Sei sulla pagina 1di 439

From SacredText to Religious Text: An Intellectual History of the Impact

of Erasmian Lower Criticism on Dogma asa Contribution Enlightenment and the Victorian Crisis of Faith

to the English

By

Theodore P. Letis, B.A., M. T. S.

Doctor of Philosophy

University of Edinburgh

1995

p

IS

been

com

,0

os

candidate

A religious belief in verbal inspiration gavethe Christian Bible its sacred

text statuswithin the matrix of the Church. The lower, or textual criticism, first practicedoutside the sanctionof the Church by Erasmus and developedftirther

by non-Trinitarians initially, offered the first significant direct challengeto this

belief in the earlymodern period. This, the dissertation argues,wasthe proper

beginning, phenomenologicallyspeaking,of the processof desacralization. Moreover, it is arguedthat the desacralizing role of the lower criticism was

further manifested when it was discovered that certain theologically significant

passages,perceived by those in the Erasmian school to have resulted from later

interpolation into the text of Scripture, illegitimately lent support to dogmas

such asthe Trinity, the deity of Christ and the virgin birth. The practice of lower

criticism set in motion, well before the arrival of the higher criticism, a rather

significant awakening of a historical consciousnessabout the developmental

stagesof the N. T. text, which in later recensionsreflected a more full-blown

orthodox expression of christological. themes. The role that the lower criticism

played in introducing this historical consciousness has not been readily

acknowledged by either historians or practitioners of the discipline of lower

criticism.

The dissertation arguesthat this is because of an ideological framing of the

historical details of the discipline in development. This ideological component

and the historical circumstancesprompting it are brought into relief revealing

why two schools arose during the English Enlightenment and carried on into

the Victorian era, responding to the data of text criticism in two directions: one

interpreting the data asaffecting dogma, the other interpreting the data asnot

affecting dogma. In answering why this cameabout the dissertation helps to

explain how the quest for the historical text culminated in the quest for the

historical Jesus

-

Acknowledgments

I should like to make public my indebtedness to the following folk without

whose ample display of bumanitas this project would never have been.M. H.;

A. H.;

D. K. M.; Rcv.A. S.; D. P.; J.L. V.; J.D.; P.D. D; W. &K. R.; D. F.; W. E.B.;

W. &C. B; R.J.R.; Rev. S.P.; E.S.; J.S.; J.A. W.; T.Mc.; N. &C. M.; Dr. C.E.C.;

L. N. jr.;

D. F.; D. &W. F.; C.H. G; Rev. H. L. R; E.W. P.; E.S.; J.M.;

R. S.; A. S.;

Rev. D. M.; Rev. D. T. S.; with a particular thanks to Eldred Thomas and Wayne

Johnson. I want to offer my earnestthanks and heart-felt gratitude for the gentle but firm and invaluable guidance of my Supervisor, David Wright (lbrtiter in re, suaviter in modo). I would also like to thank Prof John O'Neill for pushing me

into the eighteenth-century and Prof

Stewart J. Brown for his constant

encouragement and for first bringing to my attention J.C.D. Clark's important work Englisb Society1688-1832, at a decisive moment in my research. I can pay no higher tribute to New College Library staff than to saythere simply is no other institution in the British Isles to compare with this preserveof the finest

collection of materials for the study of ecclesiastical history in the English- speaking world and a staff that is in every way its equal, particularly Norma (long may her species flourish! ). I should also like to thank Douglas Taylor for

helping with proof reading and Diane Jarvie for typing corrections. Finally, thanks to Susan,Grace and Theodore for cheerfully sharing this journey.

