What could account for this 1990 radical change in belief about the German school of Higher Criticism (that began around 1860)?

Upvote:3

Due to the two helpful links provided in the comments, I have been enabled to understand what led Eta Linnemann to speak of a "monstrous contradiction" within historical-critical theology, and how it prevents proclamation of the gospel (as in the partial quote I gave).

The first link, https://www.truthchallenge.one/blog/2012/04/03/what-does-historical-critical-theology-do-to-the-bible/ is to an article by Spencer D. Gear, all about Prof. Linnemann and her inside knowledge of historical-critical theology that eventually led to her renouncing it. The full title of her book, as translated by R.W. Yarborough, is "Historical Criticism of the Bible, Reflections of a Bultmannian turned evangelical" (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991). On page 89 is that partial quote I gave, and on page 18 she had come to believe that the theology she had formerly taught was "a sign of God's judgment".

In Gear's on-line article, he lists 18 points of Linnemann's, quoting her, and it is No. 10 that gives the full quote in question. Then points 12, 13 and 14 give her own examples of what she means. There is just too much in Gear's article to quote here. The whole on-line article would need to be read by anyone wanting to know the whys and wherefores.

So, that is all I can say here. No way am I going to give myself the Green Tick, so if anyone else wants to pad this out with their own answer, please feel free!

Upvote:4

From what I understand about the German school Tubingen of higher criticism, the "monstrous contradiction" refers to the Gospel dating of the death, burial, resurrection of Christ. The Synoptic Gospel puts the crucifixion after Passover. John's Gospel places the crucifixion before Passover.

This contradiction led the school into an infinite regression.

  1. ‘If one assumes, on the basis of the differences between John’s Gospel and the three other Gospels, that the author of John is not John the disciple of Jesus, then a series of inferences naturally flows: In this case the author himself did not personally experience what he asserts about Jesus. He must have modeled his presentation on earlier sources. This raises the questions about the nature of these earlier documents. And this in turn raises the further question of how John’s Gospel is distinct from the sources it is based upon’ (Linnemann 1990:93). Source

The contradiction led to questioning who John is, what did he really say, is he a liar, what are the true source documents?

So, the radical change from believing the Bible as the word of God to a made-up man-made mixture sources to that monstrous contradiction. It is monstrous because the death, burial, resurrection of Christ is the whole of Christianity; it is the gospel (1 Cor 15).

More post

Search Posts

Related post