BIBLIOLOGY
Key Terminology
PAPYRUS– Type of paper made from the pulp of the papyrus plant. The oldest manuscripts are on papyri, written in uncial script using large, upper-case letters with no separation between words. Only 92 papyri have been cataloged.
SCROLL– Sheets of papyrus glued together and rolled around a stick. The Isaiah scroll is over 20 feet long.
CODEX– Sheets of papyrus gathered in leaf form and written on both sides. Appears to have been invented by first century Christians to assemble the books of the Bible.
UNCIAL– Parchment replaced papyri in the 4th century. These were popular until the ninth century. 268 uncial manuscripts are cataloged. Type looks like printed capitals.
MINISCULE– Popular from the 9th to the 16th, cursive writing. 2,792 cataloged.
LECTIONARY– 2,193 cataloged, in both uncial and miniscule scripts used for daily or weekly lessons.
SCROLL– Sheets of papyrus glued together and rolled around a stick. The Isaiah scroll is over 20 feet long.
CODEX– Sheets of papyrus gathered in leaf form and written on both sides. Appears to have been invented by first century Christians to assemble the books of the Bible.
UNCIAL– Parchment replaced papyri in the 4th century. These were popular until the ninth century. 268 uncial manuscripts are cataloged. Type looks like printed capitals.
MINISCULE– Popular from the 9th to the 16th, cursive writing. 2,792 cataloged.
LECTIONARY– 2,193 cataloged, in both uncial and miniscule scripts used for daily or weekly lessons.
Sources Supporting The Historicity of The Old Testament
MASSORETES– (A.D. 500-950) Responsible for the development of the Massoretic Text of the Hebrew scriptures, a text free from accretions and adulterations, that included copyist instructions and commentary as marginal notes. Their “pointing system” of dots and strokes allowed for the pronunciation of a text written in consonants only. A 10th century MT is the earliest complete set of the Old Testament.
THE HEBREW TEXTS–
Cairo Codex [C] ~A.D. 895 Prophets
Aleppo Manuscript [A] ~A.D. 900 3/4 of the Old Testament
Lingrad Manuscript B3[P] ~A.D. 916 Latter Prophets
British Museum Manuscript ~A.D. 950 Gen 39:20-Deut 1:33 only
The Leningrad Manuscript B19A [L] ~A.D. 1008 Complete O.T.
DEAD SEA SCROLLS– In 1947, nearly 500 scrolls in clay jars were found hidden in caves 8 miles south of Jericho, near Qumran. Written between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D., many of the scrolls have simply decayed, leaving over 40,000 individual fragments. 100 of the scrolls are books of the Old Testament, with each book being cited except for
Esther. When first discovered, these scrolls antedated any other Hebrew text fragment by 1,000 years, silencing the liberal argument that the text had been corrupted. For example, today’s text of Isaiah is 95% consistent with that of a complete scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran.
SEPTUAGINT– (LXX, 250 B.C.)– Legend has it that 72 Alexandrian Jewish translators, six from each tribe, translated the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek in 72 days, while doing so independently from one another while working in separate rooms and, to top it off, the translations were identical! The most significant Greek version of the Hebrew text. Was the version used at the time of Christ, and by the early Church Fathers. Contains the Apocrypha.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH– This text confirms the accuracy of the MT due to its totally distinct manuscript lineage. Originally written around 400 B.C., it was all but lost until 1616. The earliest manuscript dates from the 10th century.
TARGUM– (A.D. 500) An Aramaic paraphrase of the Old Testament used by Chaldean Jews. Means “interpretation.”
MISHNAH– (A.D. 200) A collection of Jewish traditions and expositions on Rabbinic oral law, second in importance to the Pentateuch. Means “explanation.”
GEMARA– (A.D. 200) Aramaic commentaries on the Mishnah. The Babylonian Gemara and the Mishnah compose the Babylonian Talmud. The Palestinian Gemara and the Mishnah compose the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) Talmud.
TALMUD– (A.D. 100-500) Comprehensive commentary on the Mishnah and principal text of rabbinic Judaism. A Talmud scroll was destroyed if errors were made.
MIDRASH– (100 B.C.–A.D. 300) Studies of the Massoretic Text divided into principles of conduct drawn from the Law (the halakha), and expositional commentary on the narrative portions of the Pentateuch (the haggadah).
HEXAPLA– (A.D. 231-245) Origen’s edition of the Old Testament compiled from six sources: the Hebrew text itself, a transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek, and the four best Greek manuscripts available at the time, (the LXX, the Aquila, the Theodation, and the Symmachus).
THE HEBREW TEXTS–
Cairo Codex [C] ~A.D. 895 Prophets
Aleppo Manuscript [A] ~A.D. 900 3/4 of the Old Testament
Lingrad Manuscript B3[P] ~A.D. 916 Latter Prophets
British Museum Manuscript ~A.D. 950 Gen 39:20-Deut 1:33 only
The Leningrad Manuscript B19A [L] ~A.D. 1008 Complete O.T.
DEAD SEA SCROLLS– In 1947, nearly 500 scrolls in clay jars were found hidden in caves 8 miles south of Jericho, near Qumran. Written between 150 B.C. and 70 A.D., many of the scrolls have simply decayed, leaving over 40,000 individual fragments. 100 of the scrolls are books of the Old Testament, with each book being cited except for
Esther. When first discovered, these scrolls antedated any other Hebrew text fragment by 1,000 years, silencing the liberal argument that the text had been corrupted. For example, today’s text of Isaiah is 95% consistent with that of a complete scroll of Isaiah found at Qumran.
SEPTUAGINT– (LXX, 250 B.C.)– Legend has it that 72 Alexandrian Jewish translators, six from each tribe, translated the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek in 72 days, while doing so independently from one another while working in separate rooms and, to top it off, the translations were identical! The most significant Greek version of the Hebrew text. Was the version used at the time of Christ, and by the early Church Fathers. Contains the Apocrypha.
SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH– This text confirms the accuracy of the MT due to its totally distinct manuscript lineage. Originally written around 400 B.C., it was all but lost until 1616. The earliest manuscript dates from the 10th century.
TARGUM– (A.D. 500) An Aramaic paraphrase of the Old Testament used by Chaldean Jews. Means “interpretation.”
MISHNAH– (A.D. 200) A collection of Jewish traditions and expositions on Rabbinic oral law, second in importance to the Pentateuch. Means “explanation.”
