Biblical Interpretations
Study 6C Historical Criticism
Before we go further in our studies, it is important to take on board the different types of criticism that scholars use when trying to unlock the treasures of the Bible. Criticism does not mean negative or destructive comment. It refers to investigation and evaluation. For criticism to proceed with any degree of validity, competence in the original languages, Hebrew and Greek, is essential; so most of us have to rely on the research of scholars. I don’t find that difficult. I go to the doctor when I need advice about some injury or disease. I go to the motor mechanic if I need to get my car serviced.
The different categories of Biblical criticism can be listed as -
a. Textual criticism - This criticism has to do with trying to arrive at the best text possible from all the different ancient manuscripts and translations. Has the original been copied and or translated accurately or have alterations occurred either by accident or by deliberate decision?
b. Literary Criticism - This criticism has to do with looking at the text itself and asking such questions as: What is the vocabulary used and is it consistent? What is the style of writing and is it consistent? Does it have contributions from different authors? Does it have a changing point of view? Is it repetitive?
c. Historical criticism - This criticism has to do with the question: Who wrote what, when? Archaeology and the study of ancient as well as contemporary secular writings, often contribute to this critical work. This is sometimes done in conjunction with ‘literary’ criticism when asking the question, ‘Who wrote this material?’, because it can be helpful when looking at the text, to take its historical context into consideration.
d. Form criticism - This criticism deals with the text itself, separating out the various sorts of material being appraised. Is it parable? Is it conversation? Is it a wonder story? Is it a memorable saying or a comment about a striking deed? This criticism also has to do with oral tradition - sorting out the different stories, folk tales, myths, sagas and legends that are handed on from one generation to another by word of mouth.
When looking at any literature we may be interested in the answers to some of the questions listed above. In our Bible study we can, from time to time, be involved in these different forms of criticism and they will overlap from time to time.
In this particular study we concentrate on historical criticism addressing the question, Who wrote what, when?
Most people, who have any knowledge of the Bible, probably know that it begins with stories of creation in Genesis. Many would know that there are two sections of the Bible ‑ the Old and the New Testaments. They may know that the New Testament begins with Matthew which begins with the stories of Jesus’ birth. A lot of people have heard of Armageddon and the Four Horses. If they associate those with any Biblical book, they probably associate it with the last book of the New Testament ‑ Revelation. It looks as though the Bible could be a story of the life of the world from start to finish - beginning with creation and ending with Armageddon.
It is assumed by many, that the books were written in the same chronological sequence as they appear in the printed Bible today. It may be thought that Genesis was written first, then other books of the Old Testament; then Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were the first written in the New Testament and the whole Bible was completed with the book of Revelation, which was written last.
Nothing could be further from the truth! Nothing!
Although there is disagreement about when the books of the Old and New Testaments were actually written or even who wrote them, it is universally accepted that they were not written/edited/completed in the sequence that we find printed in our Bibles today. The Teacher’s Commentary, first published back in 1932, gives a suggested sequence, as listed below.
Old Testament
Some scholars suggest the books could have been written in the sequence below. It took over 1000 years to complete, from about 1200 BC to about 200 yearas before the life of Jesus.
Amos
Hosea
Isaiah (First)
Micah
Zephaniah
Jeremiah
Deuteronomy
Nahum
Habakkuk
1 & 11 Samuel
Ezekiel
1 & 11 Kings
Lamentations
Leviticus
Obadiah
Isaiah (Second)
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Isaiah (Third)
Ruth
Joel
Genesis/Exodus/Leviticus/
Numbers/Joshua/Judges
Job
Jonah
1 & 11 Chronicles
Ezra/Nehemiah
Proverbs
Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Daniel
Zechariah
Psalms
It is suggested that the books printed first in our Bibles today, Genesis to Deuteronomy, were completed a long time after many of the other books. Note that Isaiah is suggested to be in three distinct parts, written at different times by different authors. There are many other theories and listings about the sequence of the writing of the Old Testament books.
New Testament
Some scholars suggest that these books could have been written in the sequence below. It could have taken more than 100 years to complete, commencing about 25 years after the life of Jesus.
