What is Biblical Criticism? Revisiting Barton's Ten Theses

The methodologies and approaches that constitute biblical studies have always been a contentious topic. Relationships between language, literature, history, and faith are all elements that present challenging questions for how biblical critics go about their business as academics. What even is biblical criticism and why does/should it exist? These sorts of questions cause problems for those in the lay arena to understand what our discipline is comprised of and what its end goals are. 

Take, for example, an amateur documentary from about a decade ago entitled "What's the Big Deal About the KJV?" created by American pastor Sam Gipp. An ardent King-James-Onlyist, Gipp disparages the "critical text" of the New Testament, that which is decided upon by scholars to be the best and most reliable of the NT manuscripts. He says, with great confidence, "if you think about that, just the fact that it's 'critical' should tell you there's a problem" (3:03). Gipp—whether out of unfamiliarity or insincerity—asserts that the "critical" text is problematic, undoubtedly deriving from a caricature that anything "critical" contains an unfavourable judgment towards the object of the criticism. With Gipp's mindset, there is no delineation between the Christian seminary professor who publishes works of scholarship for Oxford or Cambridge and the likes of atheist activists like Bart Ehrman who weaponise scholarship for the purpose of bludgeoning evangelicals.

Gipp could be easily maligned as just another out-of-touch theological conservative who, ironically, plays into the hands of those who wish to use scholarship to attack the Bible and those who believe its contents. It is true, however, that many laypersons (both churchgoing and secular) are greatly concerned with the conclusions of biblical scholarship. Believing that biblical criticism is a tool for dismantling Christian faith, they end up conflating or combining one definition of "criticism" for another. This even goes beyond the lay world where certain incendiary scholars have begun to affirm that those from a confessional background are incapable of being "critical" with the work they produce. Clearing up this minor lax in vocabulary, however, can help break down these ideological barriers. And I believe the answer can be found in the classic work by the Anglican biblical scholar John Barton in his brilliant work The Nature of Biblical Criticism (2007).

"Criticism" of the Bible

Barton outlines ten theses about the content of academic inquiry into the Bible in an attempt to identify the goal of the discipline (pp. 5-8):

(1) - Biblical criticism is, in the essentials, a literary and linguistic endeavour. The roots of criticism lay in the goal to understand what the text means, which fundamentally requires a semantic analysis alongside an understanding of the Bible as a textual artefact. Inevitably, historical analysis plays a variably significant role in aiding linguistic analysis (p. 102), but it can only ever work alongside it, correlating its results with readings of the bible as literature. Without linguistic and literary study, historical analysis cannot take place; they are the necessary prerequisites to all historical inquiry into the nature of the Bible.

(2) - Following logically from (1), historical reconstructions/origins are only accidentally concerned by Biblical criticism and are not the primary focus of the discipline. Though early critics like Wellhausen used history to engage in analysis of the Bible, his method involved the identification of sources in the Pentateuch through linguistic and literary means. Indeed, Wellhausen's reconstruction of Israel's early history only came about precisely because of linguistic and literary observations, providing him with the foundation for his historical reconstructions (35-39). Barton's observation is made more pertinent when he observes that some pieces of scholarship can be historical without being critical (as seen in certain commentary series). On the other hand, other scholarly works can be critical without being historical (p. 39). These include works that critically engage with the semantics of the Bible, but do not delve into the historical origins of the text. This is not to undermine the fruits of biblical criticism as often resulting in historical reconstruction (p. 38) but that Wellhausen's divisions of the Pentateuch into differing sources has its origins in earlier critical studies that were not concerned primarily with historical origins or reconstructions of the ancient past (pp. 75-76). 

(3) - Modern criticism is partly a product of Enlightenment thinking born out of Reformation emphasis on reading scripture apart from ecclesiastical authorities, but is ultimately anticipated by medieval exegesis whose roots go as far back as the patristics. Suggesting a simple timeline between "then" and "now" in terms of the development is criticism is regarded as deeply flawed by Barton. Preference for the term "noncritical" is expressed over the term "precritical" (pp. 10-12). In this sense the term critical functions in contrast with "naïve" or "superficial" approaches. This means that even the patristic authors had critical awareness, though not necessarily a critical sensibility. It creates an atmosphere in which the haphazard application of the term "critical" becomes remarkably problematic and demands a more sophisticated definition.