GEMARA– (A.D. 200) Aramaic commentaries on the Mishnah. The Babylonian Gemara and the Mishnah compose the Babylonian Talmud. The Palestinian Gemara and the Mishnah compose the Palestinian (or Jerusalem) Talmud.
TALMUD– (A.D. 100-500) Comprehensive commentary on the Mishnah and principal text of rabbinic Judaism. A Talmud scroll was destroyed if errors were made.
MIDRASH– (100 B.C.–A.D. 300) Studies of the Massoretic Text divided into principles of conduct drawn from the Law (the halakha), and expositional commentary on the narrative portions of the Pentateuch (the haggadah).
HEXAPLA– (A.D. 231-245) Origen’s edition of the Old Testament compiled from six sources: the Hebrew text itself, a transliteration of the Hebrew into Greek, and the four best Greek manuscripts available at the time, (the LXX, the Aquila, the Theodation, and the Symmachus).
Canonicity and The Apocrypha
1. The word “canon” comes from the Greek word for rule or standard of measurement. Requirements for canonicity included that the text in question must have been written by a prophet, apostle, or an associate of either. The most important point about canonicity is that books were acknowledged as part of the canon because they were inspired, they did not become inspired because they were canonized.
2. The Old Testament canon has been affirmed by Ezra (5th B.C.), Josephus (A.D. 95), in 2 Esdras 14 (A.D. 100), and at the Council at Jamnia (A.D. 70-100). Jesus affirmed the scope in Luke 11:51 when He referred to “the prophets from Abel to Zechariah.” This would be equivalent to us saying “from Genesis to Malachi,” since Abel’s death is recorded in Genesis and Zechariah’s in 2nd Chronicles 24:20, which is the last book of Jewish structure.
3. Apocrypha is the name given to 15 “hidden” books written between 300-100 B.C., 11 of which the Roman Catholic Church accepts as Holy Scripture since the Council of Trent in 1546 (all but I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). The books make no claim to be inspired, nor do they contain any prophecies, and as a result they were
rejected by the New Testament authors, though Jude 14 and Hebrews 11:35 refers to them. They appear for the first time as part of the Old Testament with the Septuagint (3rd century B.C.), though they would not appear on any canonical list for another 700 years until Jerome’s Vulgate. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) included them as “ecclesiastical”
rather than “canonical” books. The Apocrypha was included in every early version (the Coverdale, the Geneva, and the King James) until the 1640 Geneva Bible which omitted it entirely.
4. The Apocrypha is filled with errors, some of the more notable from Tobit include the following. It wrongly names Enemessar as the one who defeated Nephthali (Tobit 1:2), when it was really Tiglath-pileser III. It wrongly names Sennacherib as the ruler that followed Enemessar (Tobit 1:15), when it was really Shalmaneser. It wrongly states that Nebuchadnezzar and Assuerus conquered Ninevah (Tobit 14:15), when it was really Nabapolassar and Cyaxares. And lastly, it wrongly states that Ninevah was on the east bank of the Tigris, rather than the west (Tobit 6:1). Furthermore, it teaches unbiblical doctrines: prayers and offerings for the dead (II Maccabees 12:41-46), salvation by works (Tobit 4:11, 12:9).
REVISED STANDARD VERSION NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (CATHOLIC)
(Ezra and Nehemiah are entitles I and II Esdras)
I Esdras III Esdras
II Esdras IV Esdras
Tobit Tobias
Judith Judith
Additions to Esther Esther 10:4 - 16:24
Wisdom of Solomon Book of Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus Ecclesiasticus
Baruch Baruch 1-5
The Letter of Jeremiah Baruch 6
Son of the Three Young Men Daniel 3:24-90
Susanna Daniel 13
Bel and the Dragon Daniel 14
Prayer of Manasseh Prayer of Manasseh
I Maccabees I Machabees
II Maccabees II Machabees
5. The earliest canonical list was formulated by the heretic Marcion in Rome, A.D. 140. By the end of the 2nd century, all but the following were canonized: Hebrews, 2John, 3John, 2Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation. However, the complete canon was finally closed at the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.
6. The following were the significant challenges to each book that had a difficult time getting recognized as canonical. Esther didn’t include the name of God. Ecclesiastes was too secular. The Song of Solomon was too lusty. Hebrews does not name an author. James emphasizes works. Second Peter is too well written to have been from Peter’s own hand. Second and Third John are too light weight. Jude cites the book of Enoch. And Revelation is too apocalyptic.
7. Pseudopigrapha is the name given to false writings. The more common have been: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas (every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven), the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of James, the Report of Pilate, and the Lost Books of the Bible that include four infancy gospels, the Letter of King Abgar, the Gospel of Nicodemus.
2. The Old Testament canon has been affirmed by Ezra (5th B.C.), Josephus (A.D. 95), in 2 Esdras 14 (A.D. 100), and at the Council at Jamnia (A.D. 70-100). Jesus affirmed the scope in Luke 11:51 when He referred to “the prophets from Abel to Zechariah.” This would be equivalent to us saying “from Genesis to Malachi,” since Abel’s death is recorded in Genesis and Zechariah’s in 2nd Chronicles 24:20, which is the last book of Jewish structure.
3. Apocrypha is the name given to 15 “hidden” books written between 300-100 B.C., 11 of which the Roman Catholic Church accepts as Holy Scripture since the Council of Trent in 1546 (all but I and II Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh). The books make no claim to be inspired, nor do they contain any prophecies, and as a result they were
rejected by the New Testament authors, though Jude 14 and Hebrews 11:35 refers to them. They appear for the first time as part of the Old Testament with the Septuagint (3rd century B.C.), though they would not appear on any canonical list for another 700 years until Jerome’s Vulgate. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) included them as “ecclesiastical”
rather than “canonical” books. The Apocrypha was included in every early version (the Coverdale, the Geneva, and the King James) until the 1640 Geneva Bible which omitted it entirely.
4. The Apocrypha is filled with errors, some of the more notable from Tobit include the following. It wrongly names Enemessar as the one who defeated Nephthali (Tobit 1:2), when it was really Tiglath-pileser III. It wrongly names Sennacherib as the ruler that followed Enemessar (Tobit 1:15), when it was really Shalmaneser. It wrongly states that Nebuchadnezzar and Assuerus conquered Ninevah (Tobit 14:15), when it was really Nabapolassar and Cyaxares. And lastly, it wrongly states that Ninevah was on the east bank of the Tigris, rather than the west (Tobit 6:1). Furthermore, it teaches unbiblical doctrines: prayers and offerings for the dead (II Maccabees 12:41-46), salvation by works (Tobit 4:11, 12:9).
