Review of Maier on

Historical-Critical Method
by Vern S. Poythress

[Published in the Westminster Theological Journal 38/3 (spring 1976): 415-

417. Used with permission.]

Gerhard Maier: Das Ende der historisch-kritischen Methode. Wuppertal:

Theologischer Verlag Rolf Brockhaus, 1974. 95. DM 9.80.

Here is a book that should stimulate our praises and petitions to God, as well
as our attention. Gerhard Maier made an academic reputation for himself in
Germany with an earlier book, Mensch und freier Wille nach den jdischen
Religionsparteien zwischen Ben Sira und Paulus (Tbingen: Mohr, 1971)
(Man and free will according to the Jewish religious factions between Ben
Sira and Paul). He has now apparently destroyed that reputation with his
latest book, entitled The End of the Historical-Critical Method. This latest
book is scholarly, all right, but it presents a form of scholarship unacceptable,
in fact, maddening, to the predominant theological schools in Germany. Maier
announces the end of the reigning form of critical scholarship in Germany and
proposes a new method, the historical-biblical method, based on new
presuppositions. It is based, in fact, on a return to a doctrine of verbal
inspiration. The is addressed to the intelligent layman as well as the
professional Bible critic; hence it has the power, if God wills, to create a
considerable stir.

The book is divided into three parts. Part one (pp. 5-20) shows the
impossibility in principle of using the so-called historical-critical method for
Christian Bible study. Part two (pp. 21-46) examines the impasse in which the
actual application of the method has left the church. Part three (pp. 47-92)
sketches the presuppositions and principles of the historical-biblical method.

Part one raises several major objections in principle: (1) The historical-critical
method is a product of deism and the Socratic ideal, which places human
reason as a judge over revelation. (2) Every attempt to separate critically the
divine and human elements in the Bible, either by an appeal to a canon within
the canon or to the events of revelation, ends in giving decisive weight to the
human subjectivity of the modern scholar. (3) The results of criticism cannot in
fact be carried into the pulpit. (4) Obedience, rather than criticism, is the
proper response to revelation.

Part two, entitled The end of the historical-critical method in fact, examines
in detail a representative product of the method, namely Das Neue Testament
als Kanon, edited by Ernst Ksemann. Maier concludes that none of the
contributors to the volume is able to offer any alternative to the domination of
human subjectivity, when it comes to the extraction of norms from the Bible.
One of the contributors, Hans Kng, virtually concurs with Maier at this point,
and escapes only by a retreat to the teaching authority of the Roman church.

p. 416

Maiers own solution (in part three) is the construction of a historical-biblical

method such as the Reformation was beginning to develop. This method as
he defines it has two presuppositions: (a) in the study of once-for-all acts of
divine revelation, historical judgments cannot always depend on the principle
of historical analogy (pp. 47-49); (b) the sovereignty of God implies that he
can reveal himself as he wishes (pp. 49-54). All human ideas, including ideas
about exegetical method, must be continually adjusted to conform to Gods
revelation, and not vice versa. From these two principles Maier proceeds to
establish the basic structure of historical-biblical method along the lines
already familiar to evangelical scholars in the U.S.A. Inerrancy is defined by
saying that when our efforts at harmonizing fail, we must refuse to say
anything more than what can be said reverently about Gods words. The Bible
is unchallengeable.
What impression does one gain from all this? Several things strike me about
the book. First, Maier does not pull his punches. The practitioners of the
historical-critical method are spiritually blind (p. 18). Submission to Gods
revelation requires not a sacrifice of intellect but a sacrifice of pride (p. 52).
Right theology demands a new birth and obedience (p. 51). Second, Maier is
not an obscurantist, but anticipates some objections of his critics and insists
on the value of properly conducted grammatical-historical study of the text.
Third, Maier writes as a German to Germans. The book contains almost no
reference to American and English scholarship, whether evangelical or not. In
a way this is a shame, particularly because Maier stands in close relation to
the presuppositional understanding of Scripture of Westminster Theological
Seminary. But in a book for laymen it may be just as well that there are few
footnotes and that the argument is largely self-contained.

The book does have some limitations, and it is well not to overlook these in
assessing its probable impact. The books first limitation is its length. Maier
covers a lot of territory in 95 pages, but that inevitably leaves some arguments
sketchy. Second, it is not clear whether Maier is aware of just how greatly his
opponents presuppositions differ from his. Some, at least, of his opponents
would consider that the subjectivity of canon-within-canon procedure is an
advantage rather than a disadvantage. Moreover, using their own
presuppositions they could easily overthrow Maiers sketchy demonstration of
the verbal inspiration of Scripture. For example, the standard texts 2 Timothy
3:16, 2 Peter 1:1920, and 2 Peter 3:1516 would be rejected by Ksemann
as representing post-Pauline rigidification. A stronger case for verbal
inspiration could have been made by showing how biblical authority is woven
together with a large

p. 417

number of other theological themes throughout the Bible. But this would
require much more space than Maier has allotted himself.

All in all, this is a brave book for perilous times. Need it be said that its author
and his work need our prayers?
 Vern S. Poythress
Cambridge, England