01 - The Nature of Contemporary Biblical Criticism

The Nature of Contemporary Biblical Criticism.

Western rationalistic biblical criticism is a phenomenon of long standing, dating back approximately 200 years. It flourished towards the end of the 19th century, and in our century has become only more widely popularized. It bears the title “scientific,” but, we know how often - especially in the field of history - the personal, predetermined conceptions of a world-view are reflected in the conclusions of researchers who arrive at these conclusions ahead of time.

With what points of view do the people of this century approach the Bible, or, in this case, the Old Testament? For the intelligent Jew, it is his natural heritage, a source for the study of the ancient mode of life of his ancestors, his tradition, his history, instinctive thought patterns, his cul­ture. For the non-believer, it is a book which elicits hostility and rejection. He is prepared to study this subject with the special intent of undermin­ing belief in its very authenticity and, in general, in its truthfulness, its ideas, and its values. The inquisitive scholar, whose mind greedily seeks material for his work as the root of a plant seeks out moisture in the earth, approaches the Bible as a collection of literary monuments which is in need of an objective research in accordance with the principles of a scien­tific positivism which excludes from its field of vision the activity of the Providence of God. A person of faith, for whom the Bible is sacred, takes part in this work of criticism least of all, and if he does approach it, it is, as a matter of principle, with a different orientation which does not fit the methodological tracks of the exact sciences. It must be admitted that the historical research of the distant past, whose sources are only incidental and incomplete historical and archaeo­logical data, which are often indirect, should generally be approached with caution, no matter how “splendidly served up” this data may be (as the late Prof. A. Kartashev of the Paris Theological Institute, a scholar of bib­lical criticism, himself stated concerning its findings). Before us lies the rich ground of observations of non-biblical, literary-historical criticism which forces us to be alert to the learned conclusions of criticism. The “Slovo ο Polku Igoreve,” Lay of the Hosts of Igor was long subject to rejection or to doubts as to its authenticity, and in recent times its authen­ticity was subjected to criticism by the French scholar, Dr. Mason. Yet Russian archaeologists are even now determining the boundaries of ancient fortifications and other sites for excavation according to the infor­mation contained in the “Slovo ο Polku Igoreve.” We see also how much error is stubbornly held onto in the scholarly works of the West regarding the history of 19th century Russia, not to speak of the great difficulty with which a true portrayal of the causes of the Russian revolution is coming to light. This so-called “scientific” biblical criticism is a product of the Protes­tant world. Such is the irony of fate - that the same religious movement in Christianity which rejected the living voice of the Church which is con­tained in its sacred Tradition, and recognized the Bible as the sole source of the teaching of the Faith, which saw divine inspiration in each letter of the Scriptures, specifically took upon themselves the task of dismantling of their own foundation. Feeling for the sanctity of the Scriptures grew cold among these theologians. It was left for them only to ponder: whence and when came each stone of the foundation, with what is it cemented, what renovations have been carried out on this mass, additions thereto, etc.? Hypothesis followed hypothesis. For the work to be accepted it was neces­sary to employ “scientific methods of research.” But scientific methods are based on the principles of positivism, one of whose principles is the rejec­tion of the supernatural element in the life of the world, and especially in historical events. Willingly or unwillingly, for Protestant theology, which was included as one of the faculties of university sciences, this meant accepting the methodological principles common to all the other sciences. Thus, for example, if in the sacred books one or another prophecy is given, and then the fulfillment of that prophecy is indicated, the researcher of the text feels he has every right to conclude that the prophecy was written after the event it concerns. This is one of a series of factors which have deter­mined the direction of contemporary biblical criticism. Even one such detail in the methods of research should warn us ahead of time against completely trusting the conclusions of this criticism. For belief in the Providence and the foreknowledge of God is inherent in the Christian, and this means faith in the possibility of communications to people accounted worthy (the prophets), or knowledge of coming events, be they in the form of visible images, as clear premonitions, or as direct revela­tions. The negative side of contemporary biblical criticism lies in its off­handed dissection of the text of the Bible, and in this way the Bible itself becomes lifeless matter for its critics and those who follow them. A feeling for the sanctity of the Bible has already been killed in them. By destroying the integrity of the text of the sacred books, they deprive the Bible of its soul. Dissecting its physiological side, they are no longer capable of seeing its psychological influence. Will a person studying the physiology of the eye discern during his investigation that the eyes are an expression of the soul? That the eyes of another person can pierce straight through you? That eyes can be kind, evil, soft, sharp, insolent, envious, frightening, mad? That eyes hypnotize? Just as a physiologist cannot discover these characteristics in studying the eyes, so too the positivist critic cannot find in the Bible the confirmation of faith, a consciousness of Divine Provi­dence, moral nourishment for his soul. With what they themselves breathe [i.e., their attitude], people naturally contaminate