Galations
1 & 11 Thessalonians
1 & 11 Corinthians
Romans
James
Colossians
Philemon
Ephesians
Philippians
1 Peter
Mark’s Gospel
Hebrews
Luke’s Gospel
Matthew’s Gospel
Acts of the Apostles
Jude
John’s Gospel
1, 11 & 111 John
Revelation
1 & 11 Timothy
Titus
11 Peter
Note that the Gospels in the New Testament were not the first to be completed. Many of the ‘Letters’ were completed before the Gospels. Most scholars now believe that many of the 13 ‘Letters’ attributed to Paul, were not in fact written by him. He may have written only 5 or 6. The sequence listed here is one of many suggestions. There are differences of opinion, mostly minor but some more significant, and these give rise to many debates.
It is now universally accepted by all scholars of repute, that many of the stories, particularly in the Old Testament were handed on by word of mouth for centuries from father to son - an Oral Tradition. This story telling happened in nearly all ancient communities, often around camp fires.
It is claimed that many of the books of the Bible have been edited, re‑written, and maybe even re‑constituted during their journey from when first written down, to the form in which they are presented now in our printed Bibles. This is particularly so for the Torah or Pentateuch - The first five books of the Bible - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. (More of this in our next study.)
Because many books we read today have one author, it is often taken for granted that the books of the Bible also had only one author each. Not so! Some books may have had one author but others are regarded as the combined work of many people. For instance, many scholars believe that the Gospel of John is the combined effort of a whole school of John's disciples, working for probably many years, editing and refining as they went. We also know that, because of their content, parts of some books have been written at significantly different times in history and thus probably each part had a different author or authors, e.g. the book of Isaiah in the Old Testament. It is generally accepted that there are three distinct pieces of literature, known as First Isaiah, chapters 1 to 39, Second Isaiah, chapters 40 to 55, and Third Isaiah, chapters 56 to 66, in the one book in the Bible entitled Isaiah. The three different pieces of literature have been combined and there are a number of theories as to why and when.
It is also quite obvious that some books were written with the help of other books. It is obvious, for instance, that both Matthew and Luke had Mark's Gospel as a resource. Both Matthew and Luke quote passages of Mark, word for word. They use Mark differently, Matthew quoting large sections and Luke breaking Mark up more, giving rise to a larger number of shorter quotes. It is also presumed that some resources the writers had, have been lost in antiquity. This, again, is the case for Matthew and Luke, whose gospels, when compared, have a lot of material in common, which is not in Mark. It is safe to suggest that there was another document which the authors of both Matthew and Luke used. This theory is so widely accepted that scholars have named this ‘lost’ document, ‘Q’, short for a German word meaning ‘source’.
Questions of dating and authorship have been asked for years, and on the surface, may seem to be of little importance except to scholars. The answers however, can have a real bearing on the way we understand particular parts of the Bible.
Starting at the beginning of the Bible for example, when we realise that the stories in the second chapter of Genesis was created many hundreds of years before the first chapter, then we can better understand the differences in language and meaning. The first chapter is theologically sophisticated and systematic whereas the second chapter is a collection of very ancient tribal stories. When we say this we are engaging in literary criticism.
When we also realise that the first chapter of Genesis was written by people who emphasised the priestly nature of the Hebrew religion, we can appreciate why Genesis 2:2‑3 is so important, and that it is connected with the Exodus account of the giving of the Law.
The Genesis verses read -
On the sixth day God completed all the work he was doing, and on the seventh day he ceased from all his work. God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on that day he ceased from all the work he had set himself to.
The reason for keeping the Sabbath day, that the writer of the Exodus version of the 4th Commandment gives, rests on the creation story.
In Exodus 20:11 Genesis is confirmed -
In six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but on the seventh day he rested. Therefore, the Lord, blessed the Sabbath day and declared it holy.
The Exodus reason for keeping the Sabbath has to do with religious ceremonies, keeping the Sabbath as a sacred day of worship. These extracts from Genesis and Exodus come from the same tradition. They were both written after the Exile by priests. Hence the religious ceremony emphasis. (More of that in the next study.)
