Harrisville, Roy A. and Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 2d ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. xiii + 349 pp. $35.00.

Harrisville and Sundberg (henceforth, HS) are professors at Luther Seminary in St. Paul, Minnesota. Harrisville is professor emeritus of NT, and Sundberg is professor of church history. This second edition updates the 1995 edition, subtitled Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann, by slightly revising the pervious chapters and adding new ones on Schlatter, Ricoeur, and Childs.

HS believe that a historical-critical method is essential for studying the Bible (p. 1), and they recognize its historical conflict with church traditions (p. 2). Their book is “a confessionally critical history of modern biblical criticism” that is “historically aware of the influence of cultural contexts on the formulation of ideas while, at the same time, seeking to be responsible to the church and its dogmatic tradition” (p. 3). Some historical critics prided themselves in approaching the Bible with scientific objectivity, but HS argue that they were neither neutral nor impartial. HS’s method is to analyze diachronically thirteen “principal figures whose ideas represent major movements in the history of historical criticism” (p. 3). They divide the work into fifteen chapters, and the middle thirteen each break down into about four parts: (1) cultural background (e.g., politics), (2) biographical sketch, (3) discussion of at least one significant primary source, and (4) analysis.

1. “The War of Worldviews” (pp. 10–29) lays the foundation for the rest of the book. Historical criticism, which has produced “agony” in the church, differs significantly from the precritical reading of the Bible by men like Luther and Calvin. Since the rise of historical criticism, two dominant worldviews have warred with each other: the Augustinian worldview is the basis for the church’s dogmatic tradition, and the Enlightenment’s rationalistic worldview is the basis for modern criticism, which rejects the Bible’s inspiration and authority and treats it like any other book.
2. “Baruch Spinoza: The Emergence of Rationalist Biblical Criticism” (pp. 30–45): Spinoza blazed a new trail by using the “scientific” historical-critical method as a weapon against religious-political authorities who used the Bible to support their ways. His theological method involves four components: (1) “the Bible is treated like any other text”; (2) “the dogmatic tradition of exegesis” is rejected; (3) “the ‘truth’ of Scripture is that which is recognizable to unaided human reason”; and (4) “it is only an educated elite that is fit to judge what is and what is not reasonable” (pp. 41–42).
3. “Hermann Samuel Reimarus: Pressing the Rationalist Attack” (pp. 46–61): Reimarus applied Kant’s Enlightenment philosophy to biblical criticism, and he is “more responsible than anyone else” for introducing “historical criticism into the mainstream of Protestant theology” (p. 49).
4. “Friedrich Schleiermacher: Formation of the Liberal Protestant Tradition” (pp. 62–82): Schleiermacher’s Christmas Eve illustrates romanticism applied to historical-critical study. He has been falsely accused as a Docetist (pp. 81–82).
5. “David Friedrich Strauss: The Bible As Myth” (pp. 83–103): Strauss’s The Life of Jesus illustrates idealism applied to historical-critical study. His work “demanded response at the level of the historical and temporal. And however bankrupt may be the methods of biblical-historical research now become traditional, it was Strauss, and Strauss above all, who rendered them unavoidable” (p. 100).
6. “Ferdinand Christian Baur: Historical Criticism in the Shadow of Idealism” (pp. 104–22): Baur, Strauss’s teacher, also applied idealism to historical-critical study, but he “gave a truer and deeper picture of the history of dogma and theology” (p. 115).
7. “Johann Christian Konrad von Hofmann: The Bible As Salvation History” (pp. 123–45): Hofmann’s Heilsgeschichte allegedly follows an experiential trajectory from Schleiermacher, one of his teachers.
8. “Ernst Troeltsch: The Power of Historical Consciousness” (pp. 146–68): Troeltsch illustrates theological liberalism at the end of the 1800s, focusing psychologically and philosophically on faith itself rather than “the faith.”
9. “Adolf Schlatter: Biblical Criticism and the Act of Faith” (pp. 169–94): Schlatter allegedly blazed a trail between liberals and conservatives. HS wisely interact with works on Schlatter by Werner Neuer, but they overlook works by Robert Yarbrough and Andreas J. Köstenberger.
10. “J. Gresham Machen: The Fundamentalist Defense” (pp. 195–216): Machen, although not preferring the label “fundamentalist,” is the most scholarly representation of early American fundamentalism, and his Christianity and Liberalism illustrates fundamentalism’s firm opposition to theological liberalism.
11. “Rudolf Bultmann: Biblical Scholarship in Crisis and Renewal” (pp. 217–48): Bultmann illustrates a strand of theology of crisis or dialectical theology, which exalted modern thought in biblical criticism and is a trajectory of Karl Barth’s famous Romans commentary.
12. “Ernst Käsemann: Biblical Theology Under the Cross” (pp. 249–70): Käsemann, Bultmann’s student, illustrates how many of Bultmann’s previous followers severely critiqued Bultmann’s theology.
13. “Paul Ricoeur: The Risk of Reading the Bible” (pp. 271–303): Ricoeur utilized linguistics in his “Christian” hermeneutic philosophy in which the biblical text has priority over the interpreter. HS do not interact with any works by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, including Biblical Narrative in the Philosophy of Paul Ricoeur: A Study in Hermeneutics and Theology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990).
14. “Brevard Childs: Biblical Criticism Under the Discipline of the Canon” (pp. 304–28): Childs popularized approaching Scripture with a canonical context.
15. “Two Traditions of Historical Criticism” (pp. 329–40) contrasts the approaches of the Enlightenment and Augustinian traditions. HS rightly prefer the latter:

