Book Review: Historical Criticism of the Bible

Eta Linneman
Historical Criticism of the Bible: Methodology or Ideology?
Grand Rapids/Baker Book House, 1990. Pp. 169. Paperback.

A penitent, former historical-critical theologian, Eta Linnemann provides a first-hand perspective of historical-critical theology. Having studied under Bultmann, Fuchs, Gogarten, and Ebeling (p. 17) in West Germany, where Christian liberal arts universities were virtually non-existent, Linnemann attained great prestige in her field but upon her realization that the historical-critical method of theology offers no good service to God (rather, quite the opposite), she recanted and in 1978 even threw away her previous writings that had won her so much honor. She stated this well in her first paragraph of introduction: “My ‘No!’ to historical-critical theology stems from my glorious redemption he accomplished for me on Golgotha” (p. 17).

The methodology of Linnemann’s study is both destructive and constructive. First, she critiques the historical-critical method, offering a history concerning its origins in paganism, its true motivation, and the firm position it holds in many universities. With Linnemann’s experience in historical-critical theology, she is certainly qualified to inform readers the mentality of this method of interpretation (chapter 8). Second, she constructs a model which can be used to found Christian universities, even including educational objects and a plan of study. Finally, she concludes her study by biblical analysis of the Word of God and a plea to “search the Scriptures” (p. 159).

Section one is titled “Christianity and the Modern University.” In chapter one, Linnemann begins at the beginning by tracing modern universities to their pagan roots, informing readers that “the university in Athens was closed because of its pagan character” in 529 B. C. (p. 23). She adds that the modern university is not steered by a desire to know truth but by humanism and its group dynamics. Instead of someone pursuing knowledge freely, Linnemann suggests that “the individual is granted freedom only insofar as that person’s work can be integrated into the traditional framework of the discipline” (p. 28). She later adds that the so-called “Faith of Theology” is fraught with presuppositions and bias, such as the denial of the possibility of divine revelation, and that it [critical intellect] “judges by fleshly standards” (p. 108).

In addition to this history of interpretation, in chapter three Linnemann provides a biblical parallel to the paganism in modern universities. After King Solomon died and the kingdom was divided, Jeroboam changed the place, time, object, and priesthood of worship, bringing paganism to Israel on an institutional level. The points that Linnemann emphasize are the Israelites’ silence and later forgetfulness at the apostasy of their king. While many were deceived at Jeroboam’s claim that the golden calves had delivered them out of Egypt, “those who were in a position to know better—and there must have been some in Israel—held their peace” (p. 46), which has a clear implication for students and professors today. Further, it is interesting, as Linnemann notes, that the Israelites so quickly forgot the gravity of this sin. A similar event occurred a few centuries before at the foot of Sinai, but was quickly put down by Moses, Joshua, and Levites. However, the prophet from Bethel had no one on his side when he confronted Jeroboam, which is comparable to a modern stand against the historical-critical method.

Linnemann also provides a fair critique of the historical-critical method. Chapter eight reveals the “mentality” of the method as operating under the assumption that there is no God (p. 116). This assumption is connected to the presupposition that the Bible is the product of the human mind and can only be understood through the methods of historical science (p. 115) and “group dynamics” (p. 28) in this discipline do not foster intellectual freedom but stifle growth because of the traditions of the study. In short, pride and ambition lead scholars to conformity with the atheistic mindset of the historical-critical method. Linnemann strikes the proverbial nail on the head when she says, “There is truth only in Jesus. In humanism truth is replaced by recognition, a prestige wrapped up in the conferring and accepting of honor” (p. 28).

Though there are many strong points in this book, one weakness may be Linnemann’s impassioned writing. She is certainly zealous and passionate about the dangers of the historical-critical method but because of the fiery language toward this model of interpretation, some may dismiss her claims as being emotionally driven. On the other hand, though, the urgency of her message may win some who study in and have been taught with the historical-critical method.

