A Brief Overview of Monasticism

Chapel Talk -- October 13, 2021: Introduction to Monasticism

(Mark 8:34-38)

This was written for a weekly chapel service at a local Christian school. The target audience includes students from Kindergarten to 12th grade, the faculty, and a few parents and grandparents that sometimes attend. It is obviously not a scholarly analysis but is meant to be devotional and practical for school aged children.

Introduction

This week we are thinking about monasticism. I want to give you a broad overview of when, where, and how monasticism developed, talk about some of its main features, critique some of its negative aspects, and suggest a few lessons we can learn from the monastic tradition that may be helpful in our Christian life. There are still monastics today, but I will focus on the movement historically.

Overview of Monasticism

First, what is monasticism? Monasticism refers to the devotion practiced by monks and nuns. It is the complete dedication of oneself to God, historically by renouncing an ordinary life and personal possessions and living a life of prayer and contemplation either in solitude or with other monastics. The term comes from the Greek word μοναχός which means single or solitary. Monasticism first appeared in the early AD 300s. Some people will suggest some characters in Scripture who were a type of monks whose example the monastic tradition follows, but this is reading the Bible anachronistically, i.e. reading later traditions back into the Bible where they do not actually appear. In fact, there have been monastic traditions in many world religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism, so it is not surprising that some of these practices were adopted by some Christians. But the practice did not originate with the Bible but came from other, external factors.

The Church experienced intermittent and sometimes very severe persecution in the first 300 years of its existence, but after Constantine declared an end to the persecution, Christianity became very popular in the Roman world. Many people became Christians who were not really devoted to following Christ. It was convenient to be a Christian, even if it was not really a matter of faith for some of those converts. As the visible Church became more and more worldly, there began to be more and more Christians who wished to devote themselves fully to God in a life of holiness.

The earliest monastics first appeared in Egypt. These were the Desert Fathers. Anthony, whose biography we mentioned last month since it was written by Athanasius, was the most famous, though he wanted to live in solitude and not be widely or well-known. Anthony had once been a fairly wealthy man, but after hearing the story of the rich young ruler, he decided to sell all his possessions, give the money to the poor, and live in solitary devotion to God in the wilderness. This isn’t exactly how we are supposed to apply the lessons of that story, but we can appreciate Anthony’s sincerity. There were already some Christians living in solitude in the desert, but many more followed after Anthony’s example.

There are two basic types of monasticism practiced by Christians. (These could be divided into several more kinds, but two will suffice for our purposes today.) Anchorites were monks who lived in solitude or mostly in solitude. Cenobites were monks who lived in communities dedicated to the practice of monastic devotion.

There are different features to the devotion practiced by different monastic groups, and later orders of monastics would be established with each group having its own emphases. But we can broadly summarize the main features under six headings, at least five of which were shared by all the different groups. First, celibacy: monastics were committed to living in singleness and sexual purity. Some of them even left their wives in order to become monks. Second, poverty: monastics were committed to renouncing earthly goods. Some of the communities might have possessions, but the individual monks would have nothing except a garment and, perhaps, a Bible. Sometimes they would not even have those. Third, asceticism: monastics believed that extreme self denial, refusing bodily comforts and pleasures, and even mistreatment of their bodies would make them more holy. Fourth, separation: monastics were committed to separating from human society and ordinary life. Some of them would interact with people in towns, others would not, but all of them shared a commitment to being aloof from the rest of the world. Fifth, prayer: monastics devoted most of their time throughout the day and night to prayer and contemplation. This would include memorizing large portions of Scripture, frequently the entire Book of Psalms and the NT. Sixth, in the case of cenobites living in a commune, obedience: monastics would vow complete obedience to their superior, usually the chief monk in the community.

Monasticism has a number of negative features, but there were also many positive results. Monks copied the Scriptures carefully and preserved not only the Bible but many ancient works of literature and Christian writings that we continue to benefit from today. Monasticism preserved and advanced learning and culture during times when upheaval in the world threatened it. Some monks also became great teachers and reformers within the Church, including Martin Luther who was a monk when he became a Protestant.