others, destroying in them the capacity for faith. The scholars themselves feel exalted far above the material, as above the naive primitive. In fact, their own era is nega­tively reflected in this criticism. Living as they do in an age full of false­hood in the mutual relations between people and between governments, under the cover of cultural conventions, critics are prepared to find the same hidden characteristics in the Bible. In their statements the religious leaders of the people are passing off what is new as ancient, the works of their own hands as the writings of great authorities, that which they them­selves have perceived as the foresight of prophets. In the eyes of criticism, all of these tactics of craftiness, forgery, falsification, deception, were sup­posed to help attain noble religious, moral and political goals; and no matter how surprising, how strange it might seem, they have produced, as admitted by the same scholars, the most futile results!? The Bible itself does not present its soul and its body to us in this way. It impresses upon us that nothing remains hidden from the eyes of God, nor, sooner or later, from the people: for there is nothing… hidden, that shall not be known (Matthew 10:26). The Bible constantly calls us to think and live in truth, righteousness, justice, purity of mind and senses, and in holi­ness of deed. It brands every lie, deception, wickedness, hypocrisy: A good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matthew 7:18). It teaches that righteousness cannot be attained through falsehood, holiness through hypocrisy; that faith cannot be exalted or strengthened by deception. The sacred writers, in the depth of their own humility, never even thought of expressing their own thoughts or teach­ings: they transmitted only the will of God, believing that the voice of God spoke through their humility; and the compilers of their writings approached their own task with the consciousness that they were touching holy objects. The critics’ work of dissecting the Bible is very carefully divided. It comprises two levels - first, “lower criticism”; second, “higher criticism.” The first concerns itself with philological aspects, the lexicon of the Bible, the material of comparative linguistics. The second concerns itself with researching the literary content of the Bible from the point of view of its sources, with questions as to the authorship of the books, with proposals of literary borrowing, with confirmation from the point of view of histor­ical and archaeological data. Unfortunately, set on a ready-made track which leads in a particular direction, it rolls along without ever looking back. We should not be troubled that the conclusions of scientific criticism are accepted by today’s learned Protestant theologians, and that lately even Roman Catholic theology has bowed down before it, and that they have even been sanctioned by the highest authority of the Roman Catholic Church, with the Nihil Obstat stamp in the recently published Catholic Encyclopedia of the Twentieth Century. But we cannot remain silent, for these conclusions are already invading Orthodox theological schools. The Orthodox Theological Institute of Paris has already approved them in the speech which Professor Kartashev delivered at the graduation ceremonies of the Institute “Academy” in the presence of Metropolitan Evlogy and honored guests in 1944, (published in 1947). In Professor Kartashev’s speech these conclusions cast a shadow over New Testament Scriptures as well. One cannot but sense in these manifestations the tendency towards general disintegration and mass leveling which is apparent in all of the trends of modern civilization, including decisive steps towards widespread religious equalization and merging in the contemporary world, which can be attained only through the rejection of many values and dogmas that have hitherto been considered inviolable. The structure of biblical criticism is founded on a series of hypothe­ses, and up to now has in its details been continually rebuilt, leading ever further away from the truth. We believe that a time will come when one of its principal hypothetical supports will crumble and a long portion of the building will collapse. We do not say the whole building, as we do not deny that through research new historical data are found, to add to and to cast light on views on particular questions, and perhaps in some cases to replace inaccurate views on the period of time or the authorship of one or another of the books of the Old Testament. New opinions on determining the time of the writing of the various books of the Sacred Scriptures, or even, in some cases, the authorship, do not yet necessarily betoken the undermining of the sacred authority of a book of the Old Testament. The Church accepted the canon of the books of the Old Testament from the Old Testament Church as it was compiled and confirmed around the time of Ezra, without investigating the history of each book. What was important was that each book contained valuable material which teaches doctrine and morality and, most important, each confirmed the chosen people’s expectation of the Messiah. As is known, in the greater part of the books of the Old Testament the author is not named in the text itself, and several books are called simply by the names of the individuals with whom they primarily deal. In the books of the holy writ­ers there are chapters written by other people, in which we are told, for example, about the final testament, the death and the burial of the holy writer of the given book. As for what concerns the divine inspiration of the sacred books, their content itself bears witness to it. For us one thing is important: that these books were written by “holy men of God.” In connection with what has been said, we trust it will not be super­fluous first to outline briefly the Orthodox Christian attitude towards the Old Testament, then to put forth the content and character of rationalistic criticism, and afterwards to give an answer thereto which is governed by an Orthodox consciousness, derived from logical and psychological considerations and archaeological data.