REVISED STANDARD VERSION NEW AMERICAN BIBLE (CATHOLIC)
(Ezra and Nehemiah are entitles I and II Esdras)
I Esdras III Esdras
II Esdras IV Esdras
Tobit Tobias
Judith Judith
Additions to Esther Esther 10:4 - 16:24
Wisdom of Solomon Book of Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus Ecclesiasticus
Baruch Baruch 1-5
The Letter of Jeremiah Baruch 6
Son of the Three Young Men Daniel 3:24-90
Susanna Daniel 13
Bel and the Dragon Daniel 14
Prayer of Manasseh Prayer of Manasseh
I Maccabees I Machabees
II Maccabees II Machabees
5. The earliest canonical list was formulated by the heretic Marcion in Rome, A.D. 140. By the end of the 2nd century, all but the following were canonized: Hebrews, 2John, 3John, 2Peter, Jude, James, and Revelation. However, the complete canon was finally closed at the Third Council of Carthage in A.D. 397.
6. The following were the significant challenges to each book that had a difficult time getting recognized as canonical. Esther didn’t include the name of God. Ecclesiastes was too secular. The Song of Solomon was too lusty. Hebrews does not name an author. James emphasizes works. Second Peter is too well written to have been from Peter’s own hand. Second and Third John are too light weight. Jude cites the book of Enoch. And Revelation is too apocalyptic.
7. Pseudopigrapha is the name given to false writings. The more common have been: the Gospel of Philip, the Gospel of Thomas (every woman who makes herself male will enter the Kingdom of Heaven), the Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of James, the Report of Pilate, and the Lost Books of the Bible that include four infancy gospels, the Letter of King Abgar, the Gospel of Nicodemus.
Sources Supporting The Historicity of The New Testament
New Testament Homer Pliny Suetonius Tacitus Horace Caesar Tacitus Lucretius Aristophanes Plato Demosthenes Thucydides Herodotus Aristotle Sophocles Euripides Catullus Livy |
Original
40-100 A.D. 900 B.C. 61-113 75-160 A.D. 100 A.D. 100-44 B.C. 100 A.D. 53 B.C. 450-385 B.C. 427-347 B.C. 383-322 B.C. 460-400 B.C. 480-425 B.C. 384-322 B.C. 496-406 B.C. 480-406 B.C. 54 B.C. 59 B.C.-17 A.D. |
Earliest copy
125 A.D. 400 B.C. 850 A.D. 950 A.D. 1000 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 900 A.D. 900 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 A.D. 100 A.D. 1550 A.D. 400 A.D. |
Time Span
25 500 750 800 900 900 1,000 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,200 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,400 1,400 1,500 1,600 400 |
Remaining Copies
24,633 643 7 8 1 10 5 2 10 7 200* 8 8 49 193 9 3 20 |
* 200 copies of a single document
Surviving New Testament Manuscripts
Greek Uncials 267 Latin Vulgate +10,000 Arabic 75
Greek Miniscules 2,764 Ethiopic +2,000 Old Latin 50
Greek Lectionaries 2,143 Slavic 4,101 Anglo Saxon 7
Greek Papyri 88 Armenian 2,587 Gothic 6
Greek Other 47 Syriac Pashetta +350 Sogdian 3
Total Greek MMS 5,309* Bohairic 100 Others 5
* Of the 5300 manuscripts, over 1500 contain portions of at least one Gospel, with 200 manuscripts having the complete set of all 27 books of the New Testament. In writings dated before the 4th century, there are over 86,000 New Testament references. From the pre-325 A.D. writings of the Church Fathers alone, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed. Jesus is cited by the following 17 extra-biblical sources: Clement of Rome, Eusebius, Flavius Josephus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jewish Talmuds, Julius Africanus who cites both Thallus and Phlegon, Justin Martyr, Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Papias, Pliny the Younger, Polycarp, Suetonius, Tacitus, Tatian, and Tertullian.
Greek Miniscules 2,764 Ethiopic +2,000 Old Latin 50
Greek Lectionaries 2,143 Slavic 4,101 Anglo Saxon 7
Greek Papyri 88 Armenian 2,587 Gothic 6
Greek Other 47 Syriac Pashetta +350 Sogdian 3
Total Greek MMS 5,309* Bohairic 100 Others 5
* Of the 5300 manuscripts, over 1500 contain portions of at least one Gospel, with 200 manuscripts having the complete set of all 27 books of the New Testament. In writings dated before the 4th century, there are over 86,000 New Testament references. From the pre-325 A.D. writings of the Church Fathers alone, the entire New Testament could be reconstructed. Jesus is cited by the following 17 extra-biblical sources: Clement of Rome, Eusebius, Flavius Josephus, Ignatius, Irenaeus, Jewish Talmuds, Julius Africanus who cites both Thallus and Phlegon, Justin Martyr, Letter of Mara Bar-Serapion, Lucian of Samosata, Papias, Pliny the Younger, Polycarp, Suetonius, Tacitus, Tatian, and Tertullian.
