A GUIDE

TO

BIBLICAL

EXEGESIS

By

Mark McEntire

Belmont University

School of Religion

A GUIDE TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

CONTENTS

PART I: INTRODUCTORY ISSUES

Chapter 1: Introduction to the Guide

Chapter 2: Beginning Procedures for Exegesis

PART II: DIACHRONIC METHODS

Chapter 3: Introduction to Diachronic Methods

Chapter 4: Source Criticism

Chapter 5: Form Criticism

Chapter 6: Tradition Criticism

Chapter 7: Redaction Criticism

PART III: SYNCHRONIC METHODS

Chapter 8: Introduction to Synchronic Methods

Chapter 9: Canonical Criticism

Chapter 10: Rhetorical Criticism

Chapter 11: Narrative Criticism

Chapter 12: Additional Methods

PART IV: CONCLUDING ISSUES

Chapter 13: Utilizing Exegetical Methods

Chapter 14: A Word on Hermeneutics

Chapter 15: Culture and Reading the Bible

Chapter OneIntroduction to the Guide

What Is Exegesis?

Exegesis is the attempt to understand the meaning of a text. Everybody does exegesis

every time they read something. They are not always aware that they are doing it or of how they

are doing it, so exegesis is not always intentional and conscious. One of the major convictions

which motivates the writing of this book and others like it is the belief that biblical exegesis

needs to be intentional. There are no guides written about how to do newspaper exegesis. Why?

The reason is that most people who read the newspaper are in the group to which the authors

aimed their writing. The writers of the newspaper are professionals trained to write in a way that

their target audience will understand easily. The Bible is different in almost every way.

Contemporary readers are not members of the audience to whom the original authors of the

Bible were writing. Our culture is vastly different from theirs both because of time and location.

In fact, we can not be sure that the Bible was as easily understandable to its original audiences as

a contemporary newspaper is to us. Because much of the Bible consists of literary forms such as

poetry and parables, it probably was never easily understandable. The gospels, for example,

often comment that Jesus' parables were puzzling to his hearers.

Generally, there are two questions with which biblical interpreters are concerned. First,

what was the author trying to communicate? Second, what does that mean to me and my faith

community today?. These two questions are not as easily separated as one might think. Our

concerns about contemporary, personal meaning are always entangled with our attempts to

understand what biblical texts are saying. Nevertheless, this guide is primarily concerned with

the first of those questions.1 The second question will be addressed in the final chapter on

"hermeneutics." The explicit intersection of these two questions will be the primary concern of

chapter fifteen. Exegesis, then, is a process of overcoming the barriers which lie between us and

an understanding of the text. These barriers are linguistic, cultural, chronological, and

geographical in nature. Another way of saying this is that the writers of the Bible lived in a very

different world from the one in which we live. As exegetes, we are struggling to get into their

world in order to understand their message. One thing you must understand from the very

beginning is that we will never completely succeed. We will never know for sure if we have

grasped the writer's full meaning. Therefore, exegesis is an ongoing process which must be done

in community. The dogmatic belief that I have the correct interpretation of a text is never

justified. Interpretive communities take many shapes. The most important one for Christians is

the church, both past and present. Academic institutions and Bible study groups also function as

interpretive communities. Individuals must always perform exegesis in open dialogue with

others in order to correct, refine, and improve their own understanding.

The original purpose of this book is to fill a very specific need. There does not exist a

guide to exegetical methods written for students who study in English, but for whom English is

not their first language. Therefore, I began developing this guide for my students when I was

teaching at a seminary in Ethiopia. There are a large number of good works on biblical exegesis

available. If it were not certain gaps, such as the just described, I would not venture to create

1Some would understand the more literary methods of Part III in this guide to be aimed at answering

only the second (hermeneutical) question, but this is a distortion. Methods such as rhetorical and narrative

criticism often make very definite claims about the intentions of the author of the final form of the text. Some extreme understandings of interpretation argue that answering the first (exegetical) question is either impossible or unnecessary, or both. This guide is based on the assumption that the intent of the author of the text is accessible, and is essential to careful exegesis.

another one. Other helpful studies will be listed in the bibliography at the end of this chapter.

This guide will differ from those currently available in three ways. This book is unique in a

number of ways. First, I will direct the language of this book, in terms of level of difficulty,

toward undergraduate students who are new to the academic study of the Bible. Most books on

biblical exegesis are more complex than this one. Second, in the chapters dealing with each

specific method, I will include a sample exegetical essay. I will structure these samples in both

length and depth to approximate the kinds of assignments which might be required of beginning

students. My hope is that beginning theological students will be able to make use of this guide

to begin writing their own exegetical papers. Third, the end of this book will point toward the

most significant emerging trend in biblical exegesis, this is giving careful attention to the role of

cultural experience in interpretation.

The Plan of the Book

Following this introductory chapter, chapter two will address preliminary procedures

involved in most or all exegetical methods. The primary subjects of chapter two will be textual

criticism and grammatical analysis. I will assume that most users of this guide will not be

proficient in biblical languages. Therefore, my discussion of these matters will be relatively

brief and simple.

The exegetical methods have been divided into two groups. Part II will address methods

which may be classified as the traditional historical-critical methods. They might further be

defined as "diachronic" methods which focus on issues behind the final form of the text, such as

historical reconstruction, prior uses of the text, and the editing process. Part III deals with what

I have labeled the "synchronic.” These methods are primarily concerned with interpreting the

final form of the text and are typically literary in nature. Part IV concludes the book with some

proposals for the choosing and integration of methods and an introduction to the issue of

hermeneutics. The discussion of hermeneutics includes a chapter which gives significant

attention to the issue of inculturation.

In each chapter dealing with a specific method I will offer theoretical background,

procedural guidelines, a sample exegesis, and a bibliography for expanding the use of each

method. The bibliographies are not exhaustive. They will simply take the reader to the next

step. Bibliographies in these books will provide a more exhaustive survey of the available

literature.

The sample exegeses are intended to illustrate each method in as pure a form as possible.

Though some exegetical methods are dependent on or overlap with others, I have tried to mix

methods as little as possible. I am sure some readers will notice many places where I have failed

in this attempt. These exegeses are intended to match what might be expected of beginning

students in length, depth, and complexity. I have not attempted to produce the type of thorough

biblical exegesis which might be expected of a professional scholar. While these are intended as

models of a sort, beginning students would probably not be expected to utilize one method in

pure form when writing exegetical papers. Therefore, Chapter 13 on combining methods will be

of significant importance to students. The final chapter will point beyond the strict exegetical

task to a hermeneutical understanding of the tasks of ministry.

Some Foundational Issues

I am aware that in some of the contexts to which this guide is addressed there may be

considerable resistance, among both students and instructors, to the methods I discuss in Part II.

My own teaching experience has lead me to the conclusion that nearly all beginning students

enter their theological studies reading the Bible from a primarily devotional, and therefore "pre-

critical," perspective. There is great power in such reading, but there are also some serious,

potential weaknesses. The most serious of these weaknesses is the lack of limitations or

guidelines for interpretation, which leads to an almost complete dependence on individual

experience. The purpose of exegetical methods is not to destroy such pre-critical readings, but

to raise them up to a level of "critical awareness."2

I also recognize that the historical-critical era is coming to an end.3 If it was possible to

move such students directly from a pre-critical to a synchronic, critical approach to reading the

Bible, I might be in favor of doing so. I simply do not believe, however, that it is possible or

advisable. Paul Ricouer described a process by which readers who have been exposed to critical,

academic study of the Bible might return to the final form of the biblical literature with a

“second naïveté.” To adopt the language of Ricoeur, I believe that to achieve a "second naïveté"

reading, the "first naïveté" must be discarded.4 In simpler terms, a literary reading is not the

2Daniel Patte has provided a thorough discussion of this issue in Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation (Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville, 1995).

3This does not mean that historical methods are no longer important, but that they no longer dominate the field of biblical exegesis.

4On the term "second naïveté," see Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, p. 351.

same as a literal reading. For example, if one is to apply a narrative method effectively to

Genesis 2-3,then it may be necessary to abandon the idea that this is a precise, historical record

of an actual event. This can be an extremely painful process, but it can also be an extremely

educational one. In a sense, it requires a leap of faith. It requires a mature conviction that the

Bible is the word of God and, therefore, that no set of questions poses a threat to its ultimate

truth. The plan of this book rests upon one assumption which can and should be questioned.

The exegetical path traced in these pages required the academy, in Western contexts, more than a

century to travel. Is it possible for beginning students in a one semester course, or even in a

three to four year program, to travel the same path? The answer assumed here, and in other

exegetical handbooks is substantially “yes.”

There seems to be little consensus within the field of biblical interpretation as to what

constitutes a method. For the purposes of this guide, I will define a method as a set of questions

which leads to a specific procedure for interpreting the text. This definition will leave out such

approaches as those sometimes called feminist criticism and materialist criticism, both of which

I understand as more of a "hermeneutical stance"5 than a procedural method. In other words, the

feminist or materialist critics must still choose a set of steps for answering the questions they

pose to the text. There is no procedure inherent in these approaches. There are a few other

methods which I will restrict to a brief discussion in chapter twelve, because they involve a level

of theoretical sophistication which is beyond the scope of this guide, or because their procedures

have not yet reached a common state of development which is possible to describe here. I must

also acknowledge, based on the definition of method presented here, that canonical criticism is

on the margin between an exegetical method and what I have called a hermeneutical stance. It

does not point to a very specific procedure. This will be obvious to the reader when he or she

encounters chapter nine. I have included a full chapter on canonical criticism primarily because

of the role it has played in motivating the general move toward synchronic, or literary, methods.

Finally, a word to students is in order concerning the word "criticism" which appears

frequently in this guide. The use of this word has become an unavoidable convention in biblical

interpretation. Within academic contexts this word is not used in a negative sense. It does not

mean "to say something bad about something or someone." It is used more in the sense of "to

analyze closely" or "to evaluate." This is the sense in which criticism is used in this guide. A

term such as "form criticism" means, therefore, to evaluate a text using a specific procedure

5See Phyllis Trible's discussion of this distinction in Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 1-5.

which pays particular attention to the form or type of literature which constitutes the text.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

Hayes, John H. and Carl R. Holladay. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, rev. ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1987.

Kaiser, Otto and Werner G. Kummel. Exegetical Method: A Student's Handbook, rev. ed. New York: Seabury, 1981.

Keck, Leander and Gene M. Tucker. "Exegesis." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976, pp. 296-303.

Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville, 1995.

Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the MethodologyScholars. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995.

Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.

CHAPTER TWOBEGINNING PROCEDURES FOR EXEGESIS

Before making use of a specific method of exegesis to interpret a text, there are some

preliminary steps an exegete must take. To some students these may seem obvious, while to

others they may seem pointless. The exegete who skips these steps, however, is making some

assumptions and is allowing other persons to make some decisions for him or her. We all must

rely on the judgments of experts at times, but we should at least be aware that we are doing so.

Textual Criticism

Explanation

Before interpreting a text, the interpreter must determine what the text is. For those

unaware of the history of development of the Bible, this might not seem important. Therefore, a

brief discussion of that history is necessary. We possess nothing close to any of the original

written documents that compose the Bible. In the case of the Old Testament, the Bible you have

is, either directly or indirectly, primarily a translation of one manuscript of the Hebrew Bible.

This manuscript, which is called the Leningrad Codex, was copied in about 1000 C. E.6 The

books of Old Testament were originally written about 1500 years before that. During the past

century a number of older Hebrew manuscripts of individual books or parts of books have been

6When referring to dates, the system in this book will use two abbreviations. The Common Era (C.E.) began in the year 0 and we are now in the year 1996 C. E. The years before the Common Era (B.C.E.) count backwards from the year 1 B.C.E.

found. The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced about 2000

years ago, but they are only partial. Therefore, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible is still the

copy of the standardized, Masoretic text called the Leningrad Codex, produced in 1008 C. E.

The books of the Old Testament also exist in several other ancient versions. These

include the Greek version (the Septuagint), the Aramaic version (the Targums), Syriac versions

(such as the Peshitta), and the Samaritan Pentateuch. These versions were produced during the

period from 500 B. C. E. to 500 C. E., though the oldest physical manuscripts of these versions

which we possess are much younger than this. These ancient versions often reveal that they

were translated from Hebrew texts which were significantly different from the standardized

Masoretic Text available to us today. Because of this difference and the translation processes

themselves, the various witnesses to the Old Testament text sometimes present different

readings. When available manuscripts of biblical texts differ in their contents, we refer to these

differences as “variant readings.” Because of the existence of these variant readings, we are not

certain what the original manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament said. The process of

trying to determine what the original text said is called "textual criticism."

There is some disagreement as to the purpose of Old Testament textual criticism.

Because there is a dominant manuscript, the Leningrad Codex, some argue that the purpose of

textual criticism is only to correct the obvious errors in that manuscript. Others favor a more

extensive combining of readings from other witnesses, along with the Leningrad codex, in order

to produce the best possible text. A combined text like this is referred to as “eclectic.”

Specialists who perform textual criticism must be trained in the languages of all of these

different versions. They have also developed an understanding of how ancient manuscripts were

transmitted. Because the books of the Bible were copied by hand for hundreds of years, certain

types of copying errors were commonly made. These errors are difficult to demonstrate in

English. The examples below will illustrate how students working with the Bible in English can

become aware of many of the more important variant readings and the issues surrounding them.

Those interested in a more technical explanation of textual criticism with more thorough

collections of examples may refer to some of the works in the bibliography below.

New Testament textual criticism is somewhat different from Old Testament textual

criticism. Modern editions of the Greek New Testament and standard English translations are

not based primarily on any single Greek manuscript. The books of the New Testament were all

written in the second half of the first century of the Common Era. The oldest manuscripts of

individual New Testament books, however, come from the second century. The oldest complete

manuscript of the New Testament was copied in the fourth century. Scholars have examined

approximately 8000 ancient Greek manuscripts using the reasoning processes involved in textual

criticism to put together what they believe is the closest approximation to the original text. This

pieced together version is an eclectic text, because it comes from many sources.

Though Old Testament textual criticism and New Testament textual criticism differ

somewhat in their goals and, more significantly, in the nature of the sources they use, they

follow some of the same principles in making decisions about the original text. Both disciplines

attempt to describe and keep in mind the common kinds of changes in the text that scribes who

hand-copied ancient texts tended to make. These changes fall into two general categories,

intentional and unintentional.

There are several different types of intentional changes. Below are descriptions of four

of the most common types, along with suspected examples of such changes.

1) A "simple expansion" is a word or phrase added to the text by the scribe. The Hebrew

text of Joshua 1:1 refers to Moses as "Moses, servant of Yahweh." The Greek text (Septuagint)

refers to him simply as "Moses." The generally accepted opinion of text critics is that a Hebrew

scribe added "servant of Yahweh" to pay tribute to Moses. The Septuagint was likely translated

from an earlier Hebrew text which did not contain this expansion.

2) Some changes in the text appear to be attempts to improve the grammar or style of the

writing. The variant reading in Luke 4:1 may be an example of this type. In some manuscripts

the phrase translated "in the desert" uses the Greek preposition en with the locative case. Others

use the preposition eis with the accusative case. The latter is believed by some to be an attempt

to conform this text to what became a more commonly accepted grammatical construction at

some time after the original text of Luke was written. The two different Greek readings have

essentially the same meaning.

3) Some biblical texts have approximate or precise parallels in other parts of the Bible.

In cases where these parallels do not match exactly it appears that scribes attempted to alter them

so that they would. This kind of change is called conflation or harmonization. II Samuel 22 and

Psalm 18 are virtually identical. In v. 43 of each, however, there is a difference. The Masoretic

Text of II Samuel 22:43 contains the phrase "like the dust of the earth." In Psalm 18:43 the

Masoretic Text reads "like the dust upon the face of the wind." Some manuscripts alter the

phrase in Psalm 18 to match that found in II Samuel.

A New Testament example of this phenomenon is found in the gospel of Matthew. Some

Greek texts of Matthew 27:49 contain the added sentence "Another took a spear and pierced his

side, and water and blood came out." Other manuscripts do not contain this sentence. On close

comparison, this sentence is identical to that found in John 19:34, and it appears that one or more

scribes added it to Matthew to make Matthew match John more closely.

4) It appears that scribes sometimes wrote notes in the margins of manuscripts, perhaps

as commentary on, or clarification of, the text. At a later time, such marginal notes may have

been incorporated into the text. This kind of change, sometimes referred to as a “gloss,” could

be classified as a combination of intentional and unintentional. This may explain a variant

reading in Genesis 7:6. The second half of this verse in the Hebrew text says, "and the flood

came, waters upon the earth." The Greek text does not contain the word "waters." It is quite

possible that because the Hebrew word for "flood" was much less common than the word for

"waters" that a scribe wrote a note of explanation between the lines or in the margin of the text,

which was later moved into the text itself. This would also help explain the awkward syntax of

the phrase in Hebrew, which I have tried to preserve in the English translation above.

In ancient times, before the invention of printing, scribes may have produced copies of

texts in a number of ways. It is important to have in mind some picture of two of these

possibilities. A scribe may have sat at a table reading a previously made copy of the text and

copying a new one from it. On the other hand, a scribe may have listened and copied as another

person read an original copy aloud. These copying processes made several types of

unintentional errors common. You may often find very similar mistakes in your own written

work. Some of the more common types are explained and illustrated her.

1) Frequently a letter, word, or phrase may have been mistakenly copied twice. This is

known as "dittography." If you were to examine the Hebrew text of II Kings 7:13, you would

find a phrase consisting of seven Hebrew words repeated twice. The phrase says something like

“which are remaining in it, behold they will be like all the multitude of Israel.” English versions

of the Bible only translate the phrase once. Apparently, at some point in the process of

transmission of the text a scribe copied these words twice by mistake. This is an error almost

everyone has made themselves when writing a paper or a letter.

2) The opposite of the mistake of duplication above is the accidental omission of a letter,

word, or phrase. This type of error is called "haplography." John 5:44 illustrates a likely

occurrence of this mistake. Some Greek manuscripts omit the word "God." In the Greek

manuscripts which do contain the Greek word for God, this word is the third of a sequence of

four words which all end with the same two letters. It is easy to see how a scribe could have lost

his place and skipped a word. Most text critics agree that this is what likely happened.

3) Two final types of unintentional mistakes may be treated together. They are based

upon the two simple facts that some pairs of Hebrew and Greek letters look very much alike and

other pairs sound very much alike. The Hebrew text of Genesis 22:13 may be translated literally

as, "And he looked up and behold, behind was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns." While

this reading is understandable, it is a bit awkward. The Samaritan Pentateuch reading of this

verse is different by only one letter. The Hebrew equivalents of the letters "r" and "d" look very

much alike. With this single exchange of letters, the Samaritan Pentateuch reads, "And he

looked up and behold, one ram was caught in a thicket by its horns." It is difficult to judge

which reading is more likely original, but he second one is certainly smoother.

