seventeenth century onward the die was cast in the Western world for a "proper" hermeneutical
methodological approach to Scripture divorced from the very authoritativeness of that Scripture.
From now on any valid hermeneutical approach to Scripture needed to entail the use of the
scholarly historical-critical tools currently in vogue at the time in order to investigate the truth
claims of the Bible in light of reason. Whether it was the text-critical and source-critical tools of
the eighteenth century, the philological and historical-critical tools of the nineteenth century, or
the demythologizing existential tools of the twentieth century, the overarching hermeneutical
methodology that underlay them all was based upon historical criticism: humankinds rational
investigation of the biblical text. So much so, that in years immediately after the Second World
War historical criticism reigned supreme.
That historical criticism reigned supreme following World War Two is not hyperbole. It not only
dominated the Western world; it was subsequently carried throughout the non-Western world by
the huge onslaught of Western missionaries sent out following the War, as well as by the
thousands of non-Westerners who came to the West to study. The popularity of historical
criticism was not limited to the more "liberal" Protestant denominations, despite historical
underpinnings that questioned the very authority of the Bible itself. For example, though
American fundamentalists in the early twentieth century refused to use the historical-critical
tools, (and a few groups still refuse to do so), the majority of mainline evangelicals became
increasingly open to the use of historical criticism, but without its inherent anti-God bias. Today
studying the various historical-critical tools is an integral part of the normal course work of most
evangelical seminaries throughout the world.
But not all has been well in the historical-critical kingdom since the end of the Second World
War. Cries against historical criticism have arisen from time to time. Several Western
theologians began to call for either a return to a hermeneutical methodology based upon a major
refinement of historical criticism as currently practiced, or for the abandonment of historical
criticism in its entirety.
upon historical criticism, such as structural, sociological and philosophical hermeneutics.
Many of the attacks leveled at historical criticism over the past thirty years or so have come about
because of the changing worldviews, philosophies and epistemologies of Bible scholars striving
to make the Bible more relevant in our post-modern world. I, myself, have argued elsewhere
against the appropriateness of historical criticism on this basis.
evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries, I am seeing now that the reason for my--and
others--hesitations concerning historical criticism should not be rooted solely in the fact of our
10. For further analysis of these three hermeneutical approaches see Caldwell 1990:54-63.
11. See, for example, Caldwell 1999 and 2000.