A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs

by Mark S. Gignilliat

Mark Gignilliat discusses critical theologians and their theories of Old Testament interpretation in this concise overview, providing a working knowledge of the historical foundation of contemporary discussions on Old Testament interpretation. Old Testament interpretation developed as theologians and scholars proposed critical theories over time. These figures contributed to a large, developing complex of ideas and trends that serves as the foundation of contemporary discussions on interpretation. Mark Gignilliat brings these figures and their theories together in A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism . His discussion is driven by influential thinkers such as Baruch Spinoza and the critical tradition, Johann Semler and historical criticism, Hermann Gunkel and romanticism, Gerhard von Rad and the tradition-historical approach, Brevard Childs and the canonical approach, and more. This concise overview is ideal for classroom use as it provides a working knowledge of the major critical interpreters of the Old Testament, their approach to the subject matter, and the philosophical background of their approaches. Further reading lists direct readers to additional resources on specific theologians and theories. This book will serve as a companion to the forthcoming textbook Believing Criticism by Richard Schultz.

Genres: Theology, Old Testament, Church History, Biblical Studies, Religion

192 pages, Paperback

First published May 29, 2012

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

Gignilliat, Mark. A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism.

This is a great intellectual snapshot of Old Testament studies from the last 300 years.

Spinoza: he first tries to show the connection between Descartes’ rationalism and Spinoza’s conclusions. There is a movement away from the substance of the things themselves to the actual thinking process.

Much of Spinoza’s argument consists of typical academic grand-standing: we are neutral, etc. He does make one important claim: the bible doesn’t make metaphysical claims. Not surprisingly, this allows Spinoza to operate on a hidden metaphysical claim: deism. Another payoff (or more likely, crippling debt) from Spinoza’s method is the view that the Bible is a natural book with a natural history.

In light of that, Spinoza’s natural history denies Mosaic authorship, places divine law in naturalistic categories, and rejects miracles because scientific law is absolute.

W. M. L. De Wette: History Becomes Religion

Biblical critic as romantic rationalist. While de Wette himself was probably a critic, he claims that Johann Herder protected him from the wasteland of biblical criticism. Herder had rejected the Enlightenment’s devaluing of historical particulars. The Enlightenment also ignored the relationship between language and culture. Herder even suggested a link between language, culture, and consciousness.

Unfortunately, de Wette’s foundation, already weakened by criticism, was shattered by Kant. The result is that we now focus on “timeless truths,” truths that only exist outside of space and time. To be fair, de Wette saw where this was going and backed off.

De Wette later discovered Schelling’s lectures on art, where Schelling argued that art manifests the Absolute. The surprising payoff is that this meant that Kant’s dominant philosophy was only a partial reflection of the Absolute.

Julius Wellhausen: Israel’s History and Literary Sources

He says he learned from Ritschl that Graf said the law came after the prophets chronologically. Wellhausen’s project aimed to reconstruct Israel’s history from various sources. Well. wasn’t simply saying that there were different authors for the Pentateuch. That wasn’t new. He used those various sources to construct an Israelite religion based off that most pure form of human expression: 19th century German liberalism.

Herman Gunkel

While he began on a promising note that we must understand the writings as the ancient Hebrews did, leading to the idea of a Sitz im Leben, Gunkel never transcended the methodological naturalism that crippled German scholarship.

Gerhard von Rad

Von Rad’s life was filled with dangerous irony. He championed the OT but was appointed by Nazis to teach at Jena. He openly condemned the Nazi church but was later forced into the German army. He ended the war as a prisoner of war in an American camp.

Problem of the Hexateuch: Moses + Joshua.

Brevard Childs

While he lived in the Northeast growing up, Childs had the background and manner of a Southern aristocrat. He taught himself Greek while on the way to World War II.

When Childs was in Europe, he studied under the legends of the time.

Conclusion

Behind almost all of these critics is a desire to get to the reality “behind the text,” whether it is “ultimate feeling” or “real history.” The author does a good job in showing the influence of German philosophical movements on the critics without reducing the critics’ position to German romanticism.