Greek manuscripts differ on the reading of Romans 5:1. One reading contains an

indicative verb and is translated, "we have peace with God." Other manuscripts contain a

subjunctive verb and might be translated, "we should have peace with God." The difference

between these two readings is the simple exchange of two Greek vowels which have identical

sounds, equivalent to the English vowel "o." If copies of Romans were produced by the second

method described above, with the scribe copying as he listened to the text reading aloud, it is

easy to see how such a mistake could have occurred.

The practice of textual criticism in both Old and New Testament studies has produced a

variety of lists of rules. While these lists may differ somewhat from one text critic to the next,

there are some major points of agreement. Below is a list of some of the more commonly agreed

upon rules for evaluating variant readings. While these rules illustrate generally accepted

principles, the practice of textual criticism should avoid a rigid application of any of them. One

guiding thought which is frequently expressed is that when examining variant readings the

interpreter should try to place herself or himself imaginatively in the world of the ancient scribe,

in order to understand what kind of new decision or mistake in copying was most likely.

1) The shorter of two possible readings is more likely to be correct. Scribes added

something to the text more often than they removed something from it.

2) The more difficult of two readings is more likely to be correct. A scribe was more

likely to have changed a text to make it easier to read than to make it more difficult.

3) Readings which actually exist in ancient manuscripts should be given primary

authority over suggested corrections proposed by later interpreters. The latter type is called an

emendation, and should generally be avoided except in cases where a text is completely

unreadable in its present form.

4) The context of a variant reading should be considered in evaluating the possibilities.

5) The reading which is best able to explain the existence of the other alternative(s) is

most likely to be correct.

Further Illustration

Most instances of variant readings in the Bible are quite minor in importance. They

often have little or no effect on the meaning of the passage. In rare cases, however, the

differences are quite significant and can seriously influence our interpretation. Here are two

illustrations of the role textual criticism can play in interpretation. One comes from the Old

Testament and the other from the New Testament.

When a student begins interpreting a text, he or she should examine several versions very

closely. In doing this, the student will usually find that various versions or translations, even in

the same language, are not identical. There may be several reasons for these differences. One

reason is that the two different versions are not translating the same text. Suppose for a moment

that you wanted to interpret the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:1-16. If you were to

examine the text in several different English versions, you might find something rather

surprising at v. 8. The following list illustrates the problem.

Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out into the field." And when they were in the

field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. (Gen. 4:8, NRSV)

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field,

that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (Gen. 4:8, KJV)

Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out;" and while they were in the open country,

Cain set on his brother and killed him. (Gen. 4:8, JB)

There are many small differences among these three versions of Gen. 4:8 which are of little

importance, but there is one major difference. What did Cain say to Abel? Did he say anything?

Some Bible versions may attempt to explain the problem in a brief footnote. Most of the major

versions, including the Septuagint, contain the direct quotation from the mouth of Cain. The

Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible does not. There is no way to be certain whether the original

Hebrew text contained the quotation. There are good arguments both for including it and

excluding it. You will need to decide whether to interpret the text with the quotation or without

it. This text-critical decision may determine the extent to which you decide that Cain’s crime is

premeditated. A good exegetical commentary will summarize these arguments and offer an

opinion. Again, there is nothing wrong with accepting the opinion of an expert, but you ought to

know when you are doing so. If you simply read one English version and interpret its text, you

will probably remain completely unaware of this issue.

Most variant readings are fairly minor, involving a change in a single word or even a

single letter. The most significant variant reading in the New Testament, however, involves

many verses which have a profound impact on the understanding of an entire book. Suppose

you wish to interpret the resurrection narrative in the gospel of Mark. If you begin reading Mark

16 in many English versions, you may discover that in the KJV this chapter has twenty verses,

while in the NEB it has only eight. The footnotes of the NEB do contain the missing verses.

What is the problem here? The oldest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark contain only eight

verses in chapter sixteen. Some other manuscripts contain a longer version of verse eight. Still

others contain twelve additional verses (vv. 9-20). There are even some manuscripts which

contain more than one ending. How did the original gospel of Mark end? Nobody knows for

sure. The short ending, which concludes with the phrase, "for they were afraid," is troubling but

very dramatic. If you are interpreting Mark 16, you need to understand this issue and choose

intentionally which Mark 16 you are going to interpret.

A full treatment of the causes of textual variants and the techniques used to evaluate them

are beyond the scope of this guide, but there are many resources to which you may refer for

more information. There is one basic rule of textual criticism which even those who do not read

the ancient languages can apply. The reading that best explains how the other different readings

developed is likely the original. For instance, it is easy to see why a scribe who was copying the

gospel of Mark might have been dissatisfied with the short ending. The story ends abruptly.

Therefore, someone decided to add a more satisfying ending, one that more closely matches

those in the other gospels. It is almost impossible to explain why or how any copyist could have

left off the last twelve verses if the original extended through verse 20. The short ending

explains the existence of the long, but the long ending can not explain the short. Even this

simple rule, however, should not be applied to rigidly.

Grammatical Analysis

Explanation

The basic unit of language which can be interpreted is the sentence.7 Sentences are

composed of words, however, and any method of exegesis is dependent upon the understanding

of words and how they are being used in the text. The most basic type of grammatical analysis

is the process of determining the meanings of words and their functions in a sentence (syntax).

Exegesis should always begin with repeated readings of the text in several different

versions. Three types of words in particular will require significant study. First, there are words

whose meanings are uncertain to you. An English dictionary is the first place to begin with such

7 This has been a point of significant contention in biblical studies. Much use has been made of individual words and their meanings in biblical interpretation. James Barr has argued most forcefully against the overuse of this practice in The Semantics of Biblical Language (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963). See especially p. 263.

words, but a Bible dictionary or theological dictionary can also be helpful. Second, there are

familiar words which contain significant theological meaning. These you should look up in a

Bible dictionary or theological dictionary. In addition, you should consult a concordance in

order to find other biblical passages where the same word is used. Third, if you wish to make

use of Hebrew and Greek words, there are lexicons and word-books which can provide

important information about them. These steps will help you gain a good understanding of the

full range of meaning of key words. Sometimes differing arrangements of words can create

different meanings, even when all of the words are the same. You should give careful attention

to sentence structure in a passage, especially when you find significant differences in the

versions which you compare.

Examples

Three illustrations should suffice to demonstrate various steps in grammatical analysis

which may be necessary. Grammatical analysis and the careful reading that goes with it could

be very important in the interpretation of Gen. 3:15. Notice the differing translations below.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he

will strike your head, and you will strike his heel. (Gen. 3:15, NRSV)

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between her offspring and hers;

he will crush your head and you will strike his heel. (Gen 3:15, NIV)

I will pure enmity between you and the woman, between your brood and hers. They

shall strike at your head and you shall strike at their heel. (Gen 3:15, NEB)

First, many readers may need to look up a key word like enmity in and English dictionary,

because it is not commonly used in popular, spoken English. Second, there are some minor

differences among these versions which need little or no attention. The placement of "And" at

the beginning of the NIV reading is of no real significance. The meanings of "brood" and

"offspring" are not significantly different." Third, notice that the NEB translates as plurals two

pronouns in the final sentence which are singular in the other versions. This should cause you to

ask some questions. If you could read Hebrew, you would notice immediately that the pronouns

are actually singular. If you do not read Hebrew, consulting additional versions and exegetical

commentaries should lead you to the same discovery. This difference may be of little

significance, but you might gain some interesting insight by thinking about what the NEB is

trying to communicate by this choice of translation. It has become fairly common in Christian

interpretation of Genesis 3 to associate the snake with Satan, though the concept of an individual

arch-villain developed much later than the book of Genesis. The NEB, on the other hand, is

promoting and understanding that the enmity is between snakes and human beings. Fourth, and

most important is the use of the verb "crush" in the NIV. Notice that the other two versions each

use "strike" twice. Why is this important? For a long time this verse has been considered very

important in the Christian tradition. It has been proposed that the second half of the verse speaks

prophetically about Jesus and Satan. Satan will strike Jesus heel (the crucifixion) and Jesus shall

crush Satan's head (the resurrection). This interpretation is dependent upon the one verb (crush)

having a stronger meaning than the other (strike). In Hebrew, however, the same word is used

both times, and a careful examination of numerous versions and a good commentary would lead

you to this discovery. It is clear that this "prophetic" reading is incorrect, and that certain

versions, like the NIV, push readers in the direction of this wrong conclusion. Careful attention

to the grammar of the text will help you avoid such mistakes.

Next, examine Romans 8:9 carefully. The major difficulty with this verse is not the

differences which might be found in different versions of the Bible. The problem is

understanding two central words and the concepts they represent. The Apostle Paul seems to be

using a pair of opposing words or ideas in Romans 8:9. These words are "spirit" and "flesh."

Notice that some versions capitalize the first letter of "Spirit." The Greek New Testament does

not use this kind of capitalization. The translators of English versions which do are already

proposing a certain element of theological meaning for this word. It is absolutely essential for

you to understand how these two words are being used in the Epistle to the Romans. There are

several sources which can help you. Any Bible dictionary or theological dictionary will have an

explanation of these terms. Thorough dictionaries will discuss specifically how Paul uses these

terms. Commentaries on the book of Romans will also provide important information. In

addition, you should use a concordance to examine for yourself other texts in which Paul uses

"spirit" and "flesh."

Finally, John 3:3 illustrates how even small words can be critical in the interpretation of

a text. This is one of the best known texts in the New Testament. In John 3:2, Nicodemus

comes and engages Jesus in conversation. In 3:3, Jesus responds to him. Notice the differing

versions below:

Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without

being born from above." (John 3:3, NRSV)

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, unless a man be born again, he cannot see

the kingdom of God." (John 3:3, NIV)

Do not be distracted by the use of words like "reply" and "answer." They mean the same thing.

The important difference is that between "born from above" (NRSV) and "born again" (NIV).

The problem is that the Greek word used here can have each of these meanings. To their credit,

both of these English versions provide the other translation in a footnote. Any exegesis of this

passage must take this problem into account. Good exegetical commentaries will provide

relevant background information and a summary of the arguments concerning the translation of

this verse. There is a tendency among interpreters to choose one position on such a problem and

argue strongly for it. You should at least be willing to consider the possibility that the author

deliberately chose to use a word with these two meanings because he wanted to communicate

both meanings. There is not necessarily one correct translation.

Bibliography

Textual and Grammatical Criticism

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.

Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 1988.

McCarter, P. Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia:Fortress, 1986.

Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible

Societies, 1971.

Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Trans. Errol F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Bible Dictionaries: There are dozens available. Only a few are mentioned here with comments.

Most individual readers will be limited to owning a one-volume Bible Dictionary. There are at least three excellent ones available.

Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2000.

Harper's Bible Dictionary. Ed. Paul Achtemeier. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985.

Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. Watson E. Mills, et al. Macon, Ga.: Mercer UniversityPress, 1990.

Multi-volume dictionaries are able to present much more thorough and technical information related to the study of the Bible. Two such dictionaries are of note.

The Interpreter's Bible, 4 vols. Ed. George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. This is an excellent and very thorough resource, though it is becoming quite dated. A Supplementary volume, edited by Keith Crim, was published in 1976.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Garden City: Doubleday, 1992. This is the most exhaustive Bible dictionary ever published. It is now, and will remain, the standard work for many years to come.

Theological Wordbooks: For students with minimal ability in biblical languages, there are many reference works available which provide insight into the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words. The two most significant are listed below.

Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76. This is a monumental work and provides an abundance of information on Greek words. Its methodology has come under legitimate attack from James Barr, among others, but it is still a valuable tool. A one volume abridged edition was published in 1985.

Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, incomplete. Ed. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-. Like the work above, this is a massive source of information. It is now more than half completed, but the appearance of remaining volumes has been slow.

Lexicons: There are a wide variety of works which come under this heading. The standard reference works are listed below.

Brown, Francis, S. R. Drive, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford: oxford University Press, 1906.

Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Concordances: These are available in abundance now, with the advent of computer technology. I will not list specific titles. Many on-line Bible search sites are available, such as:http://bible.gospelcom.net/http://www.blueletterbible.org/

Grammars: There are a large number of introductory and intermediate grammars of biblical Hebrew and Greek. I will not list them individually. The standard English reference grammars for Hebrew and Greek are listed below.

Kautzsch, E. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Trans. A. E. Cowley.Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.

Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the

Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1914.

Biblical Commentaries: Exegetes must be very careful here. Commentaries are produced for many different purposes. Some are exegetical, some homiletical, and some devotional. While those written for the latter two purposes can provide important insight, they are not the best place to start. Exegetical commentaries always include a discussion of the text itself before they begin interpreting or applying it. Some are more thorough than others. Some of the most useful series are listed below, with descriptions.

The Anchor Bible. This series has been in process for about thirty years and is nearly complete. The method and approach of the various volumes varies widely, as do their quality and usefulness. Some of the earlier volumes are being replaced by new editions. Among the highlights of the series are the volumes on Leviticus, Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, Luke, John, Romans, and Galatians.

Hermeneia. Published by Fortress press, this series contains Old and New Testament volumes, but is not yet near completion. This series is extremely technical in nature and many students will find it too difficult, but the volumes are consistent in their thorough discussions of the biblical text. Many of the volumes were originally published in German and have been translated into English. Among better volumes are those on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Daniel, Acts, Galatians, Hebrews, and I Peter.

The New Century Bible. Published by Eerdmans, this series contains Old and New Testament volumes and is complete. Some volumes are being updated. The commentaries in this series are briefer and simpler than most other exegetical commentaries. Consequently, they are not as thorough, but many of the volumes are of good quality and are very useful. Among the most helpful are the volumes on Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, John, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and Revelation.

The New International Commentary on the New Testament and The New International Commentary on the Old Testament. Published by Eerdmans, these series are nearly complete and some older volumes are being replaced. The volumes in this series tend to provide complete discussions of the text, though their quality is uneven. Among the best are Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, John, Acts, Philippians, Hebrews, and the Epistles of John.

The New International Greek Testament Commentary. This series is about half complete. For those students with some training in Greek, these volumes are very helpful.

The Old Testament Library. This series has been in production for many years. Some of the earlier volumes were translations of classic German commentaries. New volumes continue to appear and the series is nearing completion, with some of the earlier volumes now being replaced. The highlights of the series are numerous, including the volumes on Genesis, Joshua, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah and Micah.

Word Biblical Commentary. Published by Word, this series contains Old and New Testament volumes and is nearing completion. Students will probably find this series the most useful. It provides thorough discussions of textual issues in a format that is not difficult to follow. There are no weak volumes, to date. The unevenness of the series is due to the existence of several superior volumes, which overshadow the rest. Among the best are Exodus, Ezra-Nehemiah, Job, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Luke, John, Romans, Galatians, James, and Hebrews.

Interpretation. This is the best set of commentaries that is primarily homiletical in focus. It contains excellent volumes on Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Ezekiel, John, Acts, and

Philippians, among others.

CHAPTER THREE:INTRODUCTION TO DIACHRONIC METHODS

The diachronic methods arose within the modern era. These approaches to the biblical

text are sometimes called the “historical-critical” methods. One of their basic premises is that

the Bible can be read much like any other ancient document. The reader may ask questions

about who wrote the text and why? Who was intended to read the text and when? How might it

have influenced them? The nature of the historical-critical method and its use has helped to

create conflict between the academic world which used it and the church. This conflict is not

necessarily a bad thing. Much has been gained from historical-critical study of the Bible. At the

same time, many continue to be threatened by its conclusions. Among the more controversial

conclusions which have been reached by historical-critical study is the understanding that the

books of the Bible are editorial combinations produced by a large number of authors and that the

editorial process for many biblical books took place over a long period of time. For some, this

calls divine inspiration into question by emphasizing the human aspects of the writing process.

Also, some are troubled by the thought that by moving the final writing of the books further

away from the events they report, historical-critical study questions the historical reliability of

biblical texts. The succeeding chapters in this section attempt to illustrate how historical-critical

methods are used, without arriving at any final conclusions regarding these points of

controversy.

The terminology of exegesis can be extremely confusing. In this part of the book we will

examine four individual exegetical methods. It is important to understand that while these

methods are individual, they are not entirely independent. Collectively, they are sometimes

called "the historical-critical method." They are sometimes grouped together because they have

a common concern. That concern is understanding the process of development which led up to

the final form of the biblical text. Practitioners of the historical-critical methods are committed

to the belief that if they can understand how the text came to be what it is, then they can better

understand its message. In other words, the history of the text is the key to exegesis. This basic

assumption has come under attack in recent decades. Some interpreters have dismissed the

historical-critical methods altogether. While newer exegetical methods are beginning to

dominate biblical interpretation, it would be a mistake to ignore the historical-critical methods,

for two reasons. First, during their century of dominance historical-critical methods were

tremendously productive. These methods have produced a huge body of secondary literature

and they have increased our understanding of the Bible enormously. Second, the newer methods

which have emerged were all born out of the historical-critical era. To deny the influence of the

historical critical methods on more contemporary methods is dishonest. Understanding the more

recent methods requires an understanding of the context from which they first arose.

Historical-critical investigation begins with the procedures discussed in chapter two. As

with any method, the interpreter should not examine issues related to the text and grammar and

then simply move on, however. Textual and grammatical issues should be continuously

reexamined in light of subsequent steps.

Some guides to exegesis discuss "historical criticism." This term can create some

confusion. Historical-criticism usually involves the comparison of the biblical text with other

historical sources, either other writings from the period or archaeological evidence. This process

is vital to the use of the methods which will be discussed in the next few chapters, but by itself is

not truly an exegetical method. The study of history can provide essential clues to the meaning

of the text, and it is a necessary beginning point for all of the methods in Part II of this guide.

The exegete should be aware, for example, of available information concerning places which are

named in a text. It is also helpful to know some basic information about the time periods in

which biblical events may have taken place. What was the world like then? How did people

live? What was the political situation? Posing and answering such questions provides

background for understanding the text, but one or more of the methods examined in the next few

chapters is still necessary for examining the text itself. The bibliography at the end of this

chapter will include sources for beginning the study of Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern

history.

The first three methods discussed in this part, source, form, and tradition criticism are

often used in sequence. This is another reason for the frequent use of the singular term,

"historical-critical method." Each of these methods will be treated in detail individually in the

following chapters. At this point, a brief overview might be helpful. Source criticism is the

process of identifying the literary collections which were used to compose the final form of a

biblical book. Where did the biblical authors get these stories, poems, genealogies, etc.? What

was the nature and purpose of the previously existing collections of literature? These are among

the questions which occupy source critics.

