Power Point Presentations for a class by Glenn Giles of Denver, Colorado on Apologetics, Biblical Criticism and Inspiration. Class was taught in San Diego Dec 11-12 2009.

1. Class I:Class I:
Biblical Criticism HistoryBiblical Criticism History
ApologeticsApologetics
Glenn GilesGlenn Giles
December, 2009December, 2009

2. Outline of the ClassOutline of the Class
Class I: Biblical Criticism History OverviewClass I: Biblical Criticism History Overview
Class II: The Issue of Objective HistoryClass II: The Issue of Objective History
Class III: OT Textual Criticism and ReliabilityClass III: OT Textual Criticism and Reliability
Class IV: NT Textual Criticism andClass IV: NT Textual Criticism and
ReliabilityReliability
Class V: OT Source Criticism: TheClass V: OT Source Criticism: The
Documentary HypothesisDocumentary Hypothesis
Class VI: NT Source Criticism: The SynopticClass VI: NT Source Criticism: The Synoptic
ProblemProblem

3. Outline of the ClassOutline of the Class
Class VII: Form CriticismClass VII: Form Criticism
Class VIII: Redaction CriticismClass VIII: Redaction Criticism
Class IX: Tradition CriticismClass IX: Tradition Criticism
Class X: The Erosion of Inerrancy inClass X: The Erosion of Inerrancy in
EvangelicalismEvangelicalism
Class XI: The Jesus Seminar and RadicalClass XI: The Jesus Seminar and Radical
Higher CriticismHigher Criticism

4. Class RequirementsClass Requirements
1.1. Read G. K. Beale,Read G. K. Beale, The Erosion of Inerrancy inThe Erosion of Inerrancy in
EvangelicalismEvangelicalism (Wheaton: Crossway, 2008)(Wheaton: Crossway, 2008)
2.2. Study handouts and view powerpointsStudy handouts and view powerpoints
3.3. Pass the take home examPass the take home exam
4.4. Write a 8 to 10 page paper as outlined in the classWrite a 8 to 10 page paper as outlined in the class
5.5. Optional extra credit:Optional extra credit:
a. Read Josh McDowll,a. Read Josh McDowll, The New Evidence thatThe New Evidence that
Demands a VerdictDemands a Verdict (Nashville: Thomas Nelson,(Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
19991999 or later version) chapters 11-31.or later version) chapters 11-31.
b. Read my notes on “Canon Criticism.”b. Read my notes on “Canon Criticism.”

5. DefinitionsDefinitions
• ----Historical criticismHistorical criticism oror higher criticismhigher criticism is a branchis a branch
ofof literaryliterary analysis that investigates the origins of a text:analysis that investigates the origins of a text:
• ----as applied inas applied in biblical studiesbiblical studies it investigates theit investigates the
books of thebooks of the BibleBible and compares them to other textsand compares them to other texts
written at the same time, before, or recently after the textwritten at the same time, before, or recently after the text
in question . . . Higher criticism treats the Bible as a textin question . . . Higher criticism treats the Bible as a text
created by human beings at a particular historical timecreated by human beings at a particular historical time
and for various human motives, in contrast with theand for various human motives, in contrast with the
treatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of Godtreatment of the Bible as the inerrant word of God..[1][1]
[1][1] FromFrom Wikipedia, “Higher Criticism.”Wikipedia, “Higher Criticism.”

6. DefinitionsDefinitions
• Higher CriticismHigher Criticism refers mainly to all literaryrefers mainly to all literary
analyses/methodologies except “textual”analyses/methodologies except “textual”
criticism. This includes, Source, Form,criticism. This includes, Source, Form,
Redaction, Tradition, Literary, Cultural/Socio-Redaction, Tradition, Literary, Cultural/Socio-
Scientific, Canonical, as well as others.Scientific, Canonical, as well as others.
• Lower CriticismLower Criticism refers to “textual criticism”refers to “textual criticism”
which deals with the study of manuscripts inwhich deals with the study of manuscripts in
determining as close as possible the originaldetermining as close as possible the original
reading of a writing.reading of a writing.

