What Is Source Criticism?

　　Have you ever wondered where Moses got his information that he included in the first five books of the Bible, such as the Creation account found in Genesis 1-2? Or have you ever heard that the Synoptic Gospel writers borrowed notes from a source known as the Q source, a document that may have contained sayings of Jesus and other miscellaneous facts from his ministry?

　　Or maybe you’ve heard that the first five books of the Bible weren’t written by one man, Moses, at all, but were compiled by a number of writers, as stated in the JEDP theory of the Pentateuch.

　　If you’ve found yourself wondering what sources biblical writers used when writing the various books of the Bible, you may be engaging in something known as source criticism.

　　This field of study seeks to analyze what sources the writers of the Bible used to write the books of the Bible. In other words, they wanted to follow the footnotes.

　　Does this field of study go too far? Does it ignore the inerrancy of Scripture? And why does it matter that we understand this field of study? We’ll dive into these questions in this article.

The Pros (and Problems) of Source Criticism

　　Also, as mentioned in this article, if such a source known as the Q Source existed, we can see that one of the disciples preserved the oral tradition of Jesus, which two or more of the Synoptic Gospel writers may have borrowed from as reference material when compiling their gospel.

　　After all, Luke was known for his meticulous research and interviews with eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2). He had many sources that appeared in Luke and Acts, should we not infer that other writers used sources throughout the Bible? We can see instances such as non-canonical books listed in the Bible: The Book of Wars, the Book of Jasher, etc.

　　However, we do have to keep in mind that source criticism does not often have these intentions in mind when analyzing the biblical text. It is usually used by academics to determine what sources a writer used before compiling the text, sometimes ignoring inerrancy and inspiration.

　　Along with the positives, we run into a few downsides to this type of study.

　　Recommended

　　Six Prayers for Estranged Family Members

　　First, as mentioned above, it ignores the fact that God did inspire biblical writers, and that all Scripture is God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16-17). This theory may be simplifying the process too much or attributing too much human power to the process of compiling Scripture, nixing God from the equation.

　　Second, many theories from source criticism do not have a whole lot of concrete evidence. For instance, the JEDP theory and the Q source theory operate mainly on conjecture. After all, no physical document has ever proven either.

Why Does This Matter?

　　First, we should, to some degree, employ source criticism whenever we encounter a religious text. We can ask ourselves why Luke chose to include so many sources in Acts. The answer to this is because Luke wanted to prove the veracity of his claims. Most of the named people and places were alive and well when he wrote the book. He’s saying, “Don’t believe me? Ask this eyewitness. He saw this happen.”

　　However, we should keep in mind that many secular academics, as well as Christian, have latched onto source criticism. Non-believers may latch onto this type of study to pull back the curtain on God’s work, to simplify the work of God into a sociological study of ancient peoples who used oral tradition and similar sources to compile a story.

　　In other words, they try to demystify a process, which, in reality, involved an enormous amount of inspiration from God. After all, if Scripture is inerrant, God would need to play a massive role in the process.

　　Nevertheless, source criticism is not necessarily askew or evil. In the right hands of Christian academics (or Christian readers who want to dive into the historicity of Scripture), we can have a better understanding of how God used many sources, eyewitnesses, and writers to tell the Greatest Story Ever Told.