WM 134: Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical Critical Method

WM 134: Gerhard Maier, The End of the Historical-Critical Method is posted to sermonaudio.com. Listen here.

Notes:

In this episode I continue the “series” on those within the academy raising questions about the academy, which I started in WM 133 on Eta Linnemann’s rejection of the historical-critical method. Today the focus will be another German scholar Gerhard Maier and his work The End of the Historical Critical Method.

Before I do that let me offer a few follow ups to some previous episodes.

UPDATES:

First, I got an email this morning from Iain Murray, one of the founders of Banner of Truth, saying that he had made use of the WM 42 Interview with Lloyd Sprinkle (see also this blog post on Lloyd’s passing) in composing a biographical article on Lloyd’s life and ministry (a draft of which he also sent along—it is really excellent).

He wrote (in part):

Dear Dr Riddle, brother in Christ

I am very indebted to you for putting on the web your interview with our mutual friend Lloyd Sprinkle. I bought their first book in 1976.

We esteemed him and his work highly…. I preached for him once there….

Warm Christian greetings

Iain H.Murray

Edinburgh, UK

Second, in follow up to WM 132 Is there a “Confessional Text” movement?, Mark Ward posted this comment:

A clarification for your readers/listeners. I don’t believe what I’m saying is contradictory: Confessional Bibliology and mainstream KJV-Onlyism both tend to appeal to the KJV as the standard for textual critical decisions, because both use Scrivener’s GNT. They are both, then “KJV-Only,” practically speaking—it’s just that Confessional Bibliology is KJV-Only when it comes to textual criticism, not necessarily when it comes to translation. But the two views also, because they commonly appeal to “the TR” in their doctrinal statements rather than specifying *Scrivener’s 1881/1894 TR*, end up in the same position as advocates for the critical text (whether they realize it or not), namely saying that the word of God is preserved in the totality of good manuscripts. They just differ with critical text advocates over which manuscripts count as “good.” What TR advocates don’t have—until you offer an answer to “Which TR?”—is perfect confidence in every jot and tittle. TR advocates have to do textual criticism, just like I do. Robert Truelove told me that the “Which TR?” question has been answered over and over, but by far the clearest answer I could find was in Hills (his answer was “the KJV”); so I’m interested to see you saying that an answer is forthcoming.

I want you to know, too, that I take your call seriously: I’ve got to have a positive theological justification for my critical text view. I think I have what I need, and I got it from Dirk Jongkind’s recent book. But it could use some more development, and I’m cogitating upon this.

P.S. Calling your view “Confessional Text” makes it hard to abbreviate, since CT is already taken! =)

Third, also in WM 132, I mentioned a new unofficial directory on TR friendly churches, hosted by Five Solas OPC in Wisconsin. I checked the directory this morning and was amazed to see, I think, over 90 churches listed across the world (US, Canada, UK, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, etc.).

BOOK NOTE:

Gerhard Maier’s The End of the Historical-Critical Method.

Read my notes here.

JTR