7. TypesTypes ofof Critical MethodsCritical Methods
• Textual CriticismTextual Criticism :: attempts to get to the original textattempts to get to the original text
by comparing and studying all the available copiesby comparing and studying all the available copies
• Source CriticismSource Criticism :: attempts to find the source(s)attempts to find the source(s)
behind the extant documents. (E.g., Welhausen and thebehind the extant documents. (E.g., Welhausen and the
JEDP theory for the OT Pentateuch, the SynopticJEDP theory for the OT Pentateuch, the Synoptic
Problem in the NT).Problem in the NT).
• Form Criticism:Form Criticism: Stresses oral tradition andStresses oral tradition and
transmission behind the written texts of the Bible. Ittransmission behind the written texts of the Bible. It
dissects the Bible into small bits of tradition. It atomizesdissects the Bible into small bits of tradition. It atomizes
the text. It seeks to find the original oral form.the text. It seeks to find the original oral form.

8. Types of Critical MethodsTypes of Critical Methods
• Redaction Criticism:Redaction Criticism: Studies the editing of the biblicalStudies the editing of the biblical
material by individual authors of the individual books. Itmaterial by individual authors of the individual books. It
looks at each book as a wholelooks at each book as a whole attempting toattempting to
determine the theological purpose intended by thedetermine the theological purpose intended by the
human author in putting together and editing the bits andhuman author in putting together and editing the bits and
pieces of tradition. It views Bible books as wholes inpieces of tradition. It views Bible books as wholes in
contrast to Form Criticism which looks at small parts.contrast to Form Criticism which looks at small parts.
• Tradition Criticism:Tradition Criticism: Studies the history of traditionStudies the history of tradition
behind the text to see how the tradition in the textbehind the text to see how the tradition in the text
developed into what is extant. It has overlaps with Formdeveloped into what is extant. It has overlaps with Form
and Redaction Criticism and the History of Religionsand Redaction Criticism and the History of Religions
School Method.School Method.

9. Types of Critical MethodsTypes of Critical Methods
• Literary Criticism:Literary Criticism: stresses the beauty of the Biblestresses the beauty of the Bible
texts from an aesthetic point of view looking at rhetoricaltexts from an aesthetic point of view looking at rhetorical
devices, poetry, narrative, development of plot,devices, poetry, narrative, development of plot,
characters, structural text components, etc.characters, structural text components, etc.
• Sociological MethodSociological Method :: Uses Social-Scientific methodsUses Social-Scientific methods
to help interpret the text. Radical elements gleanto help interpret the text. Radical elements glean
freedom from various types of slavery using Exodus andfreedom from various types of slavery using Exodus and
other scriptures as the focal point to their theologies,other scriptures as the focal point to their theologies,
e.g.,e.g.,
– Feminist TheologyFeminist Theology
– Liberation TheologyLiberation Theology

10. Types of Critical MethodsTypes of Critical Methods
• Cannon Criticism:Cannon Criticism: Sees the whole canon as theSees the whole canon as the
limitation and extent of revealed Scripture for the Churchlimitation and extent of revealed Scripture for the Church
and attempts to interpret Scripture based on a booksand attempts to interpret Scripture based on a books
position in the canon.position in the canon.
• Postmodernism:Postmodernism: It is skeptical of human objectivityIt is skeptical of human objectivity
and our ability to know. It does not reject theand our ability to know. It does not reject the
supernatural but takes a mystical approach to the text.supernatural but takes a mystical approach to the text.
The text is not held to its historical meaning but toThe text is not held to its historical meaning but to
whatever it means existentially to each individual. Thuswhatever it means existentially to each individual. Thus
there is a pluralistic meaning of each text. There is nothere is a pluralistic meaning of each text. There is no
one “correct” interpretation. Hence all interpretations areone “correct” interpretation. Hence all interpretations are
correct, except one that claims that this is not true.correct, except one that claims that this is not true.