Earlist New Testament Manuscripts
John Ryland (p52) Bodmer Papyrus (p66) Bodmer Papyrus (p72) Bodmer Papyrus (p75) Chester Beatty Papyri (p45) Chester Beatty Papyri (p46) Chester Beatty Papyri (p47) Tatian’s Diatessaron Codex Vaticanus (B) Codex Sinaiticus (a) . Codex Alexandrinus (A) Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) Codex Bezae Codex Washingtonensis (W) Codex Claromontanus Bodmer Papyrus (p66) Bodmer Papyrus (p72) Bodmer Papyrus (p75) |
When Written
100-140 A.D. 150 A.D. 3rd Century Late 2nd Century Early 3rd Century Late1st-Early 2nd Century 3rd Century 160 A.D. 325 A.D. 4th Century 5th Century 5th Century 6th Century 4th Century 6th Century 150 A.D. 3rd Century Late 2nd Century |
Contains
3.5 x 2.5 piece, Jn 18:31-33 (F),Jn 18:37-38 (B) Large portion of John 1Peter and 2Peter, and Jude Much of Luke and John Small portions of each of the Gospels and Acts Most of Paul, and all of Hebrews A Third of Revelation Harmony of the Gospels LXX on vellum.Omits 1Ti - Pn, & He 9:14 to end. Everything. Tishendorf found it in a wastebasket in a monastery next to Mt. Sinai. Omits Mt 1:1-25:6, 2Co 4:13-12:6,And Jn 6:50-8:52 Palimpsest with all but 2Th and 2Jn Gospels and Acts (in Latin & Greek) The Four Gospels The Pauline Epistles (in Latin & Greek) Large portion of John 1Peter and 2Peter, and Jude Much of Luke and John |
TEXTUS RECEPTUS
This is the first Greek New Testament to be published for widespread reading, though the Complutensian text was published two years earlier in 1514. Erasmus of Rotterdam (1469-1536) completed the text in March 1516, relying
heavily upon 6 Byzantine miniscule manuscripts, the earliest from the twelfth century, and the Latin Vulgate which Erasmus translated back into Greek in those instances in which he lacked Greek manuscript support. As a result, Erasmus produced a self-made Greek text from medieval manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate in which there are twelve passages for which there are no known corresponding Greek manuscripts (e.g. Paul’s response in Acts 9:6). The name Textus Receptus was given to the 2nd Edition of this Greek New Testament published in Holland in 1633, due to the following publishing blurb, “[This is] the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” In reality, it was received by all because it was the only one available. The 1611 King James Version was the showcase translation of Erasmus’s text, and its near unanimous acceptance over three centuries provided an unrivaled dominance for the Textus Receptus among Greek manuscripts. Not until Griesbach, Westcott and Hort
in the 19th century would other manuscript families successfully rival the Textus Receptus for consideration. For more on this and other textual issues, see the definitive work on the subject, Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).
heavily upon 6 Byzantine miniscule manuscripts, the earliest from the twelfth century, and the Latin Vulgate which Erasmus translated back into Greek in those instances in which he lacked Greek manuscript support. As a result, Erasmus produced a self-made Greek text from medieval manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate in which there are twelve passages for which there are no known corresponding Greek manuscripts (e.g. Paul’s response in Acts 9:6). The name Textus Receptus was given to the 2nd Edition of this Greek New Testament published in Holland in 1633, due to the following publishing blurb, “[This is] the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.” In reality, it was received by all because it was the only one available. The 1611 King James Version was the showcase translation of Erasmus’s text, and its near unanimous acceptance over three centuries provided an unrivaled dominance for the Textus Receptus among Greek manuscripts. Not until Griesbach, Westcott and Hort
in the 19th century would other manuscript families successfully rival the Textus Receptus for consideration. For more on this and other textual issues, see the definitive work on the subject, Bruce Metzger’s The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (New York: Oxford University Press, 1968).
Chapter and Verse
Chapter divisions were first done in 1227 by Stephen Langston, a University of Paris professor who later became Archbishop of Canterbury. Verse divisions were first done by French printer Robert Stephanus in his Greek New Testament in 1551. Stephanus’s 1555 Latin Vulgate was the first Bible with both chapter and verse. The first English Bible with chapter and verse was the 1560 Geneva Bible, which was also the first bible to use italics as an aid in readability (though often wrong).
The Type-Token Distinction
1. The word TYPE is the abstract, universal entity that communicates meaning through propositions and concepts. The word TOKEN is the material, particular entity that manifests the word TYPE through symbols and sentences in a variety of formats, such as ink and paper, electro-magnetic mediums, audio/video cassettes, etc. Simply, the word type is the meaning, and the word token is the thing which carries the meaning.
2. When we claim inerrancy, we are claiming to have His very voice (ipsissima vox) in His very words (ipsissima verba). We are claiming that God used the exact words He wanted to use, down to tense, number, gender, voice, and word order.
3. Another way to say this is that we are claiming to have the original message (or type) without error. Critics counter “If you don’t have the original autographs, how can you claim to have the original writings?” The question assumes that one must have the original token to ensure having the original type, which is false. Although we may not have the original token, we do have the original type. We are just uncertain, however, in which token, or combination of tokens, the original type rests. Thus, the task of New Testament textual criticism is to determine the original word type among the 5,000-plus Greek word tokens. This would be difficult if it weren’t for the fact that all of the tokens are 96% consistent among themselves, and that there is not one major doctrinal issue over which the tokens disagree.
4. Consider something as commonplace as cutting a piece of wood one meter in length. You go to Home Depot, and ask for one meter of wood. The salesman returns a few minutes later with a stick. How can you be certain its a meter in length? By measuring? What if his measuring tape isn’t accurate? What if yours isn’t? Is there The Original Meter Bar somewhere by which all other meters are measured? Yes, in England. Can you imagine the absurdity of having to travel every time someone wanted to measure something? This is why we have measuring devices. The more measuring devices we have to check against one another, the more certain we are that we have, indeed, the correct length. However, if that Original Meter Bar was destroyed before any copies were made, we could never be able to know how long a real meter was. But if copies are made, then whether the original exists or not, we still know how long a meter is because of all the copies. We make copies of important documents for the same reason we make measuring tapes. The more tokens you have, the greater the epistemic support for the original type. Thus, the more manuscripts, the greater the epistemic support for the autographa.
2. When we claim inerrancy, we are claiming to have His very voice (ipsissima vox) in His very words (ipsissima verba). We are claiming that God used the exact words He wanted to use, down to tense, number, gender, voice, and word order.
3. Another way to say this is that we are claiming to have the original message (or type) without error. Critics counter “If you don’t have the original autographs, how can you claim to have the original writings?” The question assumes that one must have the original token to ensure having the original type, which is false. Although we may not have the original token, we do have the original type. We are just uncertain, however, in which token, or combination of tokens, the original type rests. Thus, the task of New Testament textual criticism is to determine the original word type among the 5,000-plus Greek word tokens. This would be difficult if it weren’t for the fact that all of the tokens are 96% consistent among themselves, and that there is not one major doctrinal issue over which the tokens disagree.