Title Page Pledge Abstract Acknowledgements Table of Contents Abbreviations

1. Introduction

A. Preliminary Remarks

Table of Contents

B. Ideology, the History of Religion and the Historical Task

C. The Phenomenology of the SacredText 1. General Overview

2. The Determinative Trait of the Judeo-Christian SacredText: Verbal Inspiration

3. SourcesFound Useful

D. Chapter Synopses 1. Part One: Prolegomena-

a. Harnack's Dogmengescbicbte -Major

Thematic Categories of Dissertation

b. Erasmus: Ailological RestorationistImpulse (Erasmianism)

c. EcclesiasticalConfessionalism: CatbolicPreserpationistImpulse

d. Socinianism: The Questfor the Historical Text

2. Part Two: The Speclic Use of Textual Variants by Eighteenth Century Antitrinitarians

3. Part Three: The Contribution of Faith

of the Lower Criticism to the Victorian Crisis

PART ONE Prolegomena

1. Erasmus and the Revival of the Academy: The Genesis of Restorationism A. Introduction

B.

Erasmus's Me

nuence itimacy

1. Agricola' s

2. Scaliser's Attack

3. Illegitimacy a Hindrance to Gaining Benefices

C. Monastic Days

D. Antibarbari

and the Development of the philosapbia Christi

E. The Influence of Valla

F. Erasmus and the Greek New Testament

G.

H.

I.

1. Conflict

2.

Dorp,

with

pbilosaphia Christi and Erasmus'sNew Hermeneutic

Influence

3. Origen's 4. The

commajohanncum

Controversies and Errors in the SacredText

5. Translation

the Erasmian Project

Luther

and

The Protestants and the New SacredText

Summary

ro'WischenKatholicismus. The Tridentine Response to

II. Die A

uspingedesDoemasim

The Vu(qataLatina as SacredText.

Erasni-ianism:

A. The Vu4qataLatina: Verbal Icon of the Western Church B. Trent

ii

C. Sixtus

D.

V

and the Revision of the Vulqata Latina

Robert

BeHarmine and the Correction of the Vuýqata

E. Summary

111.Die AusgangedesDogmasim Protestantismus.The

Protestant Dogmaticians in

Response to Trent: The Greek Vulgate as SacredText.

A. Definitions

1.

2.

Protestant Dogmaticians

The SacredApographa

B. The Lutheran D'ogmaticians

1. Chemnitz

2. The Hebrew Vowel Points

3. Gerhard

4. Quenstedt

5. Hollaz

6. The Status of the Auýq

qrapba

C. The Reformed Dogmaticians ,,

1. John Owen 2. Francis Turretin 3. Reformed Confessions D. Summary

IV. Die AýsqangedesDogmasim Antitfinitarismus

Erasmianism in the Quest for the Historical Text

und Socinianismus.The Progress of

A. Introduction

B.

Erasmus, Servetus, and the Continental

Antecedents

C.

Textual Variants and Later Theological

Disputes

1. Hugo

Grotius

2. The Trinitarian

Variants in Grotius's Annotations:

I John 5: 7-8 and I Tim.

3: 16 3. Stephanus Curcellaeus

 

D.

Nc

Isaac lected Roots of English SoCMianism, Arianism

and Deism

E. Sir

F. Anthon

Newton

Collins

G. RicharTBentley

H. Summary

PART TWO The SpecificUse of Textual Variants byEigbteentbCenturyAntitfinitarians

V. JeanLeClerc, Lower Criticism and a Shift in the Dogmatic Paradigm of

Biblical Inspiration

A. Biographical

Background

B. Le Clerc and the Erasmian/Grotian View of Inspiration

C. Responses to Le'Clerc D. Summary

VI. Textual Criticism and Dogma Among the Newtonians: A Crisis for Orthodoxy

and a Plea for Religious Tolerance.

A. Newton's Text Criticism: TwoNotable Corruptions 1. Newton's Religion

iii

2. Newton, Text Criticism and Primitivism

B. Bentley's Ideology

C. Gibbon's Scepticism D. Summary

of Harmless Engagement

VIL In the Erasmian Tradition: Communicatin

Textual Variants adpopulum--the English Parapgrlases and Annotations.

the Significance

of

A. Introduction

B. The Paraphrases and Annotations

C. Summary

VIII. From Lower to Higher Criticism:

JosephPriestley and the Use of Conjectural

Emendation in an Early Quest for the Historical Jesus.