11. Biblical Criticism History:
Orthodoxy
A. New Testament Period through the ReformationA. New Testament Period through the Reformation
(100 to around 1750)(100 to around 1750)
1. Orthodox (right opinion) interpretation is held1. Orthodox (right opinion) interpretation is held
and is sustained even when challenged byand is sustained even when challenged by
Gnostics, Marcion from the NT times untilGnostics, Marcion from the NT times until
modern times.modern times.
2. Jesus was real physically in history2. Jesus was real physically in history not anot a
person created later by the church to support itsperson created later by the church to support its
belief that Jesus was both man and God. Hisbelief that Jesus was both man and God. His
true nature, character, earthly life history, andtrue nature, character, earthly life history, and
will is revealed in the New Testament.will is revealed in the New Testament.

12. Criticism HistoryCriticism History
3. Scripture is God’s special inspired3. Scripture is God’s special inspired
revelationrevelation communicated in written humancommunicated in written human
language using human minds and handslanguage using human minds and hands
under the direction of the Holy Spirit.under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
B. After 1750 the Orthodox interpretationB. After 1750 the Orthodox interpretation
begins to be challengedbegins to be challenged..

13. Challenge to OrthodoxyChallenge to Orthodoxy : The: The
Birth of the HistoricalBirth of the Historical
CriticismCriticism
• Historical Critical Approach:Historical Critical Approach: InterpretationInterpretation
based on human reason and abased on human reason and a
naturalistic worldview.naturalistic worldview. In the radical forms,In the radical forms,
the Bible is not considered God’s specialthe Bible is not considered God’s special
revelation but written by human beings.revelation but written by human beings.
Everything (especially miracles) had to beEverything (especially miracles) had to be
explained naturalistically (through the laws ofexplained naturalistically (through the laws of
physics, biology, and chemistry, evolution, etc.).physics, biology, and chemistry, evolution, etc.).
The supernatural is locked out of interpretation.The supernatural is locked out of interpretation.
The Bible is interpretatively approached as anyThe Bible is interpretatively approached as any
other human book.other human book.

14. Personages in the Development ofPersonages in the Development of
Modern CriticismModern Criticism
1. Johann Semler (1771-75).1. Johann Semler (1771-75).
a. Against “manipulative religion,”a. Against “manipulative religion,” the church or Biblethe church or Bible
has no special authority. All practical belief in thehas no special authority. All practical belief in the
inspiration of the Bible was set asideinspiration of the Bible was set aside
b. Wanted to “free all historical inquiry from issues ofb. Wanted to “free all historical inquiry from issues of
theology and doctrine.”theology and doctrine.”
c. In this way the New Testament would be liberatedc. In this way the New Testament would be liberated
from “eighteenth-century ecclesial assumptions”from “eighteenth-century ecclesial assumptions”
FromFrom Joel B. Green,Joel B. Green, Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for InterpretationHearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 11-13(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 11-13

15. 2. Gotthold Lessing Publishes2. Gotthold Lessing Publishes
Herman Reimarus’Herman Reimarus’ FragmentsFragments
(1774-78).(1774-78).
a.a. “explicitly claimed that“explicitly claimed that every hint ofevery hint of
supernatural or other-worldly agency in the NTsupernatural or other-worldly agency in the NT
represented an additionrepresented an addition imposed by sheerimposed by sheer
illusion”illusion”
b.b. It was claimed that the earliestIt was claimed that the earliest ChristiansChristians
made up fictitious accounts of the miraculousmade up fictitious accounts of the miraculous
nature of Jesus’ life.nature of Jesus’ life.
c.c. The New TestamentThe New Testament Church distorted “theChurch distorted “the
history of Jesus to sustain its own powerhistory of Jesus to sustain its own power
interests.”interests.” (Green, 14-15).(Green, 14-15).

