Scripture & Theology

The Nature of Biblical Criticism
Author: John Barton
ISBN: 9780664225872
Format: Paperback; Pages: 206
Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press
Release: May 2007
Search this title on Amazon

An online essay of Professor Barton’s, originally from 2001, anticipates many themes in his new book. This is especially true of two sections in the essay, “A Turn to Theology” and “‘Advocacy’ Readings.” Under the former, Barton states:

“Every so often there is a movement to ‘reintegrate’ biblical studies and theology, or to ‘give the Bible back to the Church.’ I personally believe that scholars have never really taken it away from the Church, and have often indeed been if anything too ‘reverent,’ avoiding hard critical questions. But there can be no doubt that many people do feel there is a division between the scholar in the study and the worshipper in the pew, with the preacher in the pulpit uneasily wedged between them. And a repeated reaction to this perception has been to try to develop some way of making biblical study more ‘theological.’”

Similarly in the book he concludes: “There is a battle going on at the moment between those who believe that biblical criticism is too much in the grip of a secular and skeptical spirit and those who think it has still not managed to escape the hand of ecclesiastical and religious authority. My sympathies lie on the whole more with the second group” (185).

Barton’s dissent from the many advocates of theological exegesis makes his new book essential reading for those with an interest in the same. Provocatively, he sees his program as closer to the essence of true religious reading. That his thoughts show evidence of long reflection (themes from his classic Reading the OT [1984] are also present in 2007) makes the argument all the more important.

Of course, not all will agree with Barton’s diagnosis, let alone his prescription. Regarding canonical approaches he writes (in the essay, but again in line with the book):

“Older biblical criticism was often practised by scholars who did have a high commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. But they thought the proper way to study it was first to analyse it critically in the ways I have described, and only then to move on to questions of its religious significance. This was true of Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike. The newer movement denies that this division of labour is desirable, or even possible.”

But practitioners of the canonical approach are likely to reply that any division of labor will be different simply because the task envisioned is different. In short, Barton’s work aims at the very core of the confessional exegesis movement (if it is proper to speak of such a thing). In particular he targets Brevard Childs, Christopher Seitz, Francis Watson, and Walter Moberly. And debate with these figures (indeed, among them) has long been underway.

Finally, I understand that an in-depth response to Barton’s book, by Moberly, is already due to appear this year in JTI (issue 2/1). One hopes that engagement from all parties will turn up fresh soil where the ground has already so often been plowed.