Critique of Monasticism

There are a number of positive things we could say about monasticism, but there are also some negative things we must say. First, monasticism depends on a twofold concept of morality. This means that there are varying levels of devotion that might be acceptable to God, and that some are better than others. So an ordinary Christian might be able to be married and have a house and a job, but the monk is much holier because he has none of those things. It is true that God calls Christians to different types of service, but this is not because of a difference in the moral value of those choices, only because the Lord does not give everyone the same job in the kingdom.

Second, monasticism depends on the idea of asceticism. Remember that asceticism is the belief that self denial and mistreating the body will make you holy. There is a type of asceticism that is good and commanded by God. We see that in Mark 8:34. But you are not more holy because you never eat Oreos or because you stay up all night or because you sleep on the ground. It is good to practice self discipline. But these kinds of manmade rules do not make a person more pleasing to God.

Third, monasticism denies the moral and spiritual value of enjoying the good things God has given to us. It is certainly possible for us to indulge too much in the pleasures of this world. But pleasure itself is not the problem; it is our sinful desires and idolatrous misuse of God’s good gifts that are wrong. God meant for marriage, food, rest, and friendship to be enjoyed. Monasticism views these as lesser goods, but God made the world very good, and even though it is marred and cursed by sin, we glorify him by enjoying his good gifts with thanksgiving.

Application

What can we learn positively from monasticism? I think the answer is a lot! Even though there is a lot to criticize in the monastic tradition, there are also a lot of good lessons we can learn. First, we can learn a more rigorous commitment to holiness. It is easy to make excuses about our sin and to think lightly about the demands of discipleship. Monasticism reminds us that being a Christian means following Christ in every aspect of our life, every day, and all day and all night.

Second, we can learn to pursue a simpler and less worldly life. You do not have to sell everything that you own and actually live in the desert, but most of us would probably benefit from having less stuff and caring a lot less about our stuff. Getting rid of some of our worldly possessions can free up our minds and our time for the things of God.

Third, we can learn to spend more time in prayer and spiritual contemplation. Most monastics would pray the entire Book of Psalms once a week or every two weeks. They would pray at fixed hours every day, including in the middle of the night. They would organize their entire day around prayer and direct their thoughts to God throughout the day no matter what else they were doing. You may not follow the same rules for prayer that they did, but their example reminds us that we should seek to live a life of prayer and not merely to have a prayer life. Amen. --JME

Whether to Repent of Lent

This week is the beginning of Lent, a forty day fast in preparation for the Lord’s resurrection, a season also characterized, at least online, by forty days of parody, pointed criticism, and conflict between believers who observe Lent and Reformed Christians who reject it. Lent is an ancient practice, already well-established by the Council of Nicea in AD 325. But it grew increasingly corrupt during the medieval period, and the Reformers criticized it as one part of a larger system of tradition and superstition that was without biblical warrant. Many of the Puritans rejected it altogether, along with the rest of the Church’s traditional calendar. Reformed believers today are divided on the propriety and usefulness of the tradition, and that division is sometimes sharp and even personal.

I have never observed Lent, and I am not recommending the practice here. I would vigorously oppose its establishment as a required service in our congregation, regarding that as an unbiblical intrusion upon liberty of conscience. I can tell my congregation it is God’s revealed will for them to gather for worship on the Lord’s Day. I cannot make the same claim for Ash Wednesday or any special Lenten service. The religious calendar in the New Covenant is much simpler than the Old Testament Church or the medieval Roman system. The New Covenant calendar has one holy day on it, and it comes around fifty-two times each year.