4. Consider something as commonplace as cutting a piece of wood one meter in length. You go to Home Depot, and ask for one meter of wood. The salesman returns a few minutes later with a stick. How can you be certain its a meter in length? By measuring? What if his measuring tape isn’t accurate? What if yours isn’t? Is there The Original Meter Bar somewhere by which all other meters are measured? Yes, in England. Can you imagine the absurdity of having to travel every time someone wanted to measure something? This is why we have measuring devices. The more measuring devices we have to check against one another, the more certain we are that we have, indeed, the correct length. However, if that Original Meter Bar was destroyed before any copies were made, we could never be able to know how long a real meter was. But if copies are made, then whether the original exists or not, we still know how long a meter is because of all the copies. We make copies of important documents for the same reason we make measuring tapes. The more tokens you have, the greater the epistemic support for the original type. Thus, the more manuscripts, the greater the epistemic support for the autographa.
Evolutionary Christology vs. The Jewish Oral Tradition Model
1. The standard liberal view of New Testament development goes like this. In A.D. 33, an itinerant Jewish Rabbi, the Jesus of History, was crucified under Pontius Pilate. His followers had some kind of encounter with the risen Christ following the Easter Event, but no one knows whether this Jesus Tradition was hallucinatory, visionary, or indeed supernatural. Whatever the source, the encounter caused people to plant churches and become missionaries, and by A.D. 85, this Jewish Jesus of History had evolved into the Hellenistic Christ of Faith–the God-Man. Followers were motivated by the belief that the Lord who spoke (the Pre-Easter Jesus) was continuing to speak inside of them and through them as the Lord who speaks (the Post-Easter Christ). Eventually, people began to lose biographical interest in the Pre-Easter Jesus and focused their attention upon the Post-Easter Christ, as the words of the disciples became indistinguishable from the words of Christ. Early Christian prophets began to speak words of the risen Christ in their meetings, and the Post-Easter Christ talked about the life settings of the particular groups, i.e., their sitz im leben. Over time, a kerygmatic (or propagandistic) body of sayings and teachings of Christ was generated from these
prophets to protect and enlarge the movement, with historical and geographical details later added for authenticity. Thus, to reconstruct the historical Jesus, we must recover at least two different sitz im leben in the Gospels. Redaction criticism focuses on the sitz im leben of the writer, where the attempt is made to redact the Gospels down to stories the writer compiled and developed out of his own personal theology. And, Form criticism focuses on the sitz im leben of the churches, where the attempt is made to find the little stories or forms (pericopes) that circulated from church to church. Thus, the Gospels are not historical manuscripts but documents of propaganda.
2. In contrast to the liberal view, is the correct view called the Jewish Oral Tradition Model. The main thesis of the model is that the Gospels are Jewish not Hellenistic, therefore the relationship between Jesus and His disciples can be understood more clearly in terms of a typical first century relationship between a Rabbi and his students. When students accepted the invitation to follow a Rabbi (Matthew 4:19) it would become their responsibility to memorize and guard the accurate dissemination of the rabbinic teachings, to faithfully deliver what they had received (1st Corinthans 15:3-8, 1st Thessalonians 2:13). As such, they would be required to memorize vast portions Scripture. This was a culture with great respect for holy tradition, memorization, and accurate oral transmission. After a Rabbi’s death, his best students would gather to discuss the accurate interpretation of his teachings and interview those who claimed to represent him, (e.g. Paul’s trip to Jerusalem, Galatians 1:18-20, 2:1-10). The role of an apostle as an eyewitness, authoritative guardian, and disseminator of the true teachings is understood in terms of this Rabbinic relationship, and Luke-Acts traces the early history of this true Rabbinic community.
3. To rebut the criticism that the development of the Gospels is analogous to the childhood game of telephone, researchers have determined there are three conditions under which successful verbatim transmission might occur, and Jesus and his disciples fulfill all three conditions. First, the author must be viewed as divinely inspired. Second,
the text must be in a recognizable form, like poetry or parallelism. Third, the material must be handed down by a group with specialized training. And we can add a fourth condition, verbatim transmission is likely if the author believes that making errors will result in divine judgment.
prophets to protect and enlarge the movement, with historical and geographical details later added for authenticity. Thus, to reconstruct the historical Jesus, we must recover at least two different sitz im leben in the Gospels. Redaction criticism focuses on the sitz im leben of the writer, where the attempt is made to redact the Gospels down to stories the writer compiled and developed out of his own personal theology. And, Form criticism focuses on the sitz im leben of the churches, where the attempt is made to find the little stories or forms (pericopes) that circulated from church to church. Thus, the Gospels are not historical manuscripts but documents of propaganda.
2. In contrast to the liberal view, is the correct view called the Jewish Oral Tradition Model. The main thesis of the model is that the Gospels are Jewish not Hellenistic, therefore the relationship between Jesus and His disciples can be understood more clearly in terms of a typical first century relationship between a Rabbi and his students. When students accepted the invitation to follow a Rabbi (Matthew 4:19) it would become their responsibility to memorize and guard the accurate dissemination of the rabbinic teachings, to faithfully deliver what they had received (1st Corinthans 15:3-8, 1st Thessalonians 2:13). As such, they would be required to memorize vast portions Scripture. This was a culture with great respect for holy tradition, memorization, and accurate oral transmission. After a Rabbi’s death, his best students would gather to discuss the accurate interpretation of his teachings and interview those who claimed to represent him, (e.g. Paul’s trip to Jerusalem, Galatians 1:18-20, 2:1-10). The role of an apostle as an eyewitness, authoritative guardian, and disseminator of the true teachings is understood in terms of this Rabbinic relationship, and Luke-Acts traces the early history of this true Rabbinic community.
3. To rebut the criticism that the development of the Gospels is analogous to the childhood game of telephone, researchers have determined there are three conditions under which successful verbatim transmission might occur, and Jesus and his disciples fulfill all three conditions. First, the author must be viewed as divinely inspired. Second,
the text must be in a recognizable form, like poetry or parallelism. Third, the material must be handed down by a group with specialized training. And we can add a fourth condition, verbatim transmission is likely if the author believes that making errors will result in divine judgment.
HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF CRITICISM
SOURCE CRITICISM– Around 1900, effort was made to determine the original written sources from which the gospels were composed due to the synoptic problem. The synoptic problem is generated by the similarities and dissimilarities between Matthew, Mark, and Luke: 94% of Mark is found in Matthew and Luke, the half of Matthew not found in Mark appears in Luke, and 250 verses shared between Luke and Matthew do not appear in Mark. So the question remains, who borrowed from whom? Hypothetical documents (e.g., Q, L, and M) were posited and infused with great explanatory power (see the four source theory below). However, these explanations were only as good as the presuppositions upon which they were based. It soon became evident that an indefinite period of oral tradition antedated these written sources.
