We continue with questions as to what I think about several theological subjects.

There are several areas generally referred to as Biblical Criticism. Textual criticism is concerned with the Bible in its original languages, and its purpose is to ascertain as closely as possible what was in the autographs, the original writings. Its aim is an authentic text. Form criticism gets into the history of the text, and traces out its development from the time it was written to its present form.

Redaction criticism is concerned with the use made of a text by later writers, such as Matthew’s and Luke’s use of Mark. Higher criticism, which may be the most controversial, endeavors to identify the author and dates of various portions of Scripture. Some of the storm centers are the dating and authorship of the Pentateuch, Isaiah, and Daniel.

Sometimes Biblical Criticism is seen in terms of Higher and Lower. When viewed this way all the above would be included in Higher Criticism -– scholarship that seeks to search out an authentic text. Lower Criticism seeks to ascertain the meaning of the text by drawing upon all the tools of the historical method of research.

An interesting example of Higher Criticism in the history of our own heritage is the use Alexander Campbell made of it in his version of the New Testament called The Living Oracles (1827). His own people were puzzled that he left out of his version one of their favorite prooftexts, Acts 8:37, which is the Ethiopian eunuch’s confession before his baptism.

Campbell explained that it is not in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts, and so almost certainly not part of Luke’s original text. That’s Higher Criticism.

It is incredible that a generation later the scholarly J. W. McGarvey conceded that the verse was an emendation – added by a well-meaning scribe -- but a justifiable one. Who can believe that McGarvey – the hardline conservative that he was – would say that it might be all right to add to the Bible? That may be the answer if some of our prooftexts are in jeopardy!

Campbell also left out the doxology in the Lord’s Prayer, and for the same reason. It is interesting that when Edgar J. Goodspeed did this in his new version over a century later -- portions of which appeared in newspapers -- and was questioned about it, he defended himself by saying he was not the first to do so, that Alexander Campbell had done so over a hundred years before. Campbell was the first, or one of the first, to publish a "Modern" version of the New Testament, making use of modern biblical research.

An interesting example of Lower Criticism is when one seeks to ascertain the meaning of "body" or "Body" in 1 Cor. 11:29 – "not discerning the Lord’s Body (or body)." Is Paul referring to the physical body of Christ or to the church, the Body of Christ. You will notice that some versions – such as Phillips and New English – use "Body" to show they think it refers to the church. Other versions point to the problem in footnotes.

I think it refers to the church – that is, if one partakes of the Supper with a sectarian spirit, not discerning the unity of the Body of Christ, the church, he is eating and drinking damnation to himself. I don’t think so severe a judgment would be upon one who only has his mind on something else when he partakes. The context suggests this interpretation.

And that is what Lower Criticism does. It not only studies the text culturally, linguistically, and historically, but its context. Sometimes, even with all the help from modern scholarship, we can’t be sure what a text is saying. Biblical Criticism should lead us to be honest with the Bible.

So, if you are asking me if I believe in Biblical Criticism, I can only say that I see it as imperative if we take biblical interpretation seriously. We are separated from the New Testament documents by 2,000 years. The autographs (originals) are no longer available. We are dependent on a long history of translations and versions . There is no way to have a reliable Bible except for Biblical Criticism. And there are responsible ways to deal with Scripture in determining its meaning. Biblical Criticism helps us to do this.

We have no reason to fear biblical scholarship. Except for the work of scholars and translators we would not have a Bible to read, much less numerous translations that enable us to compare and better understand the message of the original writer.

It was the case on the rugged American frontier. To be "faithful" was whether one was a good Calvinist or a true Arminian. or whether he passed the doctrinal litmus test of this or that sect. A "true believer" was measured not in terms of one’s relationship to Jesus Christ, but whether he was a "good member" of this or that church.

It may not be all that different today. Nothing can jeopardize one’s standing in some sects as much as to become a devoted follower of Christ. Being a "good Mormon" or a "good (Jehovah’s) Witness" may have nothing at all to do with how closely one follows Christ. It may sometimes be that way in mainline denominations. Christ has a problem being preeminent even in his own church!

Our pioneers were concerned both to define faith – precisely what is its nature? – and to discover its source –just how does faith come? When one keeps in view that faith is personal and centered in Christ, the answers take on more clarity.

What is faith? It is simple trust in a Person –that he is all he claims to be, and that he will do all that he has promised. And how does it come? By way of testimony, always by testimony. There is no faith except by testimony – primarily the testimony of Scripture. And before there was Scripture it was the testimony of chosen envoys – teachers, prophets, apostles.

Barton W. Stone went on record to the effect that it was this liberating view of faith – that it comes through hearing the gospel – that led him to launch his reformation movement. The Calvinists of his day held that faith comes only through the miraculous intervention of the Holy Spirit, and only then after regeneration, and only then to the elect. Stone came to see that regeneration – being saved – was for all, and it begins when one hears and believes the gospel, and is consummated when one is baptized.

The Bible gives us definitions of faith, as well as the sources of faith. My favorite definition is the one given by Paul the apostle in reference to Abraham: "He did not waver at the promise of God through disbelief, but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God, and being fully convinced that what God had promised He was able to perform" (Rom. 4:20-21).

The patriarch did not waver when God told him his aged wife would bear his heir. He was fully persuaded that God was able – and that God would do – all that he had promised. That is simple trusting faith. And how did that faith come? God spoke to him (testimony) and he believed.

Some believe and some do not, even when they hear the same message. Abraham had a heart for God – he searched after truth. So when God spoke he believed. Those who do not have good and honest hearts before God will not believe – not even if one should rise from the dead. True, faith comes by hearing, but only to those who have open hearts.

The Lord himself makes clear the nature of faith in what he said to doubting Thomas: "Thomas, because you have seen me you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" (John 20:29). It is clear that Jesus thought Thomas should have believed without having seen, for he had the testimony of his fellows who had seen.

When our Lord says "Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed" he is confirming that true faith can come through the testimony of others, those who have seen. Only a few actually saw the risen Christ, and even in seeing him with their own eyes they had difficulty believing, for it was all so awesome. But once they believed they were consumed by their faith, even unto prison and death. Their testimony became unimpeachable. God expects the world to believe on the basis of the incontrovertible testimony of the apostles.

Multiplied millions have believed, having never seen. Peter the apostle puts it in a different way, speaking for those to whom he was writing: "Though now you do not see Christ, yet believing, you rejoice with joy inexpressible and full of glory" (1 Peter 1:8). He also says in that verse, "whom having never seen you love."

This points to the power of apostolic testimony. We can both believe in and love a Person we have never seen – one who died for us and was afterwards raised from the dead. We believe he is the risen Christ – a faith based on the experience (testimony) of those who were repeatedly with him for a 40-day period after his resurrection.

If God had not made it plain and believable he could not hold the world responsible. Jesus said as much: "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" (John 15:22).

God has spoken! His revelation (testimony) was made known to prophets and apostles, and conveyed to us through Holy Scripture. This is the ground of our faith.

Alexander Campbell, writing on the relationship between reason and faith, provides us with a fitting conclusion: "Reason deciding that the testimony is true, is believing; reason deciding that the testimony is false, is disbelieving; reason unable to decide, is skepticism."

                                            (To be continued)