In philosophy of mind, the computational theory of mind (CTM), also known as computationalism, is a family of views that hold that the human mind is an information processing system and that cognition and consciousness together are a form of computation. It is closely related to functionalism, a broader theory that defines mental states by what they do rather than what they are made of.
Warren McCulloch and Walter Pitts (1943) were the first to suggest that neural activity is computational. They argued that neural computations explain cognition. The theory was proposed in its modern form by Hilary Putnam in 1960 and 1961, and then developed by his PhD student, philosopher, and cognitive scientist Jerry Fodor in the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. It was later criticized in the 1990s by Putnam himself, John Searle, and others.
The computational theory of mind holds that the mind is a
computational system that is realized (i.e. physically implemented) by
neural activity in the brain. The theory can be elaborated in many ways
and varies largely based on how the term computation is understood.
Computation is commonly understood in terms of Turing machines
which manipulate symbols according to a rule, in combination with the
internal state of the machine. The critical aspect of such a
computational model is that we can abstract away from particular
physical details of the machine that is implementing the computation.
For example, the appropriate computation could be implemented either by
silicon chips or biological neural networks, so long as there is a
series of outputs based on manipulations of inputs and internal states,
performed according to a rule. CTM therefore holds that the mind is not
simply analogous to a computer program, but that it is literally a
computational system.
Computational theories of mind are often said to require mental representation
because 'input' into a computation comes in the form of symbols or
representations of other objects. A computer cannot compute an actual
object but must interpret and represent the object in some form and then
compute the representation. The computational theory of mind is related
to the representational theory of mind
in that they both require that mental states are representations.
However, the representational theory of mind shifts the focus to the
symbols being manipulated. This approach better accounts for
systematicity and productivity. In Fodor's original views, the computational theory of mind is also related to the language of thought. The language of thought theory allows the mind to process more complex representations with the help of semantics.
Recent work has suggested that we make a distinction between the
mind and cognition. Building from the tradition of McCulloch and Pitts,
the computational theory of cognition (CTC) states that neural computations explain cognition. The computational theory of mind asserts that not only cognition, but also phenomenal consciousness or qualia,
are computational. That is to say, CTM entails CTC. While phenomenal
consciousness could fulfill some other functional role, computational
theory of cognition leaves open the possibility that some aspects of the
mind could be non-computational. CTC, therefore, provides an important
explanatory framework for understanding neural networks, while avoiding
counter-arguments that center around phenomenal consciousness.
"Computer metaphor"
Computational theory of mind is not the same as the computer metaphor, comparing the mind to a modern-day digital computer. Computational theory just uses some of the same principles as those found in digital computing.
While the computer metaphor draws an analogy between the mind as
software and the brain as hardware, CTM is the claim that the mind is a
computational system. More specifically, it states that a computational
simulation of a mind is sufficient for the actual presence of a mind,
and that a mind truly can be simulated computationally.
'Computational system' is not meant to mean a modern-day
electronic computer. Rather, a computational system is a symbol
manipulator that follows step-by-step functions to compute input and
form output. Alan Turing describes this type of computer in his concept of a Turing machine.
Criticism
A range of arguments have been proposed against physicalist conceptions used in computational theories of mind.
An early, though indirect, criticism of the computational theory of mind comes from philosopher John Searle. In his thought experiment known as the Chinese room, Searle attempts to refute the claims that artificially intelligent agents can be said to have intentionality and understanding and that these systems, because they can be said to be minds themselves, are sufficient for the study of the human mind.
Searle asks us to imagine that there is a man in a room with no way of
communicating with anyone or anything outside of the room except for a
piece of paper with symbols written on it that is passed under the door.
With the paper, the man is to use a series of provided rule books to
return paper containing different symbols. Unknown to the man in the
room, these symbols are of a Chinese language, and this process
generates a conversation that a Chinese speaker outside of the room can
actually understand. Searle contends that the man in the room does not
understand the Chinese conversation. This is essentially what the
computational theory of mind presents us—a model in which the mind
simply decodes symbols and outputs more symbols. Searle argues that
this is not real understanding or intentionality. This was originally
written as a repudiation of the idea that computers work like minds.
Searle has further raised questions about what exactly constitutes a computation:
the wall behind my back is right now implementing the WordStar
program, because there is some pattern of molecule movements that is
isomorphic with the formal structure of WordStar. But if the wall is
implementing WordStar, if it is a big enough wall it is implementing any
program, including any program implemented in the brain.
Objections like Searle's might be called insufficiency objections.
They claim that computational theories of mind fail because computation
is insufficient to account for some capacity of the mind. Arguments from
qualia, such as Frank Jackson's knowledge argument,
can be understood as objections to computational theories of mind in
this way—though they take aim at physicalist conceptions of the mind in
general, and not computational theories specifically.
There are also objections which are directly tailored for computational theories of mind.
Jerry Fodor himself argues that the mind is still a very long way
from having been explained by the computational theory of mind. The
main reason for this shortcoming is that most cognition is abductive
and global, hence sensitive to all possibly relevant background beliefs
to (dis)confirm a belief. This creates, among other problems, the frame problem
for the computational theory, because the relevance of a belief is not
one of its local, syntactic properties but context-dependent.
Putnam himself (see in particular Representation and Reality and the first part of Renewing Philosophy)
became a prominent critic of computationalism for a variety of reasons,
including ones related to Searle's Chinese room arguments, questions of
world-word reference relations, and thoughts about the mind-body problem.
Regarding functionalism in particular, Putnam has claimed along lines
similar to, but more general than Searle's arguments, that the question
of whether the human mind can implement computational states is
not relevant to the question of the nature of mind, because "every
ordinary open system realizes every abstract finite automaton." Computationalists have responded by aiming to develop criteria describing what exactly counts as an implementation.
Roger Penrose
has proposed the idea that the human mind does not use a knowably sound
calculation procedure to understand and discover mathematical
intricacies. This would mean that a normal Turing complete computer would not be able to ascertain certain mathematical truths that human minds can. However, the application of Gödel's theorem by Penrose to demonstrate it was widely criticized, and is considered erroneous.
Pancomputationalism
CTM
raises a question that remains a subject of debate: what does it take
for a physical system (such as a mind, or an artificial computer) to
perform computations? A very straightforward account is based on a
simple mapping between abstract mathematical computations and physical
systems: a system performs computation C if and only if there is a
mapping between a sequence of states individuated by C and a sequence of
states individuated by a physical description of the system.
Putnam (1988) and Searle (1992) argue that this simple mapping account (SMA) trivializes the empirical import of computational descriptions. As Putnam put it, "everything is a Probabilistic Automaton under some Description". Even rocks, walls, and buckets of water—contrary to appearances—are computing systems. Gualtiero Piccinini identifies different versions of Pancomputationalism.
In response to the trivialization criticism, and to restrict SMA,
philosophers of mind have offered different accounts of computational
systems. These typically include causal account, semantic account,
syntactic account, and mechanistic account. Instead of a semantic restriction, the syntactic account imposes a syntactic restriction. The mechanistic account was first introduced by Gualtiero Piccinini in 2007.
Daniel Dennett proposed the multiple drafts model, in which consciousness seems linear
but is actually blurry and gappy, distributed over space and time in
the brain. Consciousness is the computation, there is no extra step in
which you become conscious of the computation.
Jerry Fodor
argues that mental states, such as beliefs and desires, are relations
between individuals and mental representations. He maintains that these
representations can only be correctly explained in terms of a language
of thought (LOT) in the mind. Further, this language of thought itself
is codified in the brain, not just a useful explanatory tool. Fodor
adheres to a species of functionalism, maintaining that thinking and
other mental processes consist primarily of computations operating on
the syntax of the representations that make up the language of thought.
In later work (Concepts and The Elm and the Expert), Fodor
has refined and even questioned some of his original computationalist
views, and adopted LOT2, a highly modified version of LOT.
David Marr proposed that cognitive processes have three levels of description: the computational level, which describes that computational problem solved by the cognitive process; the algorithmic level, which presents the algorithm used for computing the problem postulated at the computational level; and the implementational level, which describes the physical implementation of the algorithm postulated at the algorithmic level in the brain.
Ulric Neisser coined the term cognitive psychology
in his book with that title published in 1967. Neisser characterizes
people as dynamic information-processing systems whose mental operations
might be described in computational terms.
Steven Pinker described language instinct as an evolved, built-in capacity to learn language (if not writing). His 1997 book How the Mind Works sought to popularize the computational theory of mind for wide audiences.
Hilary Putnam proposed functionalism
to describe consciousness, asserting that it is the computation that
equates to consciousness, regardless of whether the computation is
operating in a brain or in a computer.
Title page of Richard Simon's Critical History (1685), an early work of biblical criticism
Modern Biblical criticism (as opposed to pre-Modern criticism)
is the use of critical analysis to understand and explain the Bible
without appealing to the supernatural. During the eighteenth century,
when it began as historical-biblical criticism, it was based on two distinguishing characteristics: (1) the scientific concern to avoid dogma and bias by applying a neutral, non-sectarian,
reason-based judgment to the study of the Bible, and (2) the belief
that the reconstruction of the historical events behind the texts, as
well as the history of how the texts themselves developed, would lead to
a correct understanding of the Bible. This sets it apart from earlier,
pre-critical methods; from the anti-critical methods of those who
oppose criticism-based study; from the post-critical orientation of
later scholarship; and from the multiple distinct schools of criticism
into which it evolved in the late twentieth and early twenty-first
centuries.
