"What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done." - Ecclesiastes 1:9
"There is Nothing New Under the Sun"
It is often thought that contemporary secular understandings of Biblical studies and philosophy are majorly innovative. Indeed, in both histories of Biblical scholarship and histories of philosophy, one will often find a specific section speaking of the Enlightenment as a great time of change from the past. Biblical Studies textbooks will even often begin speaking about Historical-Critical scholarship with Spinoza and Hobbes (at least for the Pentateuch). That the Enlightenment had a strong break from earlier understandings is in no way controversial. I do not seek to deny that modern philosophy, Higher Criticism (the study of the Bible from naturalistic assumptions that often seek to overturn tradition), or scientific understandings are in any way simply a rehashing of ancient ideas or that it is not new. On the other hand, I think it is a mistake for Christians to look at naturalism or modern Higher Critical theories as if they were new ideas developed by fellow Christians just working through problems with great intellectual honesty.
As such, I will try to make three main points: First, modern understandings of Philosophy and the Bible originated in pagan thought and anti-Christian polemic respectively. Second, those who brought these ideas back into intellectual life in the 17th Century and beyond did so with a hostile intent. Third, we should not seek to reconcile them to Christian faith unless they are better proven than they are now.
Biblical Studies
Though much of what I will say about Philosophy here is relatively common knowledge, I think most people do not know that modern Higher Criticism are rooted in Ancient anti-Christian polemics. Indeed, as I said before, most modern Biblical Studies Textbooks (such as John J. Collins' Introduction to the Hebrew Bible) will begin their discussion of Higher Criticism with Spinoza and Hobbes or other Enlightenment thinkers. This creates a sort of convenient Creation Myth for skeptical Biblical Scholars: new interpretations will lead us to ideas that are different from traditional ones, more rational, but we can still be considered Christian in some vague sense. (Spinoza was a pantheist, and Hobbes claimed not to be an atheist, though neither could really be said to be orthodox in their views) It also acts as a type of Trojan Horse either knowingly or unknowingly, where as Christians we may think that these ideas came out of discussion among people of a Judeo-Christian background seeking answers to pressing questions that the text presents. This is why they will often mention bits of doubts that earlier Christian or Jewish interpreters of Scripture about Mosaic Authorship or the Pauline Authorship of Hebrews - it gives a type of "Orthodox glaze" to their theories. This is I think why Kenton Sparks and Peter Enns are able to get so many people interested in "Believing Criticism" - they do not speak of the origins of their ideas.
Indeed, few will know that the first person to deny Mosaic Authorship of the Pentateuch and Danielic Authorship of Daniel was not Spinoza, but Porphyry, a neoPlatonist of the 3rd Century AD:
"Porphyry wanted to prevent the conversion of cultured people to Christianity, and he endeavored to show that the Christian religion was illogical, ignoble, involved in contradictions, etc. He made a special point of attacking the Bible and the Christian exegesis, and it is interesting to observe his anticipation of Higher Criticism, e.g. by denying the authenticity of the book of Daniel and declaring the prophecies therein contained to be vaticinia ex event, denying that the Pentateuch was by Moses, pointing out apparent inconsistencies and contradictions in the Gospels, etc. The Divinity of Christ was a particular point of attack, and he brought many arguments against the Divinity of Christ and the doctrines of Christ." (A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Frederick Copleston, pages 474-475)
(I would eventually like to write here to give a defense of Mosaic Authorship and the authenticity of the book of Daniel, but this is not the place) This shows two things. First, that it's not a new set of ideas. Second, that such an idea would have been seen as a proof against Christianity. (if it was just an interesting thing to help exegesis, he probably would not have mentioned it) Of course, it is true that theologians like Saint Jerome did accept the existence of Post-Mosaica (emendations to the Pentateuch to keep the text understandable and current - it would have been written in a Hebrew that nobody could understand and with place names that nobody would know if it had not been updated by Joshua and Ezra). On the other hand, he would certainly have rejected Porphyry's ideas or the modern version, the Documentary Hypothesis. Christ Himself said that Moses wrote it (John 5:46-47), so it would seem at least at face value, that it would be theologically important. As Christians we ought to be able to believe God in the flesh, and so it's easy to see why Porphyry would argue in this direction.
If Porphyry had originated these ideas and the later thinkers to adopt them were simply convinced Christian theologians trying to do their jobs, we would have little reason to be concerned by the conclusions. (Scott Hahn has a book on the subject of the political nature of Higher Criticism, which I have not read but would like to eventually) Now, one may be suppose that what I am saying here is a type of genetic fallacy: belief x originated from y source, and y source is bad, so x belief is bad. This is not the case though. My suggestion is that a belief that begins to exist to overturn a certain opinion is likely destructive to said view.
The later thinkers to hold to these views were also largely opposed to religious orthodoxy. While Thomas Hobbes was a theist (at least he said he was) and a supporter of Cromwell's Commonwealth, he was not interested in matters of faith, and his ideas on politics were certainly secular. (his support for Cromwell seems to be more based on his ability to maintain order than his religious policies) He argued that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.
