From here on out, please follow me at http://worldviewofjesus.com/. I look forward to seeing you there!
God bless my friends,
Alan Anderson
January 12, 2013
January 2, 2013
Intelligent Design: DNA
In today’s world, we often hear about the ongoing debate between Darwinian Evolution and Intelligent Design (ID). This type of discussion may be popular among friends or acquaintances of varied belief systems or you may hear it on the news every now and again. The idea of ID is a very hotly contested theory among various scholars because of the theological and ideological implications that arise as a result of it.
At
the forefront of this debate between ID and Darwinian Evolution is DNA. Since
James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953,
scientists have been trying to figure out exactly how the information within
DNA could have possibly originated (Meyer 2009, 12) . In a way, DNA has
given a large amount of credence to the theory of design because there are no
other competing hypotheses that can make as much sense of the mass amount of specified
intelligible information mysteriously located within DNA than design.
The
thesis for this article is to present convincing facts on the specified information
contained within DNA to be the result of a divinely guided process rather than
the random acts of naturalism. As you will come to see, naturalism is simply
incapable of coming up with a scientifically and philosophically valid case for
the presence of information contained within DNA. As we will come to see, the
idea of chance being the sole contributor to such a vast amount of specified
information is completely incomprehensible.
What
is DNA?
I
will present some quotes below by prominent individuals who have made remarks
on DNA and the biological role it plays,
What lies at the heart of every living thing
is not a fire, warm breath, not a ‘spark of life’. It is information, words,
instructions…Think of a billion discrete digital characters…If you want to
understand life think about technology – Richard Dawkins (Dawkins 1996, 112)
Human DNA contains more organized information
than the Encyclopedia Britannica. If the full text of the encyclopedia were to
arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as
proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in
nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces – George Sim Johnson (Sims Johnson 1999)
When Watson and Crick discovered the structure
and information bearing properties of DNA, they did indeed solve one mystery,
namely, the secret of how the cell stores and transmits hereditary information.
But they uncovered another mystery that remains with us to this day. This is
the DNA enigma – the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build
the first living organism – Stephen Meyer (Meyer 2009, 24)
On the whole, DNA can be described as a
database that holds the information to create any living organism. It can be
related to computer software for biological organisms. In fact, the king of
software himself, Bill Gates, said this, “DNA is like a computer program but
far, far more advanced than any software ever created” (Gates 1995, 188) . The objective of
DNA is to produce a specified product, namely, biological organisms. Oxford
mathematician John Lennox affirms the quote above by George Sim Johnson by
noting that every one of the 10 to
100 trillion cells that are contained within each human body contain a database
that holds more information than an entire Encyclopedia Britannica (Lennox 2009, 136) .
The
process of how organisms are developed at the direction of DNA is extremely
intricate so I will not be delving too deep into the specific details of how
DNA works but I do feel it is important to have a basic understanding on the physical
structure and function of the DNA molecule. The DNA spiral ladder is made up of
a very long chain of molecules called nucleotides. The base of this spiral DNA
ladder is made up of four different chemicals. These chemicals are called
Adenine, Guanine, Cytosine and Thymine (aka A, G, C, and T). These chemicals
are properly combined together to make a gene. Once instructed, these genes
form instructions for making a protein (Lennox 2009, 137-138) . Of course,
organisms are made up of proteins. While there are many more steps along the
way that make up a more thorough summary of the DNA and its makeup, this should
serve as a simple foundation for the basic understanding and appreciation for
why DNA is pivotal in the ID movement.
Three alternatives to design will be discussed
as a competing hypothesis for the origin of the information found within the
DNA molecule. In my personal opinion, DNA is one of the most compelling
scientific evidences for the existence of God because of the inconceivably
enormous amount of specified information contained within such a small space
(need a microscope!) that plays such a vital biological role in the life of
every living organism. Information, by its very essence, requires intelligence.
As you will come to see below, without intelligence, there is no information.
Chance
Many might ask whether or not design can be
intelligently inferred simply on the existence of information contained within
DNA. This is a perfectly legitimate question. If we were all honest with
ourselves, I think we can probably admit to having thought about it at one
point in time or maybe are still struggling with this dilemma of the
possibility of chance. Thankfully, chance provides little comfort for those
looking for a naturalistic explanation to the information contained within DNA.
The
analogy of a book has been used a couple times thus far in this article when
discussing the quantity of information contained within DNA. Books, by their
very nature, communicate a message. Nobody that picks up a book believes that
these letters arranged themselves by accident. The reader is fully aware that
the book he has in his hands was written by an intelligent source. In reality,
it would be absurd to suggest that any book was written at the hand of chance.
However, when even more complicated information arises within our own DNA,
people are much more easily convinced that different rules of logic apply. The
reality is that nothing has changed outside of the fact that we are not dealing
with a physical book but rather with information contained within our chemical
makeup. Simply because information is transmitted in a different mode does not
mean that intelligence was not behind the information. This double standard is
fallible and falters on the basis of sound reason. Those that accept the
intelligent origin of books but fail to accept the intelligent origin of DNA
are making blind distinctions by failing to recognize the significance of what
makes DNA so persuasive for ID; the existence of specified information.
