THE HISTORICAL-CRITICAL METHOD – YES OR NO?

Abstract

The article takes issue with those who claim that historical criticism (HC) offers the only ‘scientifically responsible’ interpretation of the New Testament. The peculiar sense of the operative words ‘historical’ and ‘critical’ of the designation ‘the historical critical method’ is described. Then a historical overview is given of the rise and growth of HC. Some of the crucial critical presuppositions underlying HC are discussed. Since Aufklarung times the history of critical Biblical scholarship has been marked by an ever widening penetration of critical presuppositions on the one hand, and an unabated search for a more adequate critical methodology on the other hand. It is argued that the position of conservative scholarship (using HC but endeavouring at the same time to retain a conservative Inspiration theory) is inherently contradictory. The conservative scholar is faced by various fundamental questions pertaining, for instance to the divine Inspiration of the Bible, to Christology, to the manner in which some New Testament writings are supposed to have attained their final form, and to methodology. The article concludes by suggesting that the grammatico-historical approach to the Bible offers the best alternative to HC. That time-honoured method is scientific in its own right: it is in full accord with the self-testimony of the Bible; its presuppositions are in full harmony with the claims of Scripture; and its methodology cannot be faulted when judged in the light of its own presuppositions and goals.