mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I Bushnell) (12/01/90)
Richard O'Keefe has recently been having a discussion on the
Documentary Hypothesis. While this is somewhat interesting to me,
issues of New Testament textual criticism seem even more important.
There are, currently, three major types of criticism invoked, usually
combined into some understanding of authorship:
1: Source criticism is the analysis of probably sources for a text
in question.
2: Redaction criticism is the analysis of how the "final author", or
redactor, of a text altered sources and added material indication his
particular viewpoint.
3: Form criticism is the analysis of the form of a writing and
deriving interpretive clues by comparison with other writings of the
same form.
I used to look at NT analysis as a good thing. Then I started looking
at the reasoning behind some of the statements NT analysis makes, and
I begin to wonder. In this post I will outline some claims made by
many in the "new analysis" school, by which I mean post-Enlightenment.
Not everyone in the new analysis school holds to all of these, and
there is disagreement. But all seem to use the same sort of
reasoning, and they merely disagree about methods of application.
Note that "new analysis" is my term, not necessarily correspondent
with other uses of the term, and I'm not interested in discussing its
precise meaning.
Many examples and quotes in this post are taken from
_The_New_Testament: An_Introduction_ by Norman Perrin and Dennis C.
Duling. This book is introductory to the new analysis, and attempts
to provide a survey of prevalent views within that framework, while
presenting the authors' views as well.
Most of the ideas in Perrin and Duling are found in most other books
I've read on the subject (modern books, that is). There are what, in
my opinion, constitute serious flaws casting doubts on the entire
effort. I'll attempt to enumerate those flaws after a case study:
---
Matthew...when was it written?
One of the tenets of the new analysis is that prophecy cannot actually
depict the future. We find, for example, on P&D, p. 264 the statement
that "the gospel presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70
by its comment that the angry king destroyed the murderers of the
king's son and burned their city (Matt 22:7) ... [and so] it was
probably written about a generation after Mark, about A.D. 90".
Matthew 22:7 is in the context of a parable. Supposing that we accept
Perrin and Duling's interpretation (which seems fair), they seem to be
saying that Jesus couldn't have predicted the downfall of Jerusalem,
and so the gospel was clearly written after that event. Even to
someone with no faith, it seems clear that lots of people at that time
knew the situation vis a vis Israel and Rome was unstable and that
something had to go.
Perrin and Duling also cite Matthew 24:15-18 and its parallel, Mark
13:14-16, as further evidence that both were written after the sack of
Judaea. A quote might help here:
`So when you see "the abomination of desolation", of which the
prophet Daniel spoke, standing in the holy place (let the reader
understand), then those who are in Judaea must take to the hills.
If anyone is on the roof, he must not go down to fetch his goods
from the house; if anyone is in the field, he must not turn back
for his coat.' (Mat. 24:15-18)
Reading further, we find a description that "It will be a time of
great distress, such as there has never been since the beginning of
the world, and will never be again." (v.21). Matthew surely knew of
the previous desolation of Antiochus Epiphanes, and Pompey, and the
Babylonians, and many others. He is describing something worse. If
he did write after the fall of the temple, this passage is certainly
not evidence of that, for it doesn't describe the fall of the temple:
`As soon as that time of distress has passed,
the sun will be darkened,
the moon will not give her light;
the stars will fall from the sky,
the celestial powers will be shaken.
`Then will appear in heaven the sign that heralds the Son of Man.
All the peoples of the world will make lamentation, and they will
see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and
great glory.' (24:29-31)
If Matthew wrote around A.D. 90, then he would have never intended
that passage to describe the fall of the temple!
---
The primary problem with the new analysis seems to be threefold.
First, there is a tendency to suppose things to be simpler than they
actually are. Rudolph Bultmann hypothesizes several sources to the
gospel of John, each with a particular kind of writing: a discourse
source, a miracle source, and a passion story. Bultmann's own works
use many different kinds of writing and many different styles and
forms. Why does he think John was incapable of the same?
Second, the new analysis seems to be carried on devoid of faith. My
example above from Matthew typifies this. There may be a place for a
faith-less evaluation of the NT in Christian apologetic, but there is
a more important place for faith-full NT criticism, and I haven't seen
it in the new analysis.
Third, the new analysis assumes that previous scholars were unable to
do the same things present scholars do. That they did not is evidence
to me of their greater faith, to the new analyizers, one can only
suppose evidence of lesser intellect. With the exception of a
recently improved knowledge about the form of apocalyptic (not that
they pay too much attention to that) there isn't really any new
knowledge that scholars have not had for centuries.
---
Second case study: Where did Paul go after his conversion?
