Biblical Criticism and The Alpha Course

In this brief essay, I would like to consider some of the elementary questions raised by Biblical criticism, and look at these in conjunction with the general approach of the Alpha course. In this instance, I will therefore give several examples of material from the Gospels and Epistles where a critical decision cannot be avoided.

Example 1 - the Temptations in the Wilderness. What is the historical status of the temptations in the wilderness? Matthew and Luke present the three temptations in a different chronological order? Does chronology matter here? If not, does this have implications elsewhere in the Gospels? Is the order important in exegesis, making different points in Matthew and Luke? Why did they order the material in different ways?

Example 2 - throwing out the moneylenders from the temple. Jesus throws out the moneylenders at the end of his (roughly) three year ministry in Matthew, Luke and Mark (Mt:21:12, Mk: 11:15, Lk:19:45)), but at the start of it in John (J:2). Which is the correct placement? Why has it been changed - what significance does it make at the start, and at the end? Which is historically accurate? Might there be other examples of changing the historical placement of the narratives?

Example 3: the story of Jairus’s daughter. When Jairus approached Jesus, was Jairus’s daughter dead (Matthew), or only at the point of death (Mark, Luke)? The narratives differ, and both cannot be factually accurate. If we say that Matthew "abbreviates" the account, how do we know this does not happen elsewhere in the Gospel? If we say that it does not effect the main thrust of the narrative, then we are saying that absolute historical accuracy is not present in Matthew. Why does Matthew present a different account? Is his intention literary - to present a simpler, more "punchy" narrative? Is this his intention elsewhere?

Example 4: the centurion’s servant? Did the centurion come to Jesus himself (Matthew) or send a deputation (Luke)? Again, the narratives differ, and both cannot be factually accurate. This raises the same issues as example 3.

Example 5: quoting legendary material in the Epistles. In Heb11:37, we are presented as part of the argument based in part on the Old Testament that the prophets were "sawn in two" which is not found in the Old Testament but in the "Martyrdom of Isaiah". Similarly, Jude 14 gives a prophecy made by Enoch as part of his argument, referring not to the Old Testament, but the "Book of Enoch.". This raises issues as to the use of Jewish legendary material and the Old Testament. Are they using these sources as illustrations of argument, with none of our modern concern for historical accuracy? If so, does this apply in general to the use of the Old Testament as well? If not, how would we differentiate between the two? What implications has this for the idea that God makes no authoritative statement on faith and doctrine except in the Bible?

The Alpha Course takes scripture on a "plain text" basis, assuming the historical and factual accuracy of the Biblical material. While it does not go so far as to say the Bible is "inerrant", it treats the Bible as if it were; it raises no critical issues about any discrepancies in the text or sources of the material. Sections such as "What evidence is there to support what he said?" "How can I be sure of my faith"? "Why and how should .I read the Bible?" give no consideration whatsoever to any of the matters raised in the examples above, all of which raise issues of understanding the nature of the Biblical text. No references are given in "Recommended Reading" for any of these, even popular books, such as John Robinson’s "Can we trust the New Testament?" or any other books from the critical viewpoint.