The emergence of biblical criticism is most often attributed by scholars to the German Enlightenment (c. 1650 – c. 1800), but some trace its roots back further, to the Reformation. Its principal scholarly influences were rationalist and Protestant in orientation; German pietism played a role in its development, as did British deism. Against the backdrop of Enlightenment-era skepticism of biblical and church authority, scholars began to study the life of Jesus
through a historical lens, breaking with the traditional theological
focus on the nature and interpretation of his divinity. This historical
turn marked the beginning of the quest for the historical Jesus, which would remain an area of scholarly interest for over 200 years.
Historical-biblical criticism includes a wide range of approaches and questions within four major methodologies: textual, source, form, and literary criticism. Textual criticism examines biblical manuscripts
and their content to identify what the original text probably said.
Source criticism searches the text for evidence of their original
sources. Form criticism identifies short units of text seeking the
setting of their origination. Redaction criticism
later developed as a derivative of both source and form criticism. Each
of these methods was primarily historical and focused on what went on
before the texts were in their present form. Literary criticism, which
emerged in the twentieth century, differed from these earlier methods.
It focused on the literary structure of the texts as they currently
exist, determining, where possible, the author's purpose, and discerning
the reader's response to the text through methods such as rhetorical criticism, canonical criticism, and narrative criticism. All together, these various methods of biblical criticism permanently changed how people understood the Bible.
In the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, biblical criticism was influenced by a wide range of additional academic disciplines and theoretical perspectives which led to its transformation. Having long been dominated by white male Protestant
academics, the twentieth century saw others such as non-white scholars,
women, and those from the Jewish and Catholic traditions become
prominent voices in biblical criticism. Globalization introduced a broader spectrum of worldviews and perspectives into the field, and other academic disciplines, e.g. Near Eastern studies and philology, formed new methods of biblical criticism. Meanwhile, postmodern
and post-critical interpretations began questioning whether biblical
criticism even had a role or function at all. With these new methods
came new goals, as biblical criticism moved from the historical to the
literary, and its basic premise changed from neutral judgment to a
recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the
texts.
Definition
Daniel J. Harrington
defines biblical criticism as "the effort at using scientific criteria
(historical and literary) and human reason to understand and explain, as
objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the biblical writers."
The original biblical criticism has been mostly defined by its
historical concerns. Critics focused on the historical events behind the
text as well as the history of how the texts themselves developed. So much biblical criticism has been done as history, and not theology, that it is sometimes called the "historical-critical method" or historical-biblical criticism (or sometimes higher criticism) instead of just biblical criticism.
Biblical critics used the same scientific methods and approaches to
history as their secular counterparts and emphasized reason and
objectivity.Neutrality was seen as a defining requirement.
By 1990, new perspectives, globalization and input from different
academic fields expanded biblical criticism, moving it beyond its
original criteria, and changing it into a group of disciplines with
different, often conflicting, interests.
Biblical criticism's central concept changed from neutral judgment to
beginning from a recognition of the various biases the reader brings to
the study of the texts.
Newer forms of biblical criticism are primarily literary: no longer
focused on the historical, they attend to the text as it exists now.
In the Enlightenment era of the European West, philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712) began to question the long-established Judeo-Christian tradition that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. Spinoza wrote that Moses could not have written the preface to the fifth book, Deuteronomy, since he never crossed the Jordan River into the Promised Land. There were also other problems such as Deuteronomy 31:9
which references Moses in the third person. According to Spinoza: "All
these details, the manner of narration, the testimony, and the context
of the whole story lead to the plain conclusion that these books were
written by another, and not by Moses in person".
Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship. According to Old Testament scholar Edward Young (1907–1968), Astruc believed that Moses assembled the first book of the Pentateuch, the book of Genesis, using the hereditary accounts of the Hebrew people. Biblical criticism is often said to have begun when Astruc borrowed methods of textual criticism (used to investigate Greek and Roman texts) and applied them to the Bible in search of those original accounts.
Astruc believed that, through this approach, he had identified the
separate sources that were edited together into the book of Genesis. The
existence of separate sources explained the inconsistent style and
vocabulary of Genesis, discrepancies in the narrative, differing
accounts and chronological difficulties, while still allowing for Mosaic
authorship.
Astruc's work was the genesis of biblical criticism, and because it
has become the template for all who followed, he is often called the
"Father of Biblical criticism".
The questioning of religious authority common to German Pietism contributed to the rise of biblical criticism.Rationalism also became a significant influence: Swiss theologian Jean Alphonse Turretin
(1671–1737) is an example of the "moderate rationalism" of the era.
Turretin believed that the Bible was divine revelation, but insisted
that revelation must be consistent with nature and in harmony with
reason, "For God who is the author of revelation is likewise the author
of reason". What was seen as extreme rationalism followed in the work of Heinrich Paulus (1761–1851) who denied the existence of miracles.
Johann Salomo Semler
(1725–1791) had attempted in his work to navigate between divine
revelation and extreme rationalism by supporting the view that
revelation was "divine disclosure of the truth perceived through the
depth of human experience".
He distinguished between "inward" and "outward" religion: for some
people, their religion is their highest inner purpose, while for others,
religion is a more exterior practice – a tool to accomplish other
purposes more important to the individual, such as political or economic
goals. Recognition of this distinction now forms part of the modern
field of cognitive science of religion. Semler argued for an end to all doctrinal assumptions, giving historical criticism its nonsectarian character. As a result, Semler is often called the father of historical-critical research.
"Despite the difference in attitudes between the thinkers and the
historians [of the German enlightenment], all viewed history as the key
... in their search for understanding".
Communications scholar James A. Herrick
(b. 1954) says that even though most scholars agree that biblical
criticism evolved out of the German Enlightenment, there are some
historians of biblical criticism that have found "strong direct links"
with British deism. Herrick references the German theologian Henning Graf Reventlow (1929–2010) as linking deism with the humanist world view, which has been significant in biblical criticism. Matthew Tindal (1657–1733), as part of British deism, asserted that Jesus taught an undogmatic natural religion
that the Church later changed into its own dogmatic form. Tindal's view
of Christianity as a "mere confirmation of natural religion and his
resolute denial of the supernatural" led him to conclude that "revealed
religion is superfluous". British deism was also an influence on the philosopher and writer Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694–1768) in developing his criticism of revelation.
The biblical scholar Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791) advocated the use of other Semitic languages
in addition to Hebrew to understand the Old Testament, and in 1750,
wrote the first modern critical introduction to the New Testament. Instead of interpreting the Bible historically, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Johann Philipp Gabler (1753–1826), and Georg Lorenz Bauer (1755–1806) used the concept of myth as a tool for interpreting the Bible. Rudolf Bultmann later used this approach, and it became particularly influential in the early twentieth century.
George Ricker Berry
says the term "higher criticism", which is sometimes used as an
alternate name for historical criticism, was first used by Eichhorn in
his three-volume work Einleitung ins Alte Testament (Introduction
to the Old Testament) published between 1780 and 1783. The term was
originally used to differentiate higher criticism, the term for
historical criticism, from lower, which was the term commonly used for
textual criticism at the time.
The importance of textual criticism means that the term 'lower
criticism' is no longer used much in twenty-first century studies.
A twenty–first century view of biblical criticism's origins, that
traces it to the Reformation, is a minority position, but the
Reformation is the source of biblical criticism's advocacy of freedom
from external authority imposing its views on biblical interpretation. Long before Richard Simon, the historical context of the biblical texts was important to Joachim Camerarius (1500–1574) who wrote a philological study of figures of speech in the biblical texts using their context to understand them. Hugo Grotius (1583–1645) paved the way for comparative religion studies by analyzing New Testament texts in the light of Classical, Jewish and early Christian writings.
The first quest for the historical Jesus is also sometimes referred to as the Old Quest. It began with the publication of Hermann Samuel Reimarus's work after his death. G. E. Lessing (1729–1781) claimed to have discovered copies of Reimarus's writings in the library at Wolfenbüttel when he was the librarian there.
Reimarus had left permission for his work to be published after his
death, and Lessing did so between 1774 and 1778, publishing them as Die Fragmente eines unbekannten Autors (The Fragments of an Unknown Author). Over time, they came to be known as the Wolfenbüttel Fragments.
Reimarus distinguished between what Jesus taught and how he is
portrayed in the New Testament. According to Reimarus, Jesus was a
political Messiah
who failed at creating political change and was executed by the Roman
state as a dissident. His disciples then stole the body and invented the
story of the resurrection for personal gain.
Albert Schweitzer in The Quest of the Historical Jesus,
acknowledges that Reimarus's work "is a polemic, not an objective
historical study", while also referring to it as "a masterpiece of world
literature."
According to Schweitzer, Reimarus was wrong in his assumption that
Jesus's end-of-world eschatology was "earthly and political in
character" but was right in viewing Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher, as
evidenced by his repeated warnings about the destruction of Jerusalem
and the end of time. This eschatological approach to understanding
Jesus has since become universal in modern biblical criticism.