In
Lee Strobel’s book, “A Case for a Creator”, Strobel asks Stephen Meyer to
describe how likely it would be for a one protein molecule (significantly less
complex than what we predominantly see in our own bodies) to be created by mere
chance,
First, you need the right bonds between the
amino acids. Second, amino acids come in right-handed and left-handed versions,
and you’ve got to get only left-handed ones. Third, the amino acids must link
up in a specified sequence, like letters in a sentence. Run the odds of these
things falling into place on their own and you find that the probabilities of
forming a rather short functional protein at random would be one chance in a
hundred thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion
trillion trillion trillion trillion. That’s a ten with 124 zereos after it! (Strobel 2004, 228)
As
you can see, those are not odds that you would want to bet against. Chance
requires much more faith than that of ID. Information does not form by chance
to create long elaborate messages regardless of the mode. Whether a message is
written down on a Word document, post-it, notebook paper, textbook, software
code, or DNA, information that communicates a message is the result of an
intelligent agent. That is why the DNA has made such a positive impact on the
ID debate in recent years because of the widespread acknowledgement that
information will always have an intelligent source.
Naturalism
Now
that chance has been viewed as an inconceivable candidate for the origin of
information contained within DNA, another candidate that is given much credit in
the scientific community is natural selection. Those that give credence to
Darwinian Evolution often accredit the very same process to DNA. Evolutionary
biologist and staunch atheist Richard Dawkins has given this theory much
thought and credit in his book “Climbing Mount Improbable” published in 1996.
However, there is an insurmountable problem that awaits those who say that
natural selection is the mysterious culprit of the immense amount of
information found in DNA.
The
general premise behind natural selection is that organisms adapt to their surroundings in order to survive and
reproduce by passing down favorable traits to their offspring. There is nothing
wrong with the concept of natural selection on its own merits; however natural
selection requires information-rich DNA to make it work (Strobel 2004, 231) . Do you see the
problem? Stephen Meyer provides an excellent insight on why natural selection fails
at explaining the origination of DNA information,
In other words, you’ve got to have a
self-replicating organism for Darwinian evolution to take place, but you can’t
have a self-replicating organism until you have the information necessary in
DNA, which is what you’re trying to explain in the first place. It’s like the
guy who falls into a deep hole and realizes he needs a ladder to get out. So
climbs out, goes home, gets a ladder, jumps back into the hold, and climbs out.
It begs the question. (Strobel 2004, 231)
This
quote by Dr. Meyer effectively highlights the absurdity of trying to claim that
naturalism is a better explanation than a design. Organisms cannot adapt for
survivability without having DNA information directing their bodies on how to
do so. Naturalism cannot account for the DNA information because natural
selection presupposes the existence of information-rich DNA. You cannot claim
to know the origin of the information through a process that requires the information to begin with. It
would be as ridiculous as trying to convince someone that the book they are
reading did not have an author. Under this claim, the existence of information
is acknowledged but there is a failure to acknowledge the source of the
information. The same analogy can be used with natural selection; natural
selection acknowledges the existence of information without plausibly
explaining the source of the information. As absurd as it may sound, some
people who would never reasonably accept the idea that books can by written
without authors are unwilling to entertain the notion of the existence of DNA
without a designer.
Chemical
Affinities and Self-Ordering
A
brief summary of chemical affinities and self-ordering in this context can be
described as the inevitability of life coming into existence because of the
amino acids in proteins and the letters that make up the DNA alphabet were “self-ordered”
(Strobel 2004, 232) . This hypothesis
stems from the idea that the chemical attraction between each amino acid would naturally
guide them to their correct position which would consequently result in the formation
of a protein; which would then perform its proper functions as directed by the
information contained within the DNA (Strobel 2004, 232-233) . However, there are
major flaws with this outlook on the origination of information on DNA and its
corresponding functions. The person who initially made this idea popular is
named Dean Kenyon and he coauthored a textbook, “Biochemical Predestination”. Ironically,
Kenyon rejected his own position on this issue after he reviewed additional
evidence. In the documentary, “Unlocking the Mystery of Life”, Kenyon said, “We
have not the slightest chance of a chemical evolutionary origin for even the
simplest cells” and said that the design hypothesis “made a great deal of
sense, as it very closely matched the multiple discoveries in molecular
biology” (Allen 2002) .
Some
skeptics may still try to cite examples in nature that would exemplify
“self-ordering” (as originally hypothesized by Kenyon). In chemistry, there are
many examples of bonding affinities (attractions) between different elements
which explain the origination of a particular molecular (Strobel 2004, 233) . To use an
illustration of chemical forces at work, we can look to salt crystals.
Chemical
bonds in salt crystals attract sodium ions to bond with chloride ions to make
the salt crystal (Strobel 2004, 233) . However, there is a
very big difference between the chemical bonds between a salt crystal and the amino
acids found in cells. The big difference is that the amino acids show no signs
of demonstrating the same chemical attraction that salt crystals exhibit (Strobel 2004, 233) . Not only did this
hypothesis of chemical affinities and self-ordering fail to explain why the
amino acids do not connect in the right place naturally, but it failed to
reveal the source of information. As Kenyon conceded, there is no evolutionary
explanation for the origin of information found in DNA.