A. Introduction

B. Conjectural

C. Hennell D. Summary

Emendation

and Strauss

and the Xhraculous Conception

PART THREE The Contribution of the Lower Criticism to the Victorian Crisis ofFaitb

IX. Samuel P. Tregelles, Constantine Tischendorf

and SamuelDavidson: Nfid-

Century,

of the

Non-Conformist

Adjustments

and the Dismantling of the SecondPhase

Ideology of Harmless Engagement.

A. Introduction

B. Samuel Davidson

C. Horne's Introduction

D. Inspiration

E. Davidson,

Again Textual Variants and the Trinity

F. Tregelles and the Second Phase of the Ideology

G. Tischendorf,

Inspiration

and the Deconstruction

Ideology H. Summary

of Harmless Engagement

of Harmless Engagement of the Second Phase of the

X. Conclusion: The Triumph of Erasmianism.

Bibliography

BVY'DN

CE

CHB

COE

CWE

DNB

LCC

LW

NCE

Abbreviations

BiograPhischWoordcnbockdcr

Ncdcrland

CorresPondence of

Erasmus

CambridgeHistoty of the Bible Contemporaries of Erasmus CollectedWorks ofErasmus Dictionary of National Biography

Library of ChristianClassics Luthcr's Works

New CatholicEncyclopcdia

N. B. I have employed the "Author-Date System" of documentation found in The

Cbicago,Manual ofStyle 13th ed. University of Chicago Press,1982,

asmy

working model for composition. Because,however, the Introduction was quite

literally the last chapter of this dissertation composed, and because the bibliography was already M place, and finally because most of the sources

referred to in the Introduction

are modern rather than historical in nature, I

have opted to give fairly full citations of sources found *in the text of the

Introduction

and to omit placing these sources in the Bibliography. This should

also allow the reader to gain a quicker grasp of the arguments and data at this early stage of the dissertation without needing to refer to the Bibliography.

Also, because so many of the book reviews in the eighteenth and nineteenth century journal literature are unascribed I have included thesereviews under the name of the author of the book reviewed.

I would have

loved to bring before myreaders thegreatfigures of

Erasmus Grotius,

Wetstein Tischendorf

and othereminent translators, editorsand humanists.But it

wasuseless to explore this domain except in a separatevolumerelatingthe history, notof

New Testament criticism in general, but textual critcism in particular.

--F. C. Conybeare,Histmy ofNew Testament Criticism 1910, vi.

1. Introduction

I am tntrigued by the questionof the responseof the communitywhose [sacred] text hasbeen"critically edited. " Of coursewhenthis is done,it no longeris a sacredtext,

because it is no longer the text which the community has alwaysregardedassacred;it ts a scholars'text.

--Paul Ricoeur "The'SacredText

and the Community" in

W. D. O'Flaherty, ed. The Critical Study ofSacred TexTs

1979, p. 271.

A. Preliminary Remarks

Toward the close of the last century there appeareda popular work treating

the history of the then yet emerging post-Enlightenment scienceof textual

criticism aspractised on the sacredtext of the Christian Greek New Testament.

It was written by the premier English authority in the field at the time, one who

had yet to earn his knighthood, but who had attained a German Ph.D. from

HaUe and who at the time was curator of the Department of Manuscripts at the

British Museum. If the proof of how well one has masteredtheir material is

measured by how simply one is able to communicate a specialist'ssubject to

non-initiates, Frederic George Kenyon's Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts

(1895) is proof that the author was, indeed, in command of the terrain. '

lKenyon: "It is the object of this volume to present, within a moderate

compassand asclearly aspossible, the meanswe havefor knowing that

our

Bible, aswe have it to-day, representsasclosely asmay be the actual words used

by the writers of the sacred books

[A] ny intelligent reader, without any

knowledge of either Greek or Hebrew, can learn enough to understand the

processesof criticism

" (1895: 4).

I

2

On the third pageof the opening chapterof this classic2headdressedwhat

he knew would be the nagging concernof his readers:to what extent had

criticism discovereddefectsin the authoritative, sacredtext of the Christian

Church?He soon had his readershipcomforted andsharinga collectivesigh of

relief. Putting the caseas harshly as he could, he first admitted that "Besides the

larger discrepancies

there is scarcelya verse in which there is not somevariation

of phrase in somecopies. No one cansaythat theseadditions or omissionsor alterationsaremattersof mere indifference"(3). On a happier note, however,he

went on to reassuringlyaffirm

It is true (and it cannot be too

ý.rnphatically stated) that none of the

rests on passagesof which the

fundamental truths of Christianity

genuineness is doubtful (3-4).

