HISTORICAL CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

INTRODUCTION: Historical criticism is an attempt to verify and understand the meaning of an event that is reported to have taken place in the past. The basis for this evaluation is the tools of historical science. Historical criticism distinguishes the true from the false concerning facts in the bible, it also establishes the trustworthiness and authenticity of the documents in the bible. Cf. Wilfrid J. Harrington, Record of Revelation: The Bible (Chicago; The Priory Press, 1965), p.109 Historical criticism has perennially presented puzzling puzzles for the church and theology even till today. Is it, as some think, basically an Anti-Christian procedure which should be repudiated or at least severely restricted in its application to the documents of the Christian faith? Should revealed truths be historically criticized? Or is it a method that is part of our society and culture, so that we cannot help using it, but yet a method that draws its proper justification from outside the church and outside the faith and thus has no proper theological validation? Or is it an approach which is positively required and accredited by the dynamics of the Christian faith itself? However, this paper is geared towards exposing systematically and pragmatically, the historical criticism of the Old Testament. To facilitate an ardent comprehension, we shall as a means of methodology consider what literary criticism is, for it is unjust to consider historical criticism without taking a look at literary criticism. We will then proceed to look at historical criticism and the various types namely; history in the text and history of the text; then we shall delve into the goal of historical criticism. After this, we shall dive head-long into bringing to spotlight a relationship between historical criticism and the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith and then as a means of recapitulation, we shall conclude. LITERARY CRITICISM: Source Criticism was popularized by Wellhausen at the end of the nineteenth century. It attempts to determine whether or not a piece of literature is a unity or compositional in character; if the latter, it attempts to determine the nature of the sources used and the stages of composition. It also asks about the settings within which the sources emerged and the motives which were the directing forces for the production of the various sources. The sources are delineated by observing changes in literary style, shifts in vocabulary and phrasing, breaks in continuity, types of connectors, changes in theological viewpoint, duplications, and logical, thematic, chronological, and factual inconsistencies. Such items indicate different sources. On the basis of these kinds of observations, Wellhausen hypothesized four sources for the Pentateuch—J E D P. Cf. John Van Seters, The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (New York: T&T Clark International, 2004), pp. 30-34. These sources were composed in different centuries ranging from the tenth to the sixth century. At approximately the time of the exile they were brought together into the form in which we now have them in the Pentateuch. Cf. Etienne Charpentier, How to Read the Old Testament (Paris: SCM Press Ltd, 1982), pp. 20-27. Literary criticism is also called source criticism Cf. J.W. Rogerson and Judith M. Lieu (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical studies (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 600-604. as it studies the various discrepancies that seem to ravage the text of the bible. It equally studies the problem of whether there are written documents behind our present text. Cf. Lawrence Boadt, Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction (New York; Paulist Press, 2012), p.60-65. Advocates of source criticism posit that the production of scripture was conditioned historically not only by the fact that it had combined documents with a prior history of their own, but also that wider movements in human life had influenced their contents. Cf. Norman C. Habel, Literary Criticism of the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971), p.iv. To use the source-critical method means, for example, that it is not appropriate to use Genesis 1 to interpret Genesis 2, or vice versa, because they come from different sources which themselves arose out of different life settings on the basis of different theological motives. Thus, it is that we have two contradictory accounts of creation which cannot appropriately be harmonized. HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND THE OLD TESTAMENT: As earlier pointed out, Historical criticism of the Old Testament is the attempt to verify the historicity of and understand the meaning of an event(s) that is reported to have taken place in the past. Cf. Tremper Longman and David E. Garland, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis- Leviticus (Michigan: Zondervan, 1995), pp. 27-30. Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the 19th and 20th centuries. The perspective of the early historical critic was rooted in Protestant reformation ideology as their approach to biblical studies was free from the influence of traditional interpretation. Where historical investigation was unavailable, historical criticism rested on philosophical and theological interpretation. With each passing century, historical criticism became refined into various methodologies used today: source criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism, and related methodologies. Cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism. This historical-critical method of interpreting the Old Testament assumes the autonomy of the human scientist from the Bible as the word of God. It assumes that one must start with the secular world as a norm for determining meaning and for deciding what has happened in the past. This method does not accept at face value the Scriptures as the Word of God. It would be unscientific and unhistorical to do so. Rather its claim to be the word of God and its statements claiming to report history (and finally its statements about theology) must be verified and accepted as one would accept a statement from the documents of any other ancient national people. Such a conception implies that the Bible has come about in the same manner as has any other piece of literature. Theories of inspiration are interwoven with secular science by more "conservative" groups. For example, a common concept is held that God superintended the production of Scripture in a manner similar to the way in which the theistic evolutionists conceive the superintendence of God in the evolution of life. There are many variations possible within this central theme, some finally saying that in some sense God gave general direction to the development of the traditions within Israel and the Christian church and special guidance to the prophet as he collected these traditions. Some would finally put emphasis upon the inspiration of the church in knowing which documents to choose. In general, however, those who hold to the historical-critical method would find it necessary to reject the idea that God imparted to the prophet specific objective knowledge regarding Himself, the nature of the world, and historical events. Even if the historical critic accepted that possibility it would be necessary for him to verify it on the basis of historical science. Historical criticism of the Old Testament then assumes the time-conditions; the historical character of the Scriptures. Cf. John Relly Beard, The People’s Dictionary of the Bible (London: Simpkin, Marshall, & CO., 1862), pp. 503-506. This does not mean that the historical critic conceives of God revealing Himself objectively within history, but that he conceives the production of Scripture to have taken place within historical causes. If God is to be seen as a cause within the production of Scripture, that must be verified on the basis of principles of historical science. The production of the Old Testament is seen to have taken place in a similar manner to that of any other piece of literature. The Old Testament must thus be studied critically with the same methods which are used to study any other ancient literature. The Bible is to be read historically does not mean simply that one must give consideration to the historical background, but that the Bible must be read as a production of history; therefore, it must be read on the basis of the principles of secular historical science. Furthermore, Historical criticism vis-à-vis the Old Testament asseverates that to understand a literary piece, we need to understand the author's biography, social background, ideas and thinking pattern prevalent at that time and the cultural milieu. This school of criticism fell into disfavour and displeasure as the New Critics emerged. Cf. Michael Delahoyde, The New Historicism http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/new.hist.html ( 4th January,2015) Historical Criticism of the Old Testament harnesses the historical and the cultural aspects in interpreting the documents and thus synergizes this with a formidable harmonization of the discrepancies in the text. Finally, just as historical criticism tries to debunk the vitiating mentality of the Scriptures and uphold and reinstate its authenticity, it also tries to sets two situations. These situations are the situations that talk about the text itself and the situations that give rise to the documents in the Bible, i.e. history in the text and the history of the text. Cf. Dr. Sebastian Kizhakkeyil, A Guide to Biblical Studies (Mumbai; St Pauls Press, 2008) p.295 History in the Text: In the process of historical criticism, attention should be paid to the social settings and the geographical settings of the Old Testament Passages. In exploring the textual situation, the historian should bear in mind the references of persons, places and customs strange to readers. It also behoves on the historian to know the historical period or cultural settings described in the text. To be able to do this, the use of tools like dictionaries, encyclopaedias, histories of Israel and early Christianity, Bible atlases, geographies, and comparative non Biblical literature are needed. Cf. Dr. Sebastian Kizhakkeyil, A Guide to Biblical Studies (Mumbai; St Pauls Press, 2008) p.295. The historian will get to understand the data of the text only if he has a very deep understanding of the rules or laws that rule the society of the people situated in the text. History is not just a collection of documents of discoveries but a sharing of the life of men and women in the bygone ages. Cf. Wilfrid J. Harrington, Record of Revelation, The Bible (Chicago; The Priory Press, 1965), p.109. History of the Text: Historical Criticism is a very complex task, therefore, the historian should explore the situational context out of which the text arose or the situation of the author and the audience. Sometimes the situation of the author can differ from the situation of his audience. Example is, in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians for he wrote at his time to address certain peculiar issues in Corinth which may not be applicable in the same way to our contemporary situation. Sometimes too the two historical events may be separated by a very long period of time, example is the Pentateuch which was written long time before the events it describes occurred. Some of the texts in the Old Testament are older than others. It is also the duty of the historian to check whether the text under consideration