, p. 109). Also, material that is unique to either Matthew or Luke
is assumed to come from another source other than Mark or Q. But this may not be the
case. It is possible that Matthew included a saying from Q that Luke did not and vice
versa.

2.3 Tradition Criticism

2.3.1 Explanation of Tradition Criticism

Tradition criticism is used to determine the development of traditions from Jesus

through the early church to the gospel writer and forms the basis for form and
redaction criticism. It is an attempt to trace the evolution of the form and/or meaning
of concepts, words or sayings. For example, tradition criticism is interested in how a
parable developed into 2 or 3 different versions (Marshall 1985, p. 165-166). The
basic axioms behind tradition criticism force the critic to be highly sceptical about the
authenticity or historicity of the traditions as they are recorded in the gospels. The
burden of proof lies with those who wish to take the traditions as historical (Black &
Dockery 1991, p. 204).

The 3 basic axioms for determining authentic traditions, rather than those created and
modified by the early church are listed in Black & Dockery (1991, p. 205) and are as
follows:

1. Dissimilarity: they are not parallels of Jewish traditions and not reflections of
the faith and practices of the early church.
2. Multiple attestation: whether or not a saying occurs in more than one gospel.
 3. Coherence: if the saying in question has the same form of another saying that
has already been shown to be authentic (using the above criteria), then this
saying should also be regarded as authentic.

Tradition criticism may be applied to Peter's confession in Mark 8:29 and parallels.
Luke adds the words "of God", Matthew adds "the Son of the Living God" and John
has "the holy One of God". Therefore, since these 4 parallels each say something
different, it is highly unlikely (or so it is claimed) that this saying is actually historical
(Marshall 1985, p. 167).

Using tradition criticism some critics have shown that Matthew 18:17 is not authentic,
because it goes against the parable of Wheat and Tares and the Dragnet (Matthew
13:47f). It also presupposes a Jewish audience which excludes Gentiles and tax
collectors. This is unlike the "historical Jesus" who embraced such people, therefore it
must be a later development of the church (Marshall 1985, p. 168).

2.3.2 Evaluation of Tradition Criticism

Tradition criticism has done much to undermine the integrity of the gospel accounts. It
is far too sceptical and its conclusions are often devoid of supporting evidence. The
axioms for determining authenticity leave much to be desired. The criteria of
dissimilarity is far too narrow and therefore only identifies the unique Jesus. It is
ridiculous to expect Jesus' teaching would not have overlapped with Jewish teaching,
especially since both were rooted in the Old Testament. It is even more ridiculous to
expect Jesus' teaching to have contributed nothing to the early church. Responding to
the message of Jesus is the very essence of Christianity (Marshall 1985, p. 174). The
criteria of multiple attestation ignores the purpose and inspired overall theological
agenda of the gospel author (Marshall 1985, p. 176).

For Matthew 18:17, it seems that this verse has not been correctly understood. This
verse is not a put-down of gentiles and tax collectors but simply stating that we should
treat unrepentant Christians the same way we would treat non-Christians. How should
we treat non-Christians? The same way Christ did (cf. Matthew 9:10-12, Matthew
15:22-28).

There are 4 gospels that do not oppose one another. Therefore it is best to assume
everything is authentic unless there is concrete evidence to the contrary. Although the
gospels may not record Jesus actual words (he spoke in Aramaic and the New
Testament was written in Greek) or forms, they do record His essential message for
humanity. Any modification of traditions by the gospel authors were done under the
inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
2.4 Form Criticism
2.4.1 Explanation of Form Criticism

Form criticism seeks to get behind the written sources by studying and analysing the
"form" of individual gospel traditions. It describes the characteristics of the various
forms and how they emerged in the period of oral transmission in the church (Black &
Dockery 1991, p. 176).

The basic axioms of form criticism are as follows:

1. The gospels are "popular" or "folk" literature and are not the work of just one
person but belong to a community. These communities shaped the stories
they contain (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 178). Therefore the gospel authors
were not authors in the true sense but collectors and editors (Marshall 1985,
p. 153).
2. Most of the material circulated orally and as individual units for at least 20
years (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 178).
3. Units of tradition were used as the occasion required. Only useful traditions
were retained. Only rarely are they recorded in chronological order (Marshall
1985, p. 154).
4. As units were used they took on a particular form according to their function
in the community. The form reflects the thoughts of the early church (Black &
Dockery 1991, p. 176). Therefore it is possible to deduce a unit's "life-setting"
(German: Sitz im Leben) from its form. (Marshall 1985, p. 154). Life-setting
denotes an area of church life such as worship, teaching and evangelism and
only rarely does it indicate the actual historical situation that gave rise to the
tradition (Marshall 1985, p. 154).
5. Form criticism assumes the results of source criticism and tradition criticism
(Black & Dockery 1991, p. 179).

Rudolf Bultman and Martin Dibelius have identified the following forms:

1. Paradigms/Pronouncement Stories: These are brief stories which culminate in

an authorative saying of Jesus or a saying about the reaction of on-lookers
(Marshall 1985, p. 155).
2. Legends/Stories about Jesus: These are stories told to exalt a great figure and
present a person as an example to follow. The term legend does not
necessarily mean they are unhistorical although this is often the assumption
(Black & Dockery 1991, p. 184).
 3. Tales/Miracle Stories: These are self-contained highly descriptive stories that
show pleasure in giving details (Marshall 1985, p. 156).
4. Sayings/Exhortations: This is independent teaching material such as wisdom
sayings, prophetic sayings, legal sayings and "I" sayings (Black & Dockery 1991,
p. 184).
5. Myths: These are narratives showing interactions between mythological
characters and humans. The supernatural breaks into human domain
(Marshall 1985, p. 157).