Put another way, none of the textual variants affectsthe received dogmas

of orthodoxy. The parenthetical content in this quote is a wonderful clue to the

theme of this dissertation. Why did Kenyon feel the need to be "emphatic" on

this point? It is because the very assertion he wishes to make had been in dispute

since the English Enlightenment and was far from settled in Kenyon's own day.

Kenyon's conviction was stated in good faith and with earnestness,no

doubt. Nevertheless, the assertion that no essential dogma- -particularly of

christological significance- -was threatened by the textual variants discoveredby

the end of the nineteenth century, was, in fact, an ideological assertion. It was a

perspective nearly unique to the British (mostly English) approach to the

discipline of lower criticism within the European context. In Kenyon's case it

had been derived from the most formidable theoretical work produced in

21twould seea fifth edition published posthumously in 1958,

remaining in print cOntinuously for sixty-threeyears.

3

England on the subject during the Victorian era, Fenton John Anthony Hort's

Introductian to tbc New Tcstamcntin tbc Original Grcck (18 81)3

Here Kenyon was deliberately countering the German method which by

the early nineteenth century had asone of its tenets the conviction that a major

source of corruption in the Greek manuscripts of the N. T. was the result of

scribes altering the text for theological, or dogmatic purposes. Griesbachhad

stated this in clear terms:

When there aremany variant readings

than the others manifestly

in

oneplace,that readingwhich more

of the orthodox

favours

dogmas

is deservedly

the

(JohannJakobGriesbach,NopumTestamentumGraece

regardedassuspicious

1

ý§6:

62).4

In responseto Griesbach's canon Hort had precluded the very possibility

of the orthodox having corrupted the text by countering with an ideological

assertion that had a pedigree extending all the way back to Richard Bentley in

the eighteenth century (and it manifested yet again in Hort's own century in the

person of Samuel Tregelles). Hort affirmed the following:

It will not be out of placeto add here a distinct expressionof

even among the numerous Unquestioned s urious

Testament

deliberate

there are no signs of

dogmatic purposes (Hort

1881: 282).

falsifications

readings

our belief that of the New

oPthe text for

10 where Kenyon is evenmore careful to reinforce his

3Cf.

also p.

conviction under the heading "Textual Errors do not Endanger Doctrine. " Here

he maintains further: "One word of warning, alreadyreferred to, must be emphasised in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading" (Kenyon 1895: 10). In order to further bolster his claim Kenyon then refers in a footnote to Hort's Introduction where Hort offers a

comment in the samevein.

4Earlier still Wettstein had formulated a similar canon: "Of two various

that which seems the more orthodox is not to be forthwith

readings

(Hulbert-Powell jObnJamesWettstein1693-1754 1937: 118).

preferred"

4

As will be demonstrated hereafter, this is an unwarranted assertion--a kind

of dogma itself. 5It will be one of the purposes of this dissertation to establish

that this is so while offering an Ideologiektitik of what I will hereafter refer to as

the ideology ofbannlessengagement,that is, the conviction that the textual variants

within the Greek N. T. manuscripts never affects essential dogma within the

Christian belief system.

That this ideology prevails right to the present can be witnessed in a recent

up-dated edition of an important French Introduction to the discipline of lower

criticism first published in 1933 but recently brought back to life by Cambridge

University Press (1991). Here Leon Vaganay carrieson the tradition into the

twentieth century:

The great majority

of the divergencesin

readings are to do with details of

in

spellmg, grammar or style and do not affect

text

Some

are particularly

any way the meaning of the

a

interesting either because they involve

considerable portion of the text or because of their theolo, ical significance.