Historical criticism in the Enlightenment tradition relies on rational, scientific investigation to reveal the content of Scripture. In its ideal form, this tradition believes that it is able to go beyond the reach of cultural presuppositions and philosophical commitments to establish the historical meaning of biblical texts once and for all. It is this tradition of scholarship that is being called into question. We share this suspicion. . . . The fundamental lesson of the story we have told is this: no method of interpretation can transcend its cultural milieu. This means that no biblical critic can escape the reach of history to achieve true meaning by the use of reason and critical method. (p. 330)

Whether it was deistic rational religion (Spinoza and Reimarus), romantic devotion to feeling (Schleiermacher), the Hegelian dialectic (Strauss and Baur), or the demands of historicism (Troeltsch), the Enlightenment tradition has been motivated by its need to make apology for its “faith” in the Enlightenment worldview. This faith has gone so deep that it has led its army of believers either to the wholesale rejection of biblical religion or the radical resymbolization of orthodox faith according to the demands of the prevailing culture. J. Gresham Machen was right. What we have in the Enlightenment tradition of criticism is nothing less than another religion that supplants biblical faith. (p. 335)

HS’s work is disappointing for at least three reasons.

1. Despite HS’s praise of Machen, they confusingly and disappointingly describe Bultmann and Käsemann as “Augustinian to the core,” exalting them more than Hofmann, Schlatter, and Machen for allegedly using historical criticism to exposit “what the Bible says” as “the hallmark” of their work (p. 337). Bultmann clearly does not belong in the Augustinian tradition because he flatly denied Jesus’ resurrection! Furthermore, both Hofmann and Machen repudiated what HS call the Augustinian view. (Cf. reviews below by Silva and Yarbrough.)
2. HS smugly dismiss fundamentalism’s “stubborn defense . . . of a theory of verbal inerrancy” that “is largely the product of seventeenth-century Protestant scholasticism and lacks deeper roots in the Christian tradition” (pp. 212–13). This hackneyed allegation is as irritating as it is errant. (Cf. John Woodbridge’s Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers/McKim Proposal.)
3. HS are often dry and obtuse (perhaps accurately reflecting some of the historical critics!). This book is not bedtime devotional reading along the lines of what one of my professors calls “The Winnie the Pooh—Thomas Kinkade Study Bible.”

Nevertheless, HS’s volume is worth owning and consulting.

1. Its overall organization is clear. The entire book is outlined, and both the table of contents and the introduction serve as convenient, logical, structural overviews.
2. It is a useful overview of major figures in historical criticism.

Selected Bibliography

This partially annotated selection of about twenty-five reviews reflects a spectrum of perspectives. Nearly all of the reviews discuss the volume’s first edition (1995); an asterisk (*) indicates a review of the volume’s second edition (2002).