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY– The liberal solution to the synoptic problem asserts Markan priority along with the existence of three hypothetical documents for which there is no evidence: “Q,” 250 verses common to both Matthew and Luke not found in Mark, “M,” 310 verses unique to Matthew, and “L,” 580 verses unique to Luke. Q is especially problematic for this theory in that it indicates that Luke had access to both Mark and Matthew. We disagree with this theory, and instead propose our tentative view that Matthew and Mark independently drew upon a common oral tradition and Luke used both of them.
FIRST CENTURY BIOGRAPHY– Liberals often claim that ancient biographers, including the gospel writers, could not make the distinction between fact and fiction. This overlooks the evidence which indicates that ancient biographies were either chronological or topical. In the first century, chronological order was far less significant than topical order, in that ancient biographers were more concerned with moral exhortation (the character, sayings, and deeds of the person) than with getting the events in the correct chronological order. Scripture includes both kinds of biography. Matthew is topical, having several events out of chronological order with the other synoptics. Luke, however, made it clear that he set out to distinguish his gospel as a chronological (an orderly account) biography with heavy emphasis upon eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2-3). Furthermore, Jesus’s different word order in the synoptics can easily be explained as dialectical corrections, authorial paraphrases or summaries (especially with the oti statements), or simply that it was common practice in topical biographies to infer indirect discourse as well as direct discourse.
FORM CRITICISM– The idea behind form criticism is that oral stories circulated about Jesus until someone eventually wrote them down. Critics considered the synoptics as quilts, with pericopes the patches. Form critics wanted to know the purpose or likely use behind each pericope. Their answer was that each author pieced together
fragmented stories in order to address his own immediate life situation, his sitz im leben. Thus, form critics wanted to peel away the layers of a pericope in order to determine the kernel of truth of what really happened. Leading form critics were Welhausen, Schmidt, Dibelius, and Bultmann (1884-1976). Our response to form criticism begins with the acknowledgment that the gospels did have a kerygmatic interest as well as an historical, but it is our position that the historical is the root of the kerygmatic. Second, the principle of sitz im leben assumes that communities create individuals, when in fact it is individuals that create communities. Third, it attempts to explain the preservation of the data, without explaining the more important genesis of the data: people would have been naturally interested in the biographical facts of His ministry and Jesus is just too great to be fiction, there wasn’t nearly enough time for legend to develop, and lastly, what do you do with all those hostile eyewitnesses?
REDACTION CRITICISM– Redaction criticism is an attempt to discover the evangelist’s agenda and theology by looking at how he arranged his material, how he added to and subtracted from borrowed material, and how he used material unique to his gospel to advance his views. For example, Norman Perrin claims that after the Easter Event, as
followers gathered in house churches to share stories, prophets began to proclaim words of the risen Christ of Faith. The church, believing the Lord who spoke is the Lord who speaks, became unable to distinguish between the prophet’s words and Christ’s. In time, these sayings were assimilated without distinction into the sayings of the historical Jesus, and both sets of sayings were melded into one kerygmatic theological form by the redactor according to his sitz im leben in order to help Christianity flourish as a religion, with no regard for historical accuracy. Thus, Perrin asserts, we must not assume that pericopes were intended for historical reminiscence, unless they are later so proven through the criterion of dissimilarity, and the criterion of coherence. Leading advocates were W. Marksen on Mark, Gunther Bornkamm on Matthew, and Hans Conzelmann on Luke.
THE JESUS SEMINAR’S THREE CRITERIA– According to the Jesus Seminar, a statement may be authentic if it can meet the following three criteria. (1) Criterion of Dissimilarity, only those sayings that are distinct from the teachings of both contemporary Judaism and the early church are candidates. (2) Criterion of Coherence, a saying is a candidate if it coheres with what has already been accepted as authentic. (3) Criterion of Multiple Attestation, a statement is a candidate if it is found elsewhere, such as in legends, parables, pronouncement stories, Q, Mark, etc.
Now, putting these criteria to work, you can accept or reject any verse you choose! According to (1), Jesus can only say things that no one else ever said. According to (3), Jesus can only say things that someone else has said. And according to (2), Jesus can’t address a topic just once. This is absurd! These criteria assume we have adequate knowledge of first century Judaism and the early church by which we can tell whether Jesus’ sayings are similar or dissimilar. But this methodology is more appropriately called the Criterion of Circularity. Oddly, “if Jesus differs from both Judaism and the early church, he is then a decidedly odd figure, totally detached from his cultural heritage and ideologically estranged from the movement he is responsible for founding. One wonders how he ever came to be taken seriously.”1 If Jesus can never agree with his culture nor his followers, how did the movement have the impact it did? Royce Gruenler, in A New Approach to Jesus and the Gospels, even granted Perrin’s criteria and built a high Christology from the 17 statements which Perrin accepted as legitimate by examining the statements phenomenologically. Gruenler concluded that at the very least, we must view Jesus as believing himself to be the very
greatest prophet who ever lived, and at most (and truly) that he was God incarnate offering the Kingdom. Thus, the criterion of dissimilarity fails because it can both allow for and reject almost any single verse. Gruenler believed that the story of Christianity is so good that it must be true.
IRENAUS’ “EXODUS”– Ireneaus makes the statement, “Mark wrote his gospel after Peter’s exodus.” Liberals insist that “exodus” refers to his execution rather than the more natural meaning that refers to his departure from Rome in A.D. 66. Furthermore, the verb is correctly translated “disseminated” rather than “wrote,” meaning that Mark may have written it earlier and sent it out later.
THE FOUR SOURCE THEORY– The liberal solution to the synoptic problem asserts Markan priority along with the existence of three hypothetical documents for which there is no evidence: “Q,” 250 verses common to both Matthew and Luke not found in Mark, “M,” 310 verses unique to Matthew, and “L,” 580 verses unique to Luke. Q is especially problematic for this theory in that it indicates that Luke had access to both Mark and Matthew. We disagree with this theory, and instead propose our tentative view that Matthew and Mark independently drew upon a common oral tradition and Luke used both of them.
