Modern Critical Study

Critical study of the New Testament seeks to answer the question, “How accurate are the writings?” This broad question is answered in segments – manuscript source, manuscript context (circumstances), manuscript collators. This type of critical study brings about questions as to the historicity of Jesus Christ. Some believe the writers of the New Testament wrote what they felt the church needed for guidance, without regard for what Jesus historically taught. Others hold that the authors simply wrote what Jesus did and said.

There are different criticisms that address different points of study. Source criticism tries to determine what the original source writings were. It is through this type of criticism that scholars determine what the best available manuscripts are to work with. There are also methods to discover what are the probable readings given variance in different manuscripts. Form criticism tries to find the original circumstances the authors wrote under. This is important in hermeneutics as it is very important to understand the circumstances and history of a document in order to have good exegesis. Redaction criticism seeks to find those who edited the various documents into one cohesive document. Using all of these methods of criticism we are able to create a biblical text that is very close to the original writings.

It is quite interesting how all of this relates to the question of the historical Jesus. Those who are critical about the writings accurately representing the historical Jesus do not have other source material to back up their claims. They are really just taking a critical stance on a traditional view, without any documentation to back them up. There are many other ancient documents with much less evidence than the New Testament that rarely come under suspicion. The most often criticized writings are those that depict miracles. There is great skepticism in regards to the resurrection, virgin birth, and the signs that Jesus performed. The effort put forth to “find Jesus” is nothing more than an attempt to separate the historical from the religious Jesus. Some would suggest that this trend goes back centuries; I believe it goes back to the days of Jesus Himself. The Pharisees tried to “re-write” history and distance the historical Jesus from the religious Jesus by paying off the Roman guards to lie about the empty tomb. The attempt to answer this question has had a revival in recent time. Using modern methods and discoveries, some are still trying to answer the question, “Who is Jesus?” Those who seek to “find” Jesus claim they are doing it to find the true Jesus. Yet one cannot help but wonder why they are so focused on the miracles if that is the case. It would appear by the characteristics of what they attempt to discredit (His miracles) that they are actually trying to strip Him of His deity. Most of the more traditional Christians tend to hold the bible as being infallible. They are the opposite side of the spectrum. Sometimes this stance can be too extreme in that they just deny science when it seems to contradict the scriptures. The Catholic Church has determined three levels of tradition that brought us the scriptures we have today. Level one is remembering what Jesus actually did and said. Level two is the core teaching of the Christian Church – spreading the gospel. Level three is the authors individual perspective and theology.

One should remember that in the end the scriptures are written for the Christian community, not for the scientific community. The study of scriptures is important, especially when it appears that science contradicts it. Science should never be ignored for blind obedience to scriptures. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that we are to interpret scripture by scripture – not by science. The righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith, not from science to faith. I am reminded of when Paul wrote that Timothy should keep what was committed to him, avoiding profane and vain talking, and opposition of science.