• Adam, A. K. M. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Critical Review of Books in Religion 9 (1996): 137–39. “One surprising—and welcome—feature of the book is a thoughtful chapter on J. Gresham Machen and the fusion of common-sense realism with evangelical theology characteristic of American fundamentalism. The authors present Machen’s approach to interpretation patiently and sympathetically, contrasting his intellectual subtlety with facile dismissals of fundamentalism from mainstream Protestants; their careful sketch of the argument in Christianity and Liberalism shows that Machen’s hermeneutic is far from anti-intellectual. At the same time, the authors are not uncritical of Machen; their concluding summary of this chapter makes clear their preference for a Barthian line of resistance to liberalism” (p. 138). “This book is a useful contribution to the field. Its format is evidently tailored to fit an academic semester—one could easily assign a chapter for each week along with readings from the appropriate primary sources, though this would be easier if the authors had not drawn so heavily on works that have not been translated from German and had not omitted mention of such existing translations as Adams and Bense’s collection of Troeltsch’s essays in Religion in History (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991). The book’s consistent engagement with social influences on interpretation is commendable, though it still falls far short of a thorough social history of biblical scholarship. The authors’ dialectic of Enlightenment and Augustinian paths in historical criticism oversimplifies the hermeneutical conflicts they describe, but does so in service of the clear case for the alternative they espouse. Readers who sympathize with Harrisville and Sundberg may find in this book a pedagogical touchstone; for unsympathetic readers, it is at least a solid account of modern biblical interpretation in its cultural context” (p. 139).
• Badley, Jo-Ann. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Religious Studies and Theology 17 (June 1998): 107–9. “I did not understand why, in the end, Schleiermacher was evaluated adversely when Bultmann is not; both were historically skeptical and neither based their theological conclusions on their historical work” (p. 108). “The strength of the book is its detailed attention to the aims and methods in the work of the ten selected historical figures. The narrowness of such a focus, in that only ten figures are selected from almost 300 years, is somewhat overcome by mentioning other important contributors in the introductory background material in each chapter and by a few references to other secondary material in the footnotes. I note that eight of the ten figures are German, most are Protestant and most are scholars of the Christian scriptures/New Testament/history of early Christianity. This inevitably skews the discussion. I was surprised that Julius Wellhausen was not included. The absence of any British scholars is notable” (p. 109). “The book is forceful in pointing out cultural factors which influenced the development of methods of biblical studies in the modern period with their adverse effects for faith and theology. As well, studies such as this one on the historical location of the methodology of biblical studies are rarer than overviews of the conclusions of biblical scholars and so a study of this particular aspect is a welcome contribution, perhaps especially for those scholars who are trying to practice biblical studies to make application to questions of theology and faith. However, Harrisville and Sundberg seem to assume their audience will agree with their categories of analysis (even the title, The Bible in Modern Culture, for a book which focuses on New Testament methodology assumes a Christian audience) with the result that the book does not engage the pluralistic culture of the present academic community which studies these texts for a variety of purposes” (p. 109).
• Brueggemann, Walter. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Theology Today 53 (October 1996): 414, 416, 418. This is “an intriguing study of the rise and course of historical criticism in the modern period” (p. 414). “Von Hofmann, who tried to articulate ‘salvation history’ on the grounds of ‘history’ rooted in ‘experience,’ a no-no for this book” (p. 414, 416). Rather than a “mere historical account,” HS’s work is “a determined critical assessment of the course of historical criticism, cast as a relentless, heavy-handed polemic that views historical criticism as it was shaped in the Enlightenment as an ‘enemy’ of faith. From the perspective of church faith and church scholarship, there is obviously a great deal of truth in the polemic. And yet, I have the impression that it would be more valuable and more effective to present the historical data without such an explicit polemic and to let the reader make a judgment. . . . On the whole, they are quite uninterested in the actual context of the interpreter, the requirements of the particular situation, and the seeming limitations of the context. They give ample evidence of knowing about such nuance, but they do not permit it to tone down the polemic in any sensitive way. The single criterion by which matters are measured is ‘the Augustinian tradition’ as it was given nuance by Luther” (p. 416). “This is a welcome, informed book. It has an important role to play in our further investigation. It is important, at the same time, that it not be taken as a final word, because its ‘Augustinian’ insistence makes things too easy for us in our own present obligation of criticism. It is surely to be valued that even some scholars who resist the preferred slogans turn out to be courageous practitioners of obedient interpretation-and vice-versa. It gives one pause” (p. 418).