[h.f. · Rating 5 out of 5]

Both this book & another taught me that I appreciate works whose goal is to give an introductory overview of a certain issue or topic (specifically relating to theology & biblical studies). Books like these help me gain some framework for certain concepts I know little to nothing about.


(Also— fun fact: I accidentally read the assigned reading for NEXT week first, so I had to cram the rest of the book last minute 😀 Happy grad school!)

[Zac Reeves · Rating 5 out of 5]

A helpful and accessible introduction to the conversation of Old Testament Criticism.

[Nathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Whose afraid of Old Testament criticism? For the last hundred years, the world of evangelical Christians was quaking. However, in this helpful introductory volume, Gignilliat lays out a brief summary of the life and works of seven towering figures in OT crit. (Spinoza, de Wette, Wellhausen, Gunkel, von Rad, Albright, and Childs), then he contends for synthetic ways that the Church and the academy can talk.

One of my favorite parts of ABHOT was the biographies at the beginning of each chapter. For instance, German giant Julius Wellhausen is rumored to have swam on Sunday mornings just to annoy pious church-goers. Or Wilhelm de Wette's dissertation at the University of Jena in 1804 was just sixteen pages (!). I can only guess how many floundering graduate students wish they had a time machine...

For most of this books readership, the best part of Gignilliat's angle is his confessional-yet-critical stance. He wants to drink deeply from the well of his academic predecessors, but he refuses to drink so much as to lose his sense of his true identity in the Church. A dictum that has helped me throughout seminary is also a common touchstone for him: Credo ut intelligam (Anselm). I believe in order to understand (I would argue that Augustine, Barth, and I think even Anselm also affirm the inverse: Intelligo ut credam. I understand in order to believe). This openness to the good things that the human intellect can achieve is hopeful yet careful. We don't accord full authority to reason, but we mustn't eschew it altogether. In this spiral between faith and reason, Christian scholars are called to use their minds, which are always in the process of being more and more sanctified to our norm. As Paul wryly notes in 1 Corinthians, we do not have the mind of God - but we do have the mind of Christ!

[Ethan · Rating 4 out of 5]

An investigation into the history of Old Testament criticism through biographical inquiries into many of the major characters involved: Spinoza, de Wette, Wellhausen, Gunkel, von Rad, Albright, and Childs.

The author admits that his investigation is limited, that he comes about things with a conservative viewpoint and a high esteem for Childs, and that there is plenty more to say about the subject and about other figures involved.

Nevertheless, for a beginner or the interested observer, the book does well at introducing some of the major characters involved in OT criticism, their backgrounds, the ecclesiastical, academic, cultural, and philosophical influences in their lives and how they were guided by those influences and/or reacted against them, the great contributions (for better or worse) of each character, the impact they had on the field, and their enduring legacy to this day.

If you've always been interested in how OT criticism has come to be as it is, and why it places so much emphasis on certain foci, this book will prove very useful and helpful.

**book received as part of an early review program

[Kevin Choate · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very dull book, but a great intro into the complexities surrounding the depth of the Old Testament.

[Johnny · Rating 4 out of 5]

You can tell when a book has been written as a textbook for an introductory course and A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs is clearly such a book. I didn’t pick it up as a textbook, however. I picked it up to learn more about men whose work had touched my life and my work. I also picked it up out of guilt for not reading more of the primary sources in Spinoza, Wellhausen, and de Wette. Reading this book was somewhat like auditing an Old Testament Introduction course with an energetic professor. I might know a lot about the subject, but there were potholes in the infrastructure of my mind that needed to be filled in.

When the title tells you that a book is “brief,” one might well think that it is superficial. This one is not. It is fair, it is insightful, and it is useful. The only reason it is “brief” is because author Mark S. Gignilliat limited his scope to some of the giants in the field and didn’t follow the usual temptation of attempting “giant-slaying” in his commentary. Rather, he presents a summary of the life and career of each scholar, presenting the salient ideas and methodologies in a relatively objective format. Then, he offers some conclusions which touch on both the limitations and the promise of the approaches from a given scholar. He deals respectfully, even with those who would seem far from congruent with his own position.