FIRST CENTURY BIOGRAPHY– Liberals often claim that ancient biographers, including the gospel writers, could not make the distinction between fact and fiction. This overlooks the evidence which indicates that ancient biographies were either chronological or topical. In the first century, chronological order was far less significant than topical order, in that ancient biographers were more concerned with moral exhortation (the character, sayings, and deeds of the person) than with getting the events in the correct chronological order. Scripture includes both kinds of biography. Matthew is topical, having several events out of chronological order with the other synoptics. Luke, however, made it clear that he set out to distinguish his gospel as a chronological (an orderly account) biography with heavy emphasis upon eyewitness testimony (Luke 1:2-3). Furthermore, Jesus’s different word order in the synoptics can easily be explained as dialectical corrections, authorial paraphrases or summaries (especially with the oti statements), or simply that it was common practice in topical biographies to infer indirect discourse as well as direct discourse.
FORM CRITICISM– The idea behind form criticism is that oral stories circulated about Jesus until someone eventually wrote them down. Critics considered the synoptics as quilts, with pericopes the patches. Form critics wanted to know the purpose or likely use behind each pericope. Their answer was that each author pieced together
fragmented stories in order to address his own immediate life situation, his sitz im leben. Thus, form critics wanted to peel away the layers of a pericope in order to determine the kernel of truth of what really happened. Leading form critics were Welhausen, Schmidt, Dibelius, and Bultmann (1884-1976). Our response to form criticism begins with the acknowledgment that the gospels did have a kerygmatic interest as well as an historical, but it is our position that the historical is the root of the kerygmatic. Second, the principle of sitz im leben assumes that communities create individuals, when in fact it is individuals that create communities. Third, it attempts to explain the preservation of the data, without explaining the more important genesis of the data: people would have been naturally interested in the biographical facts of His ministry and Jesus is just too great to be fiction, there wasn’t nearly enough time for legend to develop, and lastly, what do you do with all those hostile eyewitnesses?
REDACTION CRITICISM– Redaction criticism is an attempt to discover the evangelist’s agenda and theology by looking at how he arranged his material, how he added to and subtracted from borrowed material, and how he used material unique to his gospel to advance his views. For example, Norman Perrin claims that after the Easter Event, as
followers gathered in house churches to share stories, prophets began to proclaim words of the risen Christ of Faith. The church, believing the Lord who spoke is the Lord who speaks, became unable to distinguish between the prophet’s words and Christ’s. In time, these sayings were assimilated without distinction into the sayings of the historical Jesus, and both sets of sayings were melded into one kerygmatic theological form by the redactor according to his sitz im leben in order to help Christianity flourish as a religion, with no regard for historical accuracy. Thus, Perrin asserts, we must not assume that pericopes were intended for historical reminiscence, unless they are later so proven through the criterion of dissimilarity, and the criterion of coherence. Leading advocates were W. Marksen on Mark, Gunther Bornkamm on Matthew, and Hans Conzelmann on Luke.
THE JESUS SEMINAR’S THREE CRITERIA– According to the Jesus Seminar, a statement may be authentic if it can meet the following three criteria. (1) Criterion of Dissimilarity, only those sayings that are distinct from the teachings of both contemporary Judaism and the early church are candidates. (2) Criterion of Coherence, a saying is a candidate if it coheres with what has already been accepted as authentic. (3) Criterion of Multiple Attestation, a statement is a candidate if it is found elsewhere, such as in legends, parables, pronouncement stories, Q, Mark, etc.
Now, putting these criteria to work, you can accept or reject any verse you choose! According to (1), Jesus can only say things that no one else ever said. According to (3), Jesus can only say things that someone else has said. And according to (2), Jesus can’t address a topic just once. This is absurd! These criteria assume we have adequate knowledge of first century Judaism and the early church by which we can tell whether Jesus’ sayings are similar or dissimilar. But this methodology is more appropriately called the Criterion of Circularity. Oddly, “if Jesus differs from both Judaism and the early church, he is then a decidedly odd figure, totally detached from his cultural heritage and ideologically estranged from the movement he is responsible for founding. One wonders how he ever came to be taken seriously.”1 If Jesus can never agree with his culture nor his followers, how did the movement have the impact it did? Royce Gruenler, in A New Approach to Jesus and the Gospels, even granted Perrin’s criteria and built a high Christology from the 17 statements which Perrin accepted as legitimate by examining the statements phenomenologically. Gruenler concluded that at the very least, we must view Jesus as believing himself to be the very
greatest prophet who ever lived, and at most (and truly) that he was God incarnate offering the Kingdom. Thus, the criterion of dissimilarity fails because it can both allow for and reject almost any single verse. Gruenler believed that the story of Christianity is so good that it must be true.
IRENAUS’ “EXODUS”– Ireneaus makes the statement, “Mark wrote his gospel after Peter’s exodus.” Liberals insist that “exodus” refers to his execution rather than the more natural meaning that refers to his departure from Rome in A.D. 66. Furthermore, the verb is correctly translated “disseminated” rather than “wrote,” meaning that Mark may have written it earlier and sent it out later.
The Quests for The Historical Jesus
FACTORS ENDING THE OLD QUEST
1. The 1892 publication of Martin Kahler’s The So-Called Historical (Historie) Jesus and the Historic (Gerschichte) Biblical Christ effectively bifurcated faith and reason, the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith. According to Kahler, Historie deals with empirically verifiable events in the space-time world, and Gerschichte deals with the significance of the story. His point was that we can never know Historie, so all we are left with is the kerygmatic Gerschichte.
2. The 1906 publication of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer’s impact was twofold. First, he showed that the Jesus’ of the Old Quest were nothing but mirror images of the critics who created them. Second, his attempt to find a desupernaturalized Jesus ended in futility. He concluded that Jesus was a deluded
carpenter, who began not believing himself to be the Messiah, but later after acquiring the delusory belief, went to a tragic death on the cross in a futile attempt to force God to act eschatologically and rescue Israel.
3. The 1901 publication of William Wrede’s Messianic Secret Hypothesis. Wrede hypothesized the church had two different traditions about Jesus, the earlier in which he never claimed to be the messiah, and the later in which he did. According to Wrede, Mark did not set out to write an historical-chronological biography but a kerygmatic piece to ease the tensions between these two factions. This is why, according to Wrede, Mark has Jesus saying “not to tell anybody I’m the Messiah.”
4. In pre WWI Germany, theologians believed the Kingdom of God would manifest itself within the nation of Germany. However, with the collapse of postwar Germany came the collapse of this view, and the collapse of Christianity, and the end to the Old Quest.