Form criticism has exegetical implications in passages like Mark 2:18-20. Mark 2:18-
19a is a pronouncement story but vv. 19b-20 do not fit this form. Therefore they must
be an addition by the early church (Marshall 1985, p. 159).

2.4.2 Evaluation of Form Criticism

One of the problems with form criticism is the form categories are often based on
content rather than actual form. Although form and content do influence each other,
some categories are simply stylistic descriptions. Also, many sayings and stories have
no "common" form and many have "mixed" form. Some may even fall into multiple
categories (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 187). If forms have no or little distinction then
they couldn't have been created and shaped by the early church, as claimed by many
form critics (Marshall 1985, p. 158-159).

For Mark 2:18-20, it all depends on the definition of "pronouncement story". What if
the definition is too rigid. Form critics talk about "law of tradition" as if they are well
proven scientific laws of development of oral traditions. This is not the case. Except
for Luke, the gospel writers were Jews and therefore it is reasonable to assume
transmission of traditions would have occurred in a similar fashion to Rabbinic
teachings. Rabbis were concerned with accurate transmission and so would the early
church (Stein 1988, p. 187-192). The probability of eyewitnesses keeping checks on
the integrity of the traditions is also disregarded by many form critics (Stein 1988, p.
193-203).

Form criticism does have some positive insights. It does help in understanding the
period between AD 30 and AD 50. Searching for the Sitz im Leben aids exegesis
because knowing how the tradition functioned in the early church indicates how it
should speak today. However, this is not always possible. The early church preserved
traditions because they were useful. This helps to understand that the gospels are
practical references not just biographies of Jesus. Understanding the form is also very
important for accurate exegesis (Marshall 1985, p. 161).
The descriptive features of form criticism provide the greatest aid to interpretation.
They help to focus on the author's style and structure of argument (Black & Dockery
1991, p. 192).

2.5 Redaction Criticism

2.5.1 Explanation of Redaction Criticism

Redaction criticism builds on the results of source and tradition criticism. It treasures
and examines the editorial work of gospel authors in order to see their emphases and
purposes (Stein 1988, p. 238). It seeks to uncover the theology and setting of the
author by studying the way they modified traditions, arranged them and stitched them
together. It asks why the author included, excluded or modified a particular tradition
and tries to identify distinctive patterns, interests and theological ideas (Black &
Dockery 1991, p. 199-200).

Redaction Criticism involves analysing individual traditions comparing it with

parallels, in order to identify common and unique phrases and words. It also involves
analysing the whole gospel in comparison with other gospels. The seams
(introductions and conclusions) link traditions together, provide setting and often
theological emphasis. Summaries and traditions structure give clues to major
theological overtones. Unique elements indicate which way the story is going and
repeated phrases show emphasis and special interests. As the gospel unfolds
individual traditions interact to produce the intended message (Black & Dockery
1991, p. 208-211). Considering an authors vocabulary and style is also helpful
(Marshall 1985, p. 185).

2.5.2 Evaluation of Redaction Criticism

Results of redaction criticism are highly subjective and should not be accepted
uncritically. The huge variation in results shows this clearly (Black & Dockery 1991,
p. 213). There is no doubt that gospel authors shaped and modified traditions to fit
their gospels purpose but presuppositions about the nature of traditions, their
transmission and modification are suspect. "Redaction" does not mean unhistorical
"theologising" (Marshall 1985, p. 187-188). Many critics are highly sceptical and
assume every redaction is a creation and therefore unhistorical. However, omission
and addition are not criteria for historicity but for style, emphasis and purpose. Not
every jot and tittle carries theological weight (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 213). It
should also be noted that meaning is found in the overall pericope not the redactions
(Black & Dockery 1991, p. 215).
History and theology are not mutually exclusive. There is no reason why an author
can not emphasise a theological concept using an historical event. Gospel authors
were interpreters but there is no reason to assume they were misinterpreters.

Redaction criticism is still an important tool. It shows how inspiration took place
when authors selected, arranged and highlighted various traditions in order to
communicate a special message to their readers (Black & Dockery 1991, p. 216). This
gives the gospels their individual character and is why we have four of them (Marshall
1985, p. 191).

3. Conclusion
The conclusions of historical criticism must not outweigh the evidence that supports
them. This has been a major problem. Many critics have used huge leaps in logic to
arrive at ridiculous and unsubstantiated conclusions.

Critical methods used with common sense and operating in a framework that does not
exclude the supernatural are an important and necessary aid to Biblical interpretation.
This results in a better grasp of the grammatical and historical sense of the Bible. The
course of Biblical history is clarified and it is possible to see the gaps in our
knowledge more clearly. The historical character of the Bible is emphasised. The
great differences in culture and society between the Biblical world and the modern
world are highlighted along with the proper purpose of a passage. This all leads to
enhanced theological insight (Krentz 1975, p. 64-66).