Enlightenment Rationalism, Empiricism, and Skepticism—and the Rise of the Historical-Critical Method

Introduction

By the dawn of the eighteenth century, the West’s intellectual climate had shifted decisively. Confidence in reason’s autonomy, new methods for observing and organizing data, and a principled doubt toward inherited authorities formed a triad that historians summarize as rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism. These were not merely philosophical fashions. They became habits of inquiry that reconfigured law, politics, natural science, and—crucially for our purposes—biblical interpretation. The historical-critical method did not descend fully formed from a single thinker; it coalesced as scholars applied Enlightenment sensibilities to Scripture: test every claim by public reasons, weigh testimony by probabilities, distinguish original strata from later accretions, and explain events by natural rather than supernatural causes.

This chapter maps the intellectual soil in which historical criticism took root and then follows representative “roots and shoots” into exegesis: Hobbes and Spinoza on authorship and prophecy; Semler, Gabler, and the emergence of a biblical “history of religion”; Reimarus, Strauss, and the “life of Jesus” question; Astruc, Eichhorn, and the Pentateuch; Wrede and Gunkel on the Gospels. Along the way we will treat the Troeltschian maxims—criticism, analogy, and correlation—as a compact of historical-critical method; attend to exemplary biblical cruxes (Pentateuchal authorship, Deutero-Isaiah, the Synoptic Problem, miracle narratives); and ask how Enlightenment commitments both freed and constrained interpretation. We conclude with assignments that press doctoral students to evaluate the gains and limits of this epoch, and with a reflective synthesis on integrating historical-critical discipline with theological interpretation.

Philosophical Setting: Reason, Experience, and Doubt

Rationalism: The Autonomy of Reason

Seventeenth-century rationalism (e.g., Descartes, Leibniz) sought indubitable foundations by methodical doubt and clear, distinct ideas. Though aimed at metaphysical certainty, the Cartesian impulse generalized a posture: claims must be justified by reasons accessible to any competent inquirer, not by appeals to tradition or ecclesial authority. In biblical studies, this translated into suspicion toward readings that rested on ecclesial fiat or mystical insight. Exegetes should argue from grammar, history, and logic; ipse dixit—“because the Fathers say so”—no longer sufficed (McGrath, 2017).

Empiricism: The Authority of Observation

Empiricists (Bacon, Locke, later Hume) championed disciplined observation, the accumulation and ordering of data, and inductive reasoning. Francis Bacon’s “new organon” valorized method: gather particulars, compile tables, avoid premature systems. In exegesis this became the watchword ad fontes of a new kind: not only back to Greek and Hebrew, but to manuscripts, inscriptions, coins, papyri, and material culture, alongside linguistic and comparative data. Philology matured into a science; textual criticism adopted rules to weigh witnesses; chronology, geography, and ancient Near Eastern parallels grew indispensable (Soulen & Soulen, 2011).

Skepticism: The Critique of Authority and Miracle

Skepticism challenged not inquiry per se but unearned authority. Hume’s essay “Of Miracles” advanced a probabilistic calculus: testimony to a violation of uniform experience is always less probable than the alternative that the testimony errs. Kant, while not a skeptic in Hume’s mold, limited knowledge to phenomena structured by the categories of understanding, banishing the noumenal from demonstrable science. Such moves encouraged historians to seek natural explanations and to weigh probabilities rather than certainties when reading ancient texts. In exegesis, miracles, prophecy, and divine causation were increasingly treated as problems to be explained rather than premises to be celebrated (Grant & Tracy, 1984).

Foundational Moves in Enlightenment Exegesis

Hobbes and Spinoza: Authorship, Prophecy, and the State

Thomas Hobbes hinted in Leviathan that the Pentateuch could not be entirely Mosaic, citing post-Mosaic phrases (“to this day”) and the report of Moses’ death. Baruch Spinoza made this argument systematic in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670). Scripture, he insisted, should be interpreted like any other book: by its language, historical context, and the intention of its human authors. Spinoza denied that prophecy granted scientific knowledge; prophetic visions conveyed moral exhortation in culturally conditioned images. He argued for a post-exilic redaction of the Pentateuch and urged freedom from ecclesial control for biblical interpretation. Two axioms hardened here: (1) treat Scripture as a historical artifact; (2) refuse non-public appeals to inspiration as exegetical warrants (Oeming, 2006).