At the same time, I do not interpret the Regulative Principle in such a way as to forbid the Church or individuals setting aside special days and seasons of lamentation, repentance, prayer, and worship. The OPC Book of Church Order rightly affirms:

Under the gospel, we are commanded to keep no other particular day holy, except the Lord's Day. Nevertheless, God's people may observe special occasions as the dispensations of God's providence administer cause and opportunity. Such observance is both consonant with Scripture and pastorally appropriate. (DPW V)

Prayer and fasting may be observed by private individuals and families at their discretion or by the Church at the discretion of the appropriate judicatory. (DPW V.A.5)

It is especially appropriate on days of prayer and fasting called by the Church that the people of God gather for a time of prayer, the singing of psalms and hymns, and the reading and preaching of the Word of God. Let them lament their distress or unworthiness before the Lord, confess their sins, humbly implore the Lord for deliverance from the judgment present or imminent or for the blessing sought, and commit themselves anew to the faithful service of the Lord their God. It is fitting on such days that God's people abstain from food and from such activities as may distract from their solemn engagement in prayer. (DPW V.A.4)

My heartfelt desire and ambition is to be biblical, orthodox, catholic, and reformed. I grew up in and eventually left a tradition that prided itself on being unlike every other Christian tradition through most of the last two thousand years. I have no desire to ever be part of such a tradition again. The Scots Presbyterian Church is not the only Reformed tradition, and its antipathy toward the evangelical feast days is an unnecessary, and arguably unhelpful, custom. We can be unapologetically Reformed and unwaveringly committed to sola Scriptura while admitting our relation to the broader, historic Church and marking significant days in redemptive history. We can and should critique and reject practices that are contrary to the revealed religion of Christ, even while making careful distinctions lest we mistake a sermon on Christ’s resurrection in April as akin to addressing the pastoral prayer to the Virgin Mary.

Scripture is our ultimate and final authority, but we receive, read, and respond to Scripture within the community, history, and tradition of the Church. If our interpretation of the Bible is unprecedented or contrary to the majority report across multiple traditions throughout most of the Church’s history, we need to carefully re-examine our conclusions. At the end of the day, nothing is right because it is old or adopted by most. Scripture is the test of orthodoxy. But Christ promised to build and preserve his Church (Matt. 16:18), and we can trust that his Church, though imperfect, has endured in faith and worship throughout time.

Lent is certainly an ancient and widely attested tradition. It is not a biblically commanded one. It may be lawful for a believer to observe Lent in humbling himself before Christ, but it should not be practiced at the expense or to the neglect of the reading of the Law and confession of sin on the Lord’s Day and the daily examination and repentance in which the Psalms lead us. Piety begins with and continues in obedience. Whatever else may be helpful as an aid to a life of worship, that life must always be grounded in what the Lord commanded. --JME

Resources

Michael Horton offered a few thoughts on the subject in 2010. His comments are balanced and helpful.

Jonathan Landry Cruse asked appropriate questions in Modern Reformation in 2020.

James Merrick’s response to Carl Trueman and the latter’s rejoinder in 2015 is an informative exchange. You can find those pieces HERE and HERE (and the original essay by Trueman, which I think is less helpful, HERE).

Calvin on Baptism

I am edified every time I read Book IV Chapter 15 in Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. It is the first of two chapters in the Institutes in which Calvin expounds the doctrine of baptism. It is a chapter that could have corrected many misunderstandings I had of the sacrament in my youth and early ministry. It continues to instruct, enlighten, and encourage me as I seek to grow in understanding, consistency, and biblical fidelity with regard to the rite.

Calvin was a prolific author, preacher, and commentator, so no single chapter, in the Institutes or anywhere else in Calvin’s body of work, can be thought to be the sum of his perspective and teaching on any given topic. But his treatise on baptism in Institutes IV.15 is exceedingly helpful in grasping the logic, unity, and theology of baptism he sees in Scripture.

As I reread the chapter this week in preparation for preaching on baptism this Lord’s Day, I was struck, yet again, by a sense of my own inadequacy in handling this (and every other) Christian doctrine. I am tempted simply to read the relevant Scripture references, then Calvin’s comments, and then close with prayer. I have no ambition to add to what Calvin already said so well, and I find very little room for its improvement.