Likewise, Baruch Spinoza was opposed to Mosaic authorship and to the historicity of prophecies. While any real motivations for this are vague in Hobbes' case, it is clear why Spinoza would have wanted to think this. He was opposed to the idea of miracles on a quasi-theological level. (Craig Keener's book Miracles (Volume 1) and William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith both have assessments of Spinoza's arguments against miracles) He held that a proof for the existence of a god (not the God of Christianity in any way) ought to be based on the predictability of nature, and that therefore any violations would be violations of the will of said god. (this is an oversimplification of one of the arguments)
Further thinkers based these arguments on the principles of Hegel's idea of dialectics. This is perhaps why German scholars were those who 'pioneered' Higher Criticism (as if it were a good thing). For example, Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (the idea that 4 authors or sets of authors wrote the Pentateuch in separate sources which were then expertly but visibly spliced together over 400 years or so) In his dating of each of the four sources, we see a clear progression of religious belief and practice. What is important to recognize is that this is before stronger sciences could have supported his conclusions, and these views are not based on objective analysis from linguistics or archaeology, but instead subjective ideas surrounding themes. It is often also pointed out that many of these German Higher Critics were anti-Semites motivated by a desire to 'show' the New Testament to be entirely separate and superior to the Old. (where instead both are God's Word)
Someone looking at the motivations of the critics will likely see why the conclusions are often contrary to Christian orthodoxy.
Philosophy is less clear cut. While the ideas of Biblical criticism have their origin in the Christian era as anti-Christian polemic, the foundations for modern naturalistic thought come from ideas not only before Christ, but at times before Socrates. Further, many of these pagan thinkers are very useful for Christian theology. (for example, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus)
That said, a few specific thinkers ought to be considered here:
First, Anaximander had his own early precursor to the theory of Evolution.
Second, the Atomists such as Democritus held to the idea that all that exists is made up of small particles moving in space called 'atoms:'
If Porphyry had originated these ideas and the later thinkers to adopt them were simply convinced Christian theologians trying to do their jobs, we would have little reason to be concerned by the conclusions. (Scott Hahn has a book on the subject of the political nature of Higher Criticism, which I have not read but would like to eventually) Now, one may be suppose that what I am saying here is a type of genetic fallacy: belief x originated from y source, and y source is bad, so x belief is bad. This is not the case though. My suggestion is that a belief that begins to exist to overturn a certain opinion is likely destructive to said view.
The later thinkers to hold to these views were also largely opposed to religious orthodoxy. While Thomas Hobbes was a theist (at least he said he was) and a supporter of Cromwell's Commonwealth, he was not interested in matters of faith, and his ideas on politics were certainly secular. (his support for Cromwell seems to be more based on his ability to maintain order than his religious policies) He argued that Moses could not have written the Pentateuch.
Likewise, Baruch Spinoza was opposed to Mosaic authorship and to the historicity of prophecies. While any real motivations for this are vague in Hobbes' case, it is clear why Spinoza would have wanted to think this. He was opposed to the idea of miracles on a quasi-theological level. (Craig Keener's book Miracles (Volume 1) and William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith both have assessments of Spinoza's arguments against miracles) He held that a proof for the existence of a god (not the God of Christianity in any way) ought to be based on the predictability of nature, and that therefore any violations would be violations of the will of said god. (this is an oversimplification of one of the arguments)
Further thinkers based these arguments on the principles of Hegel's idea of dialectics. This is perhaps why German scholars were those who 'pioneered' Higher Criticism (as if it were a good thing). For example, Wellhausen's Documentary Hypothesis (the idea that 4 authors or sets of authors wrote the Pentateuch in separate sources which were then expertly but visibly spliced together over 400 years or so) In his dating of each of the four sources, we see a clear progression of religious belief and practice. What is important to recognize is that this is before stronger sciences could have supported his conclusions, and these views are not based on objective analysis from linguistics or archaeology, but instead subjective ideas surrounding themes. It is often also pointed out that many of these German Higher Critics were anti-Semites motivated by a desire to 'show' the New Testament to be entirely separate and superior to the Old. (where instead both are God's Word)
Someone looking at the motivations of the critics will likely see why the conclusions are often contrary to Christian orthodoxy.
Philosophy
Philosophy is less clear cut. While the ideas of Biblical criticism have their origin in the Christian era as anti-Christian polemic, the foundations for modern naturalistic thought come from ideas not only before Christ, but at times before Socrates. Further, many of these pagan thinkers are very useful for Christian theology. (for example, Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus)
That said, a few specific thinkers ought to be considered here:
First, Anaximander had his own early precursor to the theory of Evolution.
"Life comes from the sea, and by means of adaption to environment the present forms of animals were evolved. Anaximander makes a clever guess as to the origin of man. "...he further says that in the beginning man was born from animals of another species, for while other animals quickly find nourishment for themselves, man alone needs a lengthy period of suckling, so that had he been originally as he is now, he could never have survived." He does not explain - a perennial difficulty for evolutionists - how man survived in the transitional stage." (A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Frederick Copleston, page 25)Of course the evidence then was nonexistent, while there is much more now, but it is interesting to see how this idea that is supposedly meant to destroy Christianity was indeed circulated before the Faith even began.
Second, the Atomists such as Democritus held to the idea that all that exists is made up of small particles moving in space called 'atoms:'
"According to Leucippus and Democritus there are an infinite number of indivisible units, which are called atoms. These are imperceptible, since they are too small to be perceived by the senses. The atoms differ in size and shape, but have no quality save that of solidity impenetrability. Infinite in number, they move in the void."
"Cicero relates the same, and also declares that according to Democritus there is no "top" or "bottom" or "middle" in the void." (A History of Philosophy, Volume 1, Frederick Copleston, page 73)Even the Logical Problem of Evil has an ancient vintage, being invented by Epicurus.