Conclusion
Please
do not feel overwhelmed by the complexity of this information. This is
difficult material! For this particular topic, I would recommend the book
titled, “Signature in the Cell”, authored by Stephen Meyer. Gaining an
understanding of this material will take time and dedication but it will
undeniably give you a greater appreciation for the brilliance of God’s design.
The
facts have given us a progressively greater understanding about the magnitude
of information contained within DNA which has allowed us to see God’s fingerprint
within biology. DNA can easily be viewed as one of God’s most magnificent
designs. The amount of information contained within DNA is nothing short of
miraculous. However, what has led to this surge of continued belief in the naturalistic
worldview given that the evidence does not support it? Given that the data for
the existence of information is undeniable, what rational reason is there for
placing faith in anything other than design?
The
answer to these two questions can be found by observing the worldview of those
who hold to a naturalistic worldview. By definition, naturalists cannot allow a
supernatural explanation to be considered because their worldview does not
allow for a God. God is not an explanation for naturalists because God is not
real and therefore cannot serve as an explanation for the intelligible
information found in DNA. This is the very unfortunate reality of an atheist.
They are philosophically bound to explanations that do not consider God. With
that being said, maybe Christians should not be continually plagued with the
stereotype of narrow-mindedness.
After
examining the three common alternatives to design, it should be clear that
these alternatives fail to successfully account for the information within DNA
in a manner that would discredit the theory of design. The naturalistic
worldview does not make sense of the information because it cannot account for
the source of this information. As Christians, we are perfectly within our
reasonable rights to infer a supernatural intelligence as the source of the
information because it can be logically inferred that all specified information
originates from intelligence.
In closing, I hope this information has given you
some perspective on how truly great God’s creation is. From the heavens to the
earth to your cells, God has left his signature everywhere within this universe
for us to explore and admire. For those that are having trouble finding God in
this world, I genuinely wonder whether they are really looking at all.
Bibliography
Unlocking the
Mystery of Life. Directed by Lad
Allen. 2002.
Dawkins, Richard. The Blind
Watchmaker. New York: Norton, 1996.
Gates, Bill. The Road Ahead.
New York: Viking, 1995.
Lennox, John. God's Undertaker -
Has Science Buried God? Oxford: Lion Hudson, 2009.
Meyer, Stephen C. Signature in
the Cell. New York: HarperCollins, 2009.
Sims Johnson, George. Did Darwin
Get it Right? New York: The Wall Street Journal, 1999.
Strobel, Lee. The Case for a
Creator. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004.
January 1, 2013
Reader-Response Criticism
I want to be delicate in my analysis of
reader-response criticism because it has evidently been a sufficient criticism
to merit legitimacy over the years within largely liberal Christian circles and
the unbelieving community. However, as you will come to also see once this
chapter is complete, I fail to connect with the legitimacy of this particular
method of criticism of the Biblical texts. The thesis of this chapter is to
communicate why the reader-response theory fails to present any credible
objections to the historical reliability of the Biblical texts. Within my
critical analysis of reader-response criticism, I want to unveil the fallacious
reasoning that suggests the reader has the authority to unveil the true meaning
of the text rather than the author. This form of reasoning allows for
innumerable contradictions in the genuine understanding of the Biblical text
itself.
What is Reader-Response Criticism?
The
premise of reader-response criticism is revolved around how the reader responds
to the Biblical text and therefore has a predominant role in creating the
meaning of the text.[1] The content of the text is taken from the
literature by the individual reader for a singular interpretation that is
specific to the reader. Meaning, the interpretation is likely going to be
different for every reader under this theory. There are many aspects of this
reader-response criticism that ultimately affect the outcome of the
interpretation. These variants include prior literary or philosophical
presuppositions of the reader.1
There are different schools of thought under
reader-response criticism. Two prominent reader-response critics were named
Stanley Fish and Wolfgang Iser. Their approaches generally represent the
foundation in which reader-response criticism is based upon. Fish believed that
“it is the reader who ‘makes’ literature”.[2] He believed that the reader-response
criticism should primarily revolve around the act of reading rather than on the
history, biography, etc… of the text.1 Next, Iser held two
positions that define his approach to reader-response criticism. He held that
the meaning of a text is found in its content and that the meaning of the
content is a conjecture of the reader. Iser maintained that the author’s
intention should be considered but not without the intention of the reader
being combined with it.1
After this
brief summary of reader-response criticism, it must be acknowledged prior to
reviewing the objections that the most important thing about criticism is that
we assess whether the criticism effectively critiques the integrity of the
language, texts, and the subject of the Biblical texts.1 The
objections to this particular form of criticism should be understood in light
of this fact. You may have already developed some objections of your own to
this particular method of critiquing Biblical texts.