• Coggins, Richard J. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Expository Times 107 (April 1996): 216. “Two claims are made: first, that some form of historical criticism is an essential ingredient of the church’s engagement with its Bible; secondly that no method of study can be truly objective and context-free—all scholarly methods are culture-bound. Several historical surveys of the kind here attempted have appeared in recent years and a minor regret is that there is not very much engagement with these other readings. But his book is still to be welcomed; it offers some unusual insights into what has too often been a dialogue of the deaf, with fundamentalists regarded as hopeless reactionaries, and critics such as Bultmann as betrayers of the Christian faith. We are reminded of some of the important underlying principles at stake.”
• *Dyer, Lesley-Ann. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs, Paul S. Minear, The Bible and the Historian: Breaking the Silence About God in Biblical Studies, and Luke Timothy Johnson and William S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship: A Constructive Conversation. Perspectives in Religious Studies 31 (2004): 233–36. HS “add a delightful Lutheran spice to their work because, when least expected, the authors will tie in some relevant aspect of Luther’s life or writings. Harrisville and Sundberg achieve their stated purpose to write a ‘confessionally critical’ history of modern biblical criticism” (p. 234). HS “wisely admonish Protestants to distinguish between the two schools of criticism—the Enlightenment and the Augustinian” (p. 236).
• Howard, Thomas A. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Journal of Religious History 21 (Fall 1997): 115–17. “Problematically, after lambasting German liberalism and historicizing German historicism, the authors indulge in their own brand of nationalism: they praise the American critic J. Gresham Machen” and what they call “the pervasive consensus of American evangelicalism” . . . . [HS’s] defense of Machen’s American common-sense theology thus raises troubling questions about the relationship between national identify and religious conviction. Furthermore, if American common sense provides the proper grounding for theology, what does one make of the apologetics of, say, Blaise Pascal, Karl Barth or a Søren Kierkegaard? Although deeply Augustinian, one could hardly say that these thinkers reflect a common-sense epistemology. . . . Furthermore, by adopting an historicist mode of argument to delegitimize Enlightenment criticism, the authors make clear how indebted they are to the very intellectual traditions that they desire to criticize. One could even argue that the authors . . . argue that [their] highest ideas and ideals [are] simply socio-cultural products, not statements of transcendent truth. But when one begins historicizing in this manner, where does one stop? Are not the voices of Harrisville and Sundberg only products of American seminaries with Augustinian leanings?” (p. 116). “Despite these criticisms, the book makes a worthwhile contribution to the intellectual history of modern biblical study—a much-neglected topic. The authors’ strength lies in their attempt to come to grips with modern critical presuppositions from a standpoint that does not embrace these presuppositions” (pp. 116-17).
• Huber, Donald L. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Trinity Seminary Review 19 (1997): 48–49. [Huber’s review is suspiciously similar to Mark Allan Powell, review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann, Trinity Seminary Review 18 (1996): 49–50.] HS “have masterfully combined attention to detail with the careful setting of historical contexts and useful generalizations. The book is an example of historical theology at its best” (p. 48). “The critics are not gods from Mt. Olympus, but fallible human beings who have used the best insights available to them in their time and place to try to discern the meaning of the scriptures” (p. 48). “There is much to ponder in this book, and much even to question. But make no mistake—Harrisville and Sundberg have done a fine job of describing the development of the methodology which more than any other has determined the course of modern theology. I will be using this book in my classes at Trinity and I recommend it to anyone who puzzles over the relationship of historical truth to faith” (p. 49).
• Jacobson, Rolf. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Koinonia 8 (1996): 98–100. “This volume is both a welcome contribution to the growing body of literature about the historical method, and also an intriguing critical interpretation of biblical interpretation” (p. 98). “These chapters are essentially a Great Thinkers/Great Books approach to history” (p. 98). “The heroes of the book appear (to this reader) to be Bultmann and Käsemann” (p. 99). “This book is not a simple read. The subject matters it addresses are at times difficult and the authors make no attempt to dumb them down. . . . [T]his volume is a sterling example of theological interdisciplinary cooperation” (p. 99).
