biblical criticism

 

This article is about the academic treatment of the bible as a historical document. This is not the same thing as Criticism of the Bible, which is where criticisms are made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance.

Biblical criticism is "the study and investigation of biblical writings that seeks to make discerning and discriminating judgments about these writings."^[1] It asks when and where a particlular text originated, how, why, by whom, for whom, and in what circumstances it was produced, what influences were at work in its production, what sources were used in its composition, and the message it was intended to convey. It also addresses the physical text, including the meaning of the words and the way in which they are used, its preservation, history, and integrity. Biblical criticism draws upon a wide range of scholarly discplines, including linguistics, archaeology, anthropology, folklore, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.

Background

Biblical criticism, definined as the treatment of biblical texts as natural rather than supernatural artefacts, grew out of the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries. It can be broadly divided between the Higher Criticism (the term is perhaps a little old-fashioned today), which is the study of biblical texts to discover their composition, history, and meaning, and textual criticism, which is the close examination of the text to establish variant and original readings. Contemporary criticism has seen the rise of new perspectives which draw on literary and multidisciplinary sociological approaches to address the meaning(s) of texts and the wider world in which they were conceived.

Within "higher criticism" a division can be made between historical criticism and literary criticism. Historical criticism seeks to locate the text in history: it asks such questions as when the text was written, who the author/s might have been, and what history might be reconstructed from the answers. Literary criticsm asks what audience the authors wrote for, their presumptive purpose, and the development of the text over time. Historical criticism was the dominant form of criticism until the late 20th century, when biblical critics became interested in questions aimed more at the meaning of the text than its origins, and developed methods drawn from mainstream literary criticism. The distinction is frequently referred to as one between diachronic and synchronic forms of criticism. The former, broadly identified with historical criticism, concerned the development of texts through time. The latter viewed texts as they exist at a particular moment, in comparison with other writing of the time. In many studies, both methods are used.

History of Biblical criticism