Objections
to Reader-Response Criticism
The
primary objection to reader-response criticism is grounded in the fact that the
reader ultimately determines the meaning of the text and not the author. Given
that being the case, the reader can ultimately undermine what the authorial
intent of the literature in order to fit his self-proclaimed meaning into the
text. While I can agree with the idea that text can be individually interpreted
in a multitude of different fashions, it would seem rather farfetched to insist
that the meaning actually derives from the readers’ perspective. To accurately critique
the Biblical texts, the fact is that reader-response criticism is certainly not
the most reliable method of doing so because it relies heavy upon the
presuppositions of the reader doing the interpreting. There are five
fundamental objections to reader-response criticism that highlight the drastic
limitations of reader-response criticism and ultimately expose why it could
never be effective at critiquing the Biblical texts.
The
first argument that can be brought against reader-response criticism would be
that the criticism brought against the Biblical text using this method are not
comprehensive.1 Meaning that this method is not the holistic
approach of the Biblical texts that is needed to come to an objective
conclusion on the historicity of the Biblical texts and the meanings of them.
This approach fails to provide the objective criticisms necessary to better
understand where the Biblical texts are allegedly weak in terms of its
historical reliability. Reader-response criticism cannot be a substitute for
any conventional method of reliable historical research and analysis.1
By the subjective nature of an individual response; this method cannot be taken
as a serious objection to the Biblical text.
The
second objection relates to the orientation of the Biblical scriptures and how
reader-response critics generally approach Biblical texts improperly. Many of these
critics fail to see that the Bible shouldn’t be classified as secular
literature. Many reader-response critics don’t interpret the Bible as a
historical source or a literary document. They are ultimately focused on what
the meaning of the text is in a contemporary setting rather than focusing on
the original circumstances and intent of the text at the time it was being
authored.1 While it should never be denied that the
circumstances between now and the time of Biblical authorship have greatly
changed, we should never change the meaning of the text to suit our situation
but rather interpret the text in its proper setting and understand the meaning as
it relates to our own modern-day lives.
The
third objection is closely related to the second objection as it relates to the
orientation of the Biblical texts itself. The second objection highlights how
the Biblical texts shouldn’t be classified as secular literature and how the
Bible has been reduced to fictional literature in the eyes of many
reader-response critics. That is why the third objection highlights the flaw in
their literary study of the Biblical texts. The flaw is that it approaches the
Biblical texts as if they were fictional literature.1 The
nature of the Biblical texts are full of meaning and powerful messages that
have the potential to dramatically affect our lives. We can even go so far as
to say that each one of us is affected differently by the message of the
Bible. However, the meaning of the text in
our hearts doesn’t truly change the meaning of the text itself. The study of
the meaning of the words in the text is different from the study of the
historical reliability of the text. When critiquing a work of literary fiction,
the reader isn’t considering whether or not what he is reading is absolute and
is freer to speculate and conjecture. The reality is that the foundation for
literary fiction is falsehood. Readers must never approach the Biblical texts
in a manner that is freer to easily dismiss the authorial intent and conjure
their own message because of an unwise assumption that the texts are fictional.
The
fourth objection to reader-response criticism is that the authorial intention
of the Biblical text is of minimal importance in the interpretation of the
texts.1 While it is true that the authorial intent isn’t
completely ignored from the criticism, it certainly is a peripheral priority of
the reader-response critic. Without placing priority on what the authorial
intent was, we submit that any possible interpretation of the text is equally
valid despite what the authorial intent was.[3] When discarding the authority of the author,
it is meaningless to assign a definitive meaning over it. Meaning would be
relative in reader-response theory because it is all contingent on how the
reader responds.
The
fifth objection to reader-response theory is that it fails to provide a secure
foundation for readers who actually strive to understand the true meaning of
the text.1 Reader-response criticism relies heavily upon the
creativity of the reader. However, as highlighted earlier, if the reader is
highly predisposed to have a preconceived agenda prior to interpreting the
literature or has already established concrete presuppositions of the material
he is critiquing, then the creativity can flow freely without the worry of having
to abide by set guidelines constituting reliable and accurate scholarship of
the texts.
Examples
of Reader-Response Criticism
Given
the five fundamental objections to reader-response criticism, it is fair to say
that the critics who advocate for this theory are not grounding their method of
critique in a critique that permits optimal understanding of the Biblical
texts. The reliability of this form of criticism is non-existent if you take
into consideration the very nature of the criticism itself. The criticism is
founded upon how one truly responds to the texts rather than placing priority
on the message that was being communicated at the time of authorship.
Now
that we’ve established the meaning of reader-response criticism and laid out
the basic objections of its reliability and effectiveness, it is important to see
how silly reader-response criticism would be in other parts of our daily lives.
This can be done by laying out illustrations of reader-response criticism in
order to fully appreciate the absurdity of the claims to understanding and
truth that it makes over the Biblical texts.