Schweitzer also comments that, since Reimarus was a historian and not a
theologian or a biblical scholar, he "had not the slightest inkling"
that source criticism would provide the solution to the problems of
literary consistency that Reimarus had raised.
Reimarus's controversial work garnered a response from Semler in 1779: Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten (Answering the Fragments of an Unknown). Schweitzer records that Semler "rose up and slew Reimarus in the name of scientific theology".
Respect for Semler temporarily repressed the dissemination and study of
Reimarus's work, but Semler's response had no long-term effect.
Reimarus's writings, on the other hand, did have a long-term effect.
They made a lasting change in the practice of biblical criticism by
making it clear it could exist independently of theology and faith.
His work also showed biblical criticism could serve its own ends, be
governed solely by rational criteria, and reject deference to religious
tradition. Reimarus's central question, "How political was Jesus?", continues to be debated by theologians and historians such as Wolfgang Stegemann [de], Gerd Theissen and Craig S. Keener.
In addition to overseeing the publication of Reimarus's work,
Lessing made contributions of his own, arguing that the proper study of
biblical texts requires knowing the context in which they were written.
This is now the accepted scholarly view.
Nineteenth century
Professors
Richard Soulen and Kendall Soulen write that biblical criticism reached
"full flower" in the nineteenth century, becoming the "major
transforming fact of biblical studies in the modern period". The height of biblical criticism's influence is represented by the history of religions school a group of German Protestant theologians associated with the University of Göttingen. In the late nineteenth century, they sought to understand Judaism and Christianity within the overall history of religion. Other Bible scholars outside the Göttingen school, such as Heinrich Julius Holtzmann
(1832–1910), also used biblical criticism. Holtzmann developed the
first listing of the chronological order of the New Testament texts
based on critical scholarship.
Many insights in understanding the Bible that began in the
nineteenth century continue to be discussed in the twenty-first; in some
areas of study, such as linguistic tools, scholars merely appropriate
earlier work, while in others they "continue to suppose they can produce
something new and better".For example, some modern histories of Israel include historical biblical research from the nineteenth century. In 1835, and again in 1845, theologian Ferdinand Christian Baur postulated the apostlesPeter and Paul had an argument that led to a split between them thereby influencing the mode of Christianity that followed.
This still occasions widespread debate within topics such as Pauline
studies, New Testament Studies, early-church studies, Jewish Law, the theology of grace, and the doctrine of justification. Albrecht Ritschl's challenge to orthodox atonement theory continues to influence Christian thought.
Nineteenth-century biblical critics "thought of themselves as continuing the aims of the Protestant Reformation". According to Robert M. Grant and David Tracy,
"One of the most striking features of the development of biblical
interpretation during the nineteenth century was the way in which
philosophical presuppositions implicitly guided it".
Michael Joseph Brown points out that biblical criticism operated
according to principles grounded in a distinctively European
rationalism. By the end of the nineteenth century, these principles were
recognized by Ernst Troeltsch in an essay, Historical and Dogmatic Method in Theology,
where he described three principles of biblical criticism:
methodological doubt (a way of searching for certainty by doubting
everything); analogy (the idea that we understand the past by relating
it to our present); and mutual inter-dependence (every event is related
to events that proceeded it).
Biblical criticism's focus on pure reason produced a paradigm
shift that profoundly changed Christian theology concerning the Jews. Anders Gerdmar [de] uses the legal meaning of emancipation, as in free to be an adult on their own recognizance, when he says the "process of the emancipation of reason from the Bible ... runs parallel with the emancipation of Christianity from the Jews".
In the previous century, Semler had been the first Enlightenment
Protestant to call for the "de-Judaizing" of Christianity. While taking
a stand against discrimination in society, Semler also wrote theology
that was strongly negative toward the Jews and Judaism. He saw Christianity as something that 'superseded' all that came before it. This stark contrast between Judaism and Christianity produced increasingly antisemitic sentiments.Supersessionism, instead of the more traditional millennialism, became a common theme in Johann Gottfried Herder (1744–1803), Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), David Strauss (1808–1874), Albrecht Ritschl (1822–1889), the history of religions school of the 1890s, and on into the form critics of the twentieth century until World War II.
Historical Jesus: the lives of Jesus
The
late-nineteenth century saw a renewed interest in the quest for the
historical Jesus which primarily involved writing versions of the life
of Jesus. Important scholars of this quest included David Strauss (1808–1874), whose Life of Jesus
used a mythical interpretation of the gospels to undermine their
historicity. The book was culturally significant because it contributed
to weakening church authority, and it was theologically significant
because it challenged the divinity of Christ. In The Essence of Christianity (1900), Adolf Von Harnack (1851–1930) described Jesus as a reformer. William Wrede
(1859–1906) rejected all the theological aspects of Jesus and asserted
that the "messianic secret" of Jesus as Messiah emerged only in the
early community and did not come from Jesus himself. Ernst Renan (1823–1892) promoted the critical method and was opposed to orthodoxy. Wilhelm Bousset (1865–1920) attained honors in the history of religions school by contrasting what he called the joyful teachings of Jesus's new righteousness and what Bousset saw as the gloomy call to repentance made by John the Baptist. While at Göttingen, Johannes Weiss (1863–1914) wrote his most influential work on the apocalyptic proclamations of Jesus.
In 1896, Martin Kähler (1835–1912) wrote The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ.
It critiqued the quest's methodology, with a reminder of the limits of
historical inquiry, saying it is impossible to separate the historical
Jesus from the Jesus of faith, since Jesus is only known through
documents about him as Christ the Messiah.
The Old Quest was not considered closed until Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) wrote Von Reimarus zu Wrede which was published in English as The Quest of the Historical Jesus
in 1910. In it, Schweitzer scathingly critiqued the various books on
the life of Jesus that had been written in the late-nineteenth century
as reflecting more of the lives of the authors than Jesus.
Schweitzer revolutionized New Testament scholarship at the turn of the
century by proving to most of that scholarly world that the teachings
and actions of Jesus were determined by his eschatological outlook; he thereby finished the quest's pursuit of the apocalyptic Jesus. Schweitzer concluded that any future research on the historical Jesus was pointless.
Twentieth century
In
the early twentieth century, biblical criticism was shaped by two main
factors and the clash between them. First, form criticism arose and
turned the focus of biblical criticism from author to genre, and from
individual to community. Next, a scholarly effort to reclaim the Bible's
theological relevance began. Karl Barth (1886–1968), Rudolf Bultmann (1884–1976), and others moved away from concern over the historical Jesus and concentrated instead on the kerygma: the message of the New Testament.
Most scholars agree that Bultmann is one of the "most influential
theologians of the twentieth-century", but that he also had a
"notorious reputation for his de-mythologizing" which was debated around
the world.[49][50] Demythologizing refers to the reinterpretation of the biblical myths (stories) in terms of the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger (1889–1976). Bultmann claimed myths are "true" anthropologically and existentially but not cosmologically. As a major proponent of form criticism, Bultmann "set the agenda for a subsequent generation of leading NT [New Testament] scholars".
Around the midcentury point the denominational
composition of biblical critics began to change. This was due to a
shift in perception of the critical effort as being possible on the
basis of premises other than liberal Protestantism. Redaction criticism
also began in the mid-twentieth century. While form criticism had
divided the text into small units, redaction emphasized the literary
integrity of the larger literary units instead.
The discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran
in 1948 renewed interest in archaeology's potential contributions to
biblical studies, but it also posed challenges to biblical criticism. For example, the majority of the Dead Sea texts are closely related to the Masoretic Text that the Christian Old Testament is based upon, while other texts bear a closer resemblance to the Septuagint (the ancient Greek version of the Hebrew texts) and still others are closer to the Samaritan Pentateuch.
This has raised the question of whether or not there is such a thing as
an "original text". If there is no original text, the entire purpose of
textual criticism is called into question.
New Testament scholar Joachim Jeremias (1900–1979) used linguistics, and Jesus's first-century Jewish environment, to interpret the New Testament. The biblical theology movement of the 1950s produced debate between Old Testament and New Testament scholars over the unity of the Bible. The rise of redaction criticism closed this debate by bringing about a greater emphasis on diversity. The New quest for the historical Jesus began in 1953 and was so-named in 1959 by James M. Robinson.
After 1970, biblical criticism began to change radically and pervasively.New criticism, which developed as an adjunct to literary criticism, was concerned with the particulars of style. New historicism, a literary theory that views history through literature, also developed. Biblical criticism began to apply new literary approaches such as structuralism and rhetorical criticism, which concentrated less on history and more on the texts themselves. In the 1970s, the New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders (1937–2022) advanced the New Perspective on Paul, which has greatly influenced scholarly views on the relationship between Pauline Christianity and Jewish Christianity in the Pauline epistles. Sanders also advanced study of the historical Jesus by putting Jesus's life in the context of first-century Second-Temple Judaism. In 1974, the theologian Hans Frei published The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative, which became a landmark work leading to the development of post-critical interpretation. The third period of focused study on the historical Jesus began in 1988.