16. 3. Johann Griesbach3. Johann Griesbach
• Textual Criticism:Textual Criticism: published the firstpublished the first
critical edition of the Greek NTcritical edition of the Greek NT
(1774-75)(1774-75)
• Originated the term “synopticOriginated the term “synoptic
gospels.”gospels.” Felt Mark was dependent onFelt Mark was dependent on
Matthew and Luke.Matthew and Luke.
From F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed.,From F. F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” in I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and MethodsNew Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 33.(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 33.

17. 4. Wilhelm de Wette4. Wilhelm de Wette (1780-1849).(1780-1849).
• proposed that there were three theologicalproposed that there were three theological
strands in the NTstrands in the NT
a. Jewish-Christian (depicted by the Synoptica. Jewish-Christian (depicted by the Synoptic
Gospels, most of Acts, James, Peter, Jude andGospels, most of Acts, James, Peter, Jude and
Revelation)Revelation)
b. Alexandrian (Hebrews and John’s writings)b. Alexandrian (Hebrews and John’s writings)
c. Pauline (Paul’s letters)c. Pauline (Paul’s letters) (Bruce, 39).(Bruce, 39).
• developed the idea of several “theologies”developed the idea of several “theologies” inin
the NT (i.e.,the NT (i.e., different interpretations of Jesusdifferent interpretations of Jesus
and his message by proponents of these threeand his message by proponents of these three
strands).strands).

18. 5. Friedrich Schleiermacher5. Friedrich Schleiermacher
(1768-1864)(1768-1864)
• in hisin his Lives of JesusLives of Jesus concluded thatconcluded that
1. “the resurrection of Jesus” was a1. “the resurrection of Jesus” was a
“resuscitation“resuscitation after apparent death”after apparent death”
2. “the supernatural features2. “the supernatural features in thein the
accounts of his appearances to theaccounts of his appearances to the
disciples”disciples” were due “towere due “to
presuppositionspresuppositions on the part of theon the part of the
later”later”(Bruce, 40)(Bruce, 40)

19. 6. David Friedrich Strauss6. David Friedrich Strauss
(1808-1874)(1808-1874)
• His was the beginning of the “flight from history”His was the beginning of the “flight from history”(Green, 20).(Green, 20).
--bifurcates faith and history.--bifurcates faith and history. The Christ ofThe Christ of
faith is not the Jesus of history.faith is not the Jesus of history.
--He replaced the rational understanding of--He replaced the rational understanding of
the Gospels with athe Gospels with a “mythological“mythological
interpretation.”interpretation.”
----all supernatural conceptions of Jesusall supernatural conceptions of Jesus
were “read back” onto the historicalwere “read back” onto the historical
JesusJesus by the early churchby the early church
(Green, 22-23)(Green, 22-23)

20. 7. Ferdinand Christian Bauer7. Ferdinand Christian Bauer
(1792-1860)(1792-1860)
• Embraced the Hegelian dialecticEmbraced the Hegelian dialectic of thesis andof thesis and
antithesisantithesis arguing that the NT depicts a Petrinearguing that the NT depicts a Petrine
(Jewish) vs. Pauline (Gentile) theological(Jewish) vs. Pauline (Gentile) theological
community tradition conflict (Gal. 2)community tradition conflict (Gal. 2)
• So he dates ActsSo he dates Acts (where Peter and Paul seem(where Peter and Paul seem
to be united, esp. chapter 15)to be united, esp. chapter 15) in the secondin the second
centurycentury AD to allow enough time for theAD to allow enough time for the
synthesis to occursynthesis to occur (Green, 34).(Green, 34).
• Ascribed a second century date to the GospelsAscribed a second century date to the Gospels
and reduced their historical value concerning Jesusand reduced their historical value concerning Jesus (Bruce, 42).(Bruce, 42).
• Did not allow any supernatural elementsDid not allow any supernatural elements asas
historyhistory