So, the first scholar is Spinoza and his ultra-rationalism. Spinoza insisted that, “Put simply, theology has to do with morality, and philosophy has to do with truth. To conflate these two is to confuse the particular form of knowledge each sphere yields.” (p. 17) While it is clear that Gignilliat (like me) has issues with this compartmentalization of human understanding, he simply presents

Spinoza’s understanding of Scripture’s nature and understanding as being subordinated to human intellectual autonomy (p. 25). To twist a cliché, the faith quest for Spinoza becomes a “one-way seek.” As Gignilliat notes, “He turns sola scriptura into nuda scriptura, that is, Scripture stripped of any theological or ecclesial context. In effect, sola scriptura is reduced to the individual’s own interpretive instincts and guidelines.” (p. 26) Later, Gignilliat hits upon one of the significant weaknesses in Spinoza’s approach: “Spinoza’s desire for the general and universal blushes in the face of the Old Testament’s particularity.” (p. 32)
In effect, Spinoza’s work demonstrated the tendency in the European church for the academic study of the Bible to be moving from the theology faculty toward the history and classics departments (p. 38).

In reaction to this was the work of W. M. L. de Wette. De Wette was extremely influenced by the Romantic movement and intellects such as J. Herder. His concern was that the Kantian rationalism that was permeating academia at the time “…leaves one only with morality, resulting in an absence of beauty and feeling (e.g., aesthetics)” and “…fell like a damp squib into his soul, extinguishing the holy fire of devotion and leaving in its place a dismal darkness.” (p. 42) So, he emphasized that metaphysical truths were culturally dependent (p. 50) and didn’t want to expunge the supernatural from the historical, even though he didn’t have a high confidence in the history (p. 43).

Moving along, few have not heard of Julius Wellhausen and his development of Karl Henrich Graf’s hypothesis that the Pentateuch was constructed via several literary sources: J (“Jahwist” associated with the southern kingdom), E (“Elohist” fragments from the northern kingdom), D (“Deuteronomist” developments, possibly associated with the renewal program introduced during Josiah’s reign), and P (“Priestly” and largely attributed to an Exilic reconstruction). Wellhausen wasn’t satisfied with attempting to delineate the source strata, his goal was the reconstruction of the totality of Israel’s history by analyzing these strata (p.66).

Indeed, Wellhausen was trying to get behind the literary traditions because he believed that the formalized law code had actually displaced Israel’s earlier, more centralized, cult. As a result, he rather discounts the emphasis of the Priestly writer by writing it off as a historical impossibility prior to the Josianic reform. He was also skeptical of the possibility of using JE (even skeptical of disentangling JE from each other in terms of a full-scale reconstruction) to discover the patriarchal history (p. 69). I loved the summary of Wellhausen in this book, “The preexilic period, ‘the half,’ was more valued by Wellhausen than the whole of her history, which included the postexilic developments.” (p. 71) The biggest problem, of course, with Wellhausen’s approach (at least from my perspective) is: “The concern for the historical, which religious history affirms, is not a purely descriptive task. It is a task located in our ability as humans to empathize with other peoples and enter into their world. In this approach to ancient Israel, the search for the historical is the search for human religious expression in a culture different from ours…” (p. 89) and inevitably means an emphasis of “…natural religion over against revelatory religion.” (p. 89)

Where Wellhausen was more concerned with history than worship, Hermann Gunkel “…viewed his scholarly vocation within the university as a service to the church.” (p. 79) Gunkel isolated and identified the literary forms in order to discover both the religious purpose and historical progression of religious thought during various epochs of Israelite history (p. 85) In getting behind the text to the expression (in the sense of the Romantic movement) of religious feeling and understanding, Gunkel “…compares the psalms to chimes (Glockenspiel) who tones reverberate ‘powerfully and magnificently,’ but…” demanding a certain amount of knowledge from the reader to put the pieces together (p. 91). As such, Gunkel isn’t afraid of the hyperbole and “hot blood” of the psalmists (p. 91).