By 1990, biblical criticism as a primarily historical discipline
changed into a group of disciplines with often conflicting interests. New perspectives from different ethnicities, feminist theology,
Catholicism and Judaism offered insights previously overlooked by the
majority of white male Protestants who had dominated biblical criticism
from its beginnings. Globalization also introduced different worldviews; these new points-of-view created awareness that the Bible can be rationally interpreted from many different perspectives.
In turn, this awareness changed biblical criticism's central concept
from the criteria of neutral judgment to that of beginning from a
recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the
texts.
Historical Jesus: the New quest into the twenty-first century
Ernst Hildebrand's 1910 painting Kreuzigung Christi depicts the crucifixion of Jesus. The crucifixion is widely regarded by historians as a historical event.
There is no general agreement among scholars on how to periodize the
various quests for the historical Jesus. Most scholars agree the first
quest began with Reimarus and ended with Schweitzer, that there was a
"no-quest" period in the first half of the twentieth century, and that
there was a second quest, known as the "New" quest that began in 1953
and lasted until 1988 when a third began.However, Stanley E. Porter (b. 1956) calls this periodization "untenable and belied by all of the pertinent facts",
arguing that people were searching for the historical Jesus before
Reimarus, and that there never has been a period when scholars were not
doing so.
In 1953, Ernst Käsemann (1906–1998), gave a famous lecture before the Old Marburgers, his former colleagues at the University of Marburg, where he had studied under Bultmann.
In this stronghold of support for Bultmann, Käsemann claimed
"Bultmann's skepticism about what could be known about the historical
Jesus had been too extreme".
Bultmann had claimed that, since the gospel writers wrote theology,
their writings could not be considered history, but Käsemann reasoned
that one does not necessarily preclude the other. James M. Robinson named this the New quest in his 1959 essay "The New Quest for the Historical Jesus".
This quest focused largely on the teachings of Jesus as interpreted by
existentialist philosophy. Interest waned again by the 1970s.
N. T. Wright asserts that the third quest began with the Jesus Seminar in 1988. By then, it became necessary to acknowledge that "the upshot of the first two quests... was to reveal the frustrating limitations of the historical study of any ancient person". According to Ben Witherington, probability is all that is possible in this pursuit. Paul Montgomery in The New York Times
writes that "Through the ages scholars and laymen have taken various
positions on the life of Jesus, ranging from total acceptance of the
Bible to assertions that Jesus of Nazareth is a creature of myth and
never lived."
Sanders explains that, because of the desire to know everything
about Jesus, including his thoughts and motivations, and because there
are such varied conclusions about him, it seems to many scholars that it
is impossible to be certain about anything. Yet according to Sanders,
"we know quite a lot" about Jesus.
While scholars rarely agree about what is known or unknown about the
historical Jesus, according to Witherington, scholars do agree that "the
historic questions should not be dodged".
Major methods
Theologian David R. Law writes that biblical scholars usually employ textual, source, form, and redaction criticism
together. The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible), and the New Testament,
as distinct bodies of literature, each raise their own problems of
interpretation - the two are therefore generally studied separately. For
purposes of discussion, these individual methods are separated here and
the Bible is addressed as a whole, but this is an artificial approach
that is used only for the purpose of description, and is not how
biblical criticism is actually practiced.
Textual criticism involves examination of the text itself and all associated manuscripts with the aim of determining the original text.
It is one of the largest areas of biblical criticism in terms of the
sheer amount of information it addresses. The roughly 900 manuscripts
found at Qumran include the oldest extant manuscripts of the Hebrew
Bible. They represent every book except Esther, though most books appear
only in fragmentary form. The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic, and Armenian texts. The dates of these manuscripts are generally accepted to range from c.110–125 (the 𝔓52
papyrus) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the fifteenth
century. There are also approximately a million direct New Testament
quotations in the collected writings of the Church Fathers of the first four centuries. (As a comparison, the next best-sourced ancient text is the Iliad, presumably written by the ancient Greek Homer
in the late eighth or early seventh century BCE, which survives in more
than 1,900 manuscripts, though many are of a fragmentary nature.)
These texts were all written by hand, by copying from another
handwritten text, so they are not alike in the manner of printed works.
The differences between them are called variants.
A variant is simply any variation between two texts. Many variants are
simple misspellings or mis-copying. For example, a scribe might drop
one or more letters, skip a word or line, write one letter for another,
transpose letters, and so on. Some variants represent a scribal attempt
to simplify or harmonize, by changing a word or a phrase.
The exact number of variants is disputed, but the more texts survive, the more likely there will be variants of some kind.
Variants are not evenly distributed throughout any set of texts.
Charting the variants in the New Testament shows it is 62.9 percent
variant-free.
The impact of variants on the reliability of a single text is usually
tested by comparing it to a manuscript whose reliability has been long
established. Though many new early manuscripts have been discovered
since 1881, there are critical editions of the Greek New Testament,
such as NA28 and UBS5, that "have gone virtually unchanged" from these
discoveries. "It also means that the fourth century 'best texts', the 'Alexandrian' codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, have roots extending throughout the entire third century and even into the second".
Variants are classified into families. Say scribe 'A' makes a mistake and scribe 'B' does not. Copies of scribe 'A's text with the mistake will thereafter contain that same mistake. Over time the texts descended from 'A' that share the error, and those from 'B'
that do not share it, will diverge further, but later texts will still
be identifiable as descended from one or the other because of the
presence or absence of that original mistake.
The multiple generations of texts that follow, containing the error,
are referred to as a "family" of texts. Textual critics study the
differences between these families to piece together what the original
looked like.
Sorting out the wealth of source material is complex, so textual
families were sorted into categories tied to geographical areas. The
divisions of the New Testament textual families were Alexandrian (also called the "Neutral text"), Western (Latin translations), and Eastern (used by churches centred on Antioch and Constantinople).
Forerunners of modern textual criticism can be found in both early Rabbinic Judaism and in the early church.
Rabbis addressed variants in the Hebrew texts as early as 100CE.
Tradition played a central role in their task of producing a standard
version of the Hebrew Bible. The Hebrew text they produced stabilized by
the end of the second century, and has come to be known as the Masoretic text.
Recension is the selection of the most trustworthy evidence on which to base a text.
Emendation is the attempt to eliminate the errors which are found even in the best manuscripts.
Jerome McGann says these methods innately introduce a subjective
factor into textual criticism despite its attempt at objective rules. Alan Cooper discusses this difficulty using the example of Amos
6.12 which reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is
"yes", but the context of the passage seems to demand a "no". Cooper
explains that a recombination of the consonants allows it to be read
"Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in
the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a
matter of personal judgment.
This contributes to textual criticism being one of the most
contentious areas of biblical criticism, as well as the largest, with
scholars such as Arthur Verrall referring to it as the "fine and
contentious art". It uses specialized methodologies, enough specialized terms to create its own lexicon,
and is guided by a number of principles. Yet any of these
principles—and their conclusions—can be contested. For example, in the
late 1700s, textual critic Johann Jacob Griesbach
(1745 – 1812) developed fifteen critical principles for determining
which texts are likely the oldest and closest to the original.One of Griesbach's rules is lectio brevior praeferenda:
"the shorter reading is to be preferred". This was based on the
assumption that scribes were more likely to add to a text than omit from
it, making shorter texts more likely to be older.
Latin scholar Albert C. Clark challenged Griesbach's view of shorter texts in 1914. Based on his study of Cicero,
Clark argued omission was a more common scribal error than addition,
saying "A text is like a traveler who goes from one inn to another
losing an article of luggage at each halt".
Clark's claims were criticized by those who supported Griesbach's
principles. Clark responded, but disagreement continued. Nearly eighty
years later, the theologian and priest James Royse took up the case.
After close study of multiple New Testament papyri, he concluded Clark
was right, and Griesbach's rule of measure was wrong.
Some twenty-first century scholars have advocated abandoning these
older approaches to textual criticism in favor of new computer-assisted
methods for determining manuscript relationships in a more reliable way.
Source criticism
is the search for the original sources that form the basis of biblical
texts. In Old Testament studies, source criticism is generally focused
on identifying sources of a single text. For example, the
seventeenth-century French priest Richard Simon
(1638–1712) was an early proponent of the theory that Moses could not
have been the single source of the entire Pentateuch. According to
Simon, parts of the Old Testament were not written by individuals at
all, but by scribes recording the community's oral tradition.
The French physician Jean Astruc presumed in 1753 that Moses had
written the book of Genesis (the first book of the Pentateuch) using
ancient documents; he attempted to identify these original sources and
to separate them again.
He did this by identifying repetitions of certain events, such as parts
of the flood story that are repeated three times, indicating the
possibility of three sources. He discovered that the alternation of two
different names for God occurs in Genesis and up to Exodus 3 but not in
the rest of the Pentateuch, and he also found apparent anachronisms:
statements seemingly from a later time than that in which Genesis was
set. This and similar evidence led Astruc to hypothesize that the
sources of Genesis were originally separate materials that were later
fused into a single unit that became the book of Genesis.
Examples of source criticism include its two most influential and well-known theories, the first concerning the origins of the Pentateuch in the Old Testament (Wellhausen's hypothesis); and the second tracing the sources of the four gospels of the New Testament (two-source hypothesis).
Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis
Source criticism's most influential work is Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologue to the History of Israel,
1878) which sought to establish the sources of the first five books of
the Old Testament - collectively known as the Pentateuch. Wellhausen correlated the history and development of those five books with the development of the Jewish faith. The Wellhausen hypothesis (also known as the JEDP theory, or the Documentary hypothesis,
or the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis) proposes that the Pentateuch was
combined out of four separate and coherent (unified single) sources (not
fragments).
J stands for the Yahwist source, (Jahwist in German), and was considered to be the most primitive in style and therefore the oldest. E (for Elohist) was thought to be a product of the Northern Kingdom before BCE 721; D (for Deuteronomist) was said to be written shortly before it was found in BCE 621 by King Josiah of Judah (2 Chronicles 34:14-30).
Old Testament scholar Karl Graf (1815–1869) suggested an additional
priestly source in 1866; by 1878, Wellhausen had incorporated this
source, P, into his theory, which is thereafter sometimes referred to as
the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis. Wellhausen argued that P had been
composed during the exile of the 6th century BCE, under the influence of Ezekiel. These sources are supposed to have been edited together by a late final Redactor (R) who is only imprecisely understood.
Later scholars added to and refined Wellhausen's theory. For example, the Newer Documentary Thesis inferred more sources, with increasing information about their extent and inter-relationship.The fragmentary theory
was a later understanding of Wellhausen produced by form criticism.
This theory argues that fragments of documents — rather than continuous,
coherent documents — are the sources for the Pentateuch.
Alexander Geddes and Johann Vater proposed that some of these
fragments were quite ancient, perhaps from the time of Moses, and were
brought together only at a later time. This accounts for diversity but not structural and chronological consistency.
One can see the Supplementary hypothesis
as yet another evolution of Wellhausen's theory that solidified in the
1970s. Proponents of this view assert three sources for the Pentateuch:
the Deuteronomist as the oldest source, the Elohist as the central core
document, with a number of fragments or independent sources as the
third.
Deuteronomy is seen as a single coherent document with a uniformity of
style and language in spite of also having different literary strata.This observation led to the idea there was such a thing as a Deuteronomist school
that had originally edited and kept the document updated. This meant
the supplementary model became the literary model most widely agreed
upon for Deuteronomy, which then supports its application to the
remainder of the Pentateuch as well.
Critique of Wellhausen
Advocates
of Wellhausen's hypothesis contend it accounts well for the differences
and duplication found in the Pentateuchal books.
Furthermore, they argue, it provides an explanation for the peculiar
character of the material labeled P, which reflects the perspective and
concerns of Israel's priests. Wellhausen's theory went virtually
unchallenged until the 1970s, when it began to be heavily criticized.
By the end of the 1970s and into the 1990s, "one major study after
another, like a series of hammer blows, has rejected the main claims of
the Documentary theory, and the criteria on the basis of which they were
argued".
It has been criticized for its dating of the sources, and for assuming
that the original sources were coherent or complete documents. Studies
of the literary structure of the Pentateuch have shown J and P used the
same structure, and that motifs and themes cross the boundaries of the
various sources, which undermines arguments for their separate origins.
Problems and criticisms of the Documentary hypothesis have been
brought on by literary analysts who point out the error of judging
ancient Eastern writings as if they were the products of western
European Protestants; and by advances in anthropology that undermined
Wellhausen's assumptions about how cultures develop; and also by various
archaeological findings showing the cultural environment of the early
Hebrews was more advanced than Wellhausen thought.
As a result, few biblical scholars of the twenty-first century hold to
Wellhausen's Documentary hypothesis in its classical form. As Nicholson says: "it is in sharp decline—some would say in a state of advanced rigor mortis—and new solutions are being argued and urged in its place".
Yet no replacement has so far been agreed upon: "the work of
Wellhausen, for all that it needs revision and development in detail,
remains the securest basis for understanding the Pentateuch".
Source criticism of the New Testament: the synoptic problem
The widely accepted two-source hypothesis, showing two sources for both Matthew and Luke
In New Testament studies, source criticism has taken a slightly
different approach from Old Testament studies by focusing on identifying
the common sources of multiple texts instead of looking for the
multiple sources of a single set of texts. This has revealed that the
Gospels are both products of sources and sources themselves. As sources, Matthew, Mark and Luke are partially dependent on each other and partially independent of each other. This is called the synoptic problem,
and explaining it is the single greatest dilemma of New Testament
source criticism. Any explanation offered must "account for (a) what is
common to all the Gospels; (b) what is common to any two of them; (c)
what is peculiar to each".
Multiple theories exist to address the dilemma, with none universally
agreed upon, but two theories have become predominant: the two-source hypothesis and the four-source hypothesis.
Mark is the shortest of the four gospels with only 661 verses,
but 600 of those verses are in Matthew and 350 of them are in Luke. Some
of these verses are verbatim. Most scholars agree that this indicates
Mark was a source for Matthew and Luke. There is also some verbatim
agreement between Matthew and Luke of verses not found in Mark. In 1838, the religious philosopher Christian Hermann Weisse developed a theory about this. He postulated a hypothetical collection of the sayings of Jesus from an additional source called Q, taken from Quelle, which is German for "source".
If this document existed, it has now been lost, but some of its
material can be deduced indirectly. There are five highly detailed
arguments in favor of Q's existence: the verbal agreement of Mark and
Luke, the order of the parables, the doublets, a discrepancy in the
priorities of each gospel, and each one's internal coherence. Q allowed the two-source hypothesis to emerge as the best supported of the various synoptic solutions.
There is also material unique to each gospel. This indicates additional
separate sources for Matthew and for Luke. Biblical scholar B. H. Streeter used this insight to refine and expand the two-source theory into a four-source theory in 1925.
Two-source theory critique
While
most scholars agree that the two-source theory offers the best
explanation for the Synoptic problem, and some say it has been solved,
others say it is not solved satisfactorily. Donald Guthrie
says no single theory offers a complete solution as there are complex
and important difficulties that create challenges to every theory. One example is Basil Christopher Butler's challenge to the legitimacy of two-source theory, arguing it contains a Lachmann fallacy that says the two-source theory loses cohesion when it is acknowledged that no source can be established for Mark.F. C. Grant posits multiple sources for the Gospels.
Form criticism began in the early twentieth century when theologian Karl Ludwig Schmidt
observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units. Schmidt
asserted these small units were remnants and evidence of the oral
tradition that preceded the writing of the gospels. Bible scholar Richard Bauckham says this "most significant insight," which established the foundation of form criticism, has never been refuted.Hermann Gunkel (1862–1932) and Martin Dibelius (1883–1947) built from this insight and pioneered form criticism. By the 1950s and 1960s, Rudolf Bultmann and form criticism were the "center of the theological conversation in both Europe and North America".
Form criticism breaks down biblical pasage into short units called pericopes,
which are then classified by genre: prose or verse, letters, laws,
court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, and so on. Form criticism
then theorizes concerning the individual pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life" or "place in life"). Based on their understanding of folklore,
form critics believed the early Christian communities formed the
sayings and teachings of Jesus themselves, according to their needs
(their "situation in life"), and that each form could be identified by
the situation in which it had been created and vice versa.
Critique of form criticism
In
the early- to mid- twentieth century, form critics thought finding oral
"laws of development" within the New Testament would prove the form
critic's assertions that the texts had evolved within the early
Christian communities according to sitz im leben. Since Mark was
believed to be the first gospel, the form critics looked for the
addition of proper names for anonymous characters, indirect discourse
being turned into direct quotation, and the elimination of Aramaic terms
and forms, with details becoming more concrete in Matthew, and then
more so in Luke. Instead, in the 1970s, New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders
wrote that: "There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the
Synoptic tradition... On all counts the tradition developed in opposite
directions. It became both longer and shorter, both more and less
detailed, and both more and less Semitic".
Scholars from the 1970s and into the 1990s, produced an
"explosion of studies" on structure, genre, text-type, setting and
language that challenged several of form criticism's aspects and
assumptions.
For example, the period of the twentieth century dominated by form
criticism is marked by Bultmann's extreme skepticism concerning what can
be known about the historical Jesus and his sayings. Some form critics assumed these same skeptical presuppositions
based largely on their understanding of oral transmission and folklore.
During the latter half of the twentieth century, field studies of
cultures with existing oral traditions directly impacted many of these
presuppositions. In 1978, research by linguists Milman Parry and Albert Bates Lord was used to undermine Gunkel's belief that "short narratives evolved into longer cycles".
Within these oral cultures, literacy did not replace memory in a
natural evolution. Instead, writing was used to enhance memory in an
overlap of written and oral tradition. Susan Niditch concluded from her orality
studies that: "no longer are many scholars convinced ... that the most
seemingly oral-traditional or formulaic pieces are earliest in date".
In this manner, compelling evidence developed against the form critical
belief that Jesus's sayings were formed by Christian communities. As
John Niles indicates, the "older idea of 'an ideal folk community—an
undifferentiated company of rustics, each of whom contributes equally to
the process of oral tradition,' is no longer tenable". According to Eddy and Boyd, these various conclusions directly undermine assumptions about Sitz im leben: "In light of what we now know of oral traditions, no necessary correlation between [the literary] forms and life situations [sitz im leben] can be confidently drawn".