Gotta Love the KJV

A lot of people have been “booing” to the King James Version lately, and not for terrible reasons. I love the KJV and believe that it is the most beautiful artifact of the English language, but I don’t think it was the translation “authorized” by God as the “King James Only” advocates suggest because it certainly has problems (it is based on the Textus Receptus—an inferior manuscript collection—and has some Calvinistic tendencies; cf. Acts 2:47). However, here I want to suggest some good things about the KJV that are just FUN.


Do you have any of those pesky homophobes in your church? Well...pull this little ace out of your sleeve and silence the haters:

“…and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing…” (James 2:3). 

BOO YA. And men rush to the mall to purchase that pink tie they've been eying. 

And who can forget the verse that every preacher secretly loves to shout from the pulpit...

“then are ye bastards, and not sons” (Hebrews 12:8)

But wait, there's more! Try reading this one in a Bible class full of gray-haired ladies:

“If I leave...by the morning light any of them that pisseth against the wall” (1 Sam. 25:22 and 5 other places). 

I don’t know what’s funnier: the archaic ending (like “he that barfeth in the toilet”) or the overall description!

And last but certainly not least, the verse whose veiled meaning turned grown preacher students into a group of hysterical 12-year-olds:

“We have been with child, we have been in pain, we have as it were brought forth wind” (Isaiah 23:18).

There you have it, folks....farting in the Bible. I won't elaborate on a man who "hath his stones broken" (Lev. 21:20), which, let's just say, isn't talking about his landscaping.

Bondage and Liberty--a Vicious Cycle

History repeats itself.

I love the story of the Maccabean revolt . Antiochus IV "Epiphanes" ("God manifest"), in his quest to control Egypt, tried to gain power of Palestine. When he saw the Jews' rebellion, he came down with an iron fist, offering pigs in the Jewish Temple and even putting an altar to Zeus in the Most Holy place on Dec. 25, 167 B.C. Further, he required all Jews to eat unclean food, which the Law forbade, and sent representatives to ensure the Jews complied.

Mattathias, a rural priest from Modein, welcomed the representatives with his sword, literally "tearing them a new one." Eventually his son, Judas Maccabeus, drove out the oppressors and cleansed the temple on Dec. 25, 164 B.C., exactly three years after it had been defiled.

But here is the ironic part....the descendants of Mattathias and Judas, who had fought so valiantly against the corrupt Syrians, became just as corrupt as their oppressors!! Simon, the son of Judas, dressed himself in purple (the color of royalty) and placed tablets throughout the country, informing the people of his valiant deeds, conspicuously leaving out his father and grandfather. Later, Alexander Jannaeus would crucify 800 Pharisees because they opposed his politics. Government corruption at its finest.

What strikes me is this vicious cycle of bondage to liberty to bondage. I'm no historian, but it seems to repeat itself. This had happened a long time before Mattathias when God delivered Israel from the Egyptians, only to be rejected by His people in favor of a king "like the nations" (1 Samuel 8:5). A casual reading of the Old Testament will show some of the kings of Judah and Israel to be just as or even more corrupt than their former oppressors.

How is the U.S. faring? You be the judge.

How is the church faring? In some places, very well. In others, no so much. Those who have been freed from their sins turn into cruel taskmasters, forcing others to conform to their traditions (Matt. 15:9). History truly repeats itself....I read a story about a minister in seminary who viciously attacked another institution that he considered to be doctrinally weak but later sought help from another minister, confessing that he (who was married with children and preaching) was addicted to pornography and had visited a prostitute on three occasions. All head, no heart.

Thank God that "for freedom Christ freed us" (Galatians 5:1). We are the captives of Jesus Christ the Righteous (Eph. 4:8; 1 John 2:2), not unrighteous man. May we have courage to follow our Lord to the cross and be abused by wicked men who love their traditions more than God. Perhaps through self-sacrifice God can work through us and break their hardened hearts.