Nevertheless, God called me to be a preacher and not merely a reader, so I will not be substituting Calvin’s words for my own exposition. But in commending the chapter to you, let me highlight several portions that are particularly insightful, helpful, and sweet to the soul of those who trust in the Christ whose Name was placed upon them in baptism.

(All of the following quotations are from Beveridge’s translation of the Institutes that is in the public domain. My apologies to all who prefer Battles. This one is easier to copy and paste.)

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. (15.1)

We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins. For though, when once administered, it seems to have passed, it is not abolished by subsequent sins. For the purity of Christ was therein offered to us, always is in force, and is not destroyed by any stain: it wipes and washes away all our defilements. (15.3)

Christ by baptism has made us partakers of his death, ingrafting us into it. (15.5)

For in this way also he promises us in baptism, and shows by a given sign that we are led by his might, and delivered from the captivity of Egypt, that is, from the bondage of sin, that our Pharaoh is drowned; in other words, the devil, although he ceases not to try and harass us…. The cloud was a symbol of purification (Num. 9:18). For as the Lord then covered them by an opposite cloud, and kept them cool, that they might not faint or pine away under the burning rays of the sun; so in baptism we perceive that we are covered and protected by the blood of Christ, lest the wrath of God, which is truly an intolerable flame, should lie upon us. (15.9)

Believers become assured by baptism, that this condemnation is entirely withdrawn from them, since (as has been said) the Lord by this sign promises that a full and entire remission has been made, both of the guilt which was imputed to us, and the penalty incurred by the guilt. They also apprehend righteousness, but such righteousness as the people of God can obtain in this life—viz. by imputation only, God, in his mercy, regarding them as righteous and innocent. (15.10)

Baptism, indeed, tells us that our Pharaoh is drowned and sin mortified; not so, however, as no longer to exist, or give no trouble, but only so as not to have dominion. For as long as we live shut up in this prison of the body, the remains of sin dwell in us, but if we faithfully hold the promise which God has given us in baptism, they will neither rule nor reign. (15.11)

We ought to hold that we are baptised for the mortification of our flesh, which is begun in baptism, is prosecuted every day, and will be finished when we depart from this life to go to the Lord. (15.11)

Hence he teaches that those whom the Lord has once admitted into favour, and ingrafted into communion with Christ, and received into the fellowship of the Church by baptism, are freed from guilt and condemnation while they persevere in the faith of Christ, though they may be beset by sin and thus bear sin about with them. (15.12)

Baptism serves as our confession before men, inasmuch as it is a mark by which we openly declare that we wish to be ranked among the people of God, by which we testify that we concur with all Christians in the worship of one God, and in one religion; by which, in short, we publicly assert our faith, so that not only do our hearts breathe, but our tongues also, and all the members of our body, in every way they can, proclaim the praise of God. (15.13)

For inasmuch as it is appointed to elevate, nourish, and confirm our faith, we are to receive it as from the hand of its author, being firmly persuaded that it is himself who speaks to us by means of the sign; that it is himself who washes and purifies us, and effaces the remembrance of our faults; that it is himself who makes us the partakers of his death, destroys the kingdom of Satan, subdues the power of concupiscence, nay, makes us one with himself, that being clothed with him we may be accounted the children of God. (15.14)

But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. (15.15)

God in baptism promises the remission of sins, and will undoubtedly perform what he has promised to all believers. That promise was offered to us in baptism, let us therefore embrace it in faith. In regard to us, indeed, it was long buried on account of unbelief; now, therefore, let us with faith receive it. Wherefore, when the Lord invites the Jewish people to repentance, he gives no injunction concerning another circumcision, though (as we have said) they were circumcised by a wicked and sacrilegious hand, and had long lived in the same impiety. All he urges is conversion of heart. For how much soever the covenant might have been violated by them, the symbol of the covenant always remained, according to the appointment of the Lord, firm and inviolable. Solely, therefore, on the condition of repentance, were they restored to the covenant which God had once made with them in circumcision, though this which they had received at the hand of a covenant-breaking priest, they had themselves as much as in them lay polluted and extinguished. (15.17)