In attempting to characterize the literary forms, Gunkel didn’t believe that one should be bound to the canonical works alone. He was intensely interested in the genres outside of Israel as he attempted to find the “real life” setting, the Sitz im Leben that theological students discover (p. 94). To do such research, “…one looks for textual clues related to preparation for battle or holy dance or festival processions within the psalm.” (p. 95) I particularly liked the succinct summary of the four basic settings in Israel’s worshiping life, the celebration of sacrifice, the lamentation of the community, the act of confession, and the thanksgiving offering (p. 97).

Yet even more concerned with dedicating his work in the academy to his service in the church, Gerhard von Rad was courageously opposed to the anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi sentiments of his era. Some have even suggested that his exegesis of Deuteronomy was a subversive statement against National Socialist ideology (p. 106). I hadn’t realized until I read this book that theological faculties had removed their required Hebrew courses during this era (due to anti-Semiticism) or that the brilliant von Rad actually taught courses with two and four students respectively (p. 107).

Where Gunkel looked to the setting behind the text and the oral tradition that informed the text, von Rad’s emphasis was in the final form of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch plus Joshua) and the long, complicated road leading to the final form (p. 111). In order to accomplish this, he would attempt to isolate the earliest confessional statements to be found in the OT and used these as his codebook to unlock the way the rest of the Hexateuch accreted to these statements. These confessional statements were Deuteronomy 26:5b-9, Deuteronomy 6:20-24, and Joshua 24:2b-13 (p. 112). Since they are all short and all seem to contain the same essential elements, von Rad assumes that they are the most ancient materials and builds from there (pp. 112-113). Further, where Gunkel perceived the “Jahwist” (“Yahwist”) as more collector of traditions than author, von Rad sees said tradition as the “creator” of the entire Hexateuch (p. 114).

I definitely appreciated the summary of von Rad’s Old Testament Theology when it stated that “Von Rad’s Old Testament theology resisted a static approach that sought for a center to the Old Testament, like “covenant” was for Eichrodt. For von Rad, Israel’s theology found in the Old Testament documents is more dynamic and alive, rooted in God’s historical acts of salvation.” (p. 119).

When the book shifted to a discussion of William Foxwell Albright, founder and leader of the so-called “Baltimore School” or, more accurately, the Biblical Archaeology Movement, it meant something completely different. The earlier scholars (along with German historians such as Alt and Noth) attempted to write Israel’s history via critical analysis of the biblical text. Albright’s school wanted to correlate biblical claims and archaeological data (pp. 130-1).In spite of the emphasis on the text, Alt and Noth saw the tradition behind the text pointing more toward a settlement than conquest, while Albright reacted strongly toward removing the conquest from the discussion (p. 131). Hence, Alt and Noth are declared to be minimalist toward the idea that events in the canon actually took place while Albright was a maximalist (p. 132). Both schools were interested in comparing Israel’s religious faith and the faiths of the neighbors, but Albright wanted material artifacts to ensure a certain scientific precision (p. 133). Indeed, his scientific methodology used in ceramic typology is an impressive taxonomy of pottery styles and epics (p. 134).

Gignilliat’s description of Albright’s approach is as good as any I’ve ever seen. “Biblical archaeology [for Albright] included papyri from Egypt, the onomasticon of the Amorites, a cylinder seal from Greece, Phoenician ivories from Spain, an ostracon from Edom, a painted Athenian pot, a skull from Carmel. In short, the whole ancient world, its literature, history, material culture belonged to the subject matter.” (p. 135, quoting Frank M. Cross). Unfortunately, the brilliance of his method can, at times, be reduced to a “historical positivism” or “logical positivism” that may not be the most efficacious. Indeed, William Dever (another archaeologist / historian observed, “The assumption that archaeology is somehow more objective because it deals with things rather than ideas, that here the role of interpretation is less crucial than in the analysis of texts, and particularly the implication that archaeological data where available takes precedence over literary evidence methodologically all this now seems incongruous.” (p. 137)

Finally, Gignilliat steers us toward Brevard Childs’ canonical approach. The canonical approach was something of a reaction to the so-called biblical theology movement. The problem with that movement (as Langdon Gilkey is cited) “…was that for all the talk of the mighty acts of God in history, the movement was slow to identify the acts of God with real events occurring in time and space.” (p. 141) The standard approach tended to move backward from the text without truly considering the final form (von Rad notwithstanding).