A
good modern day example of the ineffectiveness of reader-response criticism
would be how liberal scholars interpret the Constitution in a manner that wasn’t
intended by the framers of the document. We see these types of
misinterpretations done at the peril of the American population as well as the
government which was designed to uphold the basic principles of the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Those in governmental power are sworn into
office with the oath of upholding these documents. Those that consider the
Constitution to be living document interpret the Constitution in a manner that
suits their best interests at any point in time. This approach to the
Constitution has failed to honorably validate the original intention and
meaning of the Constitution. This is what we are seeing when we see the Bible
approached in exactly the same way. We acknowledge that historical documents
cannot be subject to reader-response theory because of the existence of an
objective and meaningful message that was being communicated at the time of
authorship and it would be completely unreliable to frivolously and
irresponsibly interpret a document of this nature merely on a response to the
text. Reader-response criticism doesn’t work for the Constitution nor does it
work for the Bible.
The
Bible has meaningful messages to convey. The written text was authored the way
it was for an objective reason. When I verbally communicate with my friends or
colleagues, I have a definitive message that I am trying to convey. When I
proclaim to my wife that “I’m going to the store”, I don’t imagine she would
interpret the meaning of my statement to mean that I’m taking a plane to the
other side of the country. However, under the principles of reader-response
criticism, the possibility wouldn’t necessary be invalid as it is primarily
contingent on the reader’s (listener in this case) response to my declarative
statement. This is clearly an extreme example of the insufficiency of
reader-response criticism, but I think it is illustrative to how bizarre of a
method it truly is. The idea that the reader is in control of the meaning of
author’s message is delusional.
Conclusion
The
merits of any document are to be found upon a thorough investigation of the
document itself. We must evaluate the historical basis for the text, textual
framework of the text, genre, audience, context, author, geographic location,
etc… These are essential components of understanding the true meaning of the
text as it was originally written. Once we can delve deep enough into the text
to properly understand what the text was trying to convey, then it is possible
to interpret the text in terms of its genuine meaning.
The
reality is that we will never fully agree on the meaning of all texts. The many
denominations of Christianity should give us an indication as to the complexity
of these texts when it comes to its meaning. If every Christian thought the
texts conveyed an identical meaning, there would be only one denomination.
However, among all the denominations, the overall message of the New Testament
literature is overwhelmingly clear; Jesus Christ died for our sins and was resurrected
on the third day. This is the basis for our Christian faith and it must never
be compromised by irresponsible methods of critique such as reader-response
criticism.
Ultimately,
the Christian message cannot be masked by those who seek to find an alternative
meaning based upon naturalistic presuppositions. Those that try haven’t found a
sound basis for their foundational presuppositions that guides them throughout
their studies. Unfortunately, their naturalistic presuppositions will lead them
to their demise if they fail to acknowledge the fault in their own reasoning
and acknowledge the true message of Christ.
Some
may say that Christians are doing the same thing towards these texts but with
theistic presuppositions. I can wholeheartedly and proudly admit that I have
theistic presuppositions, however Christians must answer the challenge posed in
Peter 3:15 that states, “But
in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to
everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do
this with gentleness and respect.” Our understanding of our own doctrines is an
essential factor when communicating with those that feel that reader-response
criticism is capable of exploiting the alleged fallacies in the Biblical texts.
In
all honestly, I do not fully comprehend how this form of criticism is worthy of
any credible merit in any realm of scholarship. Unfortunately, those that are
convinced that our own cognitive devices are capable of performing such extreme
feats of Biblical interpretation on the foundation of a mere response have made
this article a necessary one. I would love to say that most people should know
better but apparently it is easier to read and respond than to read, study,
read, study, and then respond after a sufficient familiarity of the text has
been adequately established.
In
closing, I’d wish to fully provoke your curiosity in understanding what it
truly means to assign relative meaning to the Biblical texts. Under
reader-response criticism, any possible interpretation would be acceptable
without argument. Now think about what it means to have a Bible that has
communicated a definitive message that the Lord has divinely provided. I think
I’m going to place my trust in God’s Word rather than allow my trust to be dismayed
by those who claim authority over it and interpret it at their own will at
their own peril.
John 14:6 – “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes
to the Father except through me"
[1] Steven
L. McKenzie and Stephen R. Haynes. To
Each Its Own Meaning (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press)
[2] Stanley
Fish. Is There a Text in This Class?
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press)
[3] Robert
Stein. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the
Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing Group)
November 8, 2012
Form Criticism
In our effort to objectively challenge
historical criticism, I am going to put forth my strongest effort to critically
assess the validity of form criticism. The topic of historical criticism has
challenged many Evangelical Christians around the world, many of which have
been overwhelmed by the alleged findings of the historical criticisms that they
cannot reconcile their faith in Christ. With that information being outlined,
the thesis for this article is to objectively examine the credibility of form
criticism and its advocates in their attempts to retrieve historical
information from the Biblical historical documents.
