Friend of Foe: Orthodox Christianity and Historical Criticism - Philip Maikkula

This morning I was listening to an excellent interview with Dr. Brad Jersak on The Bible for Normal People Podcast. Towards the end of the interview, Dr. Peter Enns asked Brad how Orthodox Christians relate to the tools of Modern Historical Criticism. In short, are historical-critical methodologies valuable, useful, wrong or otherwise?

Brad’s answer focused on his experience with his spiritual father and he admitted that he wasn’t sure the Orthodox are producing historical-critical research, but in his experience, the Orthodox are reading and usefully engaging that research. In many ways, I agree with Brad’s assessment, but I wanted to nuance his perspective a bit and look at some of the factor influencing the relationship between Orthodox Christianity and historical criticism.

1. The Orthodox Church is Diverse.

The Orthodox Church is not monolithic. She is comprised of a family of churches including not only historic Orthodox jurisdictions like the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople or the Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, but also Churches delineated according to the boundaries of modern nation-states, such as the Churches of Russia, Greece, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Georgia, Cyprus, Albania, Poland, and the Czech Lands and Slovakia. On top of this, there are Orthodox Churches of the so-called “Diaspora” in North America, Europe, and Australia among other places. While these Churches share a common worship and faith (Orthodoxy can mean both right belief and right worship), we must recognize that the Orthodox Church is diverse. There are questions where opinions differ.

2. The line between those who accept “critical” scholarship and those who reject it runs through every religious body.

We cannot delineate those who accept “critical” scholarship and those who reject it simply according to religious denomination. In every denomination, people differ on this question, even in those Churches where there are official teaching positions on the value of critical scholarship.

3. The Orthodox has no official position on historical-critical scholarship.

As perhaps both a blessing and a curse, the Orthodox Church doesn’t have an official teaching office like the Roman Catholic Magisterium. This leaves many questions that do not directly bear upon the Dogma of the Church up for debate among the faithful. For Orthodox Christians in the United States, there are some who engage modern historical-critical methodologies and some who decry it as unhelpful, unnecessary or even un-Christian and heretical. My own Alma Mater, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary, values and teaches a critical engagement with the Orthodox tradition which includes, among other hermeneutical approaches, the reading of Scripture through the lens of historical-critical methodologies. Other seminaries might not see a value in the historical-critical method. I know at least one faculty member at another Orthodox seminary in America who rejects the use of historical-critical methodology outright, preferring to simply read the Church Fathers. Both positions exist in the Orthodox Church.

4. The Orthodox Church is just beginning to answer the questions of Modernism.

Roman Catholics began to face the questions of Modernism well over a century ago, with the Vatican ultimately approving the use of historical-critical methodologies in the middle of the 20th century. Yet the triumph of critical methods was not always a smooth road. Roman Catholics were initially on the cutting edge of modern biblical scholarship in the late 19^thCentury when French Dominicans established a school of archeology and biblical research in Jerusalem, known as the École biblique et archéologique française de Jérusalem. Yet, in the early 20^th Century, the Roman Catholic Church entered a period of anti-modernism. Pope Pius X, published the encyclical, Pascendi dominici gregis, which condemned, among other things, “rationalist” interpretations of scripture, resulting in a great freeze on the freedom of Catholic biblical scholars. It wasn’t until the publications of Divino afflante Spiritu, in 1943, and Dei Verbum, at the 2^ndVatican council, that the historical-critical method was given official sanction by the Catholic Church. Together these documents opened the door to the great flourishing of Catholic biblical scholarship seen in the second half of the 20^thCentury—perhaps best exemplified by the towering figure of Fr. Raymond Brown.

The Orthodox Church has largely been shielded from the questions of Modernism, either because of Turkish domination or the rise of communism. As a result, much of the Orthodox world has only recently begun to face the problematics presented by modernism. In my own view, this has given rise to our own brand anti-modernism within the Orthodox Church. The increasingly widespread rise of neo-traditionalism is best explained as a reactionary response to the challenges modernism presents. Increasingly, the Orthodox Church is going to have to wrestle with these questions as globalization brings the challenges of modernism home to roost for more and more Orthodox Christians.

5. The Orthodox Church both uses and produces historical-critical research.

While it is true that the Orthodox tradition provides many valuable scriptural resources beyond the scope of historical-critical research, it is simply false to claim that the Orthodox Church doesn’t produce any historical-critical scholarship. I think a big reason for this misunderstanding is because the Orthodox Churches in the English speaking world haven’t produced a great number of prominent biblical scholars. The Orthodox tend to be known for Patristic scholarship or liturgical theology, but not biblical studies. We are small and thus we don’t have a large voice. Yet, there are many Orthodox biblical scholars who do engage in thoughtful and positive research with the help of historical-critical methodologies. For instance:

Fr. Eugen Pentiuc is a well-established scholar of the Hebrew Bible and professor at Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology. Fr. Eugen has published several monographs which engage both historical-critical methodologies and patristic interpretations of the scriptures (see: The Old Testament in Eastern Orthodox Tradition, Jesus the Messiah in the Hebrew Bible, and Long Suffering Love: A Commentary on Hosea with Patristic Annotations).

Fr. George Parsenios is a respected Johannine scholar and associate professor of New Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary. Fr. George has written, among other things, a commentary on the Johannine epistles, as well as two academic works on rhetoric in the Gospel of John (see: Rhetoric and Drama in the Johannine Lawsuit Motif, Departure and Consolation: The Johannine Farewell Discourses in Light of Greco-Roman Literature). 

That just names two Orthodox scholars who are currently fruitfully engaging with historical-critical methodologies in the English speaking world. More could be named such as the now-retired professors Fr. Theodore Stylianopoulos, Fr. John Breck, or Fr. Paul Tarazi. The list would be enlarged even further if we broaden our scope to include Orthodox countries like Greece or Romania where many of the professors in the faculties of theology were trained in German universities in modern historical-critical methodologies. For Orthodox biblical scholars, there is little debate about the usefulness of these methodologies.

6. Debate still exists on how to best incorporate modern methodologies with the Orthodox Church’s rich history.

In my view, the biggest debate facing the Orthodox Church is how to incorporate these modern historical methodologies into the life of the Church in a way that is fruitful for research, yet respectful of our interpretive history. I would want to see an Orthodox hermeneutic that was big enough to encompass both ancient and modern readings of scripture. The Fathers of the Church offer invaluable insights into the text, and it would be impossible to reject their interpretation of scripture and still remain Orthodox. We have to find a way to live in both worlds. We must find a way of reading the scriptures that is both faithful to our past and yet faithful to our present. We need a reading of scripture that can hold together the best insights of the ancient and the modern world. Articulating such a hermeneutic of double fidelity will require a great deal of courage and creativity. I believe that is exactly what the Church Fathers themselves would do were they in our situation. The Church Fathers always engaged the best of the intellectual life of their time while remaining faithful to the Gospel. We must do the same.

* * * * * 

Deacon Philip Maikkula is attached to St. John of the Ladder Orthodox Church in Greenville, SC. He has been married to his wife Whitney for eight years and together they have two children. Deacon Philip holds a BA in Philosophy from the University of Central Florida and a Master of Divinity from St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological Seminary. He is currently completing the graduate certificate in religion, peace, and justice from the Institute for Religion, Peace, and Justice at St. Stephen’s University.