Brevard Childs attempted to take seriously the theological commitments underpinning the final form (p. 147) The goal was finding that confessional “depth dimension” in the text (p. 155). Refreshingly, Childs holds to an understanding of intentionality with regard to how the text came to be, but does not attempt to isolate the various components to do so. “For Childs, intentionality is located in the canonical shaping of the material, a shaping that includes the final form of the book and the arrangement of the material.” (p. 157) And I like Childs’ insistence, “Thus, the biblical texts are the locus of revelation and not the events in and of themselves apart from God’s revealed wisdom regarding their significance.” (p. 162) I also resonate with the idea that considering the canonical process has built into it a, “dimension of flexibility which encourages constantly fresh ways of actualizing the material.” (p. 166). Unfortunately, Childs’ attempt to understand the canonical process may, in some ways, repeat the emphasis he rejected of valuing the tradition over the text.

In conclusion, this volume covers necessary foundational material for the serious student of Old Testament. For me, it was a joy to read and it is an intriguing “refresher course” in historical methodologies within my choice of study. I wish it could have had sidebars describing contemporaries of each of these giants and that it could have included a few others. I also wish there had been some equivalent criticism of the methodologies to go with the appreciative summaries (such as John Cobb did with Protestant theologians in his introductory work on the subject). Of course, Gignilliat makes it clear from the beginning that he deliberately restricted the scope in order to get this useful little work out. And, after all, he does call it “brief.”

[Abram K-J · Rating 5 out of 5]

The world of Old Testament interpretation can feel vast and complex, teeming with concepts and terms like “historical-critical,” Sitz im Leben, and documentary hypothesis. Admission into that field of ideas is potentially cost-prohibitive, not to mention time-consuming.

Mark Gignilliat, Associate Professor of Divinity at Beeson, has greatly simplified a student’s entrance into the realm of Old Testament interpretation. His new book, A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism: From Benedict Spinoza to Brevard Childs, explores major Old Testament interpreters and themes in the modern period. Gignilliat begins with Spinoza (b. 1632) and concludes with Childs (d. 2007) in his “picture gallery tour of sorts.” Gignilliat writes, “This is a book for students. …The intended audience of this book is anyone who is interested in the Bible, its history of interpretation, and the particular problems and approaches to Old Testament studies in the modern period.”

The “picture gallery tour” surveys OT criticism through the lens of seven major characters: Spinoza, de Wette, Wellhausen, Gunkel, von Rad, Albright, and Childs. The author makes “no comprehensive attempt at expounding the very complex history of Old Testament interpretation,” but he does go beyond even his seven major subjects in detailing the ideas of other important thinkers, too. Gignilliat gives each interpreter his own chapter, which includes a short biography and a survey of ideas and writings. Chapters end with a “For Further Reading” section that the interested reader can pursue.

Gignilliat in his introduction immediately shows himself to be humble, gracious, and warm in tone, which continues throughout the book. He is aware of the limitations of a “brief history” like this (perhaps overly aware), though his concerns are not warranted, since this book accomplishes what it sets out to do.

One thing the author does particularly well is analyzes major interpreters in their life context. Of Spinoza, for example (to whom he traces the beginning of the denial of Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch), he writes:

"But it is important to understand, even if somewhat minimally, the community values Spinoza was reacting against and the intellectual currents of the day that influenced his thought. Modernity’s most cherished claims–autonomous intellectual pursuits, dismissal of dogmatic tradition, naturalism, and affirmation of the Cartesian 'I' (I think therefore I am)–were advanced by Spinoza’s philosophical and hermeneutical outlook."

He notes that Spinoza’s emphasis on rationalism and the knowing self may have been, in part, a reaction to the “religious dogmatism, military might, and political ambition” that “made for a toxic combination throughout the Thirty Years War.”