Form-criticism breaks down the biblical literature even further and traces its

development another step back in time. After dividing the text into individual units, form-

criticism classifies these units according to types, or forms, of literature. This is the step from

which it gets its name. Finally, form-critics ask about the original use or function of the unit,

before it was collected together with other small units. Tradition-criticism takes individual units

identified by form-criticism and attempts to trace their development through time until they were

deposited in the written biblical tradition. Because changing traditions may have entered into

the Bible at more than one point, tradition criticism also compares and contrasts units of

tradition with similar units in the Bible.

Redaction criticism may or may not fit well into a unit with the three methods described

above. To some extent it is a transitional method. It is strongly related to these other methods

and is dependent upon their results, but it moves in the opposite direction from form and source

criticism. The central questions of redaction criticism concern why the final author put the

available materials together in this particular way, and what can be determined about the author's

intended message by examining the final editorial process. Thus, redaction criticism examines

the process leading from the textual units identified by historical-critical methods to the final

form of the text. It is possible to understand redaction criticism in close relation to tradition

criticism. Tradition criticism has been almost entirely an Old Testament concern, while

redaction criticism has arisen primarily in relation to New Testament Studies. The last phase of

tradition criticism examines the placement of traditional material into the biblical text. This

placement process is very close to the process which is the primary concern of redaction

criticism. This concern with the final form connects redaction criticism to some extent with the

methods outlined in Part III.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969.

Finegan, J. The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the of the

Early Christian Apostles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.

Fitzmeyer, Joseph. Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead SeaScrolls. New York: Paulist, 1992.

Hayes, John H. and Miller, J. Maxwell. Israelite and Judean History. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977.

Krentz, Edgar. The Historical Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Lance, H. D. The Old Testament and the Archaeologist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology and the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

Roetzel, Calvin J. The World that Shaped the New Testament. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Wiseman, D. J., ed. Peoples of the Old Testament Times. London: Oxford, 1973.

CHAPTER FOUR:

SOURCE CRITICISM

Source criticism is a method of exegesis which came to prominence in the nineteenth

century. The most familiar model of source criticism, and its highest achievement has been the

four source theory, or Documentary Hypothesis, of the origin of the Pentateuch. The idea that

the Pentateuch was composed primarily from four written source documents dominated Old

Testament studies for about one hundred years. The origins of this understanding primarily

within the eighteenth century as readers of the Pentateuch began to give attention to various

literary features of these books, most notably the varying names used for God. The

Documentary Hypothesis was then more carefully refined during the nineteenth century.8 The

idea of sources has met significant resistance from those who have insisted on the traditional

belief that Moses wrote the entire Pentateuch in the form we have it. This resistance has largely

faded except in fundamentalist circles, but more recently the Documentary Hypothesis has been

challenged from two directions. One group of challengers insists that even if books of the Bible

were written with the use of sources, it is still the final form of the text which is of greatest

importance for interpretation. Another challenge has come from those who accept the

understanding of sources and its importance, but insist that the four source theory is far too

simple. Instead, there was a much larger number of sources, which were combined in a much

more complex process. The biblical authors themselves often acknowledge the use of sources in

the writing of their books. For example, Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18 both mention "the

Book of Jashar," Numbers 21:14 makes reference to "the Book of the Wars of the LORD," and I

8The idea of sources did not originate with Julius Wellhausen, but he is generally credited with its standard formulation, including delineation of the Yahwhist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly

(P), an dDeutteronomic (D) sources in his Prolegamenato the History of Israel, trans. J. S. Black and J. S. Menzies Atlanta: Scholar’s Press, 1994 (reprint of the 1885 edition).

Kings 14:29 mentions "the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah." This last book along

with "the Book of the Annals of the Kings of Israel are frequently mentioned in the biblical

books of Kings and Chronicles. In all, approximately thirty different books are mentioned in the

Old Testament, none of which are in existence today. In the New Testament, the Introduction to

the gospel of Luke, in 1:1-4, is perhaps the clearest statement concerning the use of previously

written sources to write a biblical book.

Though source criticism began with the study of the Pentateuch, it has had tremendous

influence in the study of almost all of the books of the Bible. Nearly all of the books show

evidence of the use of previously existing documents or oral sources. The book of Isaiah has

been divided into three basic sections, which come from three different eras in Israel's history.

Many interpreters insist that the two parts of Job, the poetic dialogues and the narrative

framework, represent two different sources. Interpreters of the gospels have argued that

Matthew and Luke both used the gospel of Mark along with other pre-existing written traditions

about Jesus.

One area of severe disagreement among source critics has been the description of the

process by which the writers of the Bible may have used sources. Some tend to consider those

who produced the final books to be only editors, who gathered materials and pieced them

together, with little addition of their own abilities. Others focus on the artistry of these authors

who took existing traditions and weaved them together carefully along with their own writings

to create great pieces of literature. The use of sources in the final editing process is the concern

of redaction criticism, which will be examined later.

The use of source criticism as an exegetical method requires several steps. The first step,

after choosing a text, is to identify the source or sources which may have been used to compose

that text. This is no easy or certain procedure. If you examine a number of commentaries which

discuss sources you will find that there is sometimes disagreement among the experts concerning

the identification of sources. Source critics use many different criteria to identify the presence

of multiple sources.

1) Changes in literary style may be an indication of more than one original author. The

highly structured lists found in the genealogy in Genesis 5 sound very different from the

stories that make up most of Genesis 2-4. Some would argue that this indicates the

presence of more than one source in Genesis.

2) Changes in vocabulary may indicate the presence of sources. Sometimes authors have

a tendency to use certain words in a distinctive manner. Exodus 12:1-20 and 12:21-27

contain two sets of instructions for the celebration of Passover. Among the many

differences between the two passages is the fact that they use different Hebrew words for

"lamb."

3) The two texts just cited from Exodus 12 point to another possible indication of

sources, passages which are repetitions of each other. Another example of such

repetition is the three descriptions of the animals Noah takes into the ark in Genesis 6:19-

20, 7:2-3, and 7:8-9.

4) Sometimes within one biblical book the point of view or perspective of the writer

seems to change. The observation of such a change has led to the division of the book of

Isaiah into three basic sections. Isaiah 1-39 seems to be related primarily to situations in

Judah in the eighth century B.C.E. Isaiah 40-55 appears to be set within the Babylonian

exile of the sixth century. Isaiah 56-66 speaks about the period of the Restoration of

Judah, perhaps during the fifth century.

5) Sometimes a biblical book contains sentences which appear to link together two

previously existing texts. The historical note in Luke 3:1-3 forms a link between the

story of the boy Jesus in the temple and Luke's account of the preaching of John the

Baptist. Luke appears to have used the gospel of Mark as the source for his story of John

the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus.

6)Some longer biblical narratives contain interruptions in the flow of the story which

may point to multiple sources. A primary example is Genesis 38 which breaks up the

Joseph story found in Genesis 37 and 39-50.

After the possible sources within a text are identified, using criteria like those listed

above, the characteristics of each source must be carefully studied. Questions asked by source

critics at this point include: How is this part of the text related to other material in the Bible that

may come from the same source? What are the main concerns of each source? When might

each source have originated? Why did the final author/editor choose to use these sources? How

has the final author/editor put them together to construct the whole text? This last question

approaches the domain of another method called redaction criticism, which we will examine

later. Questions such as these should lead to a particular understanding of the meaning of the

text, the end goal of exegesis. Not all of these questions are answerable for every text, however.

Perhaps the most speculative element of source criticism is the attempt to reassemble a

hypothetical source and assign it to a particular historical and social setting.9

It is in this final stage that source criticism risks making use of a circular argument. The

texts assigned to certain sources are used to determine the concerns, themes, and characteristics

of the source. These concerns, themes, and characteristics can then become additional criteria

for assigning further texts to the source. Care should be taken in assigning texts to a specific

source. Beginning students will often rely on biblical commentaries for the source division of

the text. The arguments used by these commentaries should be examined very closely. The

identification of sources is always hypothetical, because the sources do not physically exist now.

Results of source analysis always contain a degree of uncertainty. The great strength of source

criticism is the careful attention it pays to the literary features of the biblical text.10

Sample Exegesis

Exodus 1:8-22 tells the story of how the Israelite people came to be slaves in the land of

Egypt. The first seven verses of the book of Exodus provide a list of the sons of Joseph, who

9Examples of this attempt include Richard Elliot Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible: The Discovery of the First Prose Masterpiece (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) and The Critical Edition of Q, ed. James M. Robinson, et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000).

10This factor reveals why source criticism is sometimes referred to as “literary criticism,” a term avoided in this guide because of its lack of precision and potential for confusion.

had traveled to Egypt, a report of the death of Joseph and his brothers, and brief description of

the growth of the Israelites. The increasing population of this people is the factor which sets up

the conflict in 1:8-22. Exodus 2 tells the story of Moses birth and growth into adulthood. The

story of Moses being put in the basket and being found and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter is

related to Pharaoh's attempt in, 1:8-22, to have all the Hebrew baby boys murdered. Thus,

Exodus 1:8-22 fits well with its context and is logically connected to what precedes and what

follows.

There are some internal characteristics within this text which point to the possibility that

multiple sources were used in its writing. The first section of the text, vv. 8-14, reports the

initial attempt of Pharaoh to control the burgeoning Israelite population. Verses 13-14 seem to

repeat information already given in vv. 8-12, even though the end of v. 12 reports that the first

plan of action was ineffective in controlling the Israelite population. Besides describing the

oppression of the Israelites again, v. 13 attributes this oppression to "the Egyptians," not just to

Pharaoh's court and the taskmasters assigned in v. 11. Vv. 15-22 describe two subsequent plans

to control the population which differ significantly from the first. While it is not clear how the

earlier plan of forced labor would control population, the killing of all the male children would.

In v. 9, v. 12, and v. 13, the chosen people are called "Israelites," while vv. 15-22 uses the term

"Hebrews." Thus, there are variations in vocabulary and inconsistencies in the plot of the story

which point to the possibility of multiple sources being used in its development.

Source critics are not in complete agreement concerning the division of this text. Most

do assign vv. 8-12 to the Yahwist (J) source and vv. 13-14 to the Priestly (P)source. Some

assign vv. 15-22 to the Elohist (E) source.11 Others consider these verses to be a combination of

11See Hyatt, J. P. Exodus, NCBC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), p. 66.

the J and E sources.12 Vv. 13-14 do appear to be an intrusive repetition. Therefore, assigning

them to a separate source is reasonable. The appearance in vv. 13-14 of words derived from the

Hebrew root `bd (serve), which does not appear elsewhere in this text, points to P as a source for

these verses. Verses 8-12, together with vv. 15-22, form a single story line that seems to fit

together. The possibility of a third source would explain some of the variations in naming

characters and groups and the preference of the use of Elohim to designate God. Clear

separation of the sources in these verses does not seem possible, however. Assigning these

sections to J seems most reasonable, with some possible influence from E.

The primary purpose of the basic story in vv. 8-12 and vv. 15-22 seems to be the

assertion that Pharaoh's attempts to control the Israelites fail. The climax of the story is God's

intervention through the lives of the midwives in vv. 17-21. This fits with the general pattern of

J of describing threats to the promises of God, which are overcome and followed by God's

blessing (vv. 20-21). The J source is also concerned with setting up the miraculous story of

Moses childhood in Exodus 2. The central message of this passage is that God is on the side of

the Israelites and will deliver them from their oppression. Nevertheless, the threat of destruction

is continuously renewed.

The two verses from the P source (vv. 13-14) are primarily interested in reporting the

ruthlessness of the Egyptians. The fruitfulness of the Israelites in Egypt was already reported in

1:1-7, also a P section. This discussion of the ruthlessness of slave labor perhaps points ahead to

the limitations placed on slavery in the legal material of P, in places like Exodus 21:1-11. The

main concern of these two verse is the brutality of slavery.

12See J. I. Durham, Exodus, WBC (Waco: Word, 1987), pp. 10-11.

In conclusion, this narrative is shaped by the J source and its concern for promise, threat,

and blessing. The P account of slavery in Egypt has been added at the appropriate point to

underscore the suffering of God's people in the land of Egypt.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Beardslee, W. Literary Criticism of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.

Blenkinsopp, J. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 1-30.

Fretheim, Terrence E. "Source Criticism, OT." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Pp. 838-839.

Habel, N. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

CHAPTER FIVEFORM CRITICISM

Form criticism is based in large part on a rather obvious assumption. This assumption is

that in any culture there are many kinds of literature which perform many different functions. In

order to understand what a piece of literature is trying to communicate, it is essential to

understand its type and function. The different types, or forms, of biblical literature can be

classified on more than one different level. The most basic level would distinguish between the

two distinct modes of writing, prose and poetry. A broad, general classification might identify

such types as psalms, narratives, prophetic oracles, gospels and epistles. A more detailed

classification might list the following types: Lament, hymn of praise, genealogy, legend, call

narrative, oracle against the nations, salvation oracle, parable, miracle story, greeting, doxology,

apocalyptic vision. Most persons who have read the Bible carefully already realize this to some

extent. Nevertheless, many have not considered all of the implications of this understanding.

For example, the primary function of some sections in New Testament epistles is to instruct and

exhort the recipients in matters of personal and communal behavior. These sections are

sometimes called "paraenesis." Now that these epistles are part of the Christian canon, these

texts are sometimes understood to establish moral norms for the church. Many readers of the

Bible, however, seem to read all of the Bible as if such instruction is the primary function. On

the contrary, the primary function of most of the psalms is to worship God. To assume that

these psalms might be teaching ethics in the same direct way as a paraenetic portion of an epistle

can lead to very poor interpretation. For example, reading Psalm 137:9 in this way might lead to

the conclusion that murdering the children of our enemies is morally acceptable. Thus,

identifying the form and function of specific portions of scripture is essential to sound

interpretation.

The process of form criticism is commonly outlined in three steps.

1) Isolate the unit. The interpreter must determine where an individual unit of scripture

begins and ends.

2) Second, classify the unit as to literary type.

3) Finally, determine the life situation in which the unit may have originally been used.

In the end, form criticism is an attempt to connect biblical texts with the lives of the people who

first used them. This final step is, of course, the most speculative. In practice, this process tends

to vary. The first step is often greatly expanded into a detailed analysis of the structure of the

passage. This is done both to justify the chosen boundaries of the text and to provide detailed

evidence for the identification of the literary type. The third step is frequently divided into two

separate parts, focusing separately on the social setting of the text and the intent, or purpose, of

the text. These two parts of the third step inform each other. Neither these two steps nor the

other steps of form criticism are necessarily performed in a strict sequence. Conclusions reached

in one step may cause an interpreter to go back and reconsider the conclusions of an earlier one

It should be apparent that historical knowledge is essential for this method. Units of

literature must be assigned an approximate date. Original use and setting are also linked to

geographical location. Because most biblical texts are religious texts, knowledge of ancient

Israelite religion or primitive Christianity are vital. For some form critics, the goal of this

method is an attempt to use Old Testament materials to reconstruct the religion of ancient Israel,

and to use New Testament materials to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus and the religion

of the first century church. Others who use these methods place much less emphasis on the

degree of certainty with which ancient history can be reconstructed. One point that frequently

creates controversy is the assumption by some form-critics that the use of a unit of scripture in

the final from of the text we now have may be quite different from its original use as an

independent unit. Even those who accept the possibility of these two different uses often

disagree on which is more important.

A recent revision of form criticism should be noted here. The standard process of form

criticism, which dominated the last half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the

twentieth century, focused on oral tradition. Newer movements in form-critical study have

widened this focus to include literary processes and stages of development, right up to the

production of the final form of the text. A revised form-criticism attempts to overcome the

earlier tendency of form criticism to break the text up into smaller and smaller "pre-literary"

units. There is also a greater effort to move from the traditional form-critical steps to theological

interpretation of the text, a step that often received little attention in older form criticism.

Sample Exegesis

The song of Zechariah is a poem embedded within Luke's gospel, which is primarily a

narrative. The poem, found in Luke 1:68-79, fits well within its present context in Luke's

gospel. Zechariah has been introduced as a priest whose wife is barren. When an angel visits

him and tells him that he and his wife will have a child, he expresses some doubt because of

their age. Because of this doubt, he is punished with muteness. This punishment is finally lifted

on the eighth day after the birth of the child, when Zechariah and Elizabeth take the child for his

circumcision ceremony. Naturally, after nearly one year of silence, Zechariah has a lot to say

and he bursts into song. Following the song is a brief report about the growth and development

of John.

Luke 1:68-79 has much in common with the hymns of praise found in the Old Testament

book of Psalms and in other portions of the Old Testament. Zechariah's song may then be

classified as an example of a specific form or type of unit which may have been used in either

oral or written form within specific social contexts. Hymns of praise are often understood to be

organized in three distinct sections. These are 1) a brief exhortation or call to praise, 2) a longer,

often specific praise section, and 3) a short blessing, prayer, or wish which acts as a conclusion

to the poem. A clear example of this form is Psalm 113, in which v. 1 is the call to praise, vv. 2-

9b make up the praise section, and v. 9c the conclusion.

The context of Zechariah's Song in the gospel of Luke places it within the temple. This

would be an appropriate setting for a hymn of praise. There are many possible backgrounds for

Zechariah's Song. It could be understood as an original song sung by Zechariah or it could be a

traditional song which Zechariah knew and sang on this occasion. In addition, it could be an

original composition of the writer of the gospel, or a traditional hymn used by the writer in this

context. The carefully structured, highly traditional nature of this song and its similarity to other

hymns of praise point to a prior existence of this literary unit, before its use by Zechariah or the

writer of the gospel of Luke.13 In addition, the similarity and proximity of this unit to the Song

13 ?A. Plummer provides a thorough list of the Old Testament parallels for Zechariah's Song. See A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to St. Luke, ICC (New York: Scribner, 1922), p. 39.

of Mary in Luke 2:46-55 may be significant. If so, then the Song of Hannah in I Samuel 2:1-10,

which seems to lie behind the Song of Mary, provides another important parallel. These further

examples of what might be classified as hymns of praise provide a possible understanding of the

use of such hymns in response to the birth or impending birth of a child. Taken together, these

three texts provide at least three examples of hymns of praise sung by parents on the occasion of

the birth or conception of a child.

