Image: Eta Linnemann (1926-2009)
I have posted WM 133: Eta Linnemann's Rejection of the Historical-Critical Method. Listen here.
In this episode I want to call attention to the life and thought
of a German scholar named Eta Linnnemann (1926-2009), a German scholar who
studied with Bultmann, gained a prestigious academic post, but who then
rejected the method in which she had been trained, as she embraced evangelical faith.
Linnemann’s experience was called to mind when someone posted
a comment to a
2012 blog post I wrote on Linnemann.
The
commenter asked:
Could
you please recommend me some other writers like Eta?
To which I responded with the following
suggestions (edited):
EF Hills,
Believing Bible Study (1967)
Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method (1974, 1977)
David Steinmetz, "The Superiority of Pre-critical exegesis" (Theology Today article, 1980)
Craig A. Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis (2018)
Robert W. Yarbrough, Clash of Visions: Populism and Elitism in NT Theology (2019)
Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method (1974, 1977)
David Steinmetz, "The Superiority of Pre-critical exegesis" (Theology Today article, 1980)
Craig A. Carter, Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis (2018)
Robert W. Yarbrough, Clash of Visions: Populism and Elitism in NT Theology (2019)
One key to recovery of the confessional text among
otherwise conservative evangelical and Reformed brethren must be questioning the
influence and direction of Enlightenment influenced modern historical-critical
method, including in the area of text criticism.
So, let me review my
2012 blog post on Linnemann.
Linnemann devoted the last years of her scholarly
work to challenging modern historical-critical approaches to the Synoptic
Problem, which, using Source Criticism, posited Markan Priority, Q, and various
theories about the literary dependence of the Gospels, that ultimately served
to undermine their historicity, reliability, and authority. Her key work in
this area was Is There a Synoptic
Problem? Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels (Baker
Books, 1993). The closing epilogue to Is There a Synoptic Problem? Is worth
hearing (pp. 209-210).
I do not know Linnemann’s views on text
criticism, but one wonders what conclusions she might have reached had she turned
her attention to this.
JTR
2 comments:
What? How do you turn a post about Dr. Linnemann rejecting her Doctor Vater, Bultmann and his esoteric theology into a post about the supposed ‘confessional text’ when you even admit you have no idea what her text critical thoughts where. Talk about a singleminded focus, regardless of its relevance to the topic.
Tim
TJ, thanks for listening and commenting. With respect, I don't think it is inappropriate to draw a parallel between what it meant for Dr. Linnemann to reject the h-c method and what it takes for someone to break from modern text criticism, or even to ponder whether her commitments would have put her on a trajectory toward the traditional text. That said, even if she did not go there I still appreciate her take on the "Synoptic Problem." My point: It's worth learning from her experience.
Post a Comment