Gignilliat’s ability to understand thinkers in context helps the reader to better appreciate what led to their contributions. With the above in mind, I could better understand why Spinoza sought to turn “sola scriptura into nuda scriptura, that is, Scripture stripped of any theological or ecclesial context.” (I thought this was a brilliant line.) Gignilliat does not follow Spinoza this far, but he gives a fair shake to the ideas of Spinoza and others throughout the book.

The author treats the documentary hypothesis and its development, beginning with Wellhausen. Though many evangelicals bristle at J, E, D, and P, Gignilliat does a good job showing how Wellhausen and those after him developed the notion that the Pentateuch has a complex redaction history. One key implication of the hypothesis is that someone like von Rad can conclude (in Gignilliat’s words): "The Hexateuchal [Pentateuch+Joshua] traditions do not give us a historical account of Israel that will satisfy modern attempts at history making. What these traditions do give is insight into Israel’s ancient faith and how that faith was continually actualized in Israel’s history of salvation."

Childs is the climax of the book: He is both “confessional and critical.” That is, he integrates historical-critical insights that have preceded him, yet with a confessional understanding of the Bible as Scripture. The canon matters to Childs, and his belief in the Bible as God’s Word–not just an object of historical study–influences his approach.

Gignilliat finally stands with Childs. For Gignilliat, “[A] confession of faith shapes, if not determines, the way we go about reading the Old Testament as Holy Scripture.” Readers who are nervous about some of the tendencies of Old Testament criticism to minimize (or ridicule) this view of the Bible as Scripture can rest assured with Gignilliat as their tour guide. Readers who are nervous about a Zondervan author writing a history of a field that has not exactly been dominated by evangelicals can also be rest assured by Gignilliat’s fair treatment of ideas and interpreters.

One great strength of A Brief History of Old Testament Criticism is Gignilliat’s consistent use of primary source materials. He does what every good philosopher should do: examines thinkers’ own writings, not just others’ writings about their writings. In this way he is able to describe his subjects in their own terms.

As I read I found myself occasionally distracted by what came across as an overly conversational tone. Although this is not present in all parts of the book, some sections overused, I thought, phrases like “all to say,” or, “it will be remembered that,” or, “at the end of the day.” The writing would have been stronger without that kind of verbal filler–and the author certainly had no need of hedging anything he said in such ways, since his brief history is a cogent, readable, and enjoyable one.

An evangelical doing Old Testament criticism may often feel how de Wette did–”lost in the middle” and in “a theological no-man’s land,” as Gignilliat describes it. But evangelicals should also know that Gignilliat is in that same territory, honoring the insights of those who have gone before, yet holding a high view of the Bible as God’s words to humanity, for then and for now. He quotes Herman Bavinck: “[Holy Scripture] was not only ‘God-breathed’ at the time it was written; it is ‘God-breathing.’”

I received a review copy of this book from Zondervan in exchange for an unbiased review. This review is from abramkj.wordpress.com.

[Louis Lapides · Rating 4 out of 5]

A quick survey through the world of modern Old Testament interpretation. Gignilliat provides the reader with enough information to get familiar with the various OT critics, but does not bog the reader down with too much information.

If you want to know about the different trends regarding Old Testament hermeneutics in the modern period, this brief book will plunge you into the world of literary source and form criticism as well as the suspension of belief.

The author often shares his own viewpoint, but he fails to challenge the reader to evaluate each scholar from a more conservative perspective.

[Porter Sprigg · Rating 2 out of 5]

I appreciate Gignilliat's knowledge of the topic of Old Testament criticism. He helps the reader understand key figures who have shaped modern Biblical criticism. Having said that, the writing is often clunky and doesn't flow that well. It's informative and yet not written in a compelling way whatsoever.

[Keith Pinckney · Rating 3 out of 5]

From Spinoza to Child’s here is a solid and brief introduction to critical scholarship on the HB. It is astonishing how indebted we are to those who come before us. It is also amazing how many of the ideas these thinkers proposed have not trickled down to the layperson.

[Matthew Rawlings · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book would have saved me a lot of time during my first semester of seminary sitting in Introduction to the Old Testament and Old Testament Theology! It should be required reading for all new seminary students.