Luke 1:68 fits a general pattern for an exhortation or call to praise at the beginning of a

hymn of praise. It announces who is to be praised, "The Lord God of Israel," and provides a

general reason for praise, "He has looked favorably upon his people." Vv. 69-79 then describe

the specific occasion as a cause for praise. The current occasion is connected with the Davidic

tradition in v. 69 and with the prophetic tradition of Israel in v. 70. Vv. 72-73 trace connections

to Abraham and God's covenant with Israel, linking this current event with God's faithfulness to

Israel through the ages. In vv. 76-77 the poem states the specific role of this child, John the

Baptist, within the tradition of God's faithfulness. The language of these verses is strongly

reminiscent of that in the book of Isaiah, in places such as 9:2-3, 40:3-5, and 58:10-12. Once

again, this emphasizes continuity between the events in the day of Zechariah and God's previous

acts of deliverance.14 A clear statement of conclusion, typical of hymns of praise, is missing

here. This raises the possibility that Luke 1:68-79 is only a portion of a such a hymn. Another

possibility is that this is a combination of hymns. V. 75 does contain a kind of wish for eternal

praise and is similar to the ending of some hymns of praise. Therefore, it is entirely possible that

14 ?There is some confusion of tense in v.78 because of a textual problem. Generally, vv.68-75 are past oriented and vv. 76-79 are future oriented. The verb in v. 78b, often translated "break" or "dawn" (episkepsetai) appears in some Greek manuscripts in future tense and in others as past (aorist) tense. The manuscript evidence seems to favor the latter, but only slightly. The textual choice made here would seem to have some impact on the understanding of the second section of the poem. Is it entirely or only partly eschatalogical?

this song is constructed from all or part of two separate songs, a hymn of praise in vv. 68-75 and

a prophetic oracle in vv. 76-79.15

15 ?For a thorough summary of how various scholars have regarded these possibilities, see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, N. Y.: Doubleday, 1981), pp. 377-378.

An original setting or function for this text is difficult to establish. Supposing that it was

associated with the life of John and later incorporated into the gospel of Luke creates a forty to

eighty year time span over which the poem would have been preserved and used. The strong

connections to Davidic, Abrahamic, and prophetic traditions and the lack of specific references

to Jesus may point to a pre-Christian community usage. Other New Testament traditions (Acts

10:37 and Matt. 11:2) indicate the presence of communities of John's disciples. The worship

gatherings of such communities present a possible setting and function for a hymn of praise

concerning the life of John. There are also possible indications of conflict between the followers

of John and the followers of Jesus (Luke 7:32-34 and Matt. 11:7-15). If this song comes from a

community of John's followers, then it asserts two very important convictions about John. First,

he fulfills Israel's central traditions - the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic monarchy, and the

role of the prophets. Second, while John's task is understood as preparatory, it is not necessarily

connected with the life of Jesus. A dispute over the extent of the fulfillment of God's purpose in

the person of John may be reflected in the textual problem of Luke 1:78b. Taken along with

other texts mentioned above, this poem may provide evidence that the early church had to

struggle to bring together the John and Jesus traditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHYBultmann, Rudolf and Kundsin, Karl. Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament

Research. Tans. Frederick C. Grant. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.

Carlston, C. E. "Form Criticism, NT." In Interpreter'sfDictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Pp. 345-348.

Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. New York: Scribner's, 1969.

McKnight, Edgar V. What is Form Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

Tucker, Gene M. "Form Criticism, OT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary

Volume. Pp. 342-345.

For extensive examples of contemporary form criticism in practice, see the volumes in the commentary series "The Forms of the Old Testament Literature," edited by Rolf Knierem and Gene M. Tucker, and published by Eerdmans. Currently about a dozen volumes have been published.

CHAPTER SIX:

TRADITION CRITICISM

Tradition criticism can be understood as a natural extension of form criticism. Form

criticism is primarily concerned with the original use of a piece of biblical literature in its

original life setting. The primary concern of tradition criticism is how the use of a particular

literary unit, or type of unit, changed through time. Tradition criticism gets its name from the

assumption that the Bible consists of materials that reflect the central traditions of certain

communities of faith. Through the history of these communities, these traditions were used in

varying ways to meet the social needs of the communities. Specific texts can be understood

when they are correctly placed within this process of growth and development of traditions. To

put it another way, from time to time traditions became "fixed" or crystallized" within the

biblical literature. These fixed forms reveal their uses and understandings at particular times.

Tradition criticism began within Old testament studies and reached its peak in the work of two

German scholars, Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth. Von Rad, Noth, and others attempted to

describe the process of growth and development of traditions which led to the existence of

various biblical texts as they now exist.

The introduction to Part II briefly explained the relationship between tradition criticism

and redaction criticism. The nature of tradition criticism is heavily dependent upon a certain

understanding of how the Old Testament literature came into being. Because this process may

have lasted as long as 1000 years, the traditions contained within the Old Testament were likely

to have changed significantly during this time. The New Testament, on the other hand, came

into being all within a period of only fifty to seventy-five years. Because this time period was

very short, the process of development of the New Testament is comparable to only the very last

phase of the development of the Old Testament. The focus on this last phase, the use of

traditions by the final authors of the Bible, is the concern of redaction criticism. Therefore,

tradition criticism is used rarely in relation to the New Testament. Redaction criticism has

developed primarily in relation to New Testament studies, but there are some instances where it

applies to Old Testament literature. Examples of this will be presented in the next chapter.

A precise procedure for tradition criticism has not been well established, but the

following steps reflect a manner in which tradition criticism is often carried out. First, as

mentioned previously, tradition criticism assumes some of the results of source and form

criticism. Therefore, the steps involved in these other methods must be performed first, to some

extent. In short, the text being interpreted and other texts which provide versions of the same

tradition must be assigned to source documents and original settings. Second, the various

versions of the tradition need to be placed in an approximate order. Third, by examining the

ways in which the tradition appears to have developed, the purposes and special interests of the

primary text in question can be inferred. The results of these inferences will, of course, be

speculative. They are dependent upon the accuracy of each of the previous steps, and upon the

validity of the inferences themselves. There should be no assumption that the versions of the

tradition found in literary form in the biblical text are the only stages through which the tradition

passed. It is also possible to use tradition criticism to analyze texts which are not part of a group

of texts which show an apparent development. Sometimes previous versions of a tradition can

be inferred from a single text if it shows signs of having grown and developed over time. But

the results of such a study will be dependent upon the accuracy of one additional step, the

dividing up of a single text into layers of tradition.

One important example of this kind of process involving a single text is a common

understanding of the story of the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19. It is possible to see in this

text an original story which may have ended after v. 13. In this story, Abraham is commanded

to sacrifice his son. As he is about to do so, the angel stops him and the ram is provided as a

substitute. One purpose of this story may have been to support the legal tradition allowing for

the redemption of the firstborn (see Numbers 3:44-51 and compare to the straightforward

statement in Exodus 22:29-30). V. 14 may be understood as a secondary layer added to the story

which associates the event with a particular place. This verse explains how the place got its

name and, in with a subtle reference to "the mount" may be associating the event and the place

with the eventual location and significance of the Jerusalem temple.16 The second message of

the angel in vv. 15-18 may be a third layer of added tradition in which the binding of Isaac was

associated with the covenant tradition. One purpose of this layer would be to establish the

faithfulness of Abraham as the basis for the blessing of Israel with a special covenant.17

A good illustration of the implications of tradition criticism is von Rad's argument

concerning Deuteronomy 26:5-9. In its present context, this passage represents a statement to be

recited by a worshipper who is bringing an offering to a priest. The nature of the statement

appears to be something of a creed. Von Rad identified this as one of the ancient Israelite creeds

which form the core of the book of Deuteronomy. He noticed that this creed, which describes

the key events of Israel's faith story makes no mention of the giving of the law at Sinai. From

16The association became more explicit in late Jewish interpretation of the passage.

17 Further evidence of the flexibility of this tradition is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in which Abraham binds Isaac on Mount Gerazim, rather than on Mount Moriah, and in the Koran, in which Abraham binds Ishmael, rather than Isaac.

this, von Rad reasoned that the Sinai tradition was originally independent of the exodus and

settlement tradition, which is prominent in this creed. Furthermore, other Old Testament creeds,

such as Deuteronomy 6:20-25 and Joshua 24:2-13, also fail to mention Sinai, though the latter is

more highly developed than the shorter creedal statements in Deuteronomy. This case illustrates

how certain traditions within ancient Israel developed independently at early stages and were

later brought together.18 A later stage when earlier traditions are combined to form a new one

may be reflected in the creedal statement of Nehemiah 9. Here, the traditions of exodus and

Sinai are finally brought together in a statement of Israel’s faith.

Frequently tradition criticism is used to analyze rather large blocks of material, such as

the Jacob narratives. It is possible, however, to use tradition criticism on an individual unit of

the text. The relationship of this text to certain others will form part of the process of using the

method in these cases.

Sample exegesis

II Chronicles 30:1-27 reports the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem, under the

direction of King Hezekiah. The celebration of the Passover is described in a relatively large

number of texts. The initial text in Exodus 12 describes the Passover celebration twice, once in

God's instructions to Moses (12:1-20) and once in Moses' instructions to the elders (12:21-27).

18

?Gerhard von Rad, "The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch," in The Problem of the Hexateuch and Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1958), pp. 6-8.

After the report of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt and the departure of the Israelites from

Egypt, Passover legislation is given again in the form of instructions from Yahweh to Moses and

Aaron in Exodus 12:43-49. The celebration of Passover at Mount Sinai is recorded in Numbers

9:1-14. Passover legislation appears again in Deuteronomy 16:1-8 in a speech of Moses. Later

Passover celebrations are recorded in II Chronicles 30:1-27, II Chronicles 35:1-19, and Ezra

6:19-22. It is clear from these texts that understandings of the Passover ritual and its meaning

changed through time and that the instructions are used by the authors of these biblical books for

various purposes. What is the purpose of the Passover narrative in II Chronicles 30:1-27? What

is the understanding of the Passover ritual that is presented here? How does this description of

Passover compare to others and what does this reveal about the meaning of the Passover at this

particular point in the development of the tradition?

Some difficult decisions are required at the beginning of this analysis. The various

Passover texts must be placed in an approximate sequence of development. The oldest tradition

is likely the story found in parts of Exodus 12:21-27, though this text itself is often understood

as a composite of material from the Yahwist (J) source and the Deuteronomist (D) source.

According to this understanding of the text, Exodus 12:21-23, 27b forms the original story

which is expanded by the Deuteronomist who added vv. 24-27a. These added verses would then

have a strong connection with Deuteronomy 16:1-8 and likely belong to the same layer of

tradition. The Passover legislation in Exodus 12:1-20 is usually assigned to the Priestly (P)

source. This would likely make it a later tradition than those previously mentioned. The Sinai

Passover in Numbers 9:1-14 should also probably be assigned to the P source. The Book of

Chronicles seems to be closely related to the P source in the Pentateuch. Therefore, the Passover

stories in Chronicles are most likely to be dated just after the P account. To summarize, this

analysis leads to the following chronological development of the Passover tradition. The

original Passover story in Exodus 12:21-23, 27a was expanded by Deuteronomic legislation in

Exodus 12:24-27a and Deuteronomy 16:1-8. This legislation later became more detailed in the

Priestly account which is now in Exodus 12:1-20 and Numbers 9:1-14. The narratives of

Passover celebrations in II Chronicles and Ezra were written after all of this legislation was

developed from the original story of the final plague. This leads to important questions about

how the writer of Chronicles made use of this intricately developed tradition to tell stories about

the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, particularly the Hezekiah Passover in 30:1-27.

The story of Hezekiah's Passover does not appear in the appropriate place in II Kings. It

is, therefore, unique to Chronicles. What is the relation of this text to other Passover traditions

found in the Bible? Close examination of the Passover account in II Chronicles 30:1-27 reveals

some important connections to earlier Passover traditions. In vv. 15-17 the account of

Hezekiah's Passover places great emphasis on the details of the sacrificial process and the purity

of those involved. This element appears to be closely tied to the P tradition from Exodus 12:1-

20. Hezekiah's Passover is portrayed as a pilgrimage festival, for which all the people gathered

in Jerusalem, according to II Chronicles 30:1,13-14. The emphasis on the location of the

celebration is consistent with the legislation in Deuteronomy 16:1-8, which refers to Jerusalem

as "The place that the Lord your God shall choose as a dwelling place for his name." The

Passover of Hezekiah is delayed, according to II Chronicles 30:3-5, because of a lack of

preparedness. Special provision is made in vv. 18-20 for some from the North who were not

clean. The justification for these special actions may be found in the story of the Sinai Passover

in Numbers 9:1-14.

The manner in which the writer of Chronicles has combined a wide variety of traditions

within the Hezekiah account reveals much about the author's intent in describing this event.

The essential elements of this Passover are: 1) It is a pilgrimage festival celebrated in

Jerusalem, 2) it is celebrated by a unified Israel, including members of Northern tribes, 3) Ritual

impurity is important, but adjustments to such requirements can be made for the sake of unity.

More important than strict purity is the healing of the nation (II Chronicles 30:20). Hezekiah's

Passover is a part of his overall reform movement (see II Chronicles 29:1-36), in which he

attempts to unify the nation around a purified system of worship centered in the Jerusalem

Temple. The Passover account brilliantly combines a variety of traditions to produce a

celebration which upholds these themes of purity, healing, and unity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barbour, R. S. Tradition-Historical Criticism of the Gospels. London: SPCK, 1972.

Coats, G. W. "Tradition History, OT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville, Abingdon, 1972, pp. 912-914.

Knight, Douglas A. The Traditions of Israel. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1973.

Nielson, Eduard. Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Interpretation. London:

SCM, 1954.

Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972.

von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper, 1965.

Rast, Walter E. Tradition History and the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.

CHAPTER SEVEN:REDACTION CRITICISM

It was mentioned earlier that redaction criticism can be understood as a transitional

method of exegesis. Like the other historical-critical methods, redaction criticism seeks to

understand the process which led up to the final form of the text. Its primary concern, however,

is the last stage in that process, the final editing of the biblical books. Thus, like the synchronic

methods in the next section, redaction criticism is interpreting the final form of the text. Unlike

synchronic methods, however, redaction criticism’s focus is behind the text, rather than in front

of it. The distinction between redaction criticism and tradition criticism can be rather difficult to

understand. There is one large concern which the two methods share. Both are interested in the

way that the materials found in the Bible were adapted for specific use at different times. What

separates the two methods is whose adaptation of the material they seek to analyze. Tradition

criticism is interested in the changing uses of oral or written units by communities of faith over

long periods of time. This includes the use of by the final editor or author, which is found in

written form in the Bible. The characteristics of these units found in the Bible may serve as

evidence of particular uses at particular times. Redaction criticism analyzes the adaptation and

use of certain traditions and literary units only by the persons who produced the final form of the

biblical text. Therefore, redaction criticism is the study of a strictly literary process, while

tradition history is related to the history of religious ideas and practices within communities of

faith. As mentioned in previous chapters, redaction criticism is most significant in the study of

the New Testament. This is true primarily because the development of the New Testament

books took place relatively quickly in comparison to Old Testament books. There was,

therefore, not a long process of growth of New Testament tradition.

Redaction criticism might be used on any book in the Bible, but its most common uses

arise with books which have parallels. In the Old Testament, this is the books of Samuel and

Kings and their parallels, the books of Chronicles. In the New Testament, this is the gospels,

primarily the Synoptic Gospels, which parallel each other. It is in these books where the final

editors' use of their sources is most apparent. Still, even in these books redaction criticism is

dependent upon certain historical-critical assumptions.

Redaction criticism in the gospels has most frequently been based upon what is known as

"the two source theory of the Synoptic Gospels." This theory basically asserts that the gospel of

Mark was the first to be written and that the writers of both the gospel of Luke and the gospel of

Matthew had access to the gospel of Mark in written form and used it as a source. In addition,

the writers of Luke and Matthew had a second source in common. This hypothetical source is

commonly called the "Sayings" source or "Q." Finally, the writers of Matthew and Luke each

had their own independent sources of traditions about the life of Jesus. Beginning with this

broad framework of the process of development of the gospels, interpreters then examine how

individual texts take shape in the separate gospels. When, for example, the gospel of Matthew

takes a story found in the gospel of Mark and presents it in a very different context, this may

reveal much about the purpose of the gospel of Matthew as a whole and the purpose of this

individual text within the gospel of Matthew. Such a case will be examined in the exegesis

below.

The most valuable tool for redaction critics of the gospels is a "gospel parallels" volume.

Many versions of this tool have been produced. Typically such a book has several columns and

presents side by side the parallel texts found in the gospels. For example, the versions of the

feeding of the five thousand, found in each of the four gospels, will be presented on the same

page. This allows for much easier comparison of the texts, without having to move from one to

another in the pages of a normal copy of the New Testament.

A similar situation exists in the Old Testament. The books of I Samuel, II Samuel, I

Kings, and II Kings present a history of Israel during the period of the monarchy. The two

books of Chronicles cover basically the same history. It seems quite obvious that the writer of

the books of Chronicles used Samuel-Kings as a source. For many long sections, the two

histories match word for word. This is not always the case, however. There are significant

differences of various types. The writer of Chronicles leaves out many short and long stories

found in Samuel-Kings and includes in Chronicles some stories which are not found in Samuel-

Kings. For example, the David and Bathsheba story in II Samuel 11 is not present in I

Chronicles, and the long narrative of Hezekiah' Passover in II Chronicles 30 is not found in II

Kings. In addition, there are smaller changes, such as the altering of details or wording of some

stories and the removal or addition of small elements of stories. One very important example is

the Chronicler's alteration of II Samuel 24:1 in I Chronicles 21:1, which changes the source of

David's inspiration for the census from God to a satan, or adversary. Of course, all of these

differences are to be expected. Why would one writer simply copy all of the writing of another

word for word? A common assumption is that much can be determined about the purpose of the

books of Chronicles by looking at how their author reshaped the material found in Samuel-

Kings. One possibility which complicates comparisons slightly is that the writer of Chronicles

may have used an earlier version of Samuel-Kings which is not identical to the one which we

have. While this is not a major obstacle to using redaction criticism, it must be kept in mind. A

tool similar to the gospel parallels mentioned above has been developed for comparing texts in

Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.

There are other instances of parallel passages in the Old Testament, such as the two

accounts of Hezekiah's illness in II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38. Redaction criticism can be a fruitful

method for interpreting these passages as well. A concordance can be useful in finding such

parallel stories.

Redaction criticism has been used on texts which do not have parallels. In interpreting

such texts this method is somewhat more speculative, but not without benefit. Suppositions

must first be made about the sources which were used to produce the final form. This involves

methods such as source and form criticism. Once these have been determined, the redaction

critic can ask questions concerning how the final author or editor made use of these sources.

The difference is this: The gospel of Mark and I Samuel are real documents. Their existence is

not a matter of speculation. What is uncertain is the assertion that the writers of other gospels or

the writer of Chronicles may have possessed copies of the gospel of Mark or I Samuel which

were very much like the versions which we have today. The final editor of the book of Jeremiah

may have used previously written sources, such as collections which may have contained only

Jeremiah's poetic oracles or his prose sermons. The final author may then have deliberately

arranged these materials within a narrative framework of the life of Jeremiah. But even the

existence of such documents is speculative and we cannot examine them. This does not mean

that nothing is to be gained from asking why the final editor of the book of Jeremiah wrote the

book the way he did.