Our children, before they are born, God declares that he adopts for his own when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. In this promise their salvation is included. None will dare to offer such an insult to God as to deny that he is able to give effect to his promise. (15.20)

Hence it follows, that the children of believers are not baptised, in order that though formerly aliens from the Church, they may then, for the first time, become children of God, but rather are received into the Church by a formal sign, because, in virtue of the promise, they previously belonged to the body of Christ. (15.22)

There are two places in the chapter where I take issue with Calvin’s analysis, and I freely admit my dissent may be due to my own ignorance rather than the author’s error. Nevertheless, Calvin was an uninspired man, even if very inspiring, and so is subject to biblical critique and correction the same as any exegete or expositor today. I remain unconvinced by his handling of Acts 19:1-7 and continue to believe these disciples were baptized (a second time) with water. It seems to me Calvin’s historical context may have prevented him from admitting this due to the debates surrounding re-baptism of those who had first received the sacrament from Rome. I also am unpersuaded by his comment in IV.15.19 that “the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive church.” The word certainly can mean that and does in certain passages from antiquity. Immersion was practiced by some in the ancient church, not all, but whatever the earliest mode may have been is not ultimately authoritative for the Church’s practice today. Calvin is not arguing that immersion is essential to the proper administration of baptism as most Baptists do. But his comment is based upon a failure to distinguish between the meaning of a term and the semantic range of a word. Immersion is certainly encompassed in the latter with regard to the various Greek words related to baptism. Whether it is properly identified as the former depends entirely on the context in which it appears. --JME

Baptism and Historical Novelty

One of the more persuasive arguments against the Reformed doctrine of paedobaptism is the charge of historical novelty. Before I became convinced the Reformed were correct to baptize the infants and children of believers as members of the visible covenant community, I would often comment that Reformed infant baptism was a beautiful idea but altogether unattested prior to the fifteenth century. The same argument is often made by Baptists in debates with paedobaptists. The indictment is this: the Reformers retained the Roman practice of infant baptism but were forced to create a new justification for it in view of their Reformed doctrine of salvation. No longer could the baptismal regeneration of infants be affirmed—as Rome and the early church, including Augustine, taught. Therefore, Calvin formulated a novel defense of baptism based on OT covenant models. This justification is unattested prior to the Reformation and misreads the NT by failing to recognize the newness of the New Covenant, or so the Baptists say.

The earliest history of the church in terms of the practice of baptism is obviously in dispute. Both Baptists and paedobaptists are convinced the historical record is on their side, but due to the occasional nature of the earliest Christian literature outside of the NT, it is unsettled whether the baptism of infants was the universal practice of the church in the first three or four centuries. What is clear is that by the fourth or fifth century infant baptism was the universal practice of both the eastern and western church and continued to be so until 1522 when the Anabaptists rejected infant baptism and launched a theological tradition that continues to this day.

So who is the historical novelist? The charge of innovation by Calvin is worthy of serious consideration. I am satisfied Calvin’s rationale is not novel and was, indeed, a reform of infant baptism along biblical, historical, and theological lines. But even if we grant that Calvin’s justification was innovative or previously unattested, how can we avoid making the same charge to the modern Baptist objection to infant baptism? No one in the early or medieval church made the argument for credobaptism that Baptists do today. In fact, the earliest critic of paedobaptism, Tertullian writing at the beginning of the third century, raises his objection on the basis of theological assumptions no modern Baptist would affirm, that post-baptism sins cannot be forgiven.[1] Moreover, Tertullian was evidently arguing against the typical (universal?) practice of the church in his day. If infant baptism was so thoroughly entrenched in the church’s practice by the beginning of the third century, a strong argument can be made for its presence in apostolic times.