A
Summary of Form Criticism
The
beginning of form criticism started between the years of 1914-1918 shortly
after the War.[1] The three main scholars in the field of form
criticism were Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, and Rudolf Bultmann. While
these individuals were the ones whose work dominated the early field of form
criticism, they based their methodology on the work of previous Bible critics that
dates back to the Enlightenment.[2] Form criticism is the translation of the
German word Formgeschichte. The
literal translation of this word is “history of form”.[3] A traditionally accepted definition of form
criticism is, “a method of study and investigation which deals with the
pre-literary stage of the Gospel tradition, when the material was handed down
orally”.1 As we can clearly see, the goal is to critically assess
the form in which the information was preserved prior to being written down with
the goal of identifying whether it was recorded reliably in order to test the
historicity of the Biblical material that we have today. Form critics have used
this practice to come up with a conclusion that is often unlike what Christians
revere as history. A prominent form-critic by the name of G.E. Ladd explains,
“A close study of these forms led to the
critical conclusion that in its earliest stages, the material in the Gospels
was passed on orally as a series of disconnected units, anecdotes, stories,
sayings, teachings, parables, and so on…This means that the indications in the
Gospels of sequence, time, place, and the like are quite unhistorical and
untrustworthy and must therefore be ignored by serious Gospel criticism”[4]
After
reading that quote, you may be wondering, “What do they believe?” That is an
excellent question that is worth addressing. E.V. McKnight laid out a summary
of the positions that were arrived at through the implementation of form
criticism:
1.
The
“two document” hypothesis was accepted. Meaning, Mark and Q served as sources
for Matthew and Luke.
2.
Mark
and Q, as well as Matthew and Luke, were influenced by the theological views of
the early church.
You may question why this was ever accepted as
a valid theory. Donald Guthrie provides four reasons why there was a
significant rise in the acceptance of form criticism:
1.
The
form critics were able to account for the amount of time from the Synoptic
Gospel events to the writing of the events
2.
The
questioning of the historicity of the Gospel of Mark
3.
The
desire to update the gospels from the first century view to the world of the
twentieth century.
4.
To
position the literary materials in their original setting2
To gather further insight in addition to
Donald Guthrie, it would be beneficial to see what two of the most prominent
form critics concluded after their implementation of the practices of form
criticism. Given that form criticism sets out to account for the time between
the events themselves and the time the document was actually written, their
opinion on whether they think there is evidence that is capable of supporting
or invalidating the stories of the Synoptic Gospels would be useful. The two
form critics that will be looked at more closely are Martin Dibelius and Rudolf
Bultmann.
Starting with Martin Dibelius, the author of Form Tradition to Gospel, A Fresh Approach
to New Testament and Early Christian Literature, Gospel Criticism and
Christology, Jesus, and numerous others, is known to be one of the first
prominent form critics. Dibelius never believed that there was a “purely” historical
witness to Jesus. Dibelius claimed that the first century expansion of the
early Christian church wasn’t due to the historical reliability of the
resurrection but because the people who accepted Christ were content with the story
of salvation.[6]
Rudolf Bultmann is a prominent New Testament
scholar that is known for his work in form criticism and has written many books
on form criticism that include The
History of the Synoptic Tradition, Jesus and the World, Theology of the New
Testament, and Jesus Christ and
Mythology. He is known for being very skeptical of his assessment of the
Synoptic Gospels and he concludes that
“one can only emphasize the uncertainty of our knowledge of the person and work
of the historical Jesus and likewise of the origin of Christianity”[7] Bultmann is known to be more responsible for
the field’s thoroughness and maturation than Dibelius or Schmidt because Bultmann
developed form criticism to a more advanced level.2 Bulmann
practiced form criticism with the presupposition that the canonical gospels
were “pre-scientific” and he greatly desired to modernize them.[8] Evolutionary dogma heavily influenced him in
the formulation of his methods.2
It is clear that neither of these advocates of
form criticism placed too much stock in the historical validity of the synoptic
gospels during the practice of their form criticism. While so many Evangelical Christians
place their entire faith in the reliability in the Synoptic Gospels, what
information or mindset has led scholars of form criticism to completely reject the
reliability of the Synoptic Gospels? It is important to highlight the
unnecessary presuppositions that inspired their understanding of the form
critical data in order to comprehend if they are in the objective mindset that
is ideal for historical studies of this magnitude. If philosophic
presuppositions were held at the time of assessing data from form critical
research, what affect did this philosophic presupposition have on the
interpretation of the data? What was the philosophic presupposition that the
data was filtered through? Most importantly, was this presupposition ideal for
conducting objective historical analysis or would it drastically skew the findings? Below, I’ll be closely assessing the most
common and destructive critiques against form criticism.
Common
Objections to Form Criticism
The
most common objections relate to philosophically and scientifically related
presuppositional foundations implemented in the interpretation of their
findings, subjective theorizing about their data, and the categorization of
highly subjective material reveals preconceived agendas. While these are few of
the primary objections to form criticism, they will be enough to provide you
with a foundational understanding of the negative consequences of form
criticism and allow you the opportunity to see numerous reasons why these
methods of form criticism have failed us in the past at uncovering the truth of
the Biblical texts.
Philosophic
and Scientific Presuppositions
The
claim that form critics have used philosophic or scientific presuppositions
when assessing data is not uncommon. In fact, it is likely the strongest
argument against form criticism. I’ll begin with a quote from Donald Guthrie
concerning how Rudolf Bultmann’s presuppositions negatively impacted his
historical work:
“Bultmann’s disillusionment led him to seek an
approach to the Gospels which would emancipate him from the need for historical
demonstration. Only so could the simplest, in his opinion, ever come to faith.