To repeat, and sum up, redaction criticism attempts to interpret the message and purpose

of the biblical writers. It does this by analyzing the process they used to bring together available

materials and compose the books of the Bible in the form that we now have them. The nature of

these final "redactors" has been highly debated. Some interpreters view them as clumsy editors

who pieced together the books of the Bible. Others see them as highly creative theologians who

combined existing traditions with their own writing to produce careful expressions of their

theological understandings. Those who tend to accept this second perspective will probably find

the results of redaction criticism more significant.

Sample Exegesis

Matthew 9:1-8 tells the story of the healing of a paralytic man by Jesus. It appears to be

the same healing story found in Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26. It also has some significant

connections with the healing story in John 5:2-9, but these connections are less certain, so the

parallels from Mark and Luke will be used here in a redaction-critical analysis of Matthew 9:1-8.

A first reading of the three parallel texts from the Synoptic Gospels reveals several

obvious differences. The first is the literary context of the story within each gospel. In Mark

and Luke this episode occurs near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. In Matthew it happens

somewhat later, just after the healing of the Gadarene demoniac. Both Mark and Luke record

the story of the demoniac after this story of the paralytic. Perhaps most striking is that Matthew

has removed the references to this healing taking place in a house and the report of the friends of

the paralytic lowering him through the roof. In Matthew's account Jesus encounters the people

carrying the man after he returns to Capernaum. A third major difference occurs at the end of

the story. Mark 2:12 reports that the reaction of those present is that they were simply amazed

and "glorified God saying, "we never saw anything like this." In Luke 5:26 the people present

were amazed and filled with awe. They said, "Today we have seen strange things." In Matthew

9:8 the miracle is witnessed by "crowds." Mark 2:4 does report that there was a "crowd" at the

house. Mark 2:6 also states that some scribes were present. The event in Mark, therefore,

should not be understood as private, but because the event in Matthew is removed from the

house setting it becomes more public. In addition, the crowds in Matthew have a somewhat

clearer understanding of what they have witnessed. "They glorified God, who had given such

authority to humans."

These elements of Matthew's story may reveal much about what the writer of this gospel

is trying to communicate through the story. First of all, the miracle is a very public

confrontation. Jesus establishes his authority in the presence of religious leaders who protest,

and the crowds who are present must choose a side. Second, the crowds acknowledge the

authority of Jesus. They do not yet recognize him as divine, but they do recognize that God is

the source of his authority. Matthew 9:8 makes the view of the crowds clear. Third, in Matthew

this story is placed further along in the story of Jesus as a whole. This is perhaps why it is

important that the confrontation between Jesus and the authorities must be public. Jesus'

ministry has progressed further. This may also be why more is expected of the onlookers here.

At this point in Matthew's gospel, it is not enough for the crowds to simply be amazed or in awe.

They must be beginning to perceive the true nature of the conflict which is brewing between

Jesus and the authorities. The crowd does not yet perceive Jesus as God. The description of

their response in v. 8 reveals that to them Jesus is still just a human being, but they have

correctly perceived the source of Jesus' power.

A point which all of the synoptic versions of this story share is the link between sin and

sickness. Certainly, Jesus is not teaching here that sin is the cause of sickness. Forgiveness and

healing require two separate acts here. The paralysis is not automatically healed when the man's

sins are forgiven. Of course, such a teaching would be in clear contradiction to Jesus' teaching

in John 9:1-3. The link between these two is rather a structural one within the religion of Jesus'

day. The religious authorities in first century Palestine had the authority both to declare sins

forgiven and to declare a person healed. In this story, Jesus claims the authority to do both. By

performing the less visible act of forgiveness first, he leads the scribes into a trap. The visible

power of healing thus verifies the authority to forgive in a way that the scribes can not refute. In

all three synoptic accounts they do not speak again after the healing.

The removal of this story by the writer of the gospel of Matthew from its house setting in

the gospel of Mark creates some awkward features. Most notable is the problem of how Jesus

"saw their faith." Their faith is demonstrated much more vividly in Mark's account. The

willingness of this writer to permit such a difficulty might reveal the tremendous importance of

the unique message which is produced by bringing this miracle story out into the street. Jesus

authority to forgive and heal is declared and demonstrated. Those who have witnessed this, and

those who read the text, must make the choice to accept or reject this authority.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Fortna, R. T. "Redaction Criticism, NT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976, pp. 733-735.

Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.

McKenzie, Stephen L. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1984.

Newsome, James D., ed. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles: With Related Passages from Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.

Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

Wharton, J. A. "Redaction Criticism, OT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976, pp. 729-732.

CHAPTER EIGHT:INTRODUCTION TO SYNCHRONIC METHODS

The methods discussed in Part III may be defined in many different ways. It might be

more appropriate to say that an understanding of these methods requires multiple definitions. To

begin, these methods are often grouped together because they deliberately take as their object of

study the final form of the text. Their intent is not to go behind the text to reconstruct earlier

written or oral traditions. Secondly, they are not interested in the process of development of the

text, or the history of the text. Thus, they are sometimes called synchronic. They deal with only

one specific time in the development of the text, the time of the final form. Third, in some way,

each of these methods might be described as literary. The meaning of the text lies in

understanding the written text itself, not in understanding the author, the writing process, or the

historical context in which the text first arose. This does not imply, HOWEVER, that the

historical-critical methods are completely non-literary.

Each of these methods can be understood, in both origin and practice, as a reaction to the

diachronic methods. Just after the middle of the twentieth century, many interpreters of the

Bible began to be bothered by certain trends within biblical studies. First, historical-critical

exegesis was often quite dependent on very speculative assumptions. Many of these assumptions

may have been quite correct, but others were probably wrong. Historical-critical exegetes were

not always moving toward a consensus about such issues, as many had expected they would.

Sometimes this dependence even led to circular arguments. For example, certain ideas within a

text reveal the date of its writing. The supposed date of the writing of a book could then serve as

a basis for explaining some of its ideas. Second, historical-critical exegesis had a tendency to

fragment the text, to break it up into ever smaller pieces. While this may have been important

and legitimate, it is at least as important and legitimate to interpret the text in its final form.

Finally, the historical-critical era seemed to be losing momentum. On many points it seemed to

have reached a limit in its ability to explain the meanings of biblical texts. At this same time,

the general study of literature had developed a large body of theories and methods that had not

yet been applied extensively to biblical literature. Some of the newer methods, therefore, were

waiting to provide a fruitful new direction for biblical studies.

On the other hand, there are some significant differences among the methods

demonstrated here. Canonical criticism is the most different from the others. Its primary intent

is to hold the entire Bible together and ask what each text means in light of the fact that it is now

found as part of the Christian Scriptures. Each and every text is part of a book called the Bible,

which has been accepted as authoritative scripture by the Christian church. Each text must then

be understood within this canonical context. Rhetorical criticism focuses primarily on the

structure and language of the text. It deliberately assumes each text to be an artistic expression,

a literary construction which communicates a message. While the context of the passage within

the Bible is of importance, it is the language and structure of the individual text which is the

overriding concern. Narrative criticism focuses on biblical texts as stories. Context and use of

language are important, but the use of the elements of storytelling - events, characters, and

settings - are of greatest importance. Each of these methods will be explored in greater detail in

the following chapters.

There is still significant conflict over the value and legitimacy of certain methods. One

mistake to be avoided is the understanding that these "final-form" methods are "uncritical." In

the sense that the word "critical" is used in this guide, the use of final-form or literary methods

can be just as critical as the use of historical methods. They analyze and question the text just as

rigorously, following carefully developed procedures. There is one sense, however, in which

these newer methods are not critical in the same way as older methods. During what I have

defined as the "critical era" biblical scholars commonly assumed that each biblical text had one

correct interpretation. The task of exegesis was to find that correct meaning, the meaning the

author intended. Consequently, historical issues became central. What I have called synchronic,

or final-form, exegesis does not hold so strongly to this assumption. In fact, many who use these

methods often specifically deny that a text has a single meaning.

The shift that has occurred in biblical interpretation in the second half of the twentieth

century is largely based on an understanding of how literature functions. It begins with a very

simple model:

author -> text -> reader

Historical-critical exegetes were concerned primarily with the left-hand side of this model, the

writing process and all the sources and traditions involved in it. The most significant criticism

directed at historical-critical exegetes is that they have failed to acknowledge that they are

readers of the text. Their own understandings and assumptions about the text influenced the

conclusions they reached. Their work is not a thoroughly objective, historical analysis of the

text. In the post-critical era, which should more appropriately be called the "post-historical-

critical" era, most interpreters insist that the biblical text has multiple meanings and that these

meanings are formed in the interaction between the reader and the text. They are thus concerned

primarily with the right-hand side of the model above.

This situation has led to a significant point of confusion and conflict. In contemporary

exegesis, to what extent does any interpretation claim to be an explanation of the intended

meaning of the author? Modern interpreters do not agree on this issue. To some extent the

disagreement is a matter of degree. The proponents of contemporary, synchronic approaches

rightfully condemn historical-critical scholars for being too certain that they could determine the

author's intent. Some contemporary methods have moved to an extreme position which says that

the author's intent is of no importance. It is difficult, but important to maintain a balanced view

on this question. The original intended meaning of the author is important. It is a goal to be

sought. At the same time, for any person to claim to have found the one true meaning of the text

is arrogant, destructive, and oppressive. I prefer to understand that the meaning of the Bible

comes through the interaction of differing interpretations. For that reason, biblical interpretation

must be an ongoing, communal activity. The problem of both extremes on this issue is that they

both discourage communication between interpreters. One side says, "My interpretation is

correct because it is what the author meant and, therefore, I do not need to listen to anybody

else's interpretation." The other side says, "My interpretation is the right one for me as an

individual reader of the text, and anyone else's interpretation has no value for me because it is

not mine."

The post-critical, or post-modern era, has produced a large number of new methods for

interpreting biblical texts. Part III of this book deals specifically with only three of them in full

chapters. A fourth chapter in this part will contain a brief survey of several other emerging

methods. In recent years there seems to have been more of a spirit of cooperation between

methods. Interpreters using synchronic methods are more likely to interact with the historical-

critical tradition. Historical-critical exegetes appear to be more open to the value of the newer

methods. Hopefully, this spirit of interaction will increase and the variety of methods will be

able to articulate common goals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Harper, 1981.

Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.

Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: AReevaluation. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1995.

Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

CHAPTER NINECANONICAL CRITICISM

In the opening chapter of this guide, I raised questions about the classification of the

canonical approach to the Bible as an exegetical method. The focus of this guide has been on

critical methods of exegesis. The term "critical method" is understood to mean a specific

procedure which may be rigorously applied to biblical texts. This is precisely where the

problem with the canonical approach arises. To what extent does it follow a strict procedure?

The development of the canonical approach has been largely the work of Brevard S. Childs and

James A. Sanders. The canonical approach has been concerned primarily with biblical theology.

Childs, however, has developed something of an exegetical procedure in some of his work.19 An

examination of this procedure reveals the defining characteristics of the canonical approach.

Child's first step is to establish the place of the text within the Christian canon, its

canonical context. Each text has at least four levels of context. First, it has other biblical texts

immediately surrounding it. Second, it has a place within a particular biblical book. Third, it

has a place within one of the two testaments which make up the Christian Bible. Finally, it has a

place in and is a part of the Christian canon as a whole. This step demonstrates that the primary

concern of canonical criticism is the final form of the biblical text. This includes not only the

final form of the text to be interpreted, but also the role that text plays the final form of the

whole Christian canon.

In a second step which is closely related to the first, it is important to note other biblical

19This procedure appears in two of his published works. In Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), see especially pp. 325-347. See also The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974).

texts to which the one being interpreted is intimately connected. Is a passage from the Old

Testament used within the New Testament? How is it used and how does that affect the

meaning of the passage as part of the Christian canon? An important illustration is warranted

here. Genesis 15: 1-6 gives an account of God's covenant with Abraham. Genesis 15:6 is a key

verse, which can be quite confusing. A literal translation would read, "And he believed the

LORD; and he reckoned it to him as righteousness." The use of "LORD" in the first phrase

makes it clear that "he" in the first phrase is Abraham. The uses of "he" and "him" in the second

phrase, however, do not have clear antecedents. Certainly, they refer to God and Abraham, but

which is which? There are sound arguments for understanding the text as either "and the LORD

reckoned it to Abraham as righteousness," or "and Abraham reckoned it to the LORD as

righteousness." It is even quite plausible to argue that the writer intended the uncertainty so that

the text could be read in both ways. Using any other method of exegesis, an interpreter would

be required to give a balanced and careful treatment of these possibilities. To most Christians,

however, the rendering, "Abraham reckoned it to the LORD as righteousness," will seem strange

and perhaps even objectionable. Why? Most likely because Paul's interpretation of this verse in

Romans 4:1-5 assumes that the pronouns work the other way around.20 In a canonical

interpretation of Genesis 15:1-6, the New Testament use of this verse becomes significant, and it

would be difficult to interpret v. 6 in a manner sharply different from Paul in Romans 4.

Likewise, when interpreting New Testament texts using canonical criticism, related Old

Testament texts must be taken into account.

A third step is to review the history of exegesis of the passage. Of course, for many

20In fact, Paul quotes the Septuagint's reading of Genesis 15:6, which is less ambiguous than the Hebrew.

passages this could be a nearly endless process. To place some limits on this process a few

significant points of reference may be established. How was the text interpreted by one or a few

representatives of the Patristic period? How was it understood by the leading figures of the

Protestant Reformation? How was the text generally treated within the historical-critical era.

These questions illustrate the concern of the canonical approach with community use of the text.

In Child's case, these specific questions show that the significant communities are those which

form the tradition behind contemporary Protestant Christianity.

The final stage is deliberate theological reflection on the text within its canonical context.

This part of the procedure illustrates the intensely theological nature of this method. Within

historical-critical methods, a variety of purposes may be understood to lie behind biblical texts.

Interpretations may then be based on these purposes or functions. In canonical criticism only

one purpose is of significance, and that purpose is the role the text plays within the Christian

canon to inform the Christian community about God, humanity, and the world. For example,

Exodus 12:1-20 may originally have served the purpose of instructing ancient Israelites in how

to prepare the Passover meal. It's purpose for the Christian church is now only to tell about

God's interaction with Israel. The history and development of the Passover celebration within

ancient Israel can only be a matter of curiosity. Canonical criticism attempts to remove the text

from such historical concerns and provide a general theological understanding.

Sample Exegesis

Hebrews 8 offers a formidable challenge to the interpreter. It is filled with references to

Old Testament events and passages. It interprets the ministry of Jesus in light of these, and it is

intensely theological in character. It thus offers an ideal test for the method of canonical

criticism. It is preceded by the text in Hebrews 7, which establishes Jesus as the eternal high

priest "in the order of Melchizedek." It is followed by Hebrews 9, which portrays Christ as the

founder of or the "mediator of a new covenant" (9:15), by the act of sacrificing himself. In the

midst of these two texts, Hebrews 8 serves to define the new covenant in relation to the old. The

book of Hebrews may be understood as an argument placing the ministry of Jesus Christ firmly

within the history of salvation worked out by God through the ages. By contrasting the old

covenant with the new, chapter eight plays a pivotal role in the argument.

The book of Hebrews is something of a mystery within the New Testament. From

Romans to Philemon, every epistle explicitly claims the apostle Paul as its author. As the only

epistle with no named author,21 Hebrews is a transitional book within the New Testament canon.

It lies between the epistles explicitly attributed to Paul and those attributed to James, Peter, John,

and Jude. All of the epistles claiming Paul as author receive their titles from the name of the

recipient(s). All of those following Hebrews are named for the person understood to be the

author. Again this book is transitional. It contains no named author or recipient in the text of

the book, and the "Hebrews" of the title is completely unexplained. One of the purposes of the

book of Hebrews is to relate elements of the Christian faith to the traditions of Israelite faith.

Thus, it contains vast number of references and allusions to the literature of the Old Testament.

It is essential, therefore, to read the book of Hebrews as part of the full Christian canon, both

Old and New Testaments.

A brief examination of a few of the more important Old Testament texts will inform the

21The only other epistles with no author named in the initial greeting are the three Johannine epistles. The titles of these three, however, separate them from the book of Hebrews, the only epistle which has no attribution of authorship of any kind.

interpretation of Hebrews 8. Explicit reference is made, in vv. 2-5, to the tabernacle and the role

of the high priest in worship. Among the Old Testament texts which describe these elements of

Israelite worship are Exodus 25-31, Exodus 36-40, and Leviticus 8-10. Exodus 25-31 reports

Yahweh's instructions to Moses concerning the building of the tabernacle. Exodus 36-40 tells of

the actual building of the tabernacle. Leviticus 8-10 tells the story of the ordination of Aaron as

the first high priest. Hebrews 8 contains two direct quotations from the Old Testament. Exodus

25:40 is quoted in Hebrews 8:5b, and Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8:8-12.22

The Early Church Fathers treated this text rather sparingly. Clement (Miscellanies:

Book 6, chapter 5) argued for a clear distinction between the Christian Church and the Jewish

faith. Origen (Origen de Principiis: Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 13), on the other hand, insisted,

based on Hebrews 8:5, that some Jews have been called to salvation in Christ. It is

understandable in this early era that the focus of interpretation would be the relationship between

the two faiths. The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers give even less attention to this chapter.

Luther did not refer to Hebrews 8 in his "lectures on Hebrews,” but Calvin treated the chapter at

great length in his commentary. Focusing on contrast between the two covenants, Calvin

struggled with the sense in which the old covenant was inadequate, if it was a covenant made by

God. His conclusion was that the old covenant was inadequate in form, but not in substance.

The implication is that the Christian faith is not an abandonment of the substance of Judaism, but

only its form. This interpretation fits well with the emphases of the Reformation, which did not

abandon the substance of the Roman Catholic faith, but only the form it had assumed in the

22The introduction to this second quotation forms the most serious textual problem in Hebrews 8. The available manuscripts are fairly evenly split between two readings of 8:8a. One group puts the third person plural in the accusative case reading, "For he finds fault with them saying." The other group of manuscripts has the pronoun in the dative case, making possible the reading, "He finds fault, saying to them." The issue is whether God finds fault with the people or with the old covenant. See the discussion of William L. Lane in Hebrews 1-8, WBC (Waco Word, 1991), p. 202.

