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.