Semler and Historicizing “Canon”

Johann Salomo Semler (1725–1791) historicized the canon itself. Distinguishing the Word of God from the collections that various churches came to esteem, he argued that canonicity is an ecclesial, historical process. This allowed him to bracket ecclesial claims to inerrant unity and to treat biblical books individually according to provenance, genre, and doctrinal diversity. The field thereby shifted from dogmatics to history of religion (Grant & Tracy, 1984).

Gabler: Biblical vs. Dogmatic Theology

In his 1787 inauguration, J. P. Gabler famously distinguished biblical theology (a descriptive, historical enterprise) from dogmatic theology (a constructive, normative task for the present church). Biblical theology should uncover what the ancient authors actually meant, not what the church should believe today. Only later, through a separate theological reflection, might one adjudicate normative use. This separation institutionalized historical-critical posture: exegesis first, normativity later (or elsewhere) (Soulen & Soulen, 2011).

The Troeltschian Compact: Criticism, Analogy, Correlation

The historian Ernst Troeltsch later crystallized historical-critical method into three regulative principles:

1. Criticism: Historical knowledge is probabilistic; we avoid absolute certainty and remain open to revision.

2. Analogy: The past is understood by analogy to the present; we resist positing unique, non-analogous causes (e.g., miracle) as explanatory stoppers.

3. Correlation: Events stand in causal networks; explanations appeal to interlocking natural, social, and psychological factors (not direct, immediate divine interventions as historical explanations).

These principles disciplined inquiry and, at the same time, constrained theological readings. They encouraged source analysis, redactional hypotheses, and skepticism toward predictive prophecy and resurrection as historical conclusions (Oeming, 2006).

From Principles to Practices: Emergent Historical-Critical Tools

Source Criticism and the Pentateuch

Physician Jean Astruc (1753) proposed that Genesis drew on earlier memoranda distinguished by divine names (E and J). Eichhorn expanded this into a broader source theory; Wellhausen’s classic synthesis dated J and E to the monarchy, D to Josiah’s reform, and P to the exilic/postexilic period, aligning the development of law and cult with Israel’s political history. The Documentary Hypothesis sought to explain contradictions, repetitions, and stylistic variance by positing strata and redaction. Its method drew on rationalist coherence (avoid contradictions), empiricist data (linguistic features, thematic distributions), and skeptical caution (resist traditional attributions absent internal warrant) (Grant & Tracy, 1984).

Exegetical crux: Deuteronomy’s centralization of worship aligns with 2 Kings 22–23; priestly genealogies and cultic detail fit post-exilic concerns; Genesis 1 (priestly) differs from Genesis 2 (Yahwistic) in style and theology. Whether one accepts Wellhausen’s chronology in toto, the method made authorship and composition historical problems answerable by philological and comparative analysis.

Prophecy and Isaiah

The stark shift in horizon between Isaiah 1–39 (8th-century Judah) and Isaiah 40–55 (comfort to exiles in Babylon) led scholars to posit Deutero-Isaiah, with some adding Trito-Isaiah (chs. 56–66). The presupposition: predictive prophecy detailed with names (“Cyrus,” Isa 44:28; 45:1) is historically improbable; more plausible is that an exilic prophet wrote in Isaiah’s name and idiom. Here Troeltsch’s analogy and correlation governed expectations while philology charted shifts in style and theology. The debate is not merely theological but methodological: what counts as a sufficient explanation of unity and difference?