Form critics assumed the early Church was heavily influenced by the Hellenistic culture that surrounded first-century Palestine, but in the 1970s, Sanders, as well as Gerd Theissen,
sparked new rounds of studies that included anthropological and
sociological perspectives, reestablishing Judaism as the predominant
influence on Jesus, Paul, and the New Testament.
New Testament scholar N. T. Wright says, "The earliest traditions of
Jesus reflected in the Gospels are written from the perspective of Second Temple Judaism [and] must be interpreted from the standpoint of Jewish eschatology and apocalypticism".
According to religion scholar Werner H. Kelber,
form critics throughout the mid-twentieth century were so focused on
finding each pericope's original form, that they were distracted from
any serious consideration of memory as a dynamic force in the
construction of the gospels or the early church community tradition.
What Kelber refers to as the "astounding myopia" of the form critics
has revived interest in memory as an analytical category within biblical
criticism.
For some, the many challenges to form criticism mean its future is in doubt. Bible scholar Tony Campbell says:
Form criticism had a meteoric rise in the early part of
the twentieth century and fell from favor toward its end. For some, the
future of form criticism is not an issue: it has none. But if form
criticism embodies an essential insight, it will continue...
Two concerns ... give it its value: concern for the nature of the text
and for its shape and structure. ... If the encrustations can be scraped
away, the good stuff may still be there.
Redaction criticism
Correlations of text in the Synoptic gospels
Redaction is the process of editing multiple sources, often
with a similar theme, into a single document. It was derived from a
combination of both source and form criticism. As in source criticism, it is necessary to identify the traditions before determining how the redactor used them. Form critics saw the synoptic writers as mere collectors and focused on the Sitz im Leben
as the creator of the texts, whereas redaction critics have dealt more
positively with the Gospel writers, asserting an understanding of them
as theologians of the early church.
Redaction critics reject source and form criticism's description of the
Bible texts as mere collections of fragments. Where form critics
fracture the biblical elements into smaller and smaller individual
pieces, redaction critics attempt to interpret the whole literary unit.
Norman Perrin
defines redaction criticism as "the study of the theological motivation
of an author as it is revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing,
and modification of traditional material, and in the composition of new
material ... redaction criticism directs us to the author as editor."Redaction criticism developed after World War II in Germany and arrived in England and North America by the 1950s. It focuses on discovering how and why the literary units were originally edited—"redacted"—into their final forms.
Redaction Critique
Redaction
critics assume an extreme skepticism toward the historicity of Jesus
and the gospels, just as form critics do, which has been seen by some
scholars as a bias. The process of redaction seeks the historical
community of the final redactors of the gospels, though there are often
no textual clues. Porter and Adams say the redactive method of finding
the final editor's theology is flawed.
In the New Testament, redaction critics attempt to discern the original
author/evangelist's theology by focusing and relying upon the
differences between the gospels, yet it is unclear whether every
difference has theological meaning, how much meaning, or whether any
given difference is a stylistic or even an accidental change. Further,
it is not at all clear whether the difference was made by the
evangelist, who could have used the already changed story when writing a
gospel. The evangelist's theology more likely depends on what the gospels have in common as well as their differences.
Harrington says, "over-theologizing, allegorizing, and psychologizing
are the major pitfalls encountered" in redaction criticism.
Followers of other theories concerning the Synoptic problem, such as those who support the Greisbach hypothesis
which says Matthew was written first, Luke second, and Mark third, have
pointed to weaknesses in the redaction-based arguments for the
existence of Q and Markan priority. Mark Goodacre
says "Some scholars have used the success of redaction criticism as a
means of supporting the existence of Q, but this will always tend toward
circularity, particularly given the hypothetical nature of Q which
itself is reconstructed by means of redaction criticism".
In the mid-twentieth century, literary criticism began to develop,
shifting scholarly attention from historical and pre-compositional
matters to the text itself, thereafter becoming the dominant form of
biblical criticism in a relatively short period of about thirty years.
It can be said to have begun in 1957 when literary critic Northrop Frye
wrote an analysis of the Bible from the perspective of his literary
background by using literary criticism to understand the Bible forms.
Hans Frei proposed that "biblical narratives should be evaluated on
their own terms" rather than by taking them apart in the manner we
evaluate philosophy or historicity. Frei was one of several external influences that moved biblical criticism from a historical to a literary focus. New Testament scholar Paul R. House
says the discipline of linguistics, new views of historiography, and
the decline of older methods of criticism were also influential in that
process.
By 1974, the two methodologies being used in literary criticism were rhetorical analysis and structuralism.
Rhetorical analysis divides a passage into units, observes how a single
unit shifts or breaks, taking special note of poetic devices, meter,
parallelism, word play and so on. It then charts the writer's thought
progression from one unit to the next, and finally, assembles the data
in an attempt to explain the author's intentions behind the piece.
Critics of rhetorical analysis say there is a "lack of a well-developed
methodology" and that it has a "tendency to be nothing more than an
exercise in stylistics".
Structuralism looks at the language to discern "layers of
meaning" with the goal of uncovering a work's "deep structures" – the
premises as well as the purposes of the author. In 1981 literature scholar Robert Alter
also contributed to the development of biblical literary criticism by
publishing an influential analysis of biblical themes from a literary
perspective. The 1980s saw the rise of formalism, which focuses on plot, structure, character and themes and the development of reader-response criticism which focuses on the reader rather than the author.
New Testament scholar Donald Guthrie
highlights a flaw in the literary critical approach to the Gospels: the
genre of the Gospels has not been fully determined. No conclusive
evidence has yet been produced to settle the question of genre, and
without genre, no adequate parallels can be found, and without parallels
"it must be considered to what extent the principles of literary
criticism are applicable". The validity of using the same critical methods for novels and for the
Gospels, without the assurance the Gospels are actually novels, must be
questioned.
As a type of literary criticism, canonical criticism has both
theological and literary roots. Its origins are found in the Church's
views of the biblical writings as sacred, and in the secular literary
critics who began to influence biblical scholarship in the 1940s and
1950s. By the mid-twentieth century, the high level of
departmentalization in biblical criticism, with its large volume of data
and absence of applicable theology, had begun to produce a level of
dissatisfaction among both scholars and faith communities.Brevard S. Childs
(1923–2007) proposed an approach to bridge that gap that came to be
called canonical criticism. Canonical criticism "signaled a major and
enduring shift in biblical studies". Canonical criticism does not reject historical criticism, but it does reject its claim to "unique validity".
John Barton says that canonical criticism does not simply ask what the
text might have originally meant, it asks what it means to the current
believing community, and it does so in a manner different from any type
of historical criticism.
John H. Hayes and Carl Holladay
say "canonical criticism has several distinguishing features": (1)
Canonical criticism is synchronic; it sees all biblical writings as
standing together in time instead of focusing on the diachronic
questions of the historical approach.
(2) Canonical critics approach the books as whole units instead of
focusing on pieces. They accept that many texts have been composed over
long periods of time, but the canonical critic wishes "to interpret the last edition of a biblical book" and then relate books to each other. (3) Canonical criticism opposes form criticism's isolation of individual passages from their canonical setting.
(4) Canonical criticism emphasizes the relationship between the text
and its reader in an effort to reclaim the relationship between the
texts and how they were used in the early believing communities.
Canonical critics focus on reader interaction with the biblical writing.
(5) "Canonical criticism is overtly theological in its approach".
Critics are interested in what the text means for the community—"the
community of faith whose predecessors produced the canon, that was
called into existence by the canon, and seeks to live by the canon".
Rhetorical criticism is also a type of literary criticism. While James Muilenburg (1896–1974) is often referred to as "the prophet of rhetorical criticism", it is Herbert A. Wichelns who is credited with "creating the modern discipline of rhetorical criticism" with his 1925 essay "The Literary Criticism of Oratory".
In that essay, Wichelns says that rhetorical criticism and other types
of literary criticism differ from each other because rhetorical
criticism is only concerned with "effect. It regards a speech as a
communication to a specific audience, and holds its business to be the
analysis and appreciation of the orator's method of imparting his ideas
to his hearers".
Rhetorical criticism is a qualitative analysis. This qualitative
analysis involves three primary dimensions: (1) analyzing the act of
criticism and what it does; (2) analyzing what goes on within the
rhetoric being analyzed and what is created by that rhetoric; and (3)
understanding the processes involved in all of it.Sonja K. Foss discusses ten different methods of rhetorical criticism in her book Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice saying that each method will produce different insights.
Biblical rhetorical criticism makes use of understanding the
"forms, genres, structures, stylistic devices and rhetorical techniques"
common to the Near Eastern literature of the different ages when the
separate books of biblical literature were written. It attempts to
discover and evaluate the rhetorical devices, language, and methods of
communication used within the texts by focusing on the use of
"repetition, parallelism, strophic structure, motifs, climax, chiasm and numerous other literary devices". Phyllis Trible,
a student of Muilenburg, has become one of the leaders of rhetorical
criticism and is known for her detailed literary analysis and her feminist critique of biblical interpretation.