Perrin and Duling say, on page 321, that there are three accounts of
the conversion of Paul in Acts (9:1-30, 22:3-21, and 26:9-23). They
claim that "the account is deliberately redacted [that is, changed to
meet the presuppositions and ideas of Luke] in line with the
programmatic statement of 1:8." They go further: "Paul's witness did
not begin in Jerusalem as all three account of his conversion insist
it did, but the program announced in 1:8 is here dominant for our
author. The myth is overtaking history." Perrin and Duling's source
for the idea that Paul went to Damascus first is Galatians. So far so
good. But what do those passages in Acts actually say? Those ones
which "insist" that Paul's witness began in Jerusalem?
Saul, still breathing murderous threats agains the Lord's
disciples, went to the high priest and applied for letters to the
synagogues at Damascus authorizing him to arrest any followers of
the new way whom he found, men or women, and bring them to
Jerusalem. While he was still on the road and nearing Damascus,
suddenly a light from the sky flashed all around him. He fell to
the ground and heard a voice saying, `Saul, Saul, why are you
persecuting me?' `Tell me, Lord,' he said, `who you are.' The
voice answered, `I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But now get
up and go into the city, and you will be told what you have to do.'
Meanwhile the men who were traveling with him stood speechless;
they heard the voice but could see no one. Saul got up from the
ground, but when he opened his eyes he could not see; they led him
by the hand and brought him into Damascus. He was blind for three
days, and took no food or drink. (Acts 9:1-9)
...
He stayed some time with the disciples in Damascus. Without delay
he proclaimed Jesus publicly in the synagogues, declaring him to be
the Son of God. All who heard were astounded. `Is not this the
man', they said, `who was in Jerusalem hunting down those who invoke
this name? Did he not come here for the sole purpose of arresting
them and taking them before the chief priests?' But Saul went from
strength to strength, and confounded the Jews of Damascus with his
cogent proofs that Jesus was the Messiah.
When some time had passed, the Jews hatched a plot against his
life; but their plans became known to Saul. They kept watch on the
city gates day and night so that they might murder him; but one
night some disciples took him and, lowering him in a basket, let
him down over the wall.
On reaching Jerusalem ...
(Acts 9:19b-26a)
Verses 19-20 seem pretty clearly to say that his witness began in
Damascus, just as Galatians asserts. Hmmm... The second account says
nothing of the events in Damascus after Paul's baptism. The third
says "I preached first to the inhabitants of Damascus" (Acts 26:20).
I'm completely lost. The scholars tell us that his witness began in
Jerusalem, and that this is a key point to understanding Acts. It is
further taken as evidence that Acts is a rewritten history, one
designed not merely to propagate the author's ideas, but to change
historical facts to fit the story. And it turns out that the scholar
is changing the text of Acts to fit the scholar's story!
---
Third case study: What is an apocalyptic?
Apocalyptics have several characteristics. Most important and
constant seem to be
A description of a vision given by God;
A description of the current bad situation;
A description of the manner in which God will end the current time
of suffering.
There are other normal ideas, but this list will do. Most important
is the vision. This was the signal to the reader that an apocalyptic
is about to follow. Revelation 1:10-16 is such an event. The
apocalyptic is a description of visions supposedly given by God to the
author.
Unfortunately, in an attempt to fit the gospel of Mark into a simple
mold, the new analysis seems to like calling it an apocalyptic. Aside
from somewhat fantastic statements about eschatology, it doesn't seem
to be any more apocalyptic than the books of Joshua or Samuel.
Despite its lack of the normal clues that an apocalyptic is in one's
hands, the new analysis uses the ideas of interpreting apocalyptic on
the gospel of Mark. Not surprisingly they lose its message in the
process, since Mark didn't intend to write an apocalyptic or he would
have made clear that he was doing so.
---
The ideas of Rudolph Bultmann were short lived, to say the least. He
and Tillich propounded a view of Christianity disliked by many. As an
attempt to provide a middle ground between them and fundamentalism,
the twentieth century "neo-orthodox" theologians, such as Bonhoeffer,
Brunner, and Barth tried to regain the ground Bultmann had taken from
Christianity. They were essentially successful. Unfortunately, they
spent little time on New Testament commentary, probably because they
needed to work on the essentials of dogmatics and ethics. It is time
for the neo-orthodox Biblical scholars to do their stuff.
I've often thought that Bultmann, etc., reduced the gospel to a few
"authentic" sayings of Jesus and the idea of the "Christ event". I
heard it said once that Bultmann knew there was a "Christ event", but
couldn't say anything about what happened, because he'd eliminated all
the substance of the idea, clinging on to the "Christ event" as the
last piece of a raft he'd hacked away with an axe...only to realize
that such a small piece of raft can't carry anyone.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
[Unless I'm mistaken, the three types of criticism you refer to are
normally classified as forms of literary criticism, not textual
criticism. --clh]