• Johnson, David H. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Didaskalia 8:2 (1997): 75–76. HS “have done a fine job of laying out for us the contributions of ten biblical and theological scholars. No other single book has done this . . . . The genetic connection with Machen, Bultmann and Ksemann [sic] is interesting and helpful” (p. 76).
• Kinsbury, Jack Dean. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Interpretation 51 (1997): 100, 102. “This book does not make for light reading. Pastors and teachers who take it in hand, however, will be richly rewarded. I heartily recommend it” (p. 102).
• Koester, Craig R. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Word & World 16 (1996): 382–83. “This is an excellent study of the relationship between historical criticism of the Bible and Christian theology. If historical criticism sought to show how biblical texts are products of their time, Harrisville and Sundberg show in a fresh and stimulating way how historical criticism was the product of its time” (p. 282). “There have been many accounts of the emergence of biblical criticism, but Harrisville and Sundberg make a distinctive contribution in allowing us to see so clearly the social function of the method. We live in a time of changing patterns of interpretation, and many are quick either to defend or dismiss historical criticism as a tool. Harrisville and Sundberg neither propose a new paradigm for biblical studies nor allow for a facile rejection of the enlightenment or Christian tradition. What they do is to call us to listen patiently to what our forebears have done in order that we might better understand the tensions with which we live. ‘Each generation of biblical scholars has too easily assumed that it has achieved the consummate approach to biblical analysis when, in fact, what it has done is to equate cultural norms with eternal truth’ (3). This is as true today has it has ever been, and as we move into the future, this book prompts all interpreters of the Bible to ask who is being served by the methods we use” (p. 283).
• Krentz, Edgar. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Currents in Theology and Mission 23 (April 1996): 143. “This work on a very complex topic is a good read. The authors have the gift of clarity, both in thought and presentation. Their evaluation is unabashedly theological—from a Reformation perspective. But they neither rage against the use of historical criticism nor yearn for a return to the pre-Enlightenment world. They call for a rethinking of the role of critical exegesis in the academy for the church. Pastors who ponder the role of critical Bible study in their own work would do well to read this book and ponder the implications of the final chapter for their own proclamation. It is disturbingly stimulating, the mark of a good book.”
• *________. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. Currents in Theology and Mission 30 (February 2003): 63–64. “It is an interesting and stimulating read, as each chapter anchors the account in the life story of each interpreter. There are extensive notes, which provide bibliographical references—though it would help the reader if there were a bibliography appended to each chapter” (pp. 63–64). “The authors provide a good introduction to the issues at stake in the critical interpretation of the Bible, without discussing some contemporary issues such as postmodern interpretation, reader-response criticism, feminist interpretation, and the like. This deserves wide reading” (p. 64).
• Lemke, Steve W. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Southwestern Journal of Theology 40 (Fall 1997): 101–2. “One will not find a better summary of the history of modern exegesis than in this volume . . . . [T]he authors write with such artistry and theological depth as to offer the reader a richer offering than a mere survey treatment. The authors weave an elegant tapestry with threads drawn from biblical studies, theology, philosophy, history, and hermeneutics” (pp. 101–2). “The evaluations of each thinker are insightful and fair. . . . This volume would be an exceptionally valuable contribution in any theological library and highly useful, either for a class text or for personal enrichment” (p. 102).
• Levenson, Jon D. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. First Things 64 (June–July 1996): 53. “Examining fairly and sympathetically an array of important thinkers . . . the authors provide brief but helpful summaries of the lives and teachings of their ten main figures and offer many probing and perceptive observations about the interaction of Christian theology with modern intellectual history. The title of Harrisville and Sundberg’s book can be misleading, since the role of the Bible in modern culture includes elements likely to be undervalued by those committed, like them, to ‘Augustinianism nuanced by Luther.’ Their volume is, in fact, not just exclusively Christian, but very Lutheran, very theological, very German, and very much focused on the New Testament. Another book with the same title might have dealt with the role of the Bible in the arts, with the contribution of originally secular methods of reading to the elucidation of the Bible, with the increasing relevance of the methods and substance of rabbinic midrash to biblical studies, with the positive effects of recent historical-critical study on Jewish-Christian dialogue, and with the astonishing revival of Hebrew as a vernacular over the last century. Even with its limitations, however, The Bible in Modern Culture is a welcome and accessible contribution to an increasingly important discussion.”
