WM 133: Eta Linnemann's Rejection of the Historical Critical Method

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)

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

Eta Linnemann's rejection of the Historical-Critical Method

Image:  Eta Linnemann (1926-2009)

One of my pet projects this year has been reviewing and studying the rise of the historical-critical method in Biblical studies in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  Along these lines, I have long been intrigued by the testimony of German New Testament scholar Eta Linnemann (1926-2009) who was trained in higher criticism, studying with top scholars like Rudolph Bultmann, but later rejected it after experiencing an evangelical conversion.  Linnemann went on to  serve as a missionary in Indonesia, and she also wrote an insightful critique of the historical-critical method in which she had been so steeped before her conversion.  This critique first appeared in German as Wissenschaft oder Meinung? In 1986 and was translated and published in English as Historical Criticism of the Bible:  Methodology or Ideology (Baker, 1990).  In the Introduction to the critique, Linnemann reviews some of her testimony, including how she began to be disillusioned by the historical-critical method and its skeptical approach to Scripture and faith.  Though these were the beginnings of God’s grace in her life she notes:

At first, however, what I realized led me into profound disillusionment.  I reacted by drifting toward addictions which might dull my misery.  I became enslaved to watching television and fell into an increasing state of alcohol dependence (p. 18).

Eventually, Linnemann states that God led her to “vibrant Christians who knew Jesus personally as Lord and Savior” and “By God’s grace and love I entrusted my life to Jesus” (p. 18).  Her life changed dramatically:

My destructive addictions were replaced by a hunger and thirst for his Word and for fellowship with Christians.  I was able to recognize sin clearly as sin rather than merely make excuses for it as was my previous habit.  I can still remember the delicious joy I felt when for the first time black was once more black and white was once more white; the two ceased to pool together as indistinguishable gray” (p. 18).

Later, she faced a dilemma:  “Would I continue to control the Bible by my intellect, or would I allow my thinking to be transformed by the Holy Spirit?” (p. 19).  This led her to an unswerving commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture:  “I recognized, first mentally, but then in a vital, experiential way, that Holy Scripture is inspired” (p. 20).  She also acknowledged “that my former perverse teaching was sin” (p. 20).

In the powerful closing paragraph of this Introduction, Linnemman concludes, “That is why I say ‘No!’ to historical-critical theology.  I regard everything that I taught and wrote before I entrusted my life to Jesus as refuse.  After reviewing her previous scholarly books and journal articles, Linnemann adds:  “Whatever of these writings I had in my possession I threw into the trash with my own hands in 1978.  I ask you sincerely to do the same with any of them you may have on your bookshelf” (p. 20).

You can read also read online a transcript of a testimony Linneman gave in 2001 at a California church and a 1997 scholarly article by Robert W. Yarbrough (who translated Historical Criticism of the Bible) from the Master’s Seminary Journal titled Eta Linnemann:  Friend or Foe of Scholarship?  Linnemann should be read with discernment given that she apparently became involved with a charismatic, non-confessional church group.  Still, her critique of historical-critical methodology is invaluable.

Linnemann also challenged other results of modern scholarship including the theory of a “Q” source and Markan priority among the Synoptic Gospels (see Is There a Synoptic Problem?  Rethinking the Literary Dependence of the First Three Gospels [Baker, 1992]).  For those who know German, you can also find several lectures by Linnemann on various topics on YouTube.  Here are three (Biography of Eta Linnemann; What is the foundation of "historical-critical" theology?; and Who wrote Hebrews?) :

 

Though it appears Linnemann died before turning her attention to a critique of modern text and translation criticism, one wonders what conclusions she might have reached.

JTR