[Ross McKnight · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helpful intro to the major players. The biographical first half of chapters are entertaining. The latter half of chapters do a fine job in introducing the approach of each man. Conclusions of chapters could do better at actually concluding the content. Chapters could be arranged more clearly.

[Justin Dewell · Rating 3 out of 5]

This provides a summary of major figures in Old Testament criticism and places their ideas in context. A quick read and helpful for any OT student.

[Lena Morrison · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very useful resource for understanding some of the history of Old Testament Criticism.

[Ben Sibley · Rating 3 out of 5]

Concise, well-written, useful for understanding the broad strokes of modern Old Testament "criticism."

[Jimmy · Rating 5 out of 5]

The author made it clear in the beginning that the intended audience of the book was for “anyone who is in interested in the Bible, its history of interpretation, and the particular problems and approaches to Old Testament studies in the modern period.” Thus book wasn’t just written for scholars and seminarians in mind but for the larger Christian lay readers although the author admits that as he writing this his inclination was to make the work more technical. As a result the author himself explicitly explain that he needs to write this book with more of a biographical sketch of important figures of Old Testament scholars in light of the general public’s interests for human stories. Thus the book is divided into seven chapters with each focusing on one particular modern Old Testament scholar. I think the book might be more appropriately titled “A Brief Survey of Old Testament Scholars” instead, lest people think it is a survey of the history of Old Testament Criticism so no one is fooled by the title since some chapters focused on more biographical contents than descriptive details of the scholar’s academic contribution. I suppose one shouldn’t really blame the author for doing so if he can successfully get the readers to know more about these scholars rather than have the readers be bored in seeing these men as another group of dead unknown Germans scholars.
Readers of the book will notice right away how early in the history of modern Old Testament criticism that it is driven by presuppositions and philosophies that is foreign to Scripture. The clearest and worst example of this given in the book was Spinoza (although I don’t think the author intended to do that). I was surprised to read about how bright Spinoza was but sadden to see how far he veered away from biblical orthodoxy even among his fellow Jews. The book noted how Spinoza’s motivation in his approach towards the Old Testament was one that began with human autonomy and the assumption that reason is in conflict and above faith, etc. While the other scholars the book survey is less overt than Spinoza in undermining the Bible nevertheless I would say one see in varying degrees the compromises and the import of bad philosophical starting points among various scholars’ approach to the Old Testament.
The author however makes it clear that he wants Evangelicals to have a greater appreciation for these scholars and their contribution even if one disagrees with them. In that vein I appreciated the chapter on Julius Wellhausen and the author explaining Wellhausen’s documentary hypothesis clearly and simply for the lay reader. I learned that Wellhausen’s formulation of his documentary hypothesis was in the context of his attempt to reconstruct the original historical setting of Israel in light of naturalistic presuppositions and not just merely to break up the Scripture into parts per se. Although I have misgivings with the documentary hypothesis I think a strength of the book is the presentation clearly and accurately of what these scholars believed.
The chapters that really stood out to me were the ones on Gerhard VonRad, William Albright and Brevard Childs. While I have been cautious and continue to be discerning when I read anything from VonRad (or anything that others attribute to VonRad), nevertheless I have a deeper sense of respect for VonRad the man and the scholar. I never knew until this book of the courageous stance he took against the Nazis when he was a German Old Testament scholar at the universities. His courage is inspiring when one consider the anti-Jewish climate in Hitler’s Germany.
It was also neat to learn of biblical scholars that was shaped by the polymath William Albright whose impact on Old Testament studies is his use of archaeological findings. By far my favorite chapter was on Brevards Childs whose canonical approach has more use for Evangelical students of the Old Testament than some of the other approaches mentioned in the book.
I must say that Christians must read this book with discernment. I think at times the author could have been explained more of the problems with some of the scholars surveyed. Nevertheless I felt that all these scholars has things we can learn from; the biggest encouragement from these men lives was that I want to continue to be diligent in my study of God’s Word with all my mind, strength and soul.
I recommend the book, and rate it 4 out of 5.
NOTE: This book was provided to me free by Zondervan Academic and Net Galley without any obligation for a positive review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

[Joshua Ray · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful and concise introduction to the heavy-hitters of OT Criticism.