When we read Deuteronomy, we find a completely different reason for keeping the Sabbath, as noted previously. Why? Because it was written by a different group of people at a different time in the Hebrew history. The history of God’s powerful deeds is more important to the writer of Deuteronomy than religious ceremonies and rituals, which is the emphasis of the writers of Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.
Deuteronomy 5:15 reads -
Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out with a strong hand and an outstretched arm, and for that reason the Lord your God commended you to keep the Sabbath day.
Dating the writing of literature can be very important. Realising that Ruth and Jonah were written after the return from exile, late in the Jewish history at about 350 to 400 years before Jesus, is very important. This was at a time in the Hebrew history when there was a great deal of emphasis placed on the purity of the race and religion. The rebuilding of the temple and the nation was on the top of the agenda. Purity of race and religion was seen by the leaders to be essential. The two were intimately connected.
We have evidence of this in Ezra 9:11‑14 -
For we have neglected the commands which thou gavest through thy servants the prophets, when thou saidst, “The land which you are entering and will possess is a polluted land, polluted by the foreign population with their abominable practices, which have made it unclean from end to end. Therefore, do not give your daughters in marriage to their sons, and do not marry your sons to their daughters, and never seek their welfare or prosperity. Thus you will be strong and enjoy the good things of the land, and pass it on to your children as an everlasting possession.” Now, after all that we have suffered for our evil deeds and for our great guilt - although thou, our God, has punished us less than our iniquities deserved and hast allowed us to survive as now we do - shall we again disobey thy commands and join in marriage with peoples who indulge in such abominable practices?’
and again in Ezra 10:1‑3 -
While Ezra was praying and making confession, prostrate in tears before the house of God, a very great crowd of Israelites assembled around him, men, women, and children and they all wept bitterly. Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, one of the family of Elam, spoke up and said to Ezra, “We have committed an offence against our God in marrying foreign wives, daughters of the foreign population. But in spite of this, there is still hope for Israel. Now therefore, let us pledge ourselves to our God to dismiss all these women and their brood, according to your advice, my lord, and the advice of those who go in fear of the command of our God; and let us act as the law prescribes. Up now, the task is yours, and we will support you. Take courage and act.”
The intention of Ezra and the other leaders of Israel was to cleanse their religion and their religious practices by, what we might call today, ethnic cleansing. Their nation had to be rid of foreign blood.
It is suggested by many scholars that the book of Jonah, which is now usually regarded as a parable, appeared at a similar time as the proclamations of Ezra. Jonah, in the story had a mission from God to go to the heathen in Nineveh, the capital of the foreign empire of Assyria, with warnings to mend their ways. In the story, the heathen in Nineveh listen to Jonah, change their behaviour and, in the end, God forgives them. Read the story. It has only four short chapters.
God is concerned about a gentile people far away from the Promised Land - concerned about foreigners?!?! God is depicted as One who is not willing to destroy those of an alien race. This flies in the face of Ezra’s exhortations and what he thought were God''s commands.
Another example of this attitude against Ezra and his ethnic cleansing, is the existance of the book of Ruth. Ruth is a Moabitess, a foreign woman of a nation that was corrupting Israel(See Ezra chapter 9.), but she is the heroine of the story, and marries two Israelites! Ruth is stated, at the end of the book, to be the great grandmother of the great King David.
In Ruth 4:13 we read -
So Boaz took Ruth and made her his wife. When they came together the Lord caused her to conceive and she bore Boaz a son.
and 4:16-17 -
Naomi took the child and laid him on her lap and became his nurse. Her neighbours gave him a name: “Naomi has a son”, they said, “we will call him Obed.” He was the father of Jesse, the father of David.
David - not a pure blood?! His great grand mother was foreign, a Moabitess! This also flies in the face of Ezra’s proclamations.
If these two books, Ruth and Jonah, are dated at about the time of, or after Ezra’s leadership, their power and intention can be appreciated more. Not everyone agreed with Ezra and his extreme racist attitudes and activities to get rid of all foreigners, for whatever reason.
When we turn to the New Testament, questions of dating and authorship are as important. Refer back to the possible dating sequence of the books of the Bible previously in this study.