21. 8. William Wrede8. William Wrede
The Messianic SecretThe Messianic Secret (1901)(1901)
• Claimed thatClaimed that Mark’s emphasisMark’s emphasis onon
keeping the knowledge of Jesus as thekeeping the knowledge of Jesus as the
Messiah a secretMessiah a secret was an attempt “towas an attempt “to
reconcile the church’s belief that Jesusreconcile the church’s belief that Jesus
was Messiah and Son of God from thewas Messiah and Son of God from the
beginning with the fact that this belief didbeginning with the fact that this belief did
not emerge until after the resurrectionnot emerge until after the resurrection ”” (Bruce,(Bruce,
46).46).
• FatherFather of Gospel Redaction Criticismof Gospel Redaction Criticism (Bruce, 46).(Bruce, 46).
• Jesus was only a “Galilean teacherJesus was only a “Galilean teacher oror
prophet who did some striking things andprophet who did some striking things and
was eventually executed”was eventually executed” (N. T. Wright,(N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God,Jesus and the Victory of God, 20)20)

22. 9. Albert Schweitzer9. Albert Schweitzer
The Quest for the Historical JesusThe Quest for the Historical Jesus
(1910)(1910)
• ClaimedClaimed the life of the historicalthe life of the historical
Jesus could not be writtenJesus could not be written . It has. It has
been lost in history.been lost in history.
• Jesus was a Jewish apocalypticJesus was a Jewish apocalyptic
prophetprophet who proclaimed thewho proclaimed the
kingdom of God butkingdom of God but dieddied
disappointedly when thatdisappointedly when that
eschatological kingdom did noteschatological kingdom did not
come.come.

23. 10. Rudolf Bultmann10. Rudolf Bultmann (1921) and(1921) and
Martin Dibelius (1919).Martin Dibelius (1919).
• Pioneered in NT Form CriticismPioneered in NT Form Criticism
• Bultmann promotedBultmann promoted demythologizingdemythologizing the Newthe New
TestamentTestament
• ““New Hermeneutic”New Hermeneutic” and “existential exegesis.”and “existential exegesis.”
NT not to be approached historicallyNT not to be approached historically
• The emphasis is onThe emphasis is on “Jesus as ‘the proclaimed’“Jesus as ‘the proclaimed’
rather than the historical ‘proclaimer’”rather than the historical ‘proclaimer’”

24. 11.11. B. H. StreeterB. H. Streeter
The Four GospelsThe Four Gospels (1924)(1924)
• proposed theproposed the four-source hypothesisfour-source hypothesis ofof
the origin of the Synoptic Gospels:the origin of the Synoptic Gospels:
----MarkMark,,
----QQ (material common to Luke and(material common to Luke and
Matthew),Matthew),
----MM (material unique to Matthew),(material unique to Matthew),
----LL (material unique to Luke).(material unique to Luke).

25. 12. Ernst Kasemann12. Ernst Kasemann (1953) and(1953) and
J. M. Robinson (1959)J. M. Robinson (1959)
• Kasemann, Bultmann’s student,Kasemann, Bultmann’s student, proposed aproposed a
“new quest”“new quest” for the historical Jesus. Hefor the historical Jesus. He
felt that Bultmann had gone too far infelt that Bultmann had gone too far in
claiming that history and the historicalclaiming that history and the historical
Jesus had nothing to do with faith.Jesus had nothing to do with faith.
• Robinson followed in Kasemann’sRobinson followed in Kasemann’s
footsteps.footsteps.
• Both reacted against the extremeBoth reacted against the extreme
negative view of history in the Gospelsnegative view of history in the Gospels
advanced by Bultmann.advanced by Bultmann.