• Liefeld, David R. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Concordia Journal 22 (1996): 340–41.
• Lust, Johan. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 72 (1996): 210–11.
• McKim, Donald K. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Reformed Review 50 (1996): 56. “This work is a very significant contribution to our understanding of the historical-critical method of biblical interpretation. The book shows the contributions, and the limitations, of this approach. But it also recognizes the tradition of ‘believing criticism’ in which the authority of Holy Scripture can be vigorously maintained while, at the same time, a rigorous use of scholarly tools can be employed.”
• Müller, Markus. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Pro Ecclesia 7 (1998): 376–77.
• Powell, Mark Allan. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Trinity Seminary Review 18 (1996): 49–50. HS “have in this volume made a valuable contribution to the understanding of biblical interpretation in the modern era. . . . [T]hey have masterfully combined attention to detail with the careful setting of historical contexts and with useful generalizations. The book is an example of theology at its best” (p. 49). “The critics are not gods from Mt. Olympus, but fallible human beings who have used the best insights available to them in their time and place to try to discern the meaning of the scriptures” (p. 49). “There is much to ponder in this book, and much even to question. But make no mistake—Harrisville and Sundberg have done a fine job of describing the development of the methodology which more than any other has determined the course of modern theology. I will be using this book in my classes at Trinity and I recommend it to anyone who puzzles over the relationship of historical truth to faith” (p. 50).
• Silva, Moisés. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Westminster Theological Journal 58 (1996): 159–61. “Historical surveys of theological and biblical scholarship, more often than not, attempt to cover too much territory. The typical result is an encyclopedic reference work, useful for quick consultation but not terribly satisfying. Readers tend to perceive such books as boring, partly because the authors are unable to analyze any one figure in depth, partly because it is very difficult to find unifying threads in the story. . . . [HS] have managed to avoid these problems with a format that may be unique in the literature” (pp. 159–60). “The inclusion of Machen in particular will startle some readers, especially those of us who have become accustomed to the way mainstream scholarship routinely ignores him” (p. 160). In light of HS’s affirmations of Machen, “readers of this journal will be perplexed to find out that the final heroes in the book are Bultmann and Käsemann. Indeed, on the same page where the authors commend Machen for insisting on the ‘external grounding of the Christian proclamation in the narrative integrity of the biblical record’ (can anything be more antithetical to Bultmann’s skepticism of the biblical narrative?), they state: ‘Historical criticism pursued for the purpose of expositing what the Bible says is the hallmark of the work of Bultmann and Käsemann’ (p. 270). We are also told that Bultmann’s use of Heideggerian philosophy to articulate ‘the desperate flight of the human . . . is Augustinian to the core’ (p. 271)” (pp. 160–61). “Without for a moment doubting the sincerity or the positive strands of Harrisville and Sundberg’s analysis, one must seriously question their judgment when they locate Bultmann’s contribution on the Augustinian side of the great ideological divide. . . . What they totally pass by is that Bultmann considered the historical facts quite irrelevant to faith. In the very last paragraph of the book, the authors assert that historical criticism is the church’s friend insofar as it reminds us that such criticism can neither destroy nor support faith. This is of course a commonplace of modern theology, and if one tries hard enough it can be interpreted in a way that conforms to the theology of the Reformers. But, in essence, does it not reflect the very Kantian dualism that lies at the root of the Enlightenment and the historical-critical method? Do the authors really believe that an Augustine or a Luther or a Calvin would have detected anything but antithesis between the faith they themselves professed and the deepest commitments of a Bultmann or a Käsemann? There are a few other passages in the book that struck me as ambiguous or inconsistent. As a rule, however, the discussions are interesting, the facts brought out are instructive, and the evaluations are penetrating. Even if the authors’ solutions are not persuasive, all students of history of ideas can profit greatly from a close reading of this volume” (p. 161).
