The Interpretation of the New Testament

I couldn't find a decent picture online so
 I just snapped one on my desk.

I never thought I would say this, but I now enjoy reading about the history of New Testament interpretation. Perhaps it is merely the history of the OT's interpretation that bores me to tears (or my few experiences with it), but this book by Stephen Neill (updated by Tom Wright) was a page-turner. It was a little pricey ($45 new on Amazon), but at 449 pages it is worth it. Though the title suggests the book begins  with interpretation in 1861, it actually begins with the turn of the 19th century and, of course, frequently alludes to the world-changing work of Erasmus, Luther, and others.

I read this as an assignment in class and I'm including my summary of the book's contents here. I'll break it up into two or more posts.

Chapter 1: Challenge to Orthodoxy 

In the mid-1700s, Samuel Reimarus embarked on the quest for the historical Jesus, albeit privately. After his passing, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing published his research, unleashing a theological revolution to German scholars. In the meantime, Britain was closed to the theological developments in Germany, for few troubled themselves with learning the language. This changed with Coleridge and Carlyle who helped bring German scholarship into England.

During this time, scholarship was inching closer to the critical method with the help of J. D. Michaelis whose views were quite conservative but whose methodology was to read without presuppositions, meaning that the Bible may contain contradictions. In a separate field, Nieburh applied the critical method to Roman history which led scholars to apply the same method to the history of Israel. As German scholarship was translated into English, British scholars like H. J. Rose and E. B. Pusey reacted, the former more extremely than the latter.

Strauss, however, solidified the critical method in England by advancing that the Gospel accounts, though depicting some historical realities, were largely “myths.” F. C. Baur, Strauss’ teacher, responded by acknowledging that a historical consequence cannot be greater than its cause. Baur was not without his own presuppositions, basing his work in early Christian diversity on the Hegelian philosophy of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis. In short, he believed that Jewish Christianity (Peter) clashed with Gentile Christianity (Paul) until the Gentiles won.

In 1860, the levee broke in England. The book Essays and Reviews, written by seven British scholars, examined the current situation of critical study in relation to Christian faith. At this time, though, three notable British scholars were preparing to stem the tide by critical study without presuppositions.

Chapter 2: The New Testament and History 

Westcott, Hort, and Lightfoot were the British “dream team” that countered the waves of German scholarship that had unsettled England. These three were about the same age and similarly educated, but had different strengths. Lightfoot’s strength was historical backgrounds, for he understood that 1st century Christianity could not be fully understood by ignoring the literature of the first few centuries. Baur’s aforementioned theory of early church conflict between Peter and Paul hinged on the early date of 1 Clement and the assumption that “Simon Magus” in this work was Paul. Lightfoot, however, set out to determine the date of Ignatius’ writings, which showed no hint of such conflict. Thus, Baur’s theory of Paul being “Simon Magus” whom Peter confronted would be greatly injured if Ignatius spoke of them being in fellowship.

This was a difficult task for it required determining the authenticity of the thirteen extant writings attributed to Ignatius. Lightfoot finally concluded that seven of the thirteen writings were composed by Ignatius. This accomplishment revealed no discord between Paul and Peter and it undermined the assumption that “Simon Magus” referred to Paul. In fact, both Clement and Ignatius refer to Peter and Paul together and in positive light. The Tubingen theory proposed that this supposed conflict was not resolved until around the middle of the second century. If so, Clement and Ignatius were in the thick of the discord, yet their writings do not show a trace of it.

The work of Lightfoot, Westcott, and Hort has closed the door on the Tubingen theory of massive conflict between Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the early church. At the same time, it has opened the door for genuine critical scholarship, including the exploration of early church history. Other fields, such as textual criticism, were growing by leaps and bounds, as well.

Chapter 3: What the New Testament Says and What It Means 

With great changes and advances in theology, the 19th century also brought advances in textual criticism. This era saw a time of renewed interest in linguistics, as well. Even with modern technology, errors in copying manuscripts are inevitable but great strides were taken in the 19th century to correct this. The first printed Greek NT, the Textus Receptus, so called for its reception by clergymen and not for its divine origin, began with Erasmus’ work (1516) that was hindered by poor manuscript availability. A century later John Mill added a critical apparatus but even by the 18th century, no principle for textual criticism had been developed.

In the late 1700s, Griesbach discovered the principle of manuscript “families,” finding that many manuscripts had been copied from one manuscript while many other manuscripts were copied from a different common source. In doing this, Griesbach paved the way for Lachmann, Tregelles, and Tischendorf to do their great work. All of this, then, set the stage for Westcott and Hort to develop a clear methodology of textual criticism. Their Greek New Testament was quite revolutionary, though some conservative scholars still clung to the Textus Receptus.

During this time, linguistic studies flourished. Trench published his Oxford Dictionary and Liddell and Scott (1843) published their still famous Greek lexicon. Westcott and Hort also contributed more than their Greek New Testament and, along with J. B. Lightfoot, set out to publish a complete commentary on the NT that would be exegetical, historical, and linguistic. They did not live to complete the commentary series but what they completed was a major influence on NT scholarship. Too, their commentary on the NT was not without its weaknesses. It did not address such fundamental problems as defining revelation, faith, and inspiration, nor did they address the Synoptic problem, likely because they were combating the Tubingen school.

Chapter 4: Jesus and the Gospel 

The exact wording in many passages of the Synoptics implies some kind of relationship. The word Synoptic, in its earliest usage, meant to lay side by side in three columns. Truly, the best way to understand the Synoptic problem is to lay Matthew, Mark, and Luke side by side and underline their similar wording.

One of the fundamental developments in Synoptic research was the priority of Mark. Because of Augustine’s influence, Mark was not regarded very highly in the Middle Ages. Lachmann, however, was the first to see Mark’s priority. Weiss broke more ground by discovering that Mark did not add material from Matthew and Luke but they omitted material from Mark that was irrelevant to their purposes. Holtzman enforced Weiss, noting especially that Matthew and Luke toned down Mark’s passion narrative. Westcott and Hort’s Greek New Testament open the door for textual criticism and, by the end of the 19th century, the priority of Mark was generally accepted.

Likewise, John Hawkins helped move studies forward by publishing Horae Synopticae, an immensely detailed account of the resemblances and differences between the Synoptics. Adolf von Harnack attempted to find “Q” in Matthew and Luke in his Sayings and Speeches of Jesus (1907), but this was seen as too hasty.

B. H. Streeter, the notable source critic, made several unconvincing arguments but two that have remained was his “four-source theory” and “Proto-Luke.” Surprisingly, Streeter, though unconventional in some ways, thought “Luke” was written by Luke. While Streeter sought the evidence, A. C. Headlam sought what happened, trying to account for the beginning of Christianity, knowing a cause must be greater than its effect.