The “Life of Jesus”: Reimarus to Strauss

H. S. Reimarus (posthumously, via Lessing) argued that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher whose disciples invented the resurrection faith. David Friedrich Strauss’s Life of Jesus (1835) rejected both supernatural harmonization and crude rationalizing (e.g., “Jesus walked on a submerged sandbar”). He proposed that the Gospels contain myths: poetic expressions of faith formed in the early community. The adoption of “myth” as a category allowed scholars to honor the texts’ religious truth while denying historical referentiality for miracle reports. Empiricism and skepticism combined: weigh testimony, evaluate plausibility, assign mythic genesis where causal correlation and analogy point away from special divine acts (Grant & Tracy, 1984).

Form and Redaction: Gunkel and Wrede

Hermann Gunkel developed form criticism, classifying pericopes by genre (miracle story, pronouncement story, hymn) and social setting (Sitz im Leben). Analysis of oral stages made gospel units products of communal life, not solely literary artistry. William Wrede argued that Mark’s “messianic secret” is a theological motif shaping tradition rather than a direct transcript of Jesus’ praxis—an early instance of redaction criticism, which reads evangelists as theologians arranging received materials toward didactic ends. These methods embody Enlightenment impulses: categorize, compare, explain by human motives, communal needs, and literary technique (Soulen & Soulen, 2011).

Axioms at Work: Case Studies in Exegesis

1. Pentateuchal Authorship: Mosaic Unity or Post-Mosaic Mosaic?

The traditional claim—Moses wrote the Torah—yielded under cumulative anomalies: third-person narrative, place names and idioms from later periods, doublets (two creation accounts, two Hagar stories), divergent law codes. Historical-critical readers reconstructed compositional layers and redaction, situating legal and cultic developments amid Israel’s political history. Theologically, this destabilized notions of a single Mosaic legislative moment but enabled a robust account of canonical growth. Later canonical critics would retrieve that growth as theologically purposive rather than merely accidental (Childs, 1979).

2. Isaiah and the Name “Cyrus”

Isaiah 44:28–45:1 names Cyrus as YHWH’s shepherd and anointed. Historical-critical scholars saw exilic authorship as the best explanation; conservative interlocutors defended 8th-century authorship by appeal to prophetic foreknowledge. The dispute displays method in microcosm: Is analogy a defeasible heuristic or a hard limit? Can a theory of divine authorship alter expectations of what the human author could intend?

3. The Synoptic Problem and Miracle Narratives

The two-source hypothesis (Mark + Q) arises from comparing agreements and divergences among the Synoptics. The empiricist instinct to account for patterns leads to hypothesizing sources. On miracles, many historical-critical readings bracket supernatural causation as historical explanation, relocating “truth” to theology or myth. Others, while maintaining critical method, argue that eyewitness and memory studies can raise the historical plausibility of certain narratives without short-circuiting method. Either way, Enlightenment categories force explicitness: what kind of claim is a miracle story making, and by what criteria can historians assess it?

Gains and Losses: A Theological Audit

Gains

1. Philological Precision and Material Control. Mastery of languages, manuscripts, and ancient contexts yielded finer readings and textual reliability (Soulen & Soulen, 2011).

2. Historical Imagination. Israel and the early church emerged as historically embedded communities; biblical books gained texture as products of real lives.

3. Genre Sensitivity and Literary Art. From form to redaction criticism, scholars treated biblical authors as craftsmen, not mere stenographers.

4. Critical Honesty. Anomalies and tensions were named and probed, not harmonized by fiat; the academy gained intellectual credibility.

Losses / Risks

1. Methodological Naturalism as Metaphysic. Heuristic bracketing of divine causation slid, in some hands, into a denial of it—foreclosing theological judgments prematurely (Oeming, 2006).

2. Fragmentation of Scripture. Source division and redactional atomization sometimes obscured canonical unity, leaving pastors and laity with shards rather than a book.

3. Hermeneutical Naiveté About Readers. Some historical critics assumed their posture was view-from-nowhere objectivity, neglecting the interpreter’s own historicity.

4. Normativity Deferred Indefinitely. With Gabler’s separation of tasks, theology could become perennially postponed, ceding Scripture’s formative role in the church.