is an older biblical material re-presented and re-interpreted. Dr.Sebastian Kizhakkeyil, A Guide to Biblical Studies (Mumbai; St Pauls Press, 2008) p.297 For example, the book of chronicles is a representation of the books of Kings but quite different from the stand points of the views. Another example is the Gospels. Matthew and Luke used materials from the writings Mark. Mark is actually the oldest Gospel, so if one is historically interpreting the Gospel of Matthew, one needs to be aware that the Gospel stands further along the historical variety than Mark and that even if the same event is testified in the Gospels, the condition of the author might be very different in each case, different enough to provide a different understanding of both texts. The authors of the Scriptures were not in totality composing new texts but also interpreting old traditions. The Historian should as well pay attention to the historical background and the historical foreground of the passages in the Bible. Cf. Dr. Sebastian Kizhakkeyil, A Guide to Biblical Studies (Mumbai; St Pauls Press, 2008) p.297 Archaeology also helps us to know the history of the text in the bible. Archaeology is concerned with both material remains, the study of prehistoric people and their cultures and inscriptions of text. Material remains for example are indispensable and inevitable for the reconstruction of Israelian history. This however, has thrown more light on the text of the bible. The Ugaritic text has thrown more light on the text of the Bible than all other nonepigraphic findings. Similarly the Qumran has notably illustrated the background of the new testaments. Cf. Wilfrid J. Harrington, Record of Revelation: The Bible (Chicago; The Priory Press, 1965), p.111. THE GOAL OF HISTORICAL CRITICISM: The primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text’s primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. The secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the author and recipients of the text. This may be accomplished by reconstructing the true nature of the events which the text describes. An ancient text may also serve as a document, record or source for reconstructing the ancient past which may also serve as a chief interest to the historical critic. In regard to Semitic biblical interpretation, the historical critic would be able to interpret the literature of Israel as well as the history of Israel. Cf. Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism. (New York: John Knox, 2001), p. 79. The basic principle of historical science is autonomy. History is divorced from revelation; the Bible is not the criterion for understanding history, rather, history is the criterion for understanding and validating the scriptures. Man grants to historical science its own authority. The decision as to what has taken place in the past is made on a basis external to the Bible, the historian deals with that aspect of the past which is accessible to him and which is amenable to rational explanation and interpretation. His goal is to determine what really happened. The historical-critical method thus serves the historian's need for valid and reliable evidence to determine whether or not testimony was actually given by a competent and reliable witness. The historian questions his sources for their adequacy, veracity and intelligibility. The sources are like witnesses in the court of law. The task of the historian is to interrogate their answers and evaluate their validity. The process of interrogation and evaluation is called criticism. This procedure relies upon the judgment and philosophical context of the historian. The historian thus confers authority upon a witness. The historical-critical method has been under development since the age of the enlightenment. It was popularized for biblical studies by Ernst Troeltsch at the end of the nineteenth century. Cf. https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/bible-interpretation-hermeneutics/historical-criticism. He enunciated three basic principles to guide the historian: The principle of criticism or methodological doubt indicates that all knowledge relies upon the judgment of historical science and receives a status or probability. The principle of analogy indicates that present experience is the criteria of probability for that which took place in the past—all events are in principle similar. The principle of correlation indicates that events are so interrelated that a change in one phenomenon necessitates a change in its causes and effects. Thus historical explanation rests upon a chain of cause and effect. The methods of Troeltsch were used to rule out the possibility of the supernatural and contemporary historical critics question the old historical-critical method precisely at this point. If inexperience rules out the possibility that God could intervene in human affairs, there then exists an apparent necessity of re-examining the process of history in order to extrapolate new principles which allow for the possibility of the supernatural (Notice that the historical critic re-examines history; he does not go to the Bible to discover where he went wrong, or to build a new methods.) Historians have thus noted new principles; For example, the principle that every historical event is contingent, that is, that history is not driven forward by some static nature within the universe, but that history is in fact in process, that it is open and therefore it is possible for something new to take place within history. To reaffirm our point, it must be emphasized that even for the contemporary biblical critic, the supernatural can be accepted. The presumed autonomy of the historical-critical method may be illustrated by its refusal to accept the testimony of Scripture at its face value; For example