In the latter

case,though, aswould be eiýpected [! ],

never affected

Christian doctrine is

the

LTstanceof

(Leon VaganayAn Introduction to Ncw

TcstamcntTaxtual Criticism 2nd ed. 1991: 3).6

5onthe

dogmatic temperament of the Victorians see Houghton's The

Victorian Frame ofAfind 1830-1870, particularly chapter six, titled "Dogmatism, " (1957: 137-160).

6Metzger also admits minor doctrinal alterations, but such a concession is almost a barrier to getting at what is really at stake by, in almost red-herring fashion, leaving the impression that variants were of no serious dogmatic (Metzger The Text oftbe New Testament3rd ed. 1992:201-206). On

consequence this score note also that in tones not unlike those of Kenyon, Metzger is quick to calm his audience: "Lest the foregoing examplesof alterations should give the impression that scribeswere altogether wilful and capricious in transmitting

of the New Testament, it ought to be noted that other evidence

ancient copies points to the

careful and painstaking work on the part of many faithful copyists"

(206). The Alands, on the other hand, admit that there was editorial activity in

era that was not "primarily motivated" by philological concerns.

the pre-Nicene

"prompted rather by ecclesiasticalor theological interests." It was revised

It was

"not so much with a concern for establishing or restoring the original text as for

determining the 'best' text from a particular perspective" (Aland/Aland The Text

5

Such ideological judgemcnts/asscrtions arc not confined to manuals

treating the prolegomena of text critical theory and practice. This ideology

looms larger in certain specific contexts, namely, contemporary Evangelicalism,

or what JamesBarr is happy to call Fundamentalism. Here the intent is to keep

the historic and organic relationship between the lower criticism and the bigber

criticism surgically severed. This is for the purpose of sanctioning the former

while disallowing the legitimacy of the latter. Barr is correct when he observes

that

'lower criticism3, the study of the

by

conservatives,while

datings

history and variations of the text, is

criticism-, the reconstruction of

'higher

accepted

sourcesand 1978: 279).

and different authorships, is

not (Barr FundamentaUsm

In fact, such Evangelical "believing criticism"--a phraseused by Mark Noll

(BetweenFaith and Criticism:Evangelicals,Scholarship, and the Bible in America

1986:117) --chooses no longer to refer to textual work as lower criticism,

preferring to usenearly exclusivelythe word textual criticism, thus no longer

making clearthe fact that historically lower criticism wasthe foundation on

which restedthe higher critical theoriesand framework.William Peterson

acknowledgesthis relationship:

Textual critics occu

higher critics seek

k

reerdless

and editing. The

ýy

themselves with cataloging, collating, form

recoverable

e

e most primitive

of a given pericope--

her

own

of where it occurs. Although

each works in his or

býýfliwick,

is

a synthesis

SecondCentury:

Origins,

(Petersen Prologue in GospelTraditions in the

necessary Recensions,Text, and Transmission ed. by W. L.

Petersen 1989: 1-2).

oftbe New Testament2nd ed. 1989: 51). Nevertheless, there is no discussion of the dogmatic specifics involved in these casesnor their possible implications.

6

Once separated from higher criticism by Evangelicals in the nineteenth

century, lower criticism then becamedomesticated and tamed by meansof the

ideology of barmless engagement. In Noll's words

While doubts about modern text-critical

f enerality of evangelicaland

117).

researchcontinue to plague the

churches,thesescruples

fundamentalist

have

o'ng been set to rest among academicallyqualified conservatives

7

(Noll

It is my contention that the source of this modern twentieth-century

consensusregarding the perception that the lower critical task is relatively

harmless, had its roots in an eightecrith-century debate.That it has become

axiomatic, I will argue, is the result of a long-standing, nearly uncritical

assumption of its validity in the absenceof both a sufficient recollection of the

historical circumstances that gaverise to its original purposefulness, and the lack

of a systematic and comprehensive intellectual analysisof those historical

circumstances. That it was an ideological stanceconnected with the heat of

rhetorical debate discourse, rather than a critically demonstrated postulate, can

only be illuminated by retracing the ground and recapturing the historical

backdrop of the debate and the rhetoric.

