Biblical Criticism - Essay Example

Biblical Criticism Biblical criticism is the general term referring to the scholarly investigation and study of biblical scriptures seeking to base grounds for discerning judgment concerning the writings. The discipline studies compositional, historical, and textual questions concerning the Old and New Testaments. This bible analytical technique is common with liberal and mainstream Christian theologians to understand the passages in the bible. The study bases its foundation on pure reason rather than faith or revelation. Biblical criticism came into being in the 17th and 18th century due to the sweep of rationality at the time. In the preceding century, biblical criticism was divided into higher and lower criticism. Higher criticism concerns the study of the history and composition of biblical passages, while lower criticism concerns with closer examination of biblical texts to determine their correct or original meaning (Frigge 15). This paper seeks to discuss the forms of criticism in five ways: source, form, narrative (textual), historical and redaction. Initially, the scholars of the bible tried to harmonize the scriptures and gospels, an argument evident from the harmonization of the two narratives. Instead of harmonizing the gospels, Griesbach established parallel synoptic. The result was an ensuing question regarding the accountability of the difference and similarities of the two gospels. This led to source criticism, with scholars trying to pin down the relationship between the sources and the synoptic gospels. Griesbach put forth an argument that Matthew was written before Mark citing the Jewish contents as the basis of the argument, but many scholars opposed the argument arguing that the book of Mark abbreviates Matthew (Frigge 68). The theory of Griesbach follows that of St Augustine, a Matthean priority proponent. On the other hand, modern scholars uphold the Markan priority and the source or framework being Mark. According to Taylor, Mark is more probable to be the source, as Luke is a quarry of stone for expanding an already existing establishment. Nevertheless, the proposal did not accurately account for the similarities between Luke and Matthew, which eventfully do not appear in Mark. H. J. Holtzmann put another source criticism theory forth in 1863. The two-source theory, Mark Source ‘Q’ Luke Matthew, suggested that Matthew and Luke used marks to denote sources, and another common source ‘Q’. B. H. Streeter based his four-source theory on Holtzmann’s theory, with the additional argument that Matthew and Luke had some original contents in them. The four source include Mark, source ‘Q’, special M (unique material by Matthew), and special L (material unique to Luke). These theories however do not solve the mystery in its entirety. Occasionally, Matthew and Luke tend to agree with each other but against Mark. The explanations to these may be theological, traditional, or probably a different interpretation of ‘Q’ differently by Mark. Another possible argument is that one (most likely Luke) was more dependent, unlike Mark. There are also scholarly questions regarding the omission of some parts of Mark in Matthew and Luke, like the account of Jesus walking on water. Some scholars in theology, like Russell, believe that the omissions are not surprising. According to them, there is a possibility that each evangelist did some omission to best suit their Christological and theological needs and perspectives (Frigge 93). Another major setback in source criticism is the lack of evidence for source ‘Q’. A majority of theology specialists agree that Luke was using Matthew, as there is more Luke in Matthew than the other way round. Nonetheless, there is still the question concerning the reasons why Luke left the additions made by Matthew to Mark. At this point, the only possible conclusion is that there were different interpretations of the same source. However, existence and contents of Paul’s letter indicate that early Christians were keen to observe accurate transmission of important scripture materials. The assumption here then is that there was a certain level of protection to the stories about Jesus. After criticism to the sources, the way was open for scholars to debate on the evangelistic presentation and selection of the gospel of Jesus. Form and textual criticism took the center stage. Form criticism began in the 20th century, with the opening act on oral period debate. According to scholars, Mark was simply a written version of oral tradition, without style or chronological regard. The scholars further argue that Mark linked parables and stories, some of which had no direct relation. The assumption of these scholars is that the available materials in the gospel only represent a fraction of the material concerning Jesus. The early church was responsible for selection and editing of the materials, and the fact that the materials were transmitted orally made omission a notch higher on writing. In some instance, the parables and stories seem more relevant to the early church than the time of Jesus. The influential impact of the early church on the development of the materials was the basis of form criticism (Frigge 127). The challenge posed by form criticism is the argument that the materials do not reflect the actual historical words of Jesus. Rather, scholars argue that the early church had interest in providing the materials that were of need to them. Nonetheless, their record of material cannot be justified as lacking interest as that would be wrong. The development of redaction criticism was born out of William Wrede and Gunther Bornkamm study of the Gospel of Mark at the beginning of the 21st century. According to the two, Mark had incorporated messianic secrets in the book. What followed was an analysis of redaction or editorial works of each evangelist by scholars, using source criticism as their base. The changes made to the sources enabled the scholars to isolate the characteristics and interests of each evangelist. An instance is the changes made by Matthew and Luke to the gospel of Mark, depicting their interests and characteristics (Frigge 140). Another instance is the unique 14 parables in Luke concerning the outcast and the lost. However, redaction criticism has come under fire as depending heavily on the four-source theory, and the assumptions made on the slight differences in the scriptures. Despite these allegations, redaction criticism contributes enormously to the study of the gospel of Jesus, and how the different authors of the gospel of Jesus was interpolated and transmitted. The focus of textual criticism is the gospel in the bible in its entirety, as opposed to the other forms of criticism that focus on the collection of sources. Textual criticism implores the reader to understand the gospels as narratives with recognizable characters, plot, events, and setting shaped by the evangelists. Textual and narrative critics recognize two levels of gospel: the story and the discourse. The story level of the gospel contains the narrative part, including events, settings, plot, and characters. The discourse level concerns the manner in which the story is told and its meaning, or in other words, the depth of the story (Frigge 154). An instance is in Mark chapter one verse one to thirteen where the author clearly states that Jesus is the son of God. In this case, God has some degree of evaluated view, which is that the author acknowledges and accepts that Jesus is the son of God, and that the reader should follow suit. The concept of irony and symbolism is also areas of interest. The crown made of thorns is ironic: the soldiers give Jesus the crown mocking him as a king, only that they are not aware that He is actually a king in God’s kingdom. The place setting of events is also a concern with textual critics. In the gospel of Luke, Jerusalem is the center stage of expansion of the church. Events have narrative or dramatic reflections through their narration. The evangelists through cause effect analysis link connections that would otherwise be not so obvious (Frigge 169). The characters in the gospel are also important, with division in two major groups: flat and full characters. Flat characters are those that do not develop and grow, like the Jewish authorities, while full characters are those that encounter some revelation and grow to strong belief from disillusions. All the above forms of biblical criticisms aim at making the bible more meaningful, not less. Despite the tag name “criticism”, biblical criticism enhances the understanding of the bible and the gospels contained therein. The activity may be viewed as positive or constructive criticism, with possible suggestions concerning the difference of gospels relayed to evangelists’ theological interests or errors in scribal writing. Work cited Frigge, Marielle. Beginning Biblical Studies. Winona, MN: Saint Mary's Press, 2009. Print. Read More