In the last half of the twentieth century, historical critics began
to recognize that being limited to the historical meant the Bible was
not being studied in the manner of other ancient writings. In 1974, Hans
Frei pointed out that a historical focus neglects the "narrative
character" of the gospels. Critics began asking if these texts should be
understood on their own terms before being used as evidence of
something else. According to Mark Allen Powell
the difficulty in understanding the gospels on their own terms is
determining what those terms are: "The problem with treating the gospels
'just like any other book' is that the gospels are not like any other
book". The New Critics, (whose views were absorbed by narrative criticism),
rejected the idea that background information holds the key to the
meaning of the text, and asserted that meaning and value reside within
the text itself.
It is now accepted as "axiomatic in literary circles that the meaning
of literature transcends the historical intentions of the author".
As a form of literary criticism, narrative criticism approaches scripture as story. Christopher T. Paris says that, "narrative criticism admits the
existence of sources and redactions but chooses to focus on the artistic
weaving of these materials into a sustained narrative picture".
Narrative criticism was first used to study the New Testament in the 1970s, with the works of David Rhoads, Jack D. Kingsbury, R. Alan Culpepper, and Robert C. Tannehill. A decade later, this new approach in biblical criticism included the Old Testament as well. The first article labeled narrative criticism was "Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark," published in 1982 by Bible scholar David Rhoads.
Stephen D. Moore has written that "as a term, narrative criticism
originated within biblical studies", but its method was borrowed from narratology. It was also influenced by New Criticism which saw each literary work as a freestanding whole with intrinsic meaning. Sharon Betsworth says Robert Alter's work is what adapted New Criticism to the Bible.
Scholars such as Robert Alter and Frank Kermode sought to teach readers
to "appreciate the Bible itself by training attention on its
artfulness—how [the text] orchestrates sound, repetition, dialogue,
allusion, and ambiguity to generate meaning and effect".
Ken and Richard Soulen say that "biblical criticism has permanently altered the way people understand the Bible".
One way of understanding this change is to see it as a cultural
enterprise. Jonathan Sheehan has argued that critical study meant the
Bible had to become a primarily cultural instrument. It could no longer
be a Catholic Bible or a Lutheran Bible but had to be divested of its
scriptural character within specific confessional hermeneutics.
As a result, the Bible is no longer thought of solely as a religious
artifact, and its interpretation is no longer restricted to the
community of believers.
The Bible's cultural impact is studied in multiple academic fields,
producing not only the cultural Bible, but the modern academic Bible as
well.
Soulen adds that biblical criticism's "leading practitioners ... have
set standards of industry, acumen, and insight that remain pace-setting
today."
Biblical criticism made study of the Bible more secularized,
scholarly, and democratic. It began to be recognized that "Literature
was written not just for the dons of Oxford and Cambridge, but also for
common folk... Opposition to authority, especially ecclesiastical
[church authority], was widespread, and religious tolerance was on the
increase".
Old orthodoxies were questioned and radical views tolerated. Scholars
began writing in their common languages making their works available to a
larger public.
In this way, biblical criticism also led to conflict. Many like Roy A.
Harrisville believe biblical criticism was created by those hostile to
the Bible.
There are aspects of biblical criticism that have not only been hostile
to the Bible, but also to the religions whose scripture it is, in both
intent and effect.
So biblical criticism became, in the perception of many, an assault on
religion, especially Christianity, through the "autonomy of reason"
which it espoused. Part of the legacy of biblical criticism is that, as it rose, it led to the decline of biblical authority. J. W. Rogerson summarizes:
By
1800 historical criticism in Germany had reached the point where
Genesis had been divided into two or more sources, the unity of
authorship of Isaiah and Daniel had been disputed, the interdependence
of the first three gospels had been demonstrated, and miraculous
elements in the OT and NT [Old and New Testaments] had been explained as
resulting from the primitive or pre-scientific outlook of the biblical
writers.
Jeffrey Burton Russell
describes it thus: "Faith was transferred from the words of scripture
itself to those of influential biblical critics ... liberal Christianity
retreated hastily before the advance of science and biblical criticism.
By the end of the eighteenth century, advanced liberals had abandoned
the core of Christian beliefs."
This created an "intellectual crisis" in American Christianity of the
early twentieth century which led to a backlash against the critical
approach. This backlash produced a fierce internal battle for control of
local churches, national denominations, divinity schools and
seminaries.
On one hand, Rogerson says that "historical criticism is not inherently inimical to Christian belief".
On the other hand, as Michael Fishbane frankly wrote in 1992, "No
longer are we sustained within a biblical matrix... The labor of many
centuries has expelled us from this edenic womb and its wellsprings of
life and knowledge... [The] Bible has lost its ancient authority".
The most profound legacy of the loss of biblical authority is the
formation of the modern world itself, according to religion and ethics
scholar Jeffrey Stout.
"There are those who regard the desacralization of the Bible as the
fortunate condition for the rise of new sensibilities and modes of
imagination" that went into developing the modern world.
For many, biblical criticism "released a host of threats" to the
Christian faith. For others biblical criticism "proved to be a failure,
due principally to the assumption that diachronic, linear research could
master any and all of the questions and problems attendant on
interpretation".
Still others believed that biblical criticism, "shorn of its
unwarranted arrogance," could be a reliable source of interpretation.
Fishbane asserts that the significant question for those who
continue in any community of Jewish or Christian faith is, after 200
years of biblical criticism: can the text still be seen as sacred?
"[T]his question affects our innermost cultural being and traces our
relationship to the foundational text of our religious and cultural
origins". He compares biblical criticism to Job, a prophet who destroyed "self-serving visions for the sake of a more honest crossing from the divine textus to the human one".
Or as Rogerson says: biblical criticism has been liberating for those
who want their faith "intelligently grounded and intellectually honest".
Fishbane writes:
the traditional sacrality of the
Bible is at once simple and symbolic, individual and communal, practical
and paradoxical. But times have changed... [In the twenty-first
century,] [c]an the notion of a sacred text be retrieved? ... It is
arguably one of Judaism's greatest contributions to the history of
religions to assert that the divine Reality is communicated to mankind
through words... our hermeneutical hope is in the indissoluble link
between the divine and human textus... It is at such points that
the ancient theophanic power of illimitable divinity may yet
breakthrough swollen words... Thus, ... we may say that the Bible itself
may help to retrieve the notion of a sacred text.
By the end of the twentieth century, multiple new points of view
changed biblical criticism's central concepts and its goals, leading to
the development of a group of new and different biblical-critical
disciplines.
Non-liberal Protestant criticism
One legacy of biblical criticism in American culture is the American fundamentalist movement of the 1920s and 1930s. Fundamentalism began, at least partly, as a response to the biblical criticism of nineteenth century liberalism.
Some fundamentalists believed liberal critics had invented an entirely
new religion "completely at odds with the Christian faith".
There have also been conservative Protestants who accepted biblical
criticism, and this too is part of biblical criticism's legacy. William Robertson Smith (1846–1894) is an example of a nineteenth century evangelical who believed historical criticism was a legitimate outgrowth of the Protestant Reformation's
focus on the biblical text. He saw it as a "necessary tool to enable
intelligent churchgoers" to understand the Bible, and was a pioneer in
establishing the final form of the supplementary hypothesis of the documentary hypothesis. A similar view was later advocated by the Primitive Methodist biblical scholar A. S. Peake (1865–1929). Conservative Protestant scholars have continued the tradition of contributing to critical scholarship.Mark Noll
says that "in recent years, a steadily growing number of well qualified
and widely published scholars have broadened and deepened the impact of
evangelical scholarship".Edwin M. Yamauchi is a recognized expert on Gnosticism; Gordon Fee has done exemplary work in textual criticism; Richard Longenecker
is a student of Jewish-Christianity and the theology of Paul. "[It] is
safe to conclude that in many measurable features contemporary
evangelical scholarship on the scriptures enjoys a considerable good
health".
Catholic criticism
Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Catholic theology
avoided biblical criticism because of its reliance on rationalism,
preferring instead to engage in traditional exegesis, based on the works
of the Church Fathers. Notable exceptions to this included Richard Simon, Ignaz von Döllinger and the Bollandist.
The Church showed strong opposition to biblical criticism during
that period. Frequent political revolutions, bitter opposition of
"liberalism" to the Church, and the expulsion of religious orders from
France and Germany, made the church understandably suspicious of the new
intellectual currents. In his 1829 encyclical Traditi humilitati, Pope Pius VIII
lashed against "those who publish the Bible with new interpretations
contrary to the Church's laws", arguing that they were "skillfully
distort[ing] the meaning by their own interpretation", in order to
"ensure that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the
saving water of salvation". In 1864, Pope Pius IX promulgated the encyclical letter Quanta cura
("Condemning Current Errors"), which decried what the Pontiff
considered significant errors afflicting the modern age. These he listed
in an attachment called Syllabus Errorum ("Syllabus of Errors"), which, among other things, condemned rationalistic interpretations of the Bible. Similarly, the dogmatic constitution Dei Filius ("Son of God"), approved by the First Vatican Council in 1871, rejected biblical criticism, reaffirming that the Bible was written by God and that it was inerrant.