Roman church. In his great commentary from the early part of this century, James Moffatt

emphasized points of continuity between the old and the new. Jesus still has a ministry

(leitourgia). Hebrews 8 leads into the next chapter which highlights the sacrifice because the

author "cannot conceive any pardon apart from sacrifice."23 In this way, Moffatt appears to

contradict Calvin's distinction between form and substance. In a more recent work, Barnabas

Lindars has drawn attention to the rhetorical use by the writer of Hebrews of familiar images to

express the meaning of Jesus' life and death.24

Theologically, Hebrews 8 is arguing for two related replacements. Jesus has taken the

place of the temple priesthood, and a new covenant has replaced the old. The understanding of

the first replacement is based on a problematic and difficult interpretation of Exodus 25.25 The

argument for the second replacement is grounded in a more obvious interpretation of Jeremiah

31. The question this second replacement leaves open is in what sense Jesus is unique if this

covenant was already established after the Exile. Put together, these two replacements mean that

the people of God are no longer dependent on the law as a means of fulfilling an old covenant,

administered by the Aaronide priesthood. These were all of human design (v.2). Jesus has

provided a new law, a new covenant, and is himself the priest who will administer these. This

understanding of Christ sets the stage for the more detailed description of his work in terms of

law, covenant, and high priesthood which follows in Hebrews 9. The potential problem, that

23James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC (London: T & T Clark, 1924), p. 111.

24Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 80-81.

25There is no reason to read Exodus 25:40 to say that the pattern Moses was shown was a heavenly temple. That it is only a pattern, or set of instructions, provided to Moses seems a much more sensible reading of Exodus 25:40. Within a New Testament context, the idea of a heavenly temple contradicts Revelation 21:22.

Jesus did not establish and practice an institutionalized ministry on earth, is turned into an

argument for his legitimacy as the Son of God (Hebrews 1:2). There is a true dialectic of

continuity and discontinuity in the relationship between Jesus' ministry and Judaism

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barr, James. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Chicago: IVP, 1985.

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on

the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979.

Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

Sanders, James A. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.

Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.

CHAPTER TEN:RHETORICAL CRITICISM

The use of rhetorical criticism in biblical exegesis, as much as any other method,

originated in the work of one person. An American biblical scholar named James Muilenburg

formulated, named, and first demonstrated this method of biblical exegesis. Of course, his work

was dependent on the previous work of others. The study of rhetoric goes back at least to

Aristotle. Rhetoric can be defined as the use of persuasive speech. The study of rhetoric asks

questions about how a speaker or writer attempts to communicate his or her message. Rhetorical

criticism of the Bible is concerned with how a biblical text attempts to make its point. As a

method of exegesis, rhetorical criticism is based upon the assumption that understanding how a

text communicates is essential to understanding what it communicates. In Muilenburg's terms,

the form of a text and the meaning of a text can not be separated.26 Already, the reader may

notice that rhetorical criticism and form criticism have some common interests. There are two

vital differences, though. Rhetorical criticism is concerned with the final written form of the

text within its biblical context, while form criticism explores possible earlier uses and settings.

Rhetorical criticism also places much greater emphasis on the unique structure of a text, while

form criticism relates a text to common categories or types of literature.

A first, provisional step in rhetorical criticism is to establish the boundaries of the text,

based on its overall structure. This leads to a next step, which is close observation of the internal

26See Phyllis Trible's discussion of Muilenburg's classroom teaching in Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 27.

structure of the text. As you read a passage closely, ask yourself how the text moves along from

one part to another. Not every reader will necessarily agree on what the determining feature of a

particular text is. Here are some, but not all, of the possibilities. Some texts seem to get their

structure primarily from the alternation of speech and narrated action. Other texts move from

one location to another, while still others are ordered by the passage of time. Here are some

texts to consider. I Samuel 4 is a story which moves from one place to another: Field of battle >

Israelite camp > Philistine camp > field of battle > Shiloh > birth chamber. Notice that the text

gives very little indication of how much time passes in the story. Genesis 1 is perhaps the

ultimate example of a story structured according to time. Time is marked by passage of days.

There are other structural features, such as the alternation between God's declarations, "Let there

be...," and reports of creation events, "And there was...." These, however, are placed within the

dominant seven day structure. Notice that in Genesis 1 location or geographical setting is never

mentioned. The Cain and Abel story in Genesis 4 seems to derive its structure from the

alternation of speech and action. There is very little mention of location in the story and no

mention of the passage of time.

Once the overall structure is established, the next step is to read the text carefully for

smaller details. How does the text begin and end? During each step, the interpreter must

confirm the appropriate boundaries of the text in order to assure that they continue to be

compatible with the ongoing analysis. Luke 19:1-10 contains the only biblical account of the

story of Zacchaeus. The story begins, "He entered Jericho and was passing through it. A man

named Zacchaeus was there...." At the end of the story Jesus says, "The Son of Man came to

seek and save the lost." The beginning and end complement each other, with Jesus' definition of

his mission at the end of the story matching what he was doing at the beginning of the story.

Another kind of detail to observe carefully is repetition. Some texts use words or phrases

repeatedly. Genesis 1 was already mentioned above. The phrases in God's speech are repeated

in the reports of the acts of creation. In I Kings 12, Rehoboam's command to the people is

reported twice, in v. 5 and v. 12. The first chapter of Jonah makes repeated use of the words

"get up" and "go down." Rhetorical critics ask why the text uses language in these ways.

The other side of repetition is variation, which is also an important rhetorical feature.

Often one portion of a text reflects another, but with some important variations. These

variations may or may not communicate some meaning, but they must be carefully noted and

analyzed. The story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is fascinating. It is told in two somewhat

repetitious episodes, the first telling of the death of Ananias and the second of the death of

Sapphira. Unlike in the Ananias episode, the Sapphira episode reports in 5:10 that she fell down

"at his [Peter's] feet and died." Does this variation have some meaning? Is there a significant

difference between her death and his? Of course, it is easier to notice such features than it is to

determine their influence on the meaning of the text.

A note is in order here, in relation to both repetition and variation, about the problem of

translation. Biblical interpreters who specialize in rhetorical criticism do so reading the Bible in

its original languages. Those who do not read biblical languages may still profitably engage in

rhetorical criticism but must do so carefully. They must consult multiple translations.

Frequently, translators follow accepted conventions in their own languages which destroy

rhetorical features of the text. For example, in English repetition is considered to constitute poor

writing style. Whereas biblical writers often used the same words repeatedly, English translators

will often use different words in order to create variety of vocabulary, which is considered

desirable in written English. In addition to a variety of translations, it will be helpful to consult

interlinear versions of the Old and New Testaments.

There is a strong relationship between rhetorical criticism and narrative criticism, which

will be discussed in the next chapter. They are both, of course, literary methods. In addition to

the rhetorical features discussed above, rhetorical criticism is also concerned with the

development and portrayal of characters in biblical stories and with the movement or plot of a

story. These features of biblical narrative will be discussed in more detail in chapter ten, but a

few questions relevant to rhetorical criticism should be raised here. The language used about

characters is very important. A reader naturally forms thoughts and impressions about a

character as a story progresses. How does the text create those thoughts and impressions? What

does the text tell us about a character and how does it tell us? How are the events which make

up a story put together to form a plot? How does the story move along, and how does the

structure of the story affect the readers impressions of the events within it? These are important

questions for rhetorical criticism.

Once all of the information outlined above, including structure and linguistic detail, is

gathered, then the interpreter must ask the key question. What ideas do these features of the text

communicate to the reader? The sample exegesis below illustrates one way that rhetorical

criticism might be used in the interpretation of a text.

Sample exegesis

Isaiah 6 is a familiar text for many people, up to a point. On most occasions when this

text is used, the reading stops at 6:8. This text as a whole is a fascinating mixture of poetry and

prose, of call narrative and oracle, of praise and judgment. The final form of the text reports a

profound experience of the prophet Isaiah, which becomes the formative event of his prophetic

career.

This text begins with the description of Isaiah's theophanic vision and ends with a

foretelling of the general results of his prophetic ministry. The text can thus be understood to

encapsulate the fullness of Isaiah's prophetic career. The overall structure of the text and its

movement from one part to the next supports this reading. Vv. 1-5 detail the vision which Isaiah

saw and the accompanying sounds and then go on to describe his response to what he has seen

and heard. Vv. 6-8 describe Isaiah's personal interaction with the vision. He is touched and

responds directly to the question which is asked. Vv. 9-10 contain a detailed description, in

poetic form, of the message Isaiah is to proclaim. This message itself tells how the hearers will

respond to it. In v. 11a Isaiah asks a question. Yahweh's response in vv. 11b-13 carries the

prophetic message to its destructive end.27

The first major section of this text, vv. 1-5, has a sense of movement on its own. Isaiah

sees, hears and speaks. This entire section is dominated by patterns of three. First are the three

descriptions of the Lord, "Sitting on a throne, high and raised, the hem of his robes filling the

temple. Second, the wings of the seraphim are assigned functions in three pairs. Third, the

seraphim repeat the word "holy" three times. Finally, in v. 5 Isaiah summarizes his condition in

three "I" statements. The narration with which the text begins is in first person, but there is a

significant difference between the introduction by the narrator in v. 1 and the direct speech of

27For a somewhat different division of the text, see John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC (Word: Waco, 1985), p. 70. Watts also arranges the entire chapter as poetry (pp. 67-68).

Isaiah in the context of the vision in v. 5. In v. 1 Isaiah, as the narrator, says he saw the Lord

('adonay). This word can be only a common noun, and in this case does not actually have a

definite article. It could be translated simply as "I saw a lord." In v. 5, the Isaiah within the

story speaks and says he has seen the LORD of hosts (YHWH sabbaot). This may be

understood as the most formal and specific name for the God of Israel. The presence behind the

vision seems to be uncertain at the beginning of vision, but by the end it could not be more clear.

Awed by the vision, Isaiah senses and expresses his own unworthiness to be in this holy

presence. This is a common element of prophetic call experiences in the Bible.

In response to Isaiah's statement in v. 5, the vision moves in and interacts with him in vv.

6-8. He is touched by the coal and hears a question, which he answers. Whereas Isaiah's

statement in v.5 is introspective and may even be understood as talking to himself, in v. 8 he

speaks directly to the vision, answering the question of the voice which comes out of it.

The tone of the experience changes sharply in v. 9. There is a reason why only the first

eight verses of this chapter are used so often. The awe which Isaiah experiences in the vision,

the positive interaction between Isaiah and the vision, and Isaiah's enthusiastic response are all

overshadowed or even reversed by the harsh message he is told to preach. After vv. 9-10, Isaiah

has heard enough. In fact, v. 9 and v. 10 are drastically different. This is not clear unless the

English translation is punctuated properly. V. 9bc contains the actual message.28 V. 10 then

contains instructions for Isaiah. The two verses reflect each other in content. The prophetic

message Isaiah is to preach in v. 9bc tells the people of their inability to understand. The

instructions in v. 10 tell Isaiah it is his job to make them not understand. But this is not the job

of a prophet. Is not a prophet's role to make the people understand the word of God? By v. 11,

28Note the single quotation marks in the NRSV.

the reader is likely to be objecting along with Isaiah.29 Surely this message and its purpose are

only temporary. Eventually the people will understand and Isaiah will be a successful prophet.

But this is not the case, which vv. 11b-13 make clear in very vivid language. It is language of

total destruction. The judgement is not temporary at all.30

As a whole, this text begins and ends with death. First the death of Uzziah, then the

death of Israel. The text moves from exaltation to falling. The Lord is "high" and "raised up" at

the beginning. Israel "is felled" (NRSV) at the end. God's presence fill the temple in v. 1 while

the land is "empty" in v.12. This vision is a moment of transition for Isaiah, from King Uzziah

to King Ahaz, for whom Isaiah will be the court prophet. The placement of chapter 6 here in the

book of Isaiah, with such stark contrast between its beginning - the hope of God's presence - and

its end - the destruction of Israel - highlights this transition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

House, Paul, ed. Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992.

Kennedy, G. A. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

29Of course, the reader may object by not reading past v. 8, which is often done.

30The message of judgement may be somewhat confused by the difficult textual problems in v. 13. The last phrase, "the holy seed is its stump," seems out of place. In fact, most of this phrase is missing from the Greek text, and it can simply be omitted. As it stands, it seems to soften the word of total judgement which precedes it, and places some hope in a surviving remnant. For a translation of v. 13 which keeps this final phrase and maintains the finality of the judgement, see Watts, Isaiah 1-33, p. 76.

Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis Fortress, 1990.

Muilenburg, James. "Isaiah 40-66." In The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 5. Ed. George Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1954.

Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

CHAPTER ELEVENNARRATIVE CRITICISM

Narrative criticism is based upon the assertion that because certain biblical texts are

stories they should be read as stories. This method of interpreting biblical texts has gained

enormous popularity since the 1970's. It has been highly dependent, especially in its beginnings,

upon the general study of narrative technique in literature. One problem with narrative criticism

is that it often makes use of an extremely specialized, technical vocabulary. This discussion will

attempt to avoid the use of such terminology. Works cited in the bibliography at the end of the

chapter provide more technical discussions of the method.

Narrative criticism is primarily interested in four components of storytelling: Narrator,

events, characters, and settings. At first glance, the first of these four elements may appear quite

different from the other three. Events, characters, and settings are the ingredients that make up a

story. People (characters) perform actions (events) in certain times (temporal settings) and

places (spatial settings). That is what a story is. More careful reflection, however, reveals that

the narrator is part of the story also. It is the narrator who guides the reader through the story,

telling the reader where to go, what to look at, and to whom to listen. In a sense, the reader sees

the story happen through the eyes of the narrator. Narrative critics call this aspect of a story

"point of view." Change the narrator and the story will change too. One way to understand

thevarious elements of narrative is to divide them into two components, story and discourse.

The story is simply what happens and involves events, characters, and settings. Discourse is the

way the story is told, and this is determined by the one telling the story. Some narrative critics

make a fairly sharp distinction between the author and the narrator. Sometimes these two are

distinct because a story is told within a story. Jesus narrates the parables to us, but someone else

has told us the story of Jesus telling the parable. Multiple levels of story telling in a narrative

can make analysis quite complex.31

There are two basic types of narrators, overt and covert. Overt narrators are easier to

find. They make themselves visible in the telling of a story. They speak directly to the reader.

Two examples will illustrate this. In II Samuel 2:12-17 there is a battle between a group led by

Abner and a group led by Joab. In vv. 12-16a, we watch the battle take place through the eyes

of the narrator. We hear Abner and Joab speak through the ears of the narrator. In v. 16b the

tone of the story changes. Here the narrator speaks directly to us, not describing action or

quoting speech, but explaining how this event led to the naming of the place. The narrator steps

out of hiding and becomes overt. The same thing happens, in an even more obvious manner, in

John 12:1-8. During this story of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany, the narrator stops telling the

story in order to speak to the reader and provide information. In v. 4 the narrator tells us

something about Judas, which has nothing directly to do with the story, and in v. 6 the narrator

stops to explain the motive of Judas. You may even find that in some English translations of the

Bible these two statements are placed within parentheses.

Examples of covert, or hidden, narrators are less obvious for exactly that reason. There

are times, though, where the narrator is conspicuously hidden. One clear example of this is in

the story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19. Throughout this disturbing story the

reader wishes for the narrator to step out and pronounce judgement on the behavior of the

characters. Yet, the narrator simply reports the events, with no direct commentary to the reader.

31For a more thorough discussion of this issue, see Mark Allen Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 25-27.

Narrators have a wide variety of tools at their disposal. Narrators may include some

elements of a story and leave others out. They can link elements together to indicate similarity,

contrast, or causation. They can provide background information for the reader. They can

foreshadow events or spring them on the reader with a sense of surprise. Understanding the role

of the narrator requires the persistent asking of a very important question - "Why is the story

being told in this way?"

Characters are developed in a story in two basic ways. In Genesis 37:11, the reader is

told that Joseph's brothers are jealous of him. A few verses later in Genesis 37:18-24, the reader

sees Joseph's brothers in action and hears their words. Even without the report in 37:11,

perceptive readers of this chapter would know the brothers are jealous. Their words and actions

indicate, or show, their feelings. These two kinds of character development are sometimes

called "telling" and "showing." In this case, the story does both, but often only one pattern is

present. A narrator can choose either to tell the reader directly what a character is like or show

the reader indirectly by describing actions and reporting speech. The latter method typically

takes longer and involves the reader more in the story.

This discussion of characters provides a good opportunity to define more clearly the

relationship between historical-critical and literary-critical methods. In interpreting a narrative

text, all methods are interested in understanding the characters and their actions. They all have a

similar concern. The ways in which they pursue this concern, however, are quite different. For

historical-critical methods, the primary approach to understanding characters is through

examining historical documents and artifacts, including biblical texts, and determining how these

characters fit into the world which produced the text. For literary-critical methods, particularly

narrative criticism, the primary approach to understanding characters is to examine the text itself

to discover how characters are portrayed in the world which the text produces.

The discussion of the narrator above introduced the concept called “point-of-view.” A

story is told from the narrator's point of view, but sometimes this coincides with the point of

view of a particular character. In the gospels, the narrator often tells the story from the point of

view of Jesus. He is right and his opponents are wrong. In some episodes, however, this general

tendency becomes more apparent. In Matthew 22:15-22, some Pharisees approach Jesus and ask

him about paying taxes. The narrator tells the reader at the very beginning (v.15) that their

intent is to trap him. In v. 17, the narrator reports that Jesus was also aware of their purpose.

The reader knows what Jesus knows, and is therefore encouraged to see the event through the

eyes of Jesus, one of the characters in the story.

The significance and meaning of an event within a narrative depends on several factors.

Among these are its placement in the order of events, its duration, and its frequency. Biblical

narrative typically describes events sequentially. One event happens, then the next, and the

next,and so on. Sometimes, however, events are described out of sequence. I Kings 11:26-28

reports Jereboam's rebellion against Solomon, then tells of Solomon's promotion of Jereboam,

which preceded his rebellion. At other times, events in differing locations are described

simultaneously, though this is difficult to do in writing. Joshua 6 tells of the battle of Jericho.

In the midst of the general destruction of the city, the storyteller pauses to report the

safeguarding of Rahab. Though the narrator interrupts the story, the saving of Rahab’s family is

described after the primary act of destruction of the city. The narrator’s ability to describe

simultaneous action is limited.

Normally, events happen only once and are described only once. Sometimes, however, a

single event is described twice. One very important example of such repetition is the two

descriptions of the miracle at the Reed Sea. The narrator describes the event in Exodus 14, and

the Israelites describe it again, in song, in Exodus 15. There are other times when a single

description is meant to portray an action which is repeated regularly. This cannot always be

determined with certainty. Did Cain and Abel bring only one sacrifice to God in Genesis 4 or

was this a regular practice? Mark 10:1 clearly indicates that Jesus frequently taught in the

fashion described there. Does this mean that the gospels provide us with only a small fraction of

the teaching of Jesus?