The historical data must be confronted fairly, and Reformed paedobaptists must beware of reading the church fathers anachronistically in light of the Reformation. But Baptists do not have the historical high ground. Indeed, they are arriving late to the party. For the theological descendants of Hubmaier and the Anabaptists to charge Reformed paedobaptists with affirming a novel view of baptism is rather hypocritical. If anything, both the Reformed paedobaptist and the credobaptist would seem vulnerable to the same charge from Lutheran, Anglican, and even Roman Catholic theologians. Both Reformed paedobaptists and Baptists (reformed or not) believe their view of baptism is biblical and historical. The issue ultimately must be settled by exegesis, not by charges of historical novelty or anachronism, which could be argued by both sides. –JME

---

[1] Cf. Aaron Denlinger, “The First Baptist Theologian: Tertullian of Carthage (c.160 – c.225)” Reformation 21 http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2014/10/the-first-baptist-theologian-t.php (accessed March 3, 2015).

The Importance of Tradition

“Tradition is the living faith of the dead.
Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.” –Jaroslav Pelikan

“Recognizing the ancient church’s commitment to articulating and defending the historic, orthodox Christian faith against false teaching, we also affirm the four ancient creeds: the Apostles’, Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian Creeds. These are faithful and biblical confessions, particularly in clarifying the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation of Christ.” –RBC General Statement of Faith, Article X

Modern evangelicalism is so wed to the spirit of this age that many Christians have little acquaintance with or use for Church history, ancient creeds, Reformed confessions, and the truly catholic (universal) traditions of the Christian Church. Many do not know or care about their history, and we all are poorer as a result. Christianity cannot be unfastened from its historical roots, because the Christian faith is founded on the belief God acted in history and unfolded His redemptive plan, not just in our lives or lifetime, but over thousands of years through men and women who lived and died in hope of the resurrection. Christianity is a historical faith, so any expression of it that denies, discards, or otherwise undermines that history is essentially un-Christian.

           

Oftentimes when people think of “tradition” they think of boring, narrow-minded, formulaic routines that mean little to those that practice them. Some think this way about hymns and responsive readings, creeds and confessions, or weekly communion. It certainly is possible for any or all of these to become meaningless repetition. If we sing those hymns without thinking about them, without speaking those words from the heart to each other and to God, then we are not worshipping at all. The same could be said for each element of worship.

           

While we must constantly beware of the temptation of traditionalism, we should also continually be mindful of the importance of tradition. We are not the first Christians to walk the earth, read the Bible, “do church,” or seek to evangelize the world. We need less innovation and more serious biblical and historical contemplation of the reality of God's presence and work in and among His people since the dawn of creation. We ought to learn from tradition, not rely on it for our authority, but appreciate what it has to teach us and how much we depend upon it, whether we realize it or not. History has a tendency to humble us, to place in proper perspective our role in light of God’s larger scheme. Such humility is always appropriate for Christians and churches. –JME

Wellhausen and the Documentary Theory

This paper was written for a Church History class last fall. It is only a brief introduction to the issues involved, but I hope you will find it useful and/or interesting. -JME

Julius Wellhausen and
The Documentary Theory of Pentateuchal Origins

Introduction

Julius Wellhausen was born in Germany in 1844, the son of a Protestant pastor.[1] Wellhausen intended to follow his father into the ministry and began studying theology at Gottingen in 1862.[2] Ultimately, he chose to pursue an academic rather than pastoral career. Wellhausen served as a professor of theology at Greifswald for ten years, from 1872-1882. During these years, Wellhausen began to publicize the unorthodox views on Pentateuchal origins that would forever mark him in the annals of Old Testament scholarship. The publication of his landmark Geschichte Israels, I in 1878 generated considerable controversy, and Wellhausen eventually realized he could not remain true to himself and provide seminarians the theological preparation they needed for ministry.[3] Wellhausen was preeminently a historian, not a theologian.[4] He resigned his position as professor of theology and became a lecturer for several years, eventually settling once again in an academic post as a professor of Semitic languages.[5]