(4) - There is no inherently sceptical or positivistic aspect to biblical criticism, despite some practitioners declaring their allegiance to such approaches. Barton is happy to concede that there is positivism in biblical studies, with many examples of scholars attempting to arrive at "concrete facts" about the Bible or the historical Jesus from which we can build our future knowledge upon. These scholars, however, are not the majority and positivism is not an essential element of the discipline (pp. 49-50). As with the issue of scepticism, such a mindset should be welcome in the field, but is not demanded by it. Questions about the historicity of miracles cannot be adjudicated by historians and are simply not dependent on one's philosophical background (p. 48). This again points back to history not being the primary concern of biblical criticism, but rather the text's meaning.

(5) - Aside from the odd disciplinary overlap, there is no inherent application of "scientific" methods to the Bible. The nature of knowledge in theological and historical pursuits is inherently self-involving. In fact, much of the humanities endeavours to look into the past which science cannot (pp. 54-56). In biblical criticism there is no "processing" of a text, but rather an understanding of it (p. 57), which tends to put it at odds with an inherently scientific mode of inquiry.

(6) - A foreclosure of textual truthfulness (whether by theological or advocacy readings) is required to engage in biblical criticism. Barton, like other authors taking the middle ground in subjects of this matter, such as Richard J. Evans in his In Defence of History (1997), realises that there is often a common cause between conservative and postmodern resistance to criticism. One believes it to be a threat to interpretive traditions and the other rejects the prospect of it altogether (p. 118). Efforts to "reclaim the Bible for the church" by confessional groups or the "post-critical" advocacy of groups who seek to undermine biblical studies as a Western, white concept are seen as misguided and resulting in a critical irony where those who attack criticism become critics themselves (pp. 142-64). Certain levels of objectivity are assumed by both sides and the need for procedural neutrality is emphasised (p. 174).

(7) - Readings that are devotional or liturgical are not inimical to biblical criticism. Barton even affirms that criticism is the necessary precondition for the religious appropriation of the biblical texts; that having a "critical faith" (a term he derives from Gerd Theissen on the same matter), allows one to take the Bible seriously and on its own terms (pp. 180-86). Most notably he asserts that "There are many biblical scholars today whose work is unimpeachably critical, but who in their own religious practice are traditional Catholics or Protestants who have few affinities with the liberal agenda" (p. 184). Thus, despite his concession to the point made by Jacques Berlinerblau (and recently reiterated by Richard C. Miller) that there is undoubtedly a residual element of theological bias that continues to orient the field and suppresses negative appraisals of the biblical text (p. 171), he affirms that traditionalists can produce world-class scholarship in conjunction with their own faith commitments. 

(8) - Secular reasoning is recognised as valid by biblical criticism but is not necessarily linked to forms of "theological liberalism." Even the Catholic Church, in an ironic turn of events, has become very open to the conclusions of biblical criticism (pp. 121-22). The continuing secularisation of biblical studies has been anticipated by many scholars including Philip Davies a decade ago in his article "Biblical Studies: Fifty Years of a Multi-Discipline" (2014) and his predictions have been remarkably accurate. 

(9) - Objectivity is strived for by biblical critics in the sense that they try not to impose alien readings, but this does not insist total objectivity nor does not view total objectivity as an ideal. Barton criticises the notion that only certain groups of people have power in biblical interpretation whom have a monopoly defining the "correct" interpretation (pp. 48-49). As we saw above, those who accuse others of imposing their worldviews on the Bible tend to be engaging in the same behaviour; no one is free from these hermeneutical lenses. This places the biblical critic in the position of needing to circumvent their own convictions in order to avoid skewing the results of research and free the discipline from interpretive constraints (pp. 121-23).

(10) - The "plain sense" of a text is the goal of the critic as opposed to the traditional concept of establishing the "original" meaning or the postmodern notion of creating a "new" meaning. As discussed earlier, the historical sense is not an essential element of biblical criticism, but it has a part to play in determining the original milieu of the text's composition. This is not undermined by the text becoming a vehicle for new meanings, however (p. 86), and Barton is very careful not to place disproportionate preference for one mode of hermeneutics over another, affirming that many literary critics are guilty of a strawman when they accuse traditional critics of taking one meaning as the only meaning of a text (p. 113). The "plain sense" of a text overcomes this postmodern pitfall in that it allows for the ability to find many meanings but not infinite meanings in a text.

In sum, Barton finds himself in agreement with historians like Evans on issues such as history as an art rather than science, criticising postmodern strawmen on the idea of fixed and unalterable meanings, and the need for serious critics to jettison dearly held interpretations in order to amend or even abandon their arguments. These principles, with their emphasis on methodological rigorousness and careful evaluations of different analyses, should be endowed to every student of biblical studies who wants to take their discipline seriously.