The final element of a story is its setting. Settings can be defined in at least three ways -

spatial (geographical), social, and temporal. For example, the conversation between Ruth and

Boaz in Ruth 2:14 happens in the fields outside of Bethlehem (spatial), at a meal (social), at the

time of the barley harvest (temporal). The behavior of characters is often strongly connected to

the setting in which they act. Some stories happen all in one place at one time. Other stories

move from one setting to another, and cover longer periods of time. Determining settings

precisely often requires very careful reading. All of the information about a setting is not always

provided, however.

The following interpretation attempts to take many narrative factors into account.

Observation of these factors leads to a particular understanding of the meaning of the story.

Narrative criticism may be particularly helpful with a mysterious story like this one. Careful

attention to characters and settings reveals subtle shades of meaning in the story. One word of

caution is in order. The interpretation below will relate the meaning of this story to larger events

occurring in the books of Judges and Samuel. Not all stories point to such issues outside of their

own boundaries in this way.

Sample Exegesis

Judges 19 tells a very troubling and confusing story. A man's concubine runs away from

him, he goes after her, and brings her back. While they are returning, they spend the night in a

house which is besieged by a mob. The man sends the concubine out to the mob, which brutally

rapes and assaults her. The man then cuts up her body into twelve pieces and sends them to

different locations. This story, as it is told here, might seem relatively meaningless. Examining

details of the story, such as the characters, sequence of event, and settings, however, may

illuminate the meaning of the story. Those with knowledge of the whole Bible may experience a

sense of familiarity her, because of the similarity between this story and the one told in Genesis

19:1-11.

This story has two main characters and several other minor ones. The first character

introduced is the man. He is a Levite, living in the country of Ephraim. One odd feature of the

story is that it never reports any of the characters names. This places even greater emphais on

their tribal identities and geographic associations. The second character is the concubine. She is

from Bethlehem in Judah. The third character is the girl's father. He, of course, is a

Bethlehemite also. The reader is also provided with some important information about the

character of each of these three, though some of this information is indirect. The Levite

apparently loves the concubine. He wants her back and intends to "speak tenderly" to her. The

father-in-law is characterized by his joy in seeing the Levite and his overwhelming hospitality.

The character of the concubine is difficult to judge because of a textual problem.32 The most

that can be said is that she shows a surprising degree of independence. At first glance, the old

man in Gibeah appears to be as hospitable as the concubines father, but his character comes into

question when he offers to give the two young women to the mob. The mob which assaults the

concubine is made up of Benjaminites. The narrator calls them "perverse." This example of

"telling" is reinforced as their actions in the following verses "show" them to be perverse.

The plot of this story is formed by a sequence of narrative events. The concubine leaves,

the Levite goes after her, they travel back together, they stop in Gibeah, the woman is raped, and

the Levite cuts up her body and sends the pieces throughout Israel with a message. One

important question is how this story fits into the book of Judges as a whole. It is somewhat

different from most of the other stories in the book because it is not about one of the judges.

Judges 19 may or may not be connected to the stories in the preceding two chapters. Judges 17-

18 also tell of a Levite living in Ephraim. This may or may not be the same man as in Judges

19. Because the Levite in Judges 18 is taken away by the Danites and Judges 19:1 introduces

this Levite as if he is a new character, we should probably assume him to be a different person.

Judges 19 is closely connected to what follows. In Judges 20, all of Israel goes to war against

the Benjaminites. The behavior of the Benjaminites in Judges 19 is given as the reason for this

action.

Settings are very important in Judges 19, especially geographical settings. Informed

readers of the Bible will quickly notice the association of places with tribes. The story takes

32The Hebrew text says that she "prostituted herself against him," while the Greek and Latin texts say she "became angry with him."

place in Ephraim, Bethlehem of Judah, and Gibeah of Benjamin. The travelers also pass by the

city of Jebus, which the narrator deliberately tells the reader is the same city which will become

Jerusalem, once David establishes it as his capital.

This story leaves several initial impressions. It is a strange and brutal story. It does not

sound like a story one would expect to find in the Bible. This story serves as justification for the

war in the next chapter, but it is retold there by the Levite in 20:4-6. Therefore, the story in

Judges 19 seems somewhat unnecessary, especially in the degree of detail with which it is told.

A narrative interpretation, however, reveals the importance of the story and its details..

Placement of the names of the characters and places into three categories (positive, neutral, and

negative) will help expose the purpose of the story. This distribution may be somewhat

debatable, but might reasonably look like this:

Positive Neutral Negative

Concubine Jebus (Jerusalem) Old man

Father-in-law Levite? Benjaminites

Bethlehem Ephraim Gibeah

Judah

In light of this list, it becomes apparent that this text is about the tribes of Benjamin and

Judah. The entire book of Judges has a tendency to look favorably upon Judah and unfavorably

upon Benjamin. The story in Judges 19 pushes these characterizations to an extreme level. If

this facet of the story is extended beyond the boundaries of the book of Judges, one notices that

the elements in the positive list can also be associated with David, while those in the negative list

are associated with Saul. The purpose and meaning of this story seems to be to create a positive

impression of the tribe of Judah and its territory, and to create a negative impression of the tribe

of Benjamin and its territory. These positive and negative images may then be cast upon David

and Saul, respectively. The story treats the dominant northern tribe, Ephraim, along with the

priestly tribe, the Levites, and the city of Jerusalem in neutral fashion. The deliberately neutral

evaluation of Jerusalem, a foreign city, may begin to set the stage for its acceptance as the new

capital established by David.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Harper, 1981.

Berlin, Adele. Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1994.

Culpepper, Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia:

Fortress, 1983.

Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond, 1989.

Exum, Cheryl. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Crowds. Minneapolis: Fortress,1991.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

Powell, Mark Allen. What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.

Rhoads, David and Michie, Donald. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

CHAPTER TWELVEADDITIONAL METHODS

This guide has outlined and demonstrated seven specific exegetical methods. These

seven are arguably the most well developed and widely used methods. There is a great variety

of other methods. A full discussion and demonstration of all of them will not fit within the

scope and purpose of this guide. Nevertheless, these other methods deserve a brief description

and some initial bibliographic references for those who may want to pursue them further. The

purpose of these descriptions is only to make students aware that they exist. Most of these

methods fall primarily within the category of synchrocnic. They are concerned primarily with

the final form of the text. The shift in biblical studies from a predominantly historical to a

predominantly literary framework has created an explosion of new methods. At times these

methods seem almost as individual as each interpreter. This chapter will provide a brief

description of some of the more important additional methods along with some sources for

further study. Readers will notice that some of these methods require a fairly thorough and

technical understanding of other fields outside of biblical studies. This is another reason that

these have not been included in the main sections of this guide. As I have acknowledged earlier,

the line between an exegetical method and what I have called a hermeneutical approach is not

always clear, and many will not agree with where I have drawn that line. For example, is there

such a thing as "feminist criticism"? What about biblical interpretation which arises from

liberation theology? I see both of these as hermeneutical frameworks. They approach the Bible

with a specific set of concerns or questions, but do not have inherent within them a specific

procedural method of examining the text. Feminist interpretation has tended to use literary

methods, such as rhetorical criticism, narrative criticism, and deconstruction. In practice, there

is a very close link between liberation theology and social scientific methods of biblical study.

So, I have not included methods which carry the names of such specialized theologies as

feminist, liberation, and womanist, etc.

Social-Scientific Criticism

This method is sometimes referred to as the sociological approach to the Bible. A

particular view of the Bible goes along with this approach. The Bible is understood as the

product of the social processes and mechanisms of the communities which produced it. Thus,

the starting point is to understand how those communities operated. The Bible is then both the

product of these social forces and evidence of the nature of ancient societies. Information about

these communities from other sources, such as archaeology, is also used. The picture of these

communities which has been reconstructed is then analyzed using the methods and

understandings produced by modern social sciences such as sociology, anthropology, and

political science. The primary strength of this approach is that it brings to light a much

neglected element of the biblical tradition. It moves away from many other approaches which

place such a great emphasis on the sacred, theological character of the biblical text that they

ignore the fact that it was written and used by real people in the real world. This is very much a

historical method, because it is vitally interested in history. Nevertheless, it tends to be more

concerned with the final form of the text and its production, rather than earlier stages of

development. A sub-category of this approach may be what is sometimes called “ideological

criticism.” This kind of reading is particularly concerned with how biblical texts attempt to

present a certain political or social perspective. Some might sense that the narrative

interpretation of Judges 19 in the previous chapter is moving in this direction.

Structuralism

Structuralism in biblical studies and in other fields operates on the assumption that there

are certain basic patterns present in all human behavior. These patterns are even detectable

within literature, but are hidden beneath the surface. Persons within a social group, or readers of

a piece of literature, are often not completely aware of these patterns or structures. Within the

field of structuralism, there is general agreement that stories are structured according to the

following model:

sender ---> object ---> receiver

^

4 ^

helper ---> subject <--- opponent

The entire book of Jonah may be used to illustrate this model. In this story the sender (God)

wishes to send the object (the prophetic message to repent) to the receiver (the inhabitants of

Ninevah). The subject of the story is the one who actually carries the object, in this case Jonah

himself. One of the unique features of the Jonah story is that Jonah also acts as the opponent,

one who acts to prevent the subject from delivering the object. Just as unexpected is the identity

of the helper(s) in the Jonah story. Among them are the non-Israelite sailors and the great fish.

The actions of these characters all assist in getting Jonah to Ninevah to deliver the object.

Structuralism gained tremendous popularity in the 1970's and 1980's, but has declined in

recent years. It has suffered from two primary weaknesses. First, structuralism imposes highly

technical, modern theories of social mechanisms and literature upon ancient texts. Second, the

exegetical results produced by structural exegesis are often not conducive to theological

reflection and application. Nevertheless, this method still has its proponents and certain

elements of it can be quite useful in conjunction with other methods.

Deconstruction

This recent development in the study of literature as a whole, and the Bible in particular,

is perhaps the most difficult to describe and to understand. This is true because of the very

nature of the method itself. Deconstruction is, in part, a reaction against structuralism.

Structuralism assumes that all texts have a point to make and that, by following or applying a

specific structure, they succeed in making this point. Deconstruction responds that all texts

eventually fail to make their point with consistency, and that somewhere each text will

unintentionally undermine, or deconstruct, the argument it is trying to make. The primary

problem of this method is that it deals with issues in the text which are often significantly hidden

from the conscious reader. In fact, these weak points in the argument of the text are likely to

have been unknown to the writer. A brief example may make this clearer. The primary theme

of the gospel of Matthew may be how to live a life of discipleship as characterized by the

Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). One of the central teachings of the discipleship which

Jesus teaches is love of enemies (5:43-48). Yet many interpreters have noticed a strong sense of

anti-Semitism in the gospel of Matthew, especially in 27:25 where the crowd tells Pilate, "His

blood be on us and our children." This text has created enmity between Christians and Jews.

Because that gospel of Matthew in this and other places undermines its argument for love of

enemies, it has often served as motivation for persecution of Jews as the "God-killers."

Reader-Response Criticism

As the name suggests, this method focuses upon the reader and the act of reading. It is

questionable whether this can be considered an exegetical method, since it is based on the

assertion that the meaning of a text is created within the act of reading itself. Therefore any

meaning intended by the author or inherent in the structure and words of the text is disregarded

as either non-existent or of no importance. The procedures followed in reader-response criticism

are grounded in rather complicated theories about the reading process. The reader approaches

the text from his or her own pint of view with certain questions and concerns. In the act of

reading, readers make use of the text to address those questions and concerns, thus constructing

their own meaning in response to the text. More moderate streams of reader-response theory

have made a valuable contribution to biblical interpretation by emphasizing the active role of the

reader. This has appropriately called into question the frequent assumption that each biblical

text has one correct meaning for all people in all situations. The more extreme forms of reader-

response are objectionable to many because there seems to be no sense of control by which any

interpretation can be judged as inappropriate.

Psychoanalytic Approaches

In various ways, some interpreters have attempted to apply a modern understanding of

psychology to biblical texts. As with other contemporary approaches, psychoanalytic ones do

not assume any particular set of steps for interpreting the text. Perhaps the most common way in

which psychoanalysis is used is applying it to the characters within stories. The Bible contains

very few highly developed characters. Readers trained in psychology may legitimately examine

the ones which are the most highly developed, such as David, Saul, Moses, Joseph, and Paul.

The actions, words, and sometimes even inner thoughts of these characters are available for

analysis. This is a rather delicate task, as is real psychological inquiry of living persons. The

tentative nature of the findings must be emphasized. Used carefully, however, this approach

may provide insight into biblical characters and why they behave the way they do. It may also

be possible to apply psychoanalysis to the writers of the biblical text. Through examination of

their words, it may be possible to answer questions about the way they perceived the world and

their hidden motivations. Finally, there is one area where psychoanalytic approaches may

overlap with reader-response theory. That is asking questions about the way certain texts affect

the reader. Are there reasons which may not be obvious why certain texts encourage, frighten,

or disturb certain readers?

Conclusion

Sometimes it seems that a new method or approach to biblical interpretation appears

every month. This causes some to despair that they will never understand, much less master, all

of these. It is important to understand that nobody does master them all. Most biblical scholars

have one or a few methods in which they specialize. The advantage of the many methods which

have arisen is that they bring many different areas of human understanding to the biblical text.

The value should be seen in the combined effort of all of these approaches to continue to expose

new meaning in the Bible

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adam, A. K. M. What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Clines, David J. A. What Does Eve Do to Help?: And Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1990.

Elliott, John H. What is Social Scientific Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Exum, J. Cheryl and Clines, David J. A., eds. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible.

Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.

Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old Testament. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978.

McKnight, Edgar V. and Malbon, Elizabeth Strothers, eds. The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994.

Overholt, T. W. Cultural Anthropology and the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.

Patte, Daniel. What is Structural Exegesis? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.

Steinmetz, Devora. From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis. Louisville: Westminster, 1992.

Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Wilson, R. R. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

CHAPTER THIRTEENUSING EXEGETICAL PROCEDURES

The review of a large number of exegetical methods up to this point probably leads many

readers to some important questions. How does an interpreter make use of these methods? Are

they always used individually or can they be combined? How does one choose which method or

methods to use? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions, but I will offer some

observations and suggestions.

In some contexts it has long been an established rule that "pure exegesis" is the careful

and systematic use of one, and only one, method. This idea can be disputed at several points.

First, the idea that there is such a thing as "pure exegesis" has been largely rejected. Those

within the field of biblical studies are rapidly discovering that all biblical interpretation is

subjective, that the personality of the interpreter plays a major role in the interpretation process.

Second, the overlap between various methods has become increasingly obvious and accepted.

Third, the rapid appearance of new methods of exegesis has called into question the kinds of

strict definitions that used to be present within biblical studies.

Nevertheless, some basic principles may still serve to limit confusion. First, some

methods mix well and others do not. For example, it is very difficult to make use of a method

which divides the text into independent units or sources along with a method which focuses on

the final form of the text. Generally speaking, diachronic methods and synchronic methods are

based on two very different sets of presuppositions. The former insist that the processes behind

the text, those involved in its production, are the key to meaning. The latter understand the

present text as the primary object of study. Second, to some extent the nature of the text itself

must be allowed to help shape the method of exegesis. Simply put, some methods work well

with certain kinds of texts and not with others. An obvious example is that narrative criticism

works well with stories, and does not tend to work well with psalms, proverbs, or legal

material.33 Third, the best exegetical method to use with a particular text is the one which

produces the best results.

At first, this final principle may seem ridiculously simplistic and backwards. It does,

however, reveal an important idea concerning biblical exegesis. Even if exegesis is done in a

careful, methodical manner, it is still no exact science. The interpreter cannot know what the

quality of the results will be at the beginning. Exegesis requires an element of trial and error, or

risk taking. It can be a series of starts and stops, and the interpreter can never know for certain if

an exegetical method will produce helpful results until the process is finished. A few basic steps

at the beginning, however, may make the choice of a helpful method more likely. First, be sure

to begin with the text. Read it carefully and repeatedly. What questions form in your mind as

you read it? We must be honest, at this stage, that exegesis generally has a premeditated

purpose. The interpreter need not deny such a purpose or try to force it out of mind. The most

important thing to do is be honest about it. As long as we are human beings, who we are and

why we are interpreting the Bible will shape our interpretation. Admit this to yourself and

others and keep it in mind. Chapter 15 will take up this issue in greater detail. Hopefully, the

text will also raise some questions which you did not have in mind at the beginning. Write down

all of your questions. Second, examine the nature of the questions which you have written.

33Significant efforts to apply narrative method to some of these other forms are beginning to emerge, but are still at early stages.

Which method will serve to answer the largest number of those questions? If, for example, you

have many questions concerning the historical situation that lies behind and is presented in the

text, then use the diachronic method or methods which answer those kinds of questions. If many

of your questions concern the relationship between this text and other biblical texts, then

canonical criticism may be the best method. If most of your questions center on the nature of

the characters in a story and how they behave, then narrative criticism may prove most helpful.

It is doubtful that any method will answer all of the questions which you have posed. If

you want all of the questions answered, then you may have to use more than one method. In this

case, it may be wise to separate the questions into categories and proceed with one method at a

time. Remember that each exegetical method is really a specific set of questions. These sets of

questions have already been established within each method. The task of exegesis is then to use

these sets of questions to interrogate the text, with the end goal of answering the questions which

we bring to it. What can make exegesis difficult is that the text does not always answer our

questions directly. A more indirect line of questioning may be necessary. It is also possible that

a text does not answer some of our questions at all. Because of these realities, biblical exegesis

is an unending, exciting, frustrating, and joyful task. The best way to learn how to do it is to

begin doing it with courage, humility, and faith.

CHAPTER 14A WORD ON HERMENEUTICS

The introduction to this guide mentioned a commonly used distinction between exegesis

and hermeneutics. Exegesis is the process of determining what the text meant (author's intent)

and hermeneutics is the process of determining what the text means (contemporary application).