The Documentary Theory that will forever be associated with Julius Wellhausen was not conceived by him.[6] The theory was formulated by other scholars, but Wellhausen’s “skill as a linguist and his literary sensitivity enabled him to establish his positions with great thoroughness and care.”[7] Although his theory was not unique, Wellhausen is credited with giving it “such forceful and brilliant expression that a ‘paradigm shift’ began to be established.”[8] He prompted “a flood-tide of opinion” that profoundly influenced Old Testament study.[9]

            Julius Wellhausen forever changed the course of biblical scholarship. Though well-intentioned, he legitimized scholarly skepticism of the biblical documents and undermined both the internal testimony and external traditions associated with the scriptures. We will briefly summarize the Documentary Theory advanced by Wellhausen, the religious motivations involved in it, and the result for Old Testament scholarship.

Wellhausen and the Documentary Theory

Wellhausen was not the first to suggest the books of Moses were actually late compositions arranged from various literary sources, but his restatement of this Documentary Theory was skillful and persuasive.[10] The professor viewed Old Testament history as a compilation of mythological interpretations of religious traditions, not a historical account of Israel’s origins.[11] He accepted a historical Moses had, in some way, founded the Israelite religion, but he denied any of the biblical documents could be dated to his time.[12] He believed claims of Mosaic authorship were not meant to suggest Moses actually wrote these documents but were intended to bolster the documents’ authority by association with a prominent, historical character.

In his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, Wellhausen proposed to discuss whether the “law is the starting-point for the history of ancient Israel, or not rather for that of Judaism, i.e., of the religious communion which survived the destruction of the nation by the Assyrians and Chaldeans.”[13] His initial interest in the history of the Pentateuch arose from his inability to reconcile the Israelite history found in the historical narratives (e.g. Samuel and Kings) with the prescriptions codified in the books of Law.[14] Rejecting the evidence for Mosaic authorship found in Jewish tradition and the New Testament writings, Wellhausen believed the only means of discovering the origins of the Law was by analysis of the contents coupled with extra-biblical history.[15] He concluded that little more than half of the Old Testament, excepting the Pentateuch, was composed prior to the exile in Babylon.[16]

            In 1822 Friederich Bleek proposed the final written form of the Mosaic tradition should be viewed as a Hexateuch, to include Joshua as a sixth book, rather than the five-fold Pentateuch.[17] By 1860, Old Testament critical scholars had reached a consensus on the composition of the Hexateuch. They agreed Deuteronomy was written in the seventh century B.C. and that the Hexateuch, with the exception of limited post-exilic contributions, had begun to reflect its present form at the hands of Deuteronomic editors in the seventh and sixth centuries.[18]

Eventually scholars proposed four major literary sources which were collated and edited to form the Hexateuch as known in modern times. The Jahwist source (J) was written around 850 B.C. by an anonymous writer in the Southern kingdom of Judah. The Elohist source (E) was written about 750 B.C. by an anonymous writer in the Northern Kingdom of Israel. The Deuteronomic source (D) was written to support the reforms of King Josiah during the revival of 621 B.C. The Priestly source (P) was written in stages between 570 and 400 B.C.[19]

            Wellhausen supported the JEDP arrangement on the basis of an evolutionary theory of origins.[20] He affirmed the Pentateuch “is no literary unity, and no simple historical quantity.”[21] The original elements had to be disentangled. Wellhausen considered the main portion to be “historical only in form; the history serves merely as a framework on which to arrange the legislative material, or as a mask to disguise it.”[22]

Wellhausen’s Motivation for Historical Criticism

            The leading proponents in the new field of higher criticism believed faith would be strengthened by the discipline, benefiting from a solid, historical foundation rather than blind acceptance of outdated tradition.[23] The older view of the Old Testament as a prophetic collection pointing to Jesus Christ was “being replaced by a fresh and more scholarly apologetic which showed that in the Old Testament were to be found the moral and spiritual foundations of a universal religion.”[24] Many scholars from various philosophical, theological, and ecclesiastical backgrounds embraced critical study, confident they had common cause in the search for truth.[25]