26. 13. Robert Funk and Others13. Robert Funk and Others
The Jesus SeminarThe Jesus Seminar
1980s-2000s1980s-2000s
• Many Scholars Fully EmbraceMany Scholars Fully Embrace radicalradical BiblicalBiblical
CriticismCriticism
• Faith and History are SeparateFaith and History are Separate
• They Wrap Biblical Criticism in Post-They Wrap Biblical Criticism in Post-
Modern Garb. The Bible is “deconstructed”.Modern Garb. The Bible is “deconstructed”.
• The Canon is OpenThe Canon is Open
• The True Words of Jesus in the NT are obscureThe True Words of Jesus in the NT are obscure
• All Truth is Relative, Nearly any Interpretation isAll Truth is Relative, Nearly any Interpretation is
ViableViable

27. Biblical CriticismBiblical Criticism
Historical SummaryHistorical Summary
• By 1860By 1860 “criticism had come to stay,“criticism had come to stay,
and . . . henceforward the Bible would beand . . . henceforward the Bible would be
treated like any other book” i.e.,treated like any other book” i.e.,
uninspired, non-God breathed.uninspired, non-God breathed. (Neill and Wright, 33-34),(Neill and Wright, 33-34),
• By 1900By 1900 the historical Jesus could not bethe historical Jesus could not be
found by Biblical critical scholarsfound by Biblical critical scholars

28. Biblical CriticismBiblical Criticism
Historical SummaryHistorical Summary
• By 1950By 1950
--faith was divorced from history--faith was divorced from history
--miracles (including Jesus’ resurrection) were myths--miracles (including Jesus’ resurrection) were myths,,
non-historical creations of the early church.non-historical creations of the early church.
--Naturalistic interpretation reigned--Naturalistic interpretation reigned and God was lockedand God was locked
out of reality and history.out of reality and history.
--The physical Jesus of history is lost and the Christ of--The physical Jesus of history is lost and the Christ of
existentialexistential faith is created.faith is created.
• By 1990sBy 1990s pluralistic Post-modern interpretation of thepluralistic Post-modern interpretation of the
Bible is embraced.Bible is embraced. All truth is relativeAll truth is relative..

29. The Historicity of theThe Historicity of the
Bible DefendedBible Defended
• Not all Scholars Went the Route ofNot all Scholars Went the Route of
Radical Anti-Historical Biblical CriticismRadical Anti-Historical Biblical Criticism
• ManyMany held to inspiration of the NT, focusheld to inspiration of the NT, focus
on word and grammatical study, contexton word and grammatical study, context
study, historical/cultural/backgroundstudy, historical/cultural/background
studies, biblical theology input, systematicstudies, biblical theology input, systematic
theology input, archaeological input.theology input, archaeological input.
Assume the historicity of the text.Assume the historicity of the text.

30. The Historicity of theThe Historicity of the
Bible Defended: Some PersonagesBible Defended: Some Personages
• Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)
• John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)
• Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-1889)Joseph Barber Lightfoot (1828-1889)
• All of the Cambridge SchoolAll of the Cambridge School
--re-established the NT to be dated in the--re-established the NT to be dated in the
first century AD and thusfirst century AD and thus
--supported its historical reliability.--supported its historical reliability.

31. The Historicity of theThe Historicity of the
Bible Defended: Some PersonagesBible Defended: Some Personages
• Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939), archaeologySir William Ramsay (1851-1939), archaeology
--helped establish the historicity of Acts and the Pauline--helped establish the historicity of Acts and the Pauline
epistles.epistles.
• Old Princeton School in the 1920’s with B. B.Old Princeton School in the 1920’s with B. B.
Warfield and J. Gresham MachenWarfield and J. Gresham Machen
• New Conservative Evangelicals (later 20New Conservative Evangelicals (later 20thth
Century):Century):
--Defended Inerrancy and Historicity.--Defended Inerrancy and Historicity.
--Sign Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978.--Sign Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, 1978.
• Many other modern day evangelical scholars andMany other modern day evangelical scholars and
schoolsschools

32. Where do We Stand Today?Where do We Stand Today?
• There is today in evangelicalism a trendThere is today in evangelicalism a trend
toward the erosion of inerrancy and antoward the erosion of inerrancy and an
embracement of only infallibility.embracement of only infallibility.
• More to come later.More to come later.