He was further prompted to his non-historical approach by his commitment to
existential philosophy”8
It
is believed that form criticism is the product of historical skepticism derived
from source criticism, which was ultimately laid out by the philosophical
foundation of the Enlightenment.2 It has been deemed that
much of the findings of form criticism are found while maintaining
philosophical presuppositions. Eta Linnemann remarks on the difficulty of
having “prejudgments” made prior to performing form criticism:
“A more intensive investigation would show
that underlying the historical-critical approach is a series of prejudgments
which are not themselves the result of scientific investigation. They are
rather dogmatic premises, statements of faith, whose foundation is the
absolutizing of human reason as a controlling apparatus”[9]
From a historian’s point of view, it would be unwise
to enter into an investigation of history with presuppositions that would alter
the findings in a search for truth. For example, if I was a historian on a
search for truth about the lives of the founding fathers of America and I went
into this search with the presupposition that all of these individuals were the
products of fiction, I would have to compromise the truth value of my
historical findings in order to manipulate the evidence to make it appear as
though the evidence we have isn’t reliable enough to place our trust in.
Clearly, this is an extreme example but one that illustrates the point that
what these form critics have done over the last century with the New Testament
Synoptic Gospels is comparably absurd.
Form criticism is also rooted with the assumption
that evolution is the process of progression from the simple to the complex.2
Kebler describes Bultmann’s form-critical analysis in the following:
“It [Bultmann’s concept of the development of
the synoptic tradition] was a process as natural as that of biological
evolution: simplicity grew into complexity…, an effortless evolutionary
transition from the pre-gospel stream of tradition to the written gospel”[10]
The form critics, similar to evolutionary
biologists, posit the concept of gradual change over time. In this case, they
felt that the synoptic text were compiled by the early church and were not the
testimony of eyewitness accounts of the life and ministry of Jesus. The form
critics assume that the early church did this to suit their own purposes and
not for historically accounting for the life of Jesus Christ.2
During
the period of time that oral tradition preserved the information contained in
the Synoptic Gospels, which is roughly 30-40 years, the form critics would be
merely speculating as to how this information was somehow transformed into a
legendary or mythological tale. It is noted by Guthrie that, “The very fact
that our historical data for the first thirty years of Christian history are so
limited means that form critics inevitably had to draw a good deal of
imagination, although none of them were conscious of doing so”.8 Essentially,
these conclusions drawn by the form critics aren’t historical at all. When you
take into account that the presuppositions traditionally accepted by the form
critics do not allow for the possibility of an objective historical conclusion,
it would be unreasonable to say that the findings of these form criticisms were
the result of honest historical research.
Subjective
Theorizing
I.J.
Peritz discusses the subjectivity of conducting form criticism:
Form criticism thus brings face to face with
the obligation either to acquiesce in its faculty method and conclusions or to
combat them. What is involved, however, is not the alternative between an uncritical
attitude and criticism, but between criticism and hyper-criticalism. A critical
view of the Gospels does not claim strict objectivity. It is hard to tell
sometimes where poetry ends and history begins. It is highly probable that
there is no underlying strictly chronological or topographical scheme; and that
they are not biography in “our sense.” But this is far from admitting that we
have no reliable testimony from eyewitnesses: that the Church from its Christ
of faith created the Jesus of history, instead of from the Jesus of history its
Christ of faith”[11]
When we view this observation, we can see that the
form critics aren’t being entirely forthcoming in their presentation of their
subjective interpretation. Form critics attempt to turn the story on its head
by saying that the Christ of faith came after the Jesus of history. It seems as
though that the form critics are a little too “hypercritical” of the historical
evidence we do have and hence make the whole process of withdrawing information
from the Synoptic Gospels impotent. Robert Mounce makes a valid assessment on
the subjectivity on form criticism by analyzing the inconsistencies found
across the board in the field of form criticism:
“Form Criticism sounds like a scientific
method. If it were, you would find consistency of interpretation. But the
interpretations of a single saying vary widely. Not only are interpretations
widespread but form critics often can’t agree whether a pericopae is a miracle
story or a pronouncement story – the two can be woven together. One would
expect consistency in historical reconstruction if Form Criticism were a true
science”[12]
While many form critics parade form criticism around
like a sophisticated method of retrieving historical knowledge, by pealing back
the layers of subjective analysis and speculative guesses we can confidently
conclude that form criticism is largely unscientific. While they all undeniable
agree that Jesus’s disciples were too ignorant and uneducated to effectively
document the life of Jesus, we can all identify their method of criticism is
founded on their imaginative analysis filtered through numerous presuppositions
of historically subjective information.2
Preconceived
Agenda when Interpreting
Based
on the above philosophical and scientific presuppositions of the form critics
when entering into their historical analysis of the Synoptic Gospels, we can
say with confidence that they are likely interpreting the collected data with a
preconceived agenda.2 Form criticism is distinct from many
other methods of historical analysis in that it can be largely considered to
promote subjectivity in its findings. By comparison, grammatico-historical
methods of interpretation are much more objective in its findings as they
accept the findings of the Bible without prejudice. The reason for this
distinction is that form criticism is largely based on the presuppositions of
the form critic. In addition, the large
amount of information that is still unknown about the oral period gives the
form critic the freedom to wildly speculate.2
This
is evidently clear when it comes to the acceptance of miracles. We see that
Dibelius and Baltmann weren’t open to the possibility of miracles within the
Synoptic Gospels. From the beginning, we see that they are entering into the
analysis of the Synoptic Gospels with the presupposition that the literature is
false. Gutrie notes that, “Both Dibelius and Bultmann reject the miraculous and
therefore the historicity of the gospel accounts of miracles. This is not so
much the basis of ‘form’ as on philosophical and theological grounds”.8
Their philosophical and theological presuppositions weren’t allowing
their mind to be open to where the evidence took them so they had to find
another way to make sense of the evidence.
