Scripture
Christian Historical Criticism

The Enlightenment principle of exalting reason over faith is not a Christian principle of Biblical criticism. Imposing analogies of what man experiences today as a test for Biblical truth is also improper from an historical standpoint. J. Burton Payne enunciates that proper Biblical and historical criticism:

… can be conducted only on the basis of the testimony of competent witnesses…as is the procedure in any other historical discipline. We cannot infer from analogous events today what must have transpired centuries ago.
Inerrancy, p.94.

The Biblical witnesses to Scriptural facts cannot be dismissed merely because they appear contradictory or impossible from our vantage point. Where is the witness that what it states is not true? That is, where is the contradictory witness?

I may not like what the Bible says, or want to dismiss what it says, but without competent evidence otherwise, I am not free to reject what it says. Seeming contradictions in the Scripture is not sufficient to dismiss what is said. Such contradictions may stem from [1] different aspects or points to be made by the different Biblical witnesses; [2] descriptions of different parts of like events; [3] language difference when translating Aramaic and Hebrew into Greek and/or [4] events that seem to be the same because of similar locations but are different in time.

J. I. Packer stresses the importance of inerrancy over and against historical criticism based not on contrary evidence but on the concept of contradiction:

Inerrancy keeps us within the bounds of the analogy of faith, directing us to eschew interpretive hypotheses that require us to correct one Biblical passage by another, on the ground that one is actually wrong, and to explore instead hypotheses which posit a unity and coherence of witness at every point under the Bible’s wide pluriformity of style.
J.I. Packer, Beyond the Battle of the Bible [Westcheeton, Il: Cornerstone, 1980], p. 60

Biblical higher criticism, like all historical criticism, should have as a goal the enlarging of our understanding of Scripture. What does it mean and say at all points to bring about a unity and coherence of the Biblical witness? If Scripture comes from God, it must be inerrant and infallible. Any other view does not interpret Scripture but rather eliminates it as God’s Word. Historical criticism that seeks to debunk is no longer an inquiry into an object but a reconfiguring of the object. Criticism is not to replace Biblical revelation with human reason. Scripture is received by faith and reason should help us understand our faith, not destroy it.

The question here is what is to be limited, faith or reason? Over one hundred and twenty-five years ago, J. Aiken Taylor in the Presbyterian Journal [April 12, 1878] answered that inquiry:

It is very much a matter of how respectfully one is prepared to treat the material found in the Holy Writ…Millions of words are being wasted on efforts to eliminate alleged contradictions through textual criticism, archeological findings, and interpretive principles. Such efforts are fruitless because one finding is dealing with the foundational attitude toward Scripture and not with the text of Scripture. The issue is one of faith, not scholarship.

No one can fully be persuaded of the inerrancy and infallible truth of Scripture except through the inward work of the Holy Spirit. Historical critics who are not Christians cannot know truth and cannot be prepared to limit their own opinions. Until a scholar comes under the Lordship of Christ through faith in his heart and mind, his historical criticism of Scripture will seek to limit faith by reason and replace God’s revelation with human reason. Historical criticism is not to negate Scripture but to understand it better through reason that affirms the Biblical witness to the faith of believers.