I am greatly assisted in my task to demonstrate that this ideology is just

that, an ideology rather than an established historical reality, by the appearance

what Noll, an apologist of sorts of the

7Another way of putting

Evangelical cause, has said, is the assessmentof Edward Hobbs: "

since the

[nineteen] thirties textual criticism M America has tended to attract

reason: when they want to get a doctoral

fundamentalists for a very simple

degree in Biblical studies,

the

fundamentalists are usually more interested in the

else. But you have to go to a good place like Harvard or degree, and there are all those wild people there, radicals in the Bible can you study that is safe? Textual Criticism"

Bible than in anything Chicago to get a good and liberals, so what (O'Flaherty 1979: 22).

7

of a work, the timeliness of which can hardly be overestimated, appearingas it

did just as I was bringing my researchto a close. Bart Ehrman3s monumental The

OrtbodoxCorruption of Scripture:TheEffect of Early CbristologicalContropersies an

the Text ofthe New Testament(OUP 1993), hasforever put to bed the debate as

to whether or not dogma hasbeen affected by deliberate, theologically

motivated, textual alteration and interpolation. Ehrman has established both as

an historian of the patristic eraaswell asone of the the foremostN.T. text critics

in the American context today,8 that there hasbeen a nearculpable ignoring of

this phenomenonthough the data werewell in reach:

The

For

has long bedeviled

analysesof this kind.

beneath

the

gepast uestion mark of significance

century many textual scholars have stood

mighty Hort, who judged that apart from Marcion,

Scripture.

interesting

mesmerizing gazeof the

did

if scattered eýamplesof

scribes

Naturally, other scholars have dutifully

not effect theolo ' gical changesin their copies of

demurred,

just this disputed

and produced But

the reason

no full- hard to find:

phenomenon

Nor

is

length investigations have been fortlicoming.

even those who have

scope (Ehrman 1993: 276)9

recognized the phenomenon have underplayed its

8Ehrman is a protege of Bruce Metzger, the undisputed dean of N. T. text criticism in America, and Ehrman currently servesas Chair of the New Testament Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, perhapsthe leading international forum in the discipline today.

Terhaps Ehrman himself has not fully escapedthis propensity aswell:

why is it that there is "scarce need to posit any kind of ulterior motive for this

kind of scribal activity" [i. e. theological alteration of the text]?. Why must it be "enough to recognize that when scribesmodified their texts, they did so in light of what they already believed their Scriptures taught" (Ehrman: 279). Surely this

is to beg the question. Where in Sctipturc do we find the christological defmitions found in the Nicene Creed or in Athanasius's theology? As Ehrman

himself admitted "

it

is never easy, from the historian's perspective, to

determine whether the text led Christians to embracea doctrine or whether the doctrine led Christians to modify the text (either in their minds or on the page)

In this religion, in particular, texts and beliefs coalesce into a messysymbiotic relationship, not always susceptibleto the discrete conceptual categoriesof the historian" (279).

8

Ehrman has finaUy fflled this gap:

The importance of theologically We

can

and

Luke,

the

far outweifhs their

oriented variations

begin by

rcflecting on their imp ications for

The

we have

textual problems

and

of the familiar

historically

actual numerical count.

exegesisand the rise of Christian doctrine.

examined affect the interpretation

significant passagesof the

of many

New Testament: the birth narratives of Matthew

Prologue of the Fourth Gospel, the baptismal accountsof the

ýs rebrpcws,059. tics, the passion narratives and other familiar

Catholic

and the

epistles.

these passages--andthe books

textual

decision; in

virtually

but

passa es in Acts, Paul,

In some instances,

the interpretations of

on the

within which thFy are found--hinge

readings demonstrate.

every case,the variant

by

actuall

Ucen n

how the passageswereunderstood

not only out of the text

scribeswho "read" their interpretations

in

into it, asthey modified the words

to mean

(276)

accordancewith what they were

Moreover, the specificsof the dogmatically significant textual alterations

and interpolations found in Ehrman's data

Christian the 10 'aws and,

predicte(fin

the

relate to the basic doctrinal concerns

presumablý,

Testament.

of early

laypersons alike: Was Jesus the Messiah

Old

Was Jose ge h his father? Was Jesusborn asa human? Was he

Was

able to sin? Was he adopted

to

be the Son of God at

really tempted?

he himself God? Was JesusChrist

a physical body after his

scribesanswered

thesequestions

his baptism?

one person or two

At his resurrection? Or was

persons?

