Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.

com 1

INTRODUCTION TO BIBLIOLOGY

AUTOGRAPH

A B C

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 A8 A9

A1A A1B A1C A5A A5B A9A

A1A1 A5A1 A5A2 A5A3 A5A4 A5A5 A9A1 A9A2

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.

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 O.T.
The Leningrad 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
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 2

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 O.T. 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 Lk 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 2 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
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 3

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 entitled 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.
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 4

SOURCES SUPPORTING THE HISTORICITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

ORIGINAL EARLIEST TIME SPAN REMAINING

COPY COPIES
New Testament 40-100 A.D. 125 A.D. 25 24,633
Homer 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 643
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 7
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 8
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1000 A.D. 900 1
Horace 900
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,000 10
Tacitus 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1,000 5
Lucretius 53 B.C. 1,100 2
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 10
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,200 7
Demosthenes 383-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1,300 200*
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 8
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1,300 8
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1,400 49
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D. 1,400 193
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1,500 9
Catullus 54 B.C. 1550 A.D. 1,600 3
Livy 59 B.C.-17 A.D. 400 A.D. 400 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 Slavic 4,101 Anglo Saxon 7
2,143
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.
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 5

EARLIEST NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS

WHEN WRITTEN CONTAINS

John Ryland (p52) 100-140 A.D. 3.5 x 2.5 piece, Jn 18:31-33 (F),
Jn 18:37-38 (B)
Bodmer Papyrus (p66) 150 A.D. Large portion of John
Bodmer Papyrus (p72) 3rd 1Peter and 2Peter, and Jude
Bodmer Papyrus (p75) Late 2nd Much of Luke and John
Chester Beatty Papyri (p45) Early 3rd Small portions of each of the Gospels and
Acts
Chester Beatty Papyri (p46) Late1st-Early 2nd Most of Paul, and all of Hebrews
Chester Beatty Papyri (p47) 3rd A Third of Revelation
Tatian’s Diatessaron 160 A.D. Harmony of the Gospels
Codex Vaticanus (B) 325 A.D. LXX on vellum.
Omits 1Ti - Pn, & He 9:14 to end.
Codex Sinaiticus (a) 4th Everything. Tishendorf found it in a waste
basket in a monastery next to Mt. Sinai.
Codex Alexandrinus (A) 5th Omits Mt 1:1-25:6, 2Co 4:13-12:6,
And Jn 6:50-8:52
Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) 5th Palimpsest with all but 2Th and 2Jn
Codex Bezae 6th Gospels and Acts (in Latin & Greek)
Codex Washingtonensis (W) 4th The Four Gospels
Codex Claromontanus 6th The Pauline Epistles (in Latin & Greek)

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).
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 NT 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).
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 6

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.

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
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 7

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 (Mt 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 (1Co 15:3-8, Co 2:7, 1Th 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 inter-
pretation of his teachings and interview those who claimed to represent him, (e.g. Paul’s
trip to Jerusalem, Ga 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.
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 8

THE LIBERAL FOUR SOURCE THEORY

M MARK L
JERUSALEM ROME CAESAREA
A.D. 60 A.D. 70 A.D. 60

Q
MATTHEW ANTIOCH LUKE
ANTIOCH A.D. 50 CORINTH
A.D. 85 A.D. 80

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
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 9

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.

1 Jesus Under Fire! (Zondervan: 1995) p. 91.

Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 10

THE QUESTS FOR THE HISTORICAL JESUS

OLD QUEST NO QUEST

TRUTH Objective Subjective
GOAL A Christianity Based On Jesus A Christianity Based on Christ
FAITH Based On Historical Evidence Based On Personal Experience
HISTORY Discovered Created
BIBLE We Must Debunk The Bible The Bible is Irrelevant
WORLDVIEW Scientistic-antisupernaturalism Existentialist
GOSPELS Biographical Kerygmatic
EMPHASIS The Jesus Of History (JOH) The Christ Of Faith (COF)
PLAYERS Reimarus’ Fragments In 1778 Barth (JOH = COF?),
Bultmann (JOH ≠ COF)
RESULT Jesus: A German Liberal Jesus: An Existentialist Philosopher

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 empiri-
cally 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
Introduction to Bibliology, frankpastore.com 11

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.