Introduction
Reading and understanding the bible involves a number of academic disciplines. Biblical scholars found, and still find, that reading the bible into its own historical time would help explain some of the things that are recorded in the Bible. Critical methods or approaches to aid in understanding the bible have been developed and are divided into two categories, namely synchronic method and diachronic method. These methods according to McKenzie (2010), are merely means to the end of understanding the biblical material. Under diachronic methods falls textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism and historical criticism. These are some of the approaches biblical scholars have to use so as to find an interpretation of some of the books found in the bible.
In this study we are going to look specifically on historical criticism also known as the historical-critical method. We are going to be focused on two scholars , namely John Barton (1998) and Steven McKenzie (2010), explanations of what historical criticism is and what role it plays today in interpreting the bible.
Historical criticism
The definition of historical criticism according to Barton (1998), is as controversial as its desirability. Instead he explains the method by identifying features used by biblical scholars that focus on historical criticism. The two scholars, Barton (1998) and McKenzie (2010) agree that historical critics were interested in reconstructing the past’s social, political, economic and other factors that the author, readers and other people of that particular time when the book was written were going through (Barton, 1998, p. 9). The first feature a Barton identifies are the genetic questions concerning the biblical text. By answering these genetic questions, historical critics would go on to discover why the Pentateuch should be read as a sequel and not as five different books. To an extent historical criticism addresses the question of how the Bible came about (Barton, 1998, p. 10).
The second feature Barton (1998) looks at is the original meaning of the text. Historical critics show interest in what the text could have meant to the first readers and the author of the book and not what it would mean at current times (Barton, 1998, p. 10). They discovered that some words that were used during a certain period when the author was writing his book, could not have the same meaning now as they did back then (Barton, 1998, p. 11). Another feature Barton (1998) points out is historical reconstructions. This is when questions like what happened in the past are answered. A critical scrutiny of the books is done so as to reconstruct the history of the biblical text. However, out from this discipline came the history of Israel. Though scholars tried to be neutral when it came to reconstructing the history of the biblical text, it is impossible for one to be objective. Preconceived ideas and the historian’s background influenced his findings drastically. Strauss and Wellhausen amongst other scholars lost their theological chairs when they tried to reconstruct the biblical history with a mind-set of that was not biased to the Christian faith-commitments (Barton, 1998, p. 12). The previous type of recreating the history of the scripture is attributed to the Enlightenment. Although this way of thinking was thought then as neutral, the scholars were also found biased in their own way of thinking. According to Barton (1998), it is difficult if not impossible for one to come up with a neutral view as they already have preconceived ideas. Barton would go on to conclude that from a postmodern viewpoint, historical criticism could be a form of self-deception, thus biblical scholars not use it in attempt to understand the bible.
Barton (1998) however, believes that the aim of historical criticism was aimed at Reformation and not the Enlightenment. By constructing carrying out this discipline, at the end individuals would read the bible freely and not be afraid to question what the church leaders would have said. People were now able to create a meaning that was different to what the church leaders would say and it would feel as an act of blasphemy to the church authority.
McKenzie, however, disagrees with Barton that some of the historical reconstruction by scholars cannot be proven whether they really happened as described in the bible. Pointing out that some of the people that where mentioned in the bible could be a bit far-fetched according to McKenzie, and this point he drew it from the story of Goliath and David (McKenzie, 2010, p. 35). McKenzie (2010) says, though it cannot be proven that they existed, their involvement in the story could have been metaphoric and not literal.
In that regard, the question of whether historical criticism should die off as a biblical approach arises. Barton (1998) suggests that historical criticism is an ongoing approach and they are continuous studies to be undertaken in that approach. However, McKenzie’s (2010) approach to this question could be different from Barton. McKenzie says because of anthropology, it is debatable to claim some of the incidents that happen in the bible (especially those of individual) and as a result historical criticism could not be of us anymore.
Conclusion
In conclusion, historical critics have helped answer a lot of questions on canonicity and also bring forward a better understanding when it comes to reading the bible. John Barton in his book Biblical Interpretation shows the importance of this academic discipline and the role it plays in the Reformation churches. Drawing up from the information provided earlier, fundamentalists are heavily criticized by these critics when it comes to the way they understand the bible. Though they come up with ways of explaining the bible by trying to reconstruct what the text could have meant to the reader or the writer, it should be not be taken as the absolute truth as to some extent they could be wrong or right considering the fact that their findings could be biased.
In this light I agree with Barton that historical criticism is still to play a role in the future. It could be to rectify some of the things previous historical critics could have missed out when they first answered genetic question.
Bibliography
Barton, J., 1998. Biblical Interpretation. 1st ed. United Kingdom: University of Cambridge Press.
McKenzie, S. L., 2010. Introduction to the historical books. Strategies of Reading. 1st ed. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans.