Following WWI, Husserl asked the rhetorical question “What has happened to us in Europe? With all of our scientific advancement, how could this have happened?” He went on to answer that the rise of modern science was accompanied by the fall of morality. Man had come to misidentify knowledge with empiricism and scientism, and to
the exclude ethics, morality, and objective truth from consideration.
THE “NO QUEST” OF BARTH AND BULTMANN (DIALECTIC THEOLOGY)
1. Both Barth and Bultmann saw the error of the Old Quest of trying to construct Christianity around the Jesus of History, and decided, instead, to build it upon the Christ of Faith. Both were strongly existential and subjective, emphasizing God’s radical transcendence and man’s finitude. Neither believed positive evidence could be offered for His existence, He could only be spoken of in terms of negations, i.e., what He is not. Barth may have been a believer, Bultmann was not.
2. For Barth, the Historie and Gerschichte distinction is epistemological. Since one cannot empirically verify the Christ of Faith, one must accept Him through faith alone. For Barth, the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History are perhaps the same person, but one could only come to know this through personal experience and not historical
research.
3. For Bultmann, the Historie and Gerschichte distinction is ontological. He accepted Barth’s epistemological restrictions as a starting point, then went on to claim that the Jesus of History was totally irrelevant to Christianity, that it was the Christ of Faith that was important. Theology is not a science that deals with facts, according to
Bultmann. Thus, he could proclaim that the Resurrection occurs every time the Word of God brings forth new hope in the heart of a believer. The historical Jesus was a deranged person who thought He was the Messiah, and when God did not raise Him from the dead off of the cross, he died a broken, disappointed, and frustrated man.
THE NEW OR THIRD QUEST
Some of Bultmann’s students sought to avoid claiming that Christianity was objectively true, while also avoiding the Docetist error (that we can learn nothing of the Jesus of History). The search for an acceptable middle ground linking Jesus with Christianity is what birthed the New Quest.
The New Quest was made up largely Bultmann's existentialist disciples: James M. Robinson, Ernst Käsemann, Ernst Fuchs, G. Ebeling, Norman Perrin, and Gunther Bornkamm. Those more conservative than Bultmann are: W. Kummel, J. Jeremias and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Those more liberal are Karl Jaspers and Schubert Ogden. As the New Quest raged through the continent, three men devoted their lives to prevent England from being infected with German liberalism: Westcott (John), Hort (grammatical issues), and Lightfoot (church history). Their legacy is men like F. F. Bruce and R.T. France.
1. The 1892 publication of Martin Kahler’s The So-Called Historical (Historie) Jesus and the Historic (Gerschichte) Biblical Christ effectively bifurcated faith and reason, the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith. According to Kahler, Historie deals with empirically verifiable events in the space-time world, and Gerschichte deals with the significance of the story. His point was that we can never know Historie, so all we are left with is the kerygmatic Gerschichte.
2. The 1906 publication of Albert Schweitzer’s The Quest of the Historical Jesus. Schweitzer’s impact was twofold. First, he showed that the Jesus’ of the Old Quest were nothing but mirror images of the critics who created them. Second, his attempt to find a desupernaturalized Jesus ended in futility. He concluded that Jesus was a deluded
carpenter, who began not believing himself to be the Messiah, but later after acquiring the delusory belief, went to a tragic death on the cross in a futile attempt to force God to act eschatologically and rescue Israel.
3. The 1901 publication of William Wrede’s Messianic Secret Hypothesis. Wrede hypothesized the church had two different traditions about Jesus, the earlier in which he never claimed to be the messiah, and the later in which he did. According to Wrede, Mark did not set out to write an historical-chronological biography but a kerygmatic piece to ease the tensions between these two factions. This is why, according to Wrede, Mark has Jesus saying “not to tell anybody I’m the Messiah.”
4. In pre WWI Germany, theologians believed the Kingdom of God would manifest itself within the nation of Germany. However, with the collapse of postwar Germany came the collapse of this view, and the collapse of Christianity, and the end to the Old Quest.
Following WWI, Husserl asked the rhetorical question “What has happened to us in Europe? With all of our scientific advancement, how could this have happened?” He went on to answer that the rise of modern science was accompanied by the fall of morality. Man had come to misidentify knowledge with empiricism and scientism, and to
the exclude ethics, morality, and objective truth from consideration.
THE “NO QUEST” OF BARTH AND BULTMANN (DIALECTIC THEOLOGY)
1. Both Barth and Bultmann saw the error of the Old Quest of trying to construct Christianity around the Jesus of History, and decided, instead, to build it upon the Christ of Faith. Both were strongly existential and subjective, emphasizing God’s radical transcendence and man’s finitude. Neither believed positive evidence could be offered for His existence, He could only be spoken of in terms of negations, i.e., what He is not. Barth may have been a believer, Bultmann was not.
2. For Barth, the Historie and Gerschichte distinction is epistemological. Since one cannot empirically verify the Christ of Faith, one must accept Him through faith alone. For Barth, the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History are perhaps the same person, but one could only come to know this through personal experience and not historical
research.
3. For Bultmann, the Historie and Gerschichte distinction is ontological. He accepted Barth’s epistemological restrictions as a starting point, then went on to claim that the Jesus of History was totally irrelevant to Christianity, that it was the Christ of Faith that was important. Theology is not a science that deals with facts, according to
Bultmann. Thus, he could proclaim that the Resurrection occurs every time the Word of God brings forth new hope in the heart of a believer. The historical Jesus was a deranged person who thought He was the Messiah, and when God did not raise Him from the dead off of the cross, he died a broken, disappointed, and frustrated man.
THE NEW OR THIRD QUEST
Some of Bultmann’s students sought to avoid claiming that Christianity was objectively true, while also avoiding the Docetist error (that we can learn nothing of the Jesus of History). The search for an acceptable middle ground linking Jesus with Christianity is what birthed the New Quest.
The New Quest was made up largely Bultmann's existentialist disciples: James M. Robinson, Ernst Käsemann, Ernst Fuchs, G. Ebeling, Norman Perrin, and Gunther Bornkamm. Those more conservative than Bultmann are: W. Kummel, J. Jeremias and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Those more liberal are Karl Jaspers and Schubert Ogden. As the New Quest raged through the continent, three men devoted their lives to prevent England from being infected with German liberalism: Westcott (John), Hort (grammatical issues), and Lightfoot (church history). Their legacy is men like F. F. Bruce and R.T. France.