• Smith, Louis A. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Lutheran Forum 30 (1996): 54–56.
• Thiselton, Anthony C. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Nederlands theologisch tijdschrift 51 (1997): 325–26. “The strength of the book lies in its account not only of social and philosophical backgrounds but also of political factors in the situations of seminal thinkers of biblical criticism” (p. 325). “This volume’s greatest strength is also its greatest weakness. It tends to impose a ‘single-issue agenda’ onto the very complex and convoluted history of modern biblical interpretation. If only it had been selective and narrowly focused in its examples, it would have verged on the brilliant. Thus it incisively illuminates the political concerns which contributed to the de-privileging of theology in Spinoza, Reimarus, Lessing, Strauss and Baur. Political pressures sometimes left them embittered and disillusioned. The authors pose the dilemma of religion and politics poignantly: both the individualism of democratic egalitarianism and the alliance between religion and an authoritarian state generate seductions for the unwary. But they try to extend their thesis to examples which will not fit. I doubt whether the attempt to assess Schleiermacher from the brief text of his Christmas Eve does justice to a thinker who produced 30 volumes of works. I should find difficulty in endorsing all their comments about Luther, Strauss, Baur or Troeltsch. They have also fallen prey to the very polarization of either/or which they so perceptively explain as a feature of American theology. Nevertheless this book is full of useful insights, especially into the background of European social politics which cannot be separated from an understanding of the rise of biblical criticism. With some notes of caution on these points, I most warmly commend the volume. It would have been even better if the authors had traced the political divergence (political correctness, egalitarianism, antipathy to traditions, pressure-groups) up to the postmodern climate in which most hermeneutical discussion takes place today” (p. 326).
• Yarbrough, Robert W. Review of Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical-Critical Method from Spinoza to Käsemann. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 40 (1997): 516–18. “HS use history to expose the historical critics. While the bad guys in this book are the historical critics, the good ones are, first, HS, who blow the whistle on them, and then von Hofmann, Machen, Bultmann and Käsemann, all of whom uphold an ‘Augustinian’ approach to historical-theological matters” (p. 517). Yarbrough is surprised at how charitable HS are to conservative biblical scholars: “Historical-critical readers will marvel at HS’s kind words for von Hofmann and Machen, especially the latter . . . .HS thus break ranks with a regnant NT scholarship in North America that follows James Barr in demonizing fundamentalists and evangelicals . . . while turning an indulgent blind eye towards its own theological bankruptcy and sometimes plain zaniness. Others are apt to be surprised that Bultmann and Käsemann are given so much credit for upholding the ‘Augustinian’ strand of Biblical interpretation. . . . HS fail to convince me that either Bultmann or Käsemann deserve much credit for upholding these venerable truths in anything like the sense that von Hofmann and Machen did. Von Hofmann reacted directly and emphatically to F. C. Baur, on both historical and theological grounds, while Bultmann and Käsemann operate completely within the Fragestellungen (approach to asking questions) that Baur bequeathed to NT research in the German university” (p. 517). HS assert that historical criticism “can neither destroy nor support faith,” which “sounds very much like a restatement of Kant’s creation of a safe haven for faith via denial of empirical knowledge’s relevance for faith. It is immensely interesting to see how HS press von Hofmann (an avowed if critical historical realist) and Machen (torchbearer of Old Princeton) into service of this view, which both men explicitly repudiated” (p. 517). HS misrepresent both von Hofmann’s and Machen’s attitude toward “written Scripture” and “preached gospel” (pp. 517–18). “The tired assumption on which HS’s argument rests (that Bultmann, and post-Bultmannian ‘Augustinian’ Protestants like Käsemann and HS, are more loyal to Luther than Bible-believing folk who unambiguously rejected Bultmann’s gospel of an unresurrected rabbinic wannabe in favor of a hypostatic figure of full confessional proportions) cannot be examined here. . . . Still, HS’s critique of historical criticism is a welcome addition to the growing literature making the same point from different angles. . . . Since von Hofmann and Machen together get only 16% of the total pages, it is not as if readers from circles traditionally addicted to historical criticism need feel that they are being weaned away from their Troeltsch cold turkey” (p. 518).

Andrew David Naselli
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School
Deerfield, Illinois
September 7, 2007

Related:

1. Review of Neill’s and Wright’s “The Interpretation of the New Testament 1861-1986″
2. Review of Yarbrough’s “The Salvation Historical Fallacy?”