Crippling Higher Criticism

. A Review of Ellis' The Making of the New

Testament Documents
E. E.Ellis, The Makingofth", New Testa-
ment Documents. Leiden: Brill, 1999. 517pp,
with Indices (passages, authors, subjects).
Hardback. $151.00.
Summary: A thorough, technical, evangeli-
cal analysis of the historical process involved
in the making of the New Testament docu-
ments. Counters liberal form-critical trends by
demonstrating the New Testament writers (and
their "schools") often used shared information
and drew from common, early sources. It
establishes an early date (pre- A.D. 70) for all
New Testament books, except for John's
Gospel and epistles (some early reviews
wrongly stated that he held early dates for all
books).
Dr. E. Earle Ellis is Research Professor at
Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary,
Fort Worth, Texas. He is widely known and
highly regarded as an evangelical authority on
the New Testament. This work, his magnum
opus, should establish his name and influence
for generations to come.
In his Preface he notes that his book is
something of "a supplement to [John A. T.]
Robinson's investigation and a critique of the
current critical orthodoxy" (p. xvi). Despite
Robinson' s foundational liberal convictions,
his work (Redating the New Testament) ex-
ploded like a stink bomb in the ivory towers of
higher critical institutions, by arguing for a
pre-A.D. 70 date for all New Testament books.
Ellis' desire to supplement and develop
Robinson' s thesis alerts us to the significance
of his labor. He argues vigorously that "one
opinion in need of revision is the widely
accepted dating of the New Testament docu-
ments, a dating largely built upon nineteenth-
century views quite at odds with the eYidence"
(p. 142). He establishes early (pre-A.D. 70)
dates for all New Testament books (and of 1
Clement, pp. 82n, 132, 280n, 307) except for
John's Gospel and his epistles. (He suggests
that John's Gospel was "the last written docu- .
ment not only of the Johannine mission but
also of our New Testament" [po 306], being
written between 85 and 95 [po 319]).
Ellis informs his readers early on that his
book "represents a departure from
longstanding critical views of the origin,
composition and dating of the New Testament
documents. It argues that currently dominant
conceptions of the Gospels, in particular the
two-document hypothesis and the classical
form criticism, are in a number of their histori-
cal and literary assumptions fundamentally
mistaken" (p. 1). He notes - - quite contrary to
prevailing critical orthodoxy - - that "good
historical method requires that a document be
tested first in terms of its own claims" (p.
294). This refreshing piece of practical wis-
dom is quite contrary to the old-line Hegelian
dialectical methodology ofBaur's Tubingen
school!
Ellis sets out to expose the "methodological
dogma . .. which asserted that a Gospel tradi-
tion was to be ascribed, without 'further ado, to
the postresurrection church unless its origin in
Jesus' ministry could be demonstrated" (p.
10). He endeavors to assess and critique the
"current state of critical studies and offer a
new appraisal of certain .evidence which, it is
hoped, may contribute to a more credible
historical reconstruction of the origins and
formation of the Gospels" (p. 10). That recon-
struction grants the New Testament writings
their full apostolic authority and historical
integrity, while explaining various "problem-
atic" features seized upon by unbelieving
critics.
Readers interested in a brief, damaging.
critique of the Q Hypothesis will find p g ~ s
14-19 invaluable. He comments that "the
26 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - FehruarylMarch, 2001
hypothesis of two sources, proto-Mark and Q,
enjoyed a growing dominance through the first
quarter of the twentieth century but since then
has become increasingly questionable if not
doubtful" (p. 238). Though Q Hypothesis and
Marean priority do not pose an evangelical/
liberal divide, strong conservatives have been
uneasy about the whole construct. As Ellis
puts it: "One may read essays today purporting
to set forth the hypothetical formation of the
hypothetical theology of the hypothetical
community of the hypothetical document Q.
But can the theory bear the weight of such
speculations or ofthe increasing objections
raised against the theory itself?" (p. 16).
The author stands against the vast array of
liberal, higher-critical tendencies so rampant
in New Testament studies (the Jesus Seminar
serving simultaneously as a representative of
higher criticism's worst aspects and as its most
influential promoter). He also has some sur-
prises for conservatives, however. For he "also
questions the traditional view that the New
Testament letters were an individual enter-
prise, written or dictated verbatim by the
author, and that their ascrihed authorship
could, consequently, be tested and determined
by such internal criteria as a common vocabu-
lary, style, syntax and theological expression
or idiom" (p. 1). This is not as scary as it
sounds. Indeed, his proposed resolution of the
higher critical "problems" - - the point of this
book - - is quite plausible.
Ellis seeks to demonstrate "the degree to
which the New Testament documents, both
Gospels and letters, are products of a coopera-
tive endeavor and not just the creation of the
individual authors" (p. xvi). Ultimately, they
are the result of four basic schools of apostolic
mission: the Petrine, Johannine, Jacobean, and
Pauline (all original, inspired ministers of the
gospel message). These four apostolic commu-
nities "were the main fountainhead from which
the patristic church came forth," and in fact,
"the four missions explain why our New
Testament has four Gospels" (p. 252). Thus,
according to Ellis, "the individual Evangelist
is not the creator de novo of the Gospel attrib-
uted to him. He is - - Mark also - - at least
dependent on sources that are the work of
others" (p. 38).