The four gospels appeared somewhat late in the literature of the New Testament, presumably because the very early disciples of Jesus considered it unnecessary to write down the stories dealing with his life. They believed this because of the widely held belief that Jesus would ‘return’ in their own lifetime. Many believed that the 'return' of Jesus would happen before their own death.
Many, probably including Paul, believed this as is mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:51 -
Listen! I tell you a mystery: we shall not all die, but we shall be changed in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet.
and more particularly, 1 Thessalonians 4:15‑17 states -
For this we tell you as the Lord’s word: we who are left alive until the Lord comes shall not forestall those who have died; because at the word of command, at the sound of the archangel’s voice and God’s trumpet-call, the Lord himself will descend from heaven; first the Christian dead will rise, then we who are left alive shall join them, caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air.
The gospels were certainly not the first New Testament literature to be written. Paul was probably the first writer of New Testament literature, as we have it now, and was also probably one of the earliest influential teachers of the disciples of Jesus - followers of the Way. Writing most, if not all, of his works before any of the gospels were written, we might question, ‘Why is it that Paul makes no mention of the virgin birth? Why, is it that Paul makes no mention of the empty tomb story connected with the resurrection? Why is it that Paul makes no specific mention of the ascension?’
These questions are not easily answered. If, as it seems, these were not important enough for Paul to mention in his preaching or teaching, were they part of the earliest Christian teachings, or were they later developments? These are questions that arise because of the dating of the different contributions to the New Testament. Paul wrote before the gospels were written. It is not only important to try to gain information about who wrote what, but also when they wrote.
It is important to remember that most of the early followers of Jesus were Jewish. The destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem by the Romans in 70CE. was very significant in the early history of the Christian movement. It was devastating to the Jewish religion and its practices. It was a very significant contributing factor leading to the vehement rejection of the Jewish Christians by Jewish leaders, cutting them off from their religious and national heritage.
With their land conquered, their Temple in ruins, their sacrifice-centred religious life finished and with no longer any jobs for the priests, the Jewish leadership, which no doubt included many priests, turned to their Torah, their book of Law. They expelled any person belonging to any movement which tried, in any way, to reinterpret their beloved Torah or give it fresh or new meanings. The religious leaders of the Jews began to reject utterly, their fellow Jews who had turned to this new teaching from Jesus and his followers. In response to this rejection, the Jewish Christians began to hate those who were making them outcasts.
It has been suggested that this is one of the historical reasons why there is such a perceived anti-Semitic bias, particularly in John's Gospel. The date of writing is important. It is suggested that John’s Gospel may have been written about 20 to 30 years after the destruction of the Temple, that is, at about 90 to 100 CE, enough time for making Jewish Christians outcasts, and for them, in turn, to react. In passing, it is important to note that when John’s gospel speaks of ‘the Jews’ in derogatory terms, the whole Jewish nation is not being addressed. It is the leadership of the Jews that is being criticised. When ‘the Jews’ reject Jesus and have him put to death, it is the Jewish leadership and not the whole nation that is being censured by the gospel writer.
Having this extra knowledge of the historical context enables a clearer understanding of what lies behind the text. The historical situation in which the various books of the Bible were written, had an effect on what was written and what its original meaning was; why it was written. Knowledge of this historical environment can enhance our understanding of the text. We have dealt with only some examples in addressing the question, ‘Who wrote what, when?’
However it may give you some extra understanding of the Bible as we deal with some of its complexities.
It has been said that God should be seen as acting within a given historical situation. If we know the history, what the author wanted to communicate through the text can become clearer.
A quotation and some questions for discussion
It makes no difference whether Mark wrote Mark's Gospel and whether it was written before or after any of the other Gospels. The basic message remains the same, no matter who wrote what when.
If Genesis chapter 2 was written before chapter 1, why doesn’t it appear first in our printed Bible?
If Jonah is a parable/story, there should be no argument about whether it is biologically possible or not for a human being to live inside the body of a whale. That is irrelevant.
Print Booklet (Download and print double-side, flip on short edge) The text above has the text of the bookblets edited somewhat and because there are many pictures in the booklets, all reference to them has been omitted.