Did

he have

resurrection? And many others. The ways

affected the

way they transcribed their

their texts has affected, to some

theologians have answered

texts. And the way they transcribed

way modern exegetesand

degree, the

these questions (281-282).

Ehrman's study may well be the single most important piece of historical

work produced in the field of text criticism in this century.

His conclusion is one which in this dissertation I will argue was reached (if

not in the specifics of all the detail, certainly in the broad prcmise) by the real

pioneers of Biblical criticism: the English antitrinitarian Biblical critics. Two

hundred years before Ehrman's study appeared it was Antitrinitarians who

pushed the boundaries in Biblical criticism toward his conclusions well before

the divines of the establishedchurch had courage enough to touch their sacred

text. Moreover, it was implications from such textual data that signalled the

9

advanced stagesof the processof desacralizationlO which would culminate in the

nineteenth-century German higher criticism.

It will be the purpose of this dissertation to trace the roots of the ideology of

hann1css cngqgcmcnt (which Ehrman hashelped to finally discredit), explainthe

historical conditions that gaverise to it, and in so doing, demonstratehow it has

functioned to cloud a more accurateunderstandingof the sourceof desacralization.

Often it has been argued that the real crisis of Biblical authority within

believing Protestant communities was the result of the nineteenth-century

German higher critical project. 11This, in turn, is considered to be primarily the

fruit of German Idealistic Philosophy rather than the necessaryand legitimate

result of a genuine Biblical criticism. 12While I fully acceptthat German Idealism

did influence the higher critical project (certainly Baur is a classicexample), I

believe an earlier issue must be addressedto fully understand the historical

development and relationship between Biblical criticism and speculative

philosophical influences.

101 will treat below what I believe to be the decisive characteristicthat

defines how and why the Christian Bible is a sacredtext which then will also serveto explicate what desacralization means in the context of this study.

"Typical

of this argument is Nigel Cameron's study, Biblical Higher

Criticism and the Defense of Infallibilism in Nineteenth Century Britain (1987).

12Thefollowing

is a familiar way of treating the subject: "It was not

Pietism but the Rationalism of the Enlightenment that causedthe collapseof the

Orthodox theory of Verbal inspiration. Rationalism meant a critical approach

towards the Bible on philosophical grounds

Due especiallyto the dominance

of the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, the concept of revelation was naturalized:

the revelation contained in the Bible must be understood assomething that is

commonly human, reasonableand moral" (Mikka

Ruokanen, Doctrina Divinitus

Inspirata: Martin 1985: 137).

Lutber's Positionin the EcumenicalProblem ofBiblical Inspiration

10

Here we come upon a circle that must be broken: which came first,

speculative philosophy which then paved the way for the higher critical negation

of the sacrednessof the text; or was there a prior processof desacralization

which then allowed a free handling of the text, analogous to any other historical

document, inviting the viability of speculativephilosophy to offer German

Idealism as a replacement for the hermeneutic of the Church?13Certainly these

are mammoth questions which many have taken in hand to answer.

Various recent attempts to answer these questions have all made their

contribution: Peter Harrison has recently highlighted the impact of eighteenth-

century English Deism in reducing the unique quality of the Bible and

Christianity, in his important Religion and the Religionsin the Englisb

Enligbtenment (Cambrid

9, e, 1990). Klaus Scholder, late Professor of Modern

Church History at the University of Tiibingen, pushed the genesis back even

further, into the seventeenthcentury. He argues in his TheBirtb ofModern

Oitical

Tbeology(Eng. trans. SCM, 1990) that it was the signing of the treaty

ending the Thirty YearsWar, agreeing to put religion to one side for the

purposes of a political settlement, which then sanctioned various interpretations

of the one Christian Faith.

Certainly the beginning of the processof desacralization started even

earlier still--very early in fact- -undermining an absolute confidence in the

epistemological value of Biblical historical narrative and inviting an autonomous