Even "the letters were authored in four
apostolic missions who created and transmit-
ted several kinds of pieces and who mutually
shared and mutually utilized some of them"
(pp. 52-53). "It is not, as traditionally sup-
posed, a matter of later writers following and
copying Paul's correspondence but rather of
contemporary writers using existing traditions
in common and adapting them to the needs of
the particular letter and its recipients" (p. 312).
This highlights a key conclusion resulting
from Ellis' historical and literary investigation
regarding the process involved in producing
the New Testament documents. And though it
initially sets off evangelical alarms, his argu-
ment is just as tenaciously and abundantly
supported as it is unashamedly evangelical.
He even argues, on this basis, against any
direct inter-dependence between Ephesians
and Colossians (p. II 0), as well as Jude and 2
Peter (p. 122). Their remarkable similarities
are evidences, instead, of the employment of
"pre-formed traditions," indicating the shared
nature and corporate composition of the apos-
tolic, early Christian community. For instance,
Ellis suggests that "Paul's epistles were not, as
AdolfDeissmann thought, merely extempora-
neous communications, 'letters' in the popular
sense of the word, but were teaching pieces
clothed in an adaptable letter-form. In this
respect the preformed traditions strengthen a
conclusion already at hand from the multiple
recipients of some of the epistles and from the
Apostle's command that his epistles be read to
others than the immediate recipients" (p. 116).
Onr author continues: "many oCthe tradi-
tions were composed by others, probably by
Paul's gifted [i.e., prophetically gifted] col-
leagues in his and allied apostolic missions.
Along with the influence of his secretary and
of his co-senders and co-authors, such tradi-
FebruarylMarch, 2001 - THE COUNSEL of Chalcedon - 27
tions point to a different understanding of the
nature of Pauline authorship and make the
denial of it on the basis of internal criteria
untenable, unless these factors have been
taken full y into account" (pp. Il6-17). He
provides meticulously detailed, amply illus-
trated argwnents for the use of pre-formed
materials for the various New Testament
books, even presenting helpful tables display-
ing the percentages of pre-formed traditions
(e.g., p. 139).
Interestingly, he proposes that a "fifth
mission" - - a "subversive counter-mission - -
impacted the traditions of the "four allied
missions. These false teachers, as they are .
regarded in the literature of the Jacobean,
Johannine, Pauline, and Petrine missions,
show a marked resemblance in the doctrinal
errors that they espouse and in their deceptive
and greedy and boastful character" (p. 316).
(Interestingly, one of the unified themes used
to confront this subversive counter-mission
was an insistence upon the corporeal nature of
the resurrection. This issue is still with us in
various cults (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses) and
heresies (e.g., hyper-preteristri).
Ellis proposes that the New Testament
author "did not compose his letter, solely as his
creation but used a variety of pieces created by
other apostles or pnewnatics whose credentials
the author obviously accepted .... The non-
authorial traditions demonstrate that the New
Testament letters, while sent under the
apostle' s name and authority, Were the product
of the corporate activity of a number of
apostles and prophets" (pp. 327-28).
Much of his research has helpful and direct
bearings on an evangelical preterist under-
standing of various New Testament prophetic
passages (even though he denies the preteristic
understanding of Revelation as being "forced"
[po 215 n419]!). For instance, he observes that
"1 Thess 2:15f. is an unusual denunciation of
Jewish religious leaders that has affinities in
wording with the prophetic oracles at Lk
11 :49ff. = Mt 23:34ff. and that may also have
its source in Christian prophecy" (p. Il2). He ,
also provides helpful arguments for the early , '
date of Revelation, even citing and commend-
ing my work in Before Jerusalem Fell (pp.
210-17).
An extremely helpful summary of "fix.-
points for placing the New Testament docu-
ments" is foUnd on pages 239ff. In addition, to
Jerusitlem's destruction in A.D. 70, Ellis lists
other set-events iii the ROman world, such as
Caligula' s t t ~ u i p t to place his statue in the
Temple (AD 40), Claudius' expUlsion of the
Jews from Rome (AD 49.50), the Netonic
persecution (AD 64), and more. The careful
New Testament student will find these fix-
points - - and those specific to the early
Church (pp. 248ff) - - to provide an invaluable
historical framework for New Testament
events:' '
The Making of the New Testament Docu-
ments ought to rattle a few 'cages,perhaps even
more than.N. t :'WrighCs'Jesus and'the 'Victory
of God (1986), It certainly deserVes a hearing
as a competent counter-blast to the Jesus
Seminar and the various t\1:read-hare hyppth-"
eses of liberal high<:)r critics. But be Warned: It
is not a book for cursory reading, or for those
notwell.versed in technicat aca:demics.Ellis'
book is a welcome addition to evahg'elical
scholarship; it is destined for use ill university ,
and seminary classes, as well to scrutiny and
debate in theological journals and New Testa-
ment symposia.
28 - THE COUNSEL of ChalCedon - FebrllarylMarch, 2001