            It is true Wellhausen shows signs of Hegelian philosophical idealism.[26] But it is also true he considered uncovering the true origins of Israel’s religion to be “an achievement of immense religious and spiritual worth.”[27] Readers can perceive “a deep religious feeling, and a very real sensitivity to theological issues” in Wellhausen’s work.[28] He considered the preaching of Jesus to be the “crowning glory” of Old Testament religion.[29]

Wellhausen’s Lasting Influence

            The speculation of higher criticism was largely ignored until deism created an environment which favored “historical skepticism and rejection of the supernatural.”[30] Once historical criticism of the Old Testament literature was accepted, it permeated the rest of religious scholarship, transforming the discipline by introducing a new paradigm.[31] Once the historicity of the Bible was undermined, the theology derived from it suffered as well.

            Subsequent scholars took Wellhausen’s basic premise even further.[32] William Robertson Smith built upon the assumptions of the Wellhausen theory and assumed Old Testament history was largely contrived based on oral traditions.[33] Others described portions of the Old Testament history not as “conscious perversion” but as “unconscious idealization,” affirming the documents could still be viewed as inspired even if not historically accurate.[34]

            Whereas Wellhausen’s analysis focused on the historical origins of the Hexateuch, men like Gerhard von Rad (1901-71) questioned why the sources were written at all, speculating on what kind of God was imagined by those who composed such stories.[35]

Eventually Wellhausen’s theory was disproven and largely discarded even by liberal scholars. Twentieth century scholarship eviscerated the “neat, tight structure erected by the Documentary Theory.”[36] But by and large, “even those scholars who have repudiated Wellhausen have shown no tendency to embrace a more conservative view of the origin of the books of Moses.”[37] Wellhausen legitimized skepticism of the biblical documents. His basic assumption Moses did not write any book remains. No longer do scholars assume the truthfulness or historicity of the canon. They presuppose its claims are not factual, but contrived.

Conclusion

            Julius Wellhausen was a gifted scholar and writer who began with, an apparently sincere, desire to study the word of God more carefully and uncover its historical foundation. But deism, rationalism, and modernism had challenged belief in the supernatural intervention of an immanent God for one hundred and fifty years prior to his birth. Within this environment Wellhausen approached the biblical text with flawed assumptions which biased his conclusions. If we exclude the possibility of the miraculous and divine interaction with the affairs of men described in scripture, we cannot claim to be engaged in unbiased study. Sadly it was Wellhausen’s influence which legitimized skeptical scholarship and ended, perhaps forever, the willingness of many scholars to take seriously the supernatural and historical aspects of scripture.

 

---

[1] Ronald Clements, One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976) 7.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 6-7.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid., 1.

[7] Clements, 10.

[8] John Rogerson, Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. (London, England: Fortress, 1985),  260.

[9] Ibid., 268.

[10] Gleason L. Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1964), 79.

[11] Clements, 31.

[12] Rogerson, 267.

[13] Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. (Gloucester, MA: Meridian, 1958), 1.

[14] Ibid., 3.

[15] Wellhausen, 2.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Archer, 76.

[18] Rogerson, 257.

[19] Archer, 81.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Wellhausen, 6.

[22] Wellhausen, 7.

[23] Clements, 2.

[24] Ibid., 2.

[25] Ibid., 3.

[26] Clements, 3.

[27] Ibid., 12.

[28] Ibid., 11.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Archer, 73.

[31] Clements, 143.

[32] Ibid., 13-14.

[33] Rogerson, 278.

[34] Rogerson, 284.

[35] Clements, 24.

[36] Archer, 94.

[37] Ibid., 94.

Bibliography

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago, IL: Moody, 1964.

Clements, Ronald E. One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1976.

Rogerson, John. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London, England: Fortress, 1985.

Wellhausen, Julius. Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel. Gloucester, MA: Meridian, 1958.

PDF