[Parker · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a helpful overview of seven major figures in Old Testament criticism. Gignilliat is mostly clear and fairly concise, generally easy to read. The brief biographical sketches of each scholar are helpful for understanding and evaluating their thoughts. Especially in the case of Gerhard von Rad, I find myself wrestling with how to evaluate him. His life demonstrated admirable Christian character, but his critical views don't fit neatly into my understanding of orthodoxy.

Gignilliat's biases are not hidden. That may not necessarily be a bad thing, but it certainly must be taken into account. He falls within the camp of Brevard Childs and speaks more glowingly of the man than I may be inclined. The tone is somewhat inconsistent throughout; the author sometimes records major critiques of the scholars about whom he writes, and other times is merely descriptive.

Although the personality-driven format of this book was helpful in many ways, I think it might have benefitted from an additional chapter that simply outlined and defined methods and terms for clarity's sake. It's more than possible to come away without really knowing, for example, what exactly the documentary hypothesis is and how critics arrived at it. Overall, however, this book was useful.

[Jason · Rating 5 out of 5]

A lot of times, we all think that the way we think is normative - that is that the way we think is the way all other, or at least normal, people think like us and right-thinking people have always thought like me. This is particularly true, and particularly dangerous, when it comes to biblical and theological thinking. Often times people are shocked to find that people - some of them brilliant! - have thought radically different things than they do and come to incredibly different conclusions.

Gignilliat's work is a fantastic survey of the big time interpreters of the Old testament in the modern era. It's brief enough to be read in a day or two, and thorough enough to give you the major issues each theological system brought to the table and how that author's time/place/cultural setting influenced the theology they brought forth. The biographical features of the various authors gives each person's theology a very human sense, and most importantly, helps modern readers to understand how their own background and influences color their interpretations.

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Am I a fool?

This question lurks in the back of any faithful evangelical's mind. The evangelical has a responsibility to treat the Old Testament as the very word of God. I presume its truthfulness and authority. As Dr. Gignilliat puts it, I start with an "Anselmian epistemology credo ut intelligam: 'I believe so that I may understand'"

But there has been a sustained assault on the Old Testament as Scripture. Gignilliat outlines many of the best thinkers on the subject, from Spinoza, who's ideas most undermined the traditional view, to Childs, who may be it's rescuer. This matters. On one hand, I have God as author. On the other, a host of hypotheses asserting it's merely a man-made mishmash.

I'm not a fool. God is sovereign over his word, and He’s sovereign over the means of its composition. Scrutiny over the composition prevents us from being fideists. I need not fear learning from modern textual critics. Because of this, I can have confidence in the wisdom of the Old Testament. I can better worship God, knowing he has revealed the proper way to do so.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent, interesting overview of important modern OT scholars and their influence. The inclusion of a brief personal biography and political/philosophical backdrop for each person keeps the book highly readable and well-rounded. Gignilliat does an exceptional job of presenting each view fairly, and keeping his critiques concise and distinct. His own views are confessional in nature, but Gignilliat maintains a respectful, friendly tone when dealing with contrary opinions. He accomplishes his purpose well in providing an engaging introduction to OT studies and providing plenty suggestions for further material.

[Oliver Pierce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great summary and introduction to the world of Old Testament criticism. I really appreciated the wealth of biographical material on the various figures as well. It helped bring life to the book and peaked my interest.

[Jerome · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best readable intro to the lives of men who have influenced theological thinking over the years.

[Pancho · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book is a good introduction to some of the key shaping characters in modern Old Testament criticism. Not thorough, the book is nonetheless readable, interesting, and insightful.

[Tony · Rating 5 out of 5]

A balanced and irenic look at a handful of key figures who have shaped Old Testament interpretation, with helpful notes and "further reading" for those who want to know more.

[Robert Coleman · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clear introduction to some of the major players in the history of OT Criticism.