Bultmann
wanted to “demythogize” the New Testament in order to make it relatable to
modern people.[13] However, there appears to be a strong
antisupernatural bias by taking this position. It limits what you are allowed
to accept as historically true. Given that Bultmann used this presupposition
when practicing form criticism, he immediately chalked up Jesus’ baptism,
temptation, transfiguration, miracles, and resurrection as legendary.2
Bultmann described these narratives as “instead of being historical in
character are religious and edifying”.[14]
Both
Dibelius and Bultmann held that these miracles accounts are unhistorical and
can be classified as myths. However, are there grounds for making that type of
claim solely by using form criticism? Given the nature of form criticism, it
would be impossible to make an objectively historical case for mythological
Hellenistic concepts to have influenced the Synoptic Gospels without relying
upon presuppositions already predetermined to those findings. Unless they were
already convinced that the Synoptic Gospels were influenced by Hellenistic
concepts, form criticism wouldn’t have been the vehicle to lead them to that
conclusion.
Ironically,
Bultmann himself doesn’t find the miracles in the Synoptic Gospels to be
comparable to the ones found in Hellenistic traditions, “In general, however,
the New Testament miracle stories are extremely reserved in this respect [in
describing cures], since they hesitate to attribute to the person of Jesus the
magical traits which were often characteristic of the Hellenistic miracle
worker”.[15] Given that Bultmann concedes that the
Hellenistic mythological miracle workers were largely different from the
miracle working found by Jesus, what would inspire such a loyalty to the theory
that Jesus had been plagiarized by Hellenistic sources? It appears that their
loyalty to theories that easily explain away large amounts of genuine
information with little evidence requires the person doing the dismissing to
have a strong bias in the opposite direction if he is going to knowingly
dismiss information without good objective reason.
Conclusion
On the surface, form criticism may appear to
be a genuine practice of Biblical evaluation with the intention of gathering
deeper insight into the Biblical text. I would caution you from placing stock
into the findings of form criticism. Form criticism is not oriented towards
objectively seeking truth from the Biblical text. Form critics enter the
practice of performing their form criticism with philosophical and scientific
presuppositions. Their conclusions cannot be genuinely historical because they
will inevitably reflect their bias presuppositions of the Biblical text.2
It is perfectly reasonable to assume that
objectivity is possible when analyzing the Synoptic Gospels. The
grammatico-historical method has done so by safeguarding hermeneutics by
highlighting the need for objectivity.2 It is done in other
methods of historical study but it doesn’t seem to be relied upon in form
criticism. Positing conspiracy theories of the early church formulation of
these stories and/or how the Jesus story evolved from Hellenistic sources fall
tremendously short when evidence is weighed and viewed objectively without negative
presuppositions.
[1] E. Basil
Redlich. Form Criticism (Edinburgh:
Nelson & Sons)
[2] Thomas
L. Thomas & F. David Farnell, The
Jesus Crisis (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications) Chapter 5
[3] Josh
McDowell. Evidence for Christianity (Nashville:
Thomas Nelson, Inc) Chapter 15
[4] George
E. Ladd. The New Testament and Criticism (Grand
Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)
[5] Edgar
McKnight. What is Form Criticism?
(Philadelphia, PA: Fortress)
[6] Martin
Dibelius, Form Tradition to Gospel
(New York: Scribner’s Sons)
[7] Rudolf
Bultmann and Karl Kundsin, Form Criticism
(
[8] Donald
Guthrie, New Testament Introduction
(Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press)
[9] Eta
Linnemann, Historical Criticism of the
Bible, Methodology or Ideology?
(Grand Rapids: Baker)
[10] Werner
Kelber, “The Oral and the Written Gospel”
(Philadelphia: Fortress)
[11] Ismar
J. Peritz, “Form Criticism as an
Experiment.” Religion in Life 10 (spring 1941)
[12] Robert
Mounce. Personal interview conducted by Josh McDowell, July 2, 1974
[13] David
Atkinson and David Field, New Dictionary
of Christian Ethics & Pastoral Theology (England: Inter-Varsity Press)
[14] Rudolf
Bultmann, History of Synoptic Tradition
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson)
[15] Rudolf
Bultmann, “The Study of the Synoptic
Gospels” in Form Critcism (Cleveland, OH:World)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)