That began to change in the final decades of the nineteenth century when, in 1890, the French Dominican Marie-Joseph Lagrange (1855–1938) established a school in Jerusalem called the École prátique d'études biblique, which became the École Biblique in 1920, to encourage study of the Bible using the historical-critical method. Two years later, Lagrange funded a journal (Revue Biblique),
spoke at various conferences, wrote Bible commentaries that
incorporated textual critical work of his own, did pioneering work on
biblical genres and forms, and laid the path to overcoming resistance to
the historical-critical method among his fellow scholars.
On 18 November 1893, Pope Leo XIII promulgated the encyclical letter Providentissimus Deus
('The most provident God'). The letter gave the first formal
authorization for the use of critical methods in biblical scholarship.
"Hence it is most proper that Professors of Sacred Scripture and
theologians should master those tongues in which the sacred Books were
originally written, and have a knowledge of natural science. He recommended that the student of scripture be first given a sound grounding in the interpretations of the Fathers such as Tertullian, Cyprian, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great, Gregory the Great, Augustine and Jerome,
and understand what they interpreted literally, and what allegorically;
and note what they lay down as belonging to faith and what is opinion. Although Providentissimus Deus
tried to encourage Catholic biblical studies, it created also problems.
In the encyclical, Leo XIII excluded the possibility of restricting the
inspiration and inerrancy of the bible to matters of faith and morals.
Following Pius's death, Pope Benedict XV once again condemned rationalistic biblical criticism in his papal encyclical Spiritus Paraclitus ("Paraclete Spirit,
but also took a more moderate line than his predecessor, allowing
Lagrange to return to Jerusalem and reopen his school and journal.
In 1943, on the fiftieth anniversary of the Providentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII issued the papal encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu
('Inspired by the Holy Spirit') sanctioning historical criticism,
opening a new epoch in Catholic critical scholarship. The Jesuit Augustin Bea (1881–1968) had played a vital part in its publication. The dogmatic constitution Dei verbum ("Word of God"), approved by the Second Vatican Council and promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965 furtherly sanctioned biblical criticism.
Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer and Roland E. Murphy
were the most famous Catholic scholars to apply biblical criticism and
the historical-critical method in analyzing the Bible: together, they
authored The Jerome Biblical Commentary and The New Jerome Biblical Commentary the later of which is still one of the most used textbooks in Catholic Seminaries of the United States. The Jerome Biblical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, a third fully revised edition, will be published in 2022 and will be edited by John J. Collins, Gina Hens-Piazza, Barbara Reid and Donald Senior.
This tradition is continued by Catholic scholars such as John P. Meier, and Conleth Kearns, who also worked with Reginald C. Fuller and Leonard Johnston preparing A New Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture. Meier is also the author of a multi-volume work on the historical Jesus, A Marginal Jew.
Jewish criticism
Biblical criticism posed unique difficulties for Judaism. Some Jewish scholars, such as rabbinicistSolomon Schechter, did not participate in biblical criticism because they saw criticism of the Pentateuch as a threat to Jewish identity. The growing anti-semitism in Germany
of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the perception
that higher criticism was an entirely Protestant Christian pursuit, and
the sense that many Bible critics were not impartial academics but were
proponents of supersessionism, prompted Schechter to describe "Higher Criticism as Higher Anti-semitism".
One of the earliest historical-critical Jewish scholars of Pentateuchal studies was M. M. Kalisch, who began work in the nineteenth century. In the early twentieth century, historical criticism of the Pentateuch became mainstream among Jewish scholars. In 1905, Rabbi David Zvi Hoffmann wrote an extensive, two-volume, philologically based critique of the Wellhausen theory, which supported Jewish orthodoxy. Bible professor Benjamin D. Sommer says it is "among the most precise and detailed commentaries on the legal texts [Leviticus and Deuteronomy] ever written". According to Aly Elrefaei, the strongest refutation of Wellhausen's Documentary theory came from Yehezkel Kaufmann in 1937.
Kaufmann was the first Jewish scholar to fully exploit higher criticism
to counter Wellhausen's theory. Wellhausen's and Kaufmann's methods
were similar yet their conclusions were opposed.Mordechai Breuer, who branches out beyond most Jewish exegesis
and explores the implications of historical criticism for multiple
subjects, is an example of a twenty-first century Jewish biblical
critical scholar.
Feminist criticism
Biblical criticism impacted feminism and was impacted by it. In the 1980s, Phyllis Trible and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza
reframed biblical criticism by challenging the supposed disinterest and
objectivity it claimed for itself and exposing how
ideological-theological stances had played a critical role in
interpretation. For example, the patriarchal model of ancient Israel became an aspect of biblical criticism through the anthropology of the nineteenth century. Feminist scholars of second-wave feminism appropriated it. Third wave feminists began raising concerns about its accuracy.Carol L. Meyers
says feminist archaeology has shown "male dominance was real; but it
was fragmentary, not hegemonic" leading to a change in the
anthropological description of ancient Israel as heterarchy rather than patriarchy.
Feminist criticism is an aspect of the feminist theology movement which began in the 1960s and 1970s as part of the feminist movement in the United States. Three phases of feminist biblical interpretation are connected to the three phases, or 'waves', of the movement.
Feminist theology has since responded to globalization, making itself
less specifically Western, thereby moving beyond its original narrative
"as a movement defined by the USA". Feminist criticism embraces the inter-disciplinary approach to biblical criticism, encouraging a reader-response approach to the text that includes an attitude of "dissent" or "resistance".
Postcolonial biblical criticism
In the mid to late 1990s, a global response to the changes in biblical criticism began to coalesce as "Postcolonial biblical criticism".
Fernando F. Segovia and Stephen D. Moore postulate that it emerged from
"liberation hermeneutics, or extra-biblical Postcolonial studies, or
even from historical biblical criticism, or from all three sources at
once".
It has a focus on the indigenous and local with an eye toward
recovering those aspects of culture that Colonialism had erased or
suppressed. The Postcolonial view is rooted in a consciousness of the geopolitical situation for all people, and is "transhistorical and transcultural".
According to Laura E. Donaldson, postcolonial criticism is oppositional
and "multidimensional in nature, keenly attentive to the intricacies of
the colonial situation in terms of culture, race, class and gender".
African-American biblical criticism
Biblical
criticism produced profound changes in African-American culture. Vaughn
A. Booker writes that, "Such developments included the introduction of
the varieties of American metaphysical theology in sermons and songs,
liturgical modifications [to accommodate] Holy Spirit possession
presences through shouting and dancing, and musical changes". These
changes would both "complement and reconfigure conventional African
American religious life".
Michael Joseph Brown writes that African Americans
responded to the assumption of universality in biblical criticism by
challenging it. He says all Bible readings are contextual, in that
readers bring with them their own context: perceptions and experiences
harvested from social and cultural situations.African-American biblical criticism is based on liberation theology and black theology, and looks for what is potentially liberating in the texts.
Queer biblical hermeneutics
According to Episcopalian priest and queer theologian Patrick S. Cheng (Episcopal Divinity School):
"Queer biblical hermeneutics is a way of looking at the sacred text
through the eyes of queer people. It is important to understand the
meaning of these terms in relation to the exegetical process."
Social scientific criticism
Social scientific criticism is part of the wider trend in biblical criticism to reflect interdisciplinary methods and diversity. It grew out of form criticism's Sitz im Leben
and the sense that historical form criticism had failed to adequately
analyze the social and anthropological contexts which form critics
claimed had formed the texts. Using the perspectives, theories, models,
and research of the social sciences to determine what social norms may
have influenced the growth of biblical tradition, it is similar to
historical biblical criticism in its goals and methods and has less in
common with literary critical approaches. It analyzes the social and
cultural dimensions of the text and its environmental context.
New historicism
New historicism
emerged as traditional historical biblical criticism changed. Lois
Tyson says this new form of historical criticism developed in the 1970s.
It "rejects both traditional historicism's marginalization of
literature and New Criticism's enshrinement of the literary text in a
timeless dimension beyond history".
Literary texts are seen as "cultural artifacts" that reveal context as
well as content, and within New Historicism, the "literary text and the
historical situation" are equally important".
Post-modern biblical criticism
Postmodern biblical criticism began after the 1940s and 1950s when the term postmodern came into use to signify a rejection of modern conventions. Many of these early postmodernist views came from France following World War II. Postmodernism has been associated with Sigmund Freud, radical politics, and arguments against metaphysics and ideology. It questions anything that claims "objectively secured foundations, universals, metaphysics, or analytical dualism". Biblical scholar A. K. M. Adam
says postmodernism has three general features: 1) it denies any
privileged starting point for truth; 2) it is critical of theories that
attempt to explain the "totality of reality;" and 3) it attempts to show
that all ideals are grounded in ideological, economic or political self-interest.
Post-critical interpretation
Post-critical interpretation,
according to Ken and Richard Soulen, "shares postmodernism's suspicion
of modern claims to neutral standards of reason, but not its hostility
toward theological interpretation". It begins with the understanding that biblical criticism's focus on historicity
produced a distinction between the meaning of what the text says and
what it is about (what it historically references). The biblical
scholar Hans Frei
wrote that what he refers to as the "realistic narratives" of
literature, including the Bible, do not allow for such separation. Subject matter is identical to verbal meaning and is found in plot and nowhere else.
"As Frei puts it, scripture 'simultaneously depicts and renders the
reality (if any) of what it talks about'; its subject matter is
'constituted by, or identical with, its narrative".