the prophecy of Isaiah in the book of Isaiah 7:14 which prophecies (though having as historical and Christological interpretation) on the birth of a Saviour and Messiah. This declaration of scripture is not to be accepted because it is stated by scripture; it is accepted only if it can be confirmed by historical science, and its meaning is also interpreted within the context of this confirmation. This further affirms our earlier statement that the primary goal of historical criticism is to ascertain the text’s primitive or original meaning in its original historical context and its literal sense or sensus literalis historicus. HISTORICAL CRITICISM AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO THE PAULINE DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH: An argument has been used by Bultmann, Ebeling and Kasemann in order to establish a clear correlation and connection between historical criticism and the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith which we find chiefly in that erudite letter of St. Paul to the Romans. Faith must rest upon the word of God alone, and this implies it must not rest upon any human security (in Pauline terms, works of the law). If we allow faith to be propped up by a conviction that biblical narratives are historically correct, we are doing something analogous to the accepting of works as a supplement to faith. All fundamentalisms, which depend on the historical accuracy of the Scriptures and consequently reject historical criticism, are therein abandoning the ground of justification by faith, however much they affirm that principle. Historical criticism is therefore integrally related and co-related to St. Paul’s distinct doctrine of justification by faith. It is thus historically appropriate that historical criticism arose in connection with the Reformation movement and the interpretative development which was its sequel. Cf. Peter Stuhlmacher, Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture (UK: Fortress Press, 1979), pp.9-12. CONCLUSION: This paper was aimed at dutifully, scholarly and pragmatically exploring the meaning of historical criticism with particular reference to the Old Testament. We began by first elucidating the meaning of literary criticism and edifying its essentiality, for it is impossible for one to do historical criticism without first doing literary criticism. Historical criticism is in tandem apparently with literary criticism for they are like two sides of the same coin- each complements the other. We then plunged head-long to look at historical criticism after which we proceeded to an existential diagnosis for effective edification of the goals of historical criticism. We got to know from all these that Historical Criticism seeks to find the particular historical setting or perhaps, if developed over time, one or more historical settings. A biblical writing may be said to have a history of its own, which includes its time and place of composition, the circumstances in which it was produced or written, its author or authors, how it came to be written and the audience to which it was addressed. Dating a composition is often crucial in determining the history of a text. References to events in the text itself sometimes aid this process. In addition, external resources such as archaeological evidence or non-biblical writings from the same period are utilized. Finally, we also looked at the correlative feature of historical criticism to the Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. However, for the sake of preserving the chastity of this timeless and ever-significant task of historical criticism and the indissoluble connection between the church and the biblical canon, an exegete cannot share this retreat only from the historical-critical dilemma. Rather, he must always be aware of his own scientific and theological underpinning. This also applies to all theologically trained Christians who regard the exposition of Holy Scripture as an indispensable panacea for the growth and development of the Church particularly in the realm of biblical studies. The importance of historical criticism can never be over-emphasized and this task should also be approached virtuously. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Beard, Relly John. The People’s Dictionary of the Bible. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & CO., 1862. Boadt, Lawrence. Reading the Old Testament: An Introduction. New York; Paulist Press, 2012. Charpentier, Etienne. How to Read the Old Testament. Paris: SCM Press Ltd, 1982. Dr. Kizhakkeyil, Sebastian. A Guide to Biblical Studies. Mumbai; St Pauls Press, 2008. Habel, C. Norman. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971. Harrington, J. Wilfrid. Record of Revelation: The Bible. Chicago: The Priory Press, 1965. Longman, Tremper and Garland, E. David. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Genesis- Leviticus. Michigan: Zondervan, 1995. Rogerson, J.W. and Lieu, M. Judith (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Biblical studies. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006. Seters, Van John. The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary. New York: T&T Clark International, 2004. Soulen, N. Richard. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. New York: John Knox, 2001. Stuhlmacher, Peter. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture. UK: Fortress Press, 1979. INTERNET SOURCES: Delahoyde, Michael. The New Historicism http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/new.hist.html ( 4th January,2015). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_criticism. https://adventistbiblicalresearch.org/materials/bible-interpretation-hermeneutics/historical-criticism. CONTACT INFORMATION: E-mail Address: Michael.okpala@yahoo.com. 9