Biblical Soundings: Scripture’s Own “Historical Sense”

It is important to note that some impulses often labeled “Enlightenment” have biblical warrant. Luke 1:1–4 offers a programmatic preface: investigation of sources, orderly arrangement, and claims to reliability. Chronicles rewrites Samuel–Kings with explicit theological aims, signaling awareness of sources and redaction. Paul’s diatribe technique in Romans shows rhetorical consciousness. The difference is not that moderns discovered history while ancients ignored it; rather, the Enlightenment universalized historical suspicion and formalized tools into a discipline with its own epistemic norms.

Toward Integration: Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation

Late twentieth-century movements—canonical criticism (Childs), theological interpretation, reception history—did not reject historical work; they re-situated it. Childs argued that the final form is the proper bearer of Scripture’s ecclesial function, even as historical insights illuminate that form (Childs, 1979). Theological interpreters insist that Christian reading is confessional and ecclesial, not only academic. Reception historians track Scripture’s Wirkungsgeschichte, recognizing that meaning unfolds in the community’s use. The doctoral task is not to pick one pole but to coordinate registers: practice rigorous historical-critical analysis while articulating how the canon’s unity, the church’s rule of faith, and God’s agency figure in interpretation.

Assignments (Doctoral Level)

1. Troeltsch in the Wild (3,500–4,000 words). Choose one exegetical crux (Deutero-Isaiah; the Red Sea; the feeding narratives). Reconstruct how a historical-critical reading operationalizes criticism, analogy, correlation. Then offer a theologically integrated account that either accepts those maxims as heuristics or argues for principled exceptions. Justify your stance with explicit epistemology.

2. Spinoza–Semler–Gabler Dossier (3,000–3,500 words). Produce a historiographical essay on these three figures’ contributions to modern exegesis. For each, (a) state the core thesis, (b) identify the philosophical commitments that make it plausible, (c) trace an exegetical consequence (e.g., Pentateuchal composition; descriptive biblical theology). Conclude with a critical evaluation for contemporary practice.

3. Pentateuch Case Study (4,000+ words). Using a representative passage (e.g., Genesis 1–3; Exodus 20–24), analyze stylistic, lexical, and thematic features supporting a multi-source account. Then, in a second half, perform a canonical reading of the final form, showing how theological claims arise from the redacted whole. Reflect on the gains and tensions between the two readings.

4. Life of Jesus Workshop (3,000 words + appendix). Compare Strauss’s “myth” category with a contemporary historical Jesus study that uses memory theory. Provide a close reading of one pericope (e.g., Mark 2:1–12). In an appendix, draft a 300-word explanation of your method addressed to a church audience, demonstrating translational skill.

Conclusion

Enlightenment rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism furnished the axioms that made historical-critical exegesis possible: argue from public reasons; assemble and weigh data; test claims against the grain of experience; correlate events by natural causes. These moves yielded extraordinary dividends—philological rigor, contextual depth, literary sensitivity, and a chastened honesty about what we can and cannot know historically. They also carried costs—methodological naturalism as tacit metaphysic, fragmentation of Scripture, and a hesitancy to speak normatively from the text to the church.

Doctoral interpreters today inherit both the tools and the tensions. The mature path neither dismisses historical criticism as a faithless detour nor enthrones it as exhaustive of what Scripture is. Rather, it is to practice historical-critical inquiry as one register of responsible Christian reading, coordinating it with canonical, theological, and ecclesial sensibilities. The Enlightenment taught us to ask hard questions; theology teaches us why those questions matter and where the answers lead. In that disciplined conversation lies the future of doctoral-level exegesis.

References

Childs, B. S. (1979). Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Fortress Press.

Grant, R. M., & Tracy, D. (1984). A short history of the interpretation of the Bible (2nd ed.). Fortress Press.

McGrath, A. E. (2017). Christian theology: An introduction (6th ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.

Oeming, M. (2006). Contemporary biblical hermeneutics: An introduction. Ashgate.

Soulen, R. K., & Soulen, R. N. (2011). Handbook of biblical criticism (4th ed.). Westminster John Knox.