In reality, the distinction is not so clear. One of the primary contributions of newer critical

methods has been to call this distinction into question. At several points this guide has raised

questions about the certainty with which interpreters in the historical-critical era believed they

could locate the one true original meaning of a given text, the author’s intended meaning. This

sense of certainty turned out to be an illusion. To some extent, the personality and

presuppositions of the interpreter always enters into the interpretive process. This blurs the line

between exegesis and hermeneutics, as they are defined above. Perhaps it will be more helpful

at this point to revise definitions a bit. One might define exegetical methods as procedures for

moving back into the world of the text. For the diachronic methods, the world of the biblical

text is ancient Israel or first century Palestine. For synchronic, the world of the text may be one

of the communities which took part in the canonization of Holy Scripture or which interacted

with the text of scripture at an important moment. On the other hand, it may be a story-world

created by the text. Hermeneutics, then, is the attempt by readers to move back into their own

world, bringing something of the text with them. Hermeneutics may have various goals,

everything from a wish to inform the contemporary world, to a desire to transform the

contemporary world. A proper clarity, or lack of clarity, might be maintained between these two

processes by honestly acknowledging that when we move into the world of the text, using any

method, we take something of our world there with us. Exegesis is not a pure process. Good

reading of the Bible involves moving back and forth between the worlds of the text and the

world of the reader.34

Because most users of this guide will probably be involved in theological education, the

practice of ministry, or both, it is important to connect the hermeneutical task to other areas of

study. One way to view theological studies is in a progression from foundational studies

(biblical, historical, and philosophical) to synthetic studies (biblical theology and systematic

theology) to applied studies (ethics, Christian education, pastoral care, preaching, evangelism,

missiology, and worship).35 In an important sense, all of these synthetic and applied areas may

be understood as hermeneutical tasks. These tasks involve bringing the biblical text, and the

experience of reading it, to issues of contemporary life. This is not the place for a discussion of

how these various hermeneutical tasks might be carried out. The bibliography below will

provide resources which may be a good beginning point in each area. Many other good books

have been written on these subjects. I have deliberately chosen examples which begin with an

explicit exegetical foundation. This fits with the general philosophy of this guide that biblical

exegesis is the foundational activity for Christian ministry. It is the necessary beginning point

for the work of the church, which has adopted a literary canon and made that canon of Scripture

its central source of authority. It must be emphasized just as strongly that for Christian ministers

34 This understanding may be a simplified version of the proposal of HansGeorg Gadamer, who spoke of productive reading as a “fusion of horizons” in his work Truth and Method London (Sheed and Ward, 1975), pp. 269-278.

35Certainly this model is highly simplified. Many will argue that theological training can be understood in a longer series of progressions. This simplified model does, however, serve to illustrate my definition of hermeneutics, and I will leave more complex models to be outlined in other places.

biblical exegesis is never an end in itself. It is only a starting point. In the same sense,

understanding the content of this guide will not make anyone a competent minister. Once you

have begun to understand the task of biblical exegesis, you still have a harder task ahead,

learning to apply the results of your exegesis to the tasks of ministry in your own context. The

resources below and the experiences of ministry which you begin to have are the next step.

Therefore, it is essential for you to do biblical exegesis and to apply its results in ministry.

Neither activity can remain vibrant and alive without the other.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hermeneutics, General

Brown, Raymond McAfee. Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985.

Ferguson, Duncan S. Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986.

McFague, Sallie. Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

McKim, D. K., ed. A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Sanders, James A. "Hermeneutics." In Interpreter's Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972, pp. 402-407.

Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Biblical Theology

Ballentine, Samuel E. Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-human Communication. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Bartlett, David L. Ministry in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.

Milazzo, G. Tom. The Protest and the Silence: Suffering, Death, and Biblical Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. New York: Harper & Row, 1978.

Westermann, Clauss. Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978.

Systematic and Contextualized Theologies

Koyama, Kosuke. Waterbuffalo Theology. London: SCM, 1974.

Mosala, Itumaleng J. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 1989.

Parratt, John, ed. A Reader in African Christian Theology. London: SPCK, 1987.

Shorter, Aylward. African Christian Theology. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1977.

Sigirtharajah, R. S. and Cecil Hargreaves. A Reader in Indian Christian Theology. Dehli: ISPCK, 1993.

Song, C. S. Third Eye Theology: Theology in Formation in Asian Settings. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1979.

West, Gerald. Biblical Hermeneutics of Liberation: Modes of Reading the Bible in the South African Context, 2nd ed. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1995.

Christian Ethics

Achtemeier, Elizabeth. The Committed Marriage. Louisville: WJKP, 1976.

Ellul, Jacques. Money and Power. Trans. LaVonne Neff. Downers Grove: IVP, 1984.

Mott, Stephen Charles. Biblical Ethics and Social Change. New York: Oxford, 1982.

Muilenburg, James. The Way of Israel: Biblical Faith and Ethics. New York: Harper & Row, 1961.

Simmons, Paul D. Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986.

Stivers, et al., eds. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach, 2nd ed. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1994.

Evangelism and Missiology

Carson, D. A., ed. The Church in the Bible and in the World: An International Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Costas, Orlando E. Liberating News: A Theology of Contextual Evangelization. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Mugambi, Jesse N. K. The Biblical Basis for Evangelism: Theological Reflection Based on an African Experience. Nairobi: Oxford, 1989.

Senior, Donald and Carroll Stuhlmuller. The Biblical Foundation for Missions. London: SCM, 1983.

Preaching and Worship

Bailey, Raymond, ed. Hermeneutics for Preaching: Approaches to Contemporary Interpretation of Scripture. Nashville: Broadman, 1993.

Lowry, Eugene L. How to Preach a Parable: Designs for Narrative Sermons. Nashville: Abingdon, 1989.

Martin, Ralph P. The Worship of God: Some Theological, Pastoral, and Practical Reflections. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.

Peterson, David. Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. Apollos: Leicester, 1992.

Ramshaw, Gail. Christ in Sacred Speech: The Meaning of Liturgical Language. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986.

Thompson, W. D. Preaching Biblically: Exegesis and Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981.

Pastoral Care and Counselling

Capps, Donald. Biblical Approaches to Pastoral Counseling. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.

Oates, Wayne E. Temptation: A Biblical and Psychological Approach. Louisville: WJKP, 1991.

Christian Education

Brueggemann, Walter. The Biblical Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

Groome, Thomas H. Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980.

Wink, Walter. Transforming Bible Study: A Leader's Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 1980.

CHAPTER FIFTEENINCULTURATION HERMENEUTICS

During the past two decades there has been a growing awareness in nearly all fields of

study that perspective influences the process of making observations and drawing conclusions.

This is perhaps the central tenet of postmodernism. The ideal of detached objectivity which

During characterized modernity has proven to be not only unattainable, but even undesirable.

The effects of this new direction are trickling down through the worlds of intellectual activity,

but often at a slow pace, which meets significant resistance.

Nowhere is this shift in awareness more significant than in the field of hermeneutics. The

simple literary continuum from author to text to reader (see chapter eight) has moved to the

forefront of the discussion and questions about meaning have danced along this line, drifting

most often from left to right. Nowhere is there more at stake in these questions than in the

reading of the Bible. The magnitude of the shift caused by this change in awareness is

beautifully illustrated by these observations from Justo L. Gonzalez:

Thirty years ago, if confronted with the theme, “the Bible and the poor,” I would have understood that to mean simply, what does the Bible say about the poor? In order to answer that question, I would have thought that it would suffice for me to read the Bible, perhaps with the help of a concordance and a few scholarly books on the subject.

… [W]hat has happened in the last decades is that we have become acutely aware that what one finds [in] the Bible depends to a large degree on [the] perspective from which one reads the Bible. Thus, the question becomes more complicated. It is no longer simply, what does the Bible say about the poor? It is also and foremost, what does the Bible say when read from the perspective of the poor? Or, in other words,, what do the poor find in the Bible that the nonpoor easily miss? Today, when we speak of “the Bible and the poor,” the question is no longer simply, what can we discover in the Bible about the proper attitude of the church to the poor? The question is rather, what do the poor find in the Bible that is an important message to the entire church? (pp. 57-58)

Terminology is always a thorny problem. I have chosen to borrow the term “inculturation

hermeneutics” from Justin S. Ukpong, to describe the issues confronted in this chapter.36 While

may use of the term is not identical to his, I hope that it is not inconsistent. What I am calling

“inculturation hermeneutics” arises from the realization that various aspects of an interpreter’s

identity - race, social class, gender, economic status, educational experience, etc. - influence the

way that person reads the biblical text. This realization reveals that all interpretation is

“cultural” or “contextual.” Two distinctions must be made clear, however. First, some readings

of the Bible openly and deliberately explore and delineate their cultural contexts and others do

not. These others often claim, either out of ignorance or arrogance, to be free of cultural

influence. Therefore, they mistakenly understand themselves to be detached and objective. One

by-product of inculturation hermeneutics should be to expose such false claims. I am concerned

here with readings which are not only deliberately aware of their cultural contexts, but consider

this awareness an asset.

Two general types of work have been done in this area. The first type consists of

attempts to establish a programmatic or methodological framework for contextual reading. The

second category contains attempts to interpret specific biblical texts from a self consciously

cultural approach.

36See Justin S. Ukpong, “Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Africa,” in The Bible and Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 25. The concept I am describing here is an interpretive framework that still provides room for a wide range of exegetical methods. “Contextual hermeneutics” is sometimes used to talk about the same set of concerns, but is a less precise term.

In many ways, theoretical work is a necessary evil. Any attempt to interpret the Bible possesses

an underlying hermeneutical framework. Theoretical work is the attempt to describe and explain

such frameworks. This activity is unavoidably dull and complex. Theoretical writing is often

unjustly attacked, however, for not being its counterpart - the practical application of method.

Those who condemn theory and move straight to practice, though, are being lazy, deceptive, or

both. They either do not want to understand or do not want to reveal the means by which they

have interpreted the text. In the end, all biblical exegesis is cultural. The kind of biblical

interpretation under consideration here is that which is deliberately transparent about

assumptions, procedures, and conclusions. Any interpretation which is unwilling to take on this

kind of transparency risks becoming no more than disguised propaganda. On the other hand,

theoretical work in the field of hermeneutics which does not demonstrate its effectiveness

through concrete application to actual texts is incomplete. One point that must be emphasized is

that when incultured reading turns to examine the biblical text it is able to make use of whatever

exegetical methods (historical, literary, sociological, etc.) it finds most useful.

A number of highly developed hermeneutical frameworks have been produced. The

annotated bibliographical entries at the end of the chapter describe and evaluate some of the best

models produced to date, within various cultural contexts. They are intended to demonstrate

some of the directions in which this new understanding of biblical interpretation is moving. A

second set of bibliographic entries below describe examples of carefully developed readings of

specific biblical texts. Some are book-length interpretations of whole biblical books. Others are

collections of essays addressing shorter texts. In all cases, the biblical interpretations are openly

and deliberately incultured.

Becoming aware that other people read the Bible in very different ways is a sometimes

painful, but always enlightening experience. The result of this awareness is the struggle to

understand and accept that one’s own reading is culturally conditioned. The freedom to read the

Bible authentically in the context of one’s own experience, and to grant others the same freedom

is the ultimate reward.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Theoretical ModelsSegovia, Fernando F. Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins.

Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 2000.

Segovia is one of the foremost thinkers in the area of contextual interpretation. This book is perhaps the finest attempt to date to establish a thorough hermeneutical framework in light of the developments in the field over recent decades. Not only does Segovia do the heavy lifting required to develop a hermeneutical framework for what he calls “cultural studies”, but he also painstakingly situates his approach within the current landscape of the field of biblical studies. This volume brings together eight previously published essays which document Segovia’s very personal journey into this territory. In the course of these essays, Segovia traces the development of biblical criticism during the last two centuries through the dominant approaches he calls “Historical Criticism: The Text as Means,” “Literary Criticism: The Text as Medium,” and “Cultural Criticism: The Text as Means and Medium.” He defines his own approach as “Cultural Studies: The Text as Construction.” Segovia could have avoided some confusion by using “Social-scientific Criticism” to name the third category. Nevertheless, his descriptions of past approaches and the delineation of his own in relationship to them are succinct, bold, and creative. Most significantly, Segovia addresses issues of pedagogy in light of his analysis of other methods and development of his own. His proposal for a pedagogical model for biblical studies which is contextual and incultured is the best statement on this subject that has yet been produced. This volume is too complex for undergraduate textbook use, but is the best available introduction to the issues for instructors. One will have to look elsewhere to find Segovia’s application of his method to specific biblical texts.

West, Gerald O. and Musa W. Dube. The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories

and Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2000.

This volume is a massive compendium of essays written by Africans and other biblical interpreters who have extensive experience with the African context. It offers a number of elements which are significant for an understanding of contextual hermeneutics. First, the collection of essays which comprises Part I forms the best introduction to an African perspective of this issue. The background essays by Knut Holter and Grant LeMarquand, and the programmatic essays by Ukpong and West illuminate the past and point the way forward to a unique and constructive African hermeneutic. Ukpong aptly names this approach “inculturation.” The remaining parts of this large collection offers essays addressing specific biblical texts and issues of reading the Bible in more specific African contexts. Most of the essays are of a level of academic sophistication that makes them not suitable for direct use in the undergraduate classroom. In addition, the immense cost of this volume makes it difficult to acquire and use. Nevertheless, as a tool for background research it is indispensable.

West, Gerald O. The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.

Gerald West has taken a leading role in the development of African contextual hermeneutics. One of his primary concerns is the interaction of “ordinary,” non-academic readers with the Bible. West is leery of any reading practice which is detached from the lives of ordinary people. In his own context these people are the poor of South Africa. More importantly, West sees these readers as a tremendous resource for biblical interpretation, as his title indicates. In this book, he carefully develops a process for academic readers who wish to be “ socially engaged” in their reading. West begins by comparing two readings of the story of the “rich young man” in Matthew 19, one by Pope John Paul II in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor and one by a group of poor South Africans. West then works out the details of a socially engaged reading procedure, paying particular attention to the position and role of the biblical expert. The volume concludes with a more extensive “communal reading” of II Samuel 21:1-14, with specific attention to the character of Rizpah. There is no other resource available which explains and demonstrates this kind of revolutionary Bible reading in detail.

Yeo, Khiok-khng. What Has Jerusalem to Do with Beijing? Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1998.

Yeo is most interested in connecting the Bible with Chinese culture. In this collection, he keeps introductory and theoretical discussion to a minimum in a couple of essays. Yeo then proceeds to address specific texts at length in two significant ways. First, he develops powerful connections between ancient Chinese traditions (Confucianism, Taoism, etc.) and his interpretation of biblical texts. In a second group of interpretive essays, Yeo examines points of contact between contemporary Chinese culture and specific biblical texts. In all of these interpretive essays, Yeo treats biblical texts with a full range of critical methods, ably

demonstrating that a overtly cultural approach can make effective use of past exegetical practices. This book provides an excellent model for developing and applying a cultural framework for biblical exegesis in East Asia. Yeo’s treatment of specific biblical texts in this volume, is more than adequate for it also to be included in the next section of this survey.

Gonzalez, Justo L. Santa Biblia: The Bible through Hispanic Eyes. Nashville: Abingdon, 1996.

Gonzalez is a well known church historian. This is a very personal account of his own journey with the Bible. Gonzalez’s own life has followed closely the contours of the path formed by the field of biblical studies itself. His relationship with the Bible began with the pre-critical phase of his youth, moved through the critical period which coincided with his formal theological education and career, and has now progressed to a new phase which he typically talks about as “contextualization.” Gonzalez takes the reader through the issues which are central to contextualized reading in Latin America. Reading deliberately in a context characterized by marginalization, poverty, exile, and alienation has not only revolutionized biblical interpretation for Gonzalez, but has reaffirmed the goodness of the Bible. This book possesses a very good balance between theoretical development and practical application of a contextual hermeneutic. Because of the thematic approach, however, there is a lack of sustained reading of specific biblical texts.

Inculturated Readings

Gutiérrez, Gustavo. On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. Trans. Matthew J. O’Connell. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1986.

This is a fully developed interpretation of an entire biblical book. Gutiérrez follows a deliberate procedure of inculturation, establishing the poverty and suffering of Latin America as the context for his reading of Job. Gutiérrez does not see the book of Job as a solution to the problem of evil, but as a model for how to talk about God in the midst of suffering. His liberation hermeneutic is in dialogue with a full range of interpretive tradition surrounding the book of Job. His conclusion is that the issue at stake in the book of Job is the freedom of God. The hero of the book courageously resists any system of God-talk, especially retribution theology, which blames the victim or limits God to deterministic reactions to human actions. The payoff for Gutiérrez’s cultural context is a God who is free to be on the side of the suffering. This book shows the way for any biblical reading which is open and honest about its cultural agenda.

Levison, John R. and Priscilla Pope-Levison, eds. Return to Babel: Global Perspectives on the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.

For pedagogical purposes, this is the most important and useful book produced to date. The editors chose five Old Testament texts and five New Testament texts, then assigned a variety of writers from Africa, Asia, and Latin America to produce incultured readings of each text. The result is thirty essays which follow a careful procedure of establishing a specific cultural context, examining the text, and bringing the context and text together. Putting the expression of the cultural context first avoids the pretense that exegesis of the text can or should take place in an objective vacuum. Incultured readings use deliberate contextualization to bring a sense of focus to exegesis. Thus, subjectivity is a strength of such readings. Understanding takes place in a dialogue between text and context which does not prioritize either. The end product is a large collection of poignant, readable essays which can be used in the undergraduate or graduate classroom in a variety of ways.

Mosala, Itumaleng J. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.

This is a problematic, but important, early work in contextual hermeneutics. Mosala’s methodology is deliberately Marxist/materialist. While his highly developed exegeses are dependent upon many questionable historical and sociological assumptions, they are excellent examples of the productive power of incultured reading. The best example is Mosala’s controversial reading of the Cain and Abel story in Genesis 4, which assumes that the text was produced in the Solomonic empire of the ninth century. Mosala then connects that cultural situation with contemporary South Africa. The Story of Cain becomes a piece of empirical propaganda used to justify the taking of land away from peasant farmers who are portrayed as murderous brutes. This book also contains powerful and provocative readings of Micah 4 and Luke 2.

Sugitharajah, R. S., ed. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1995

This is a wide-ranging collection of thirty-four essays by a large number of authors. They fall into five groupings organized around the central theme of marginality. A highlight of the volume is a sub-collection of seven essays specifically addressing texts and themes from the book of Exodus from a variety of perspectives. Seven of the essays concern connections between the Bible and texts and traditions from other religions. The final sub-collection is an attempt to present “popular” readings from many different cultural contexts. The entire book contains readings from many locations in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, even seldom represented locations like the Solomon Islands. No other collection available contains this kind of variety. Most of the articles are quite complex, however, and are written at a level that would make them difficult to use in an undergraduate setting.

Tamez, Elsa. When the Horizons Close: Rereading Ecclesiastes. Tans. Margaret Wilde.

Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 2000.

Elsa Tamez is best known for her ground-breaking early work The Bible of the Oppressed (1978, English 1982). In this recent work, she applies her interpretive skill in a full treatment of the most perplexing book in the Bible. Tamez clearly establishes the cultural context of her reading, the confusion and frustration caused by the oppressive system of free-market globalization. She finds in the words of Qoheleth this same sense of frustration and an appropriate response of faith. This is a good example of historical critical exegesis deliberately applied within a cultural framework. Tamez argues that the book of Ecclesiastes is a response to the process of Hellenization which was rapidly changing the socio-economic environment of Palestine in the third to second century B. C. E. The “closing horizons” experienced by Qoheleth match those of the current situation in Latin America. This feature also represents the book’s greatest weakness. Those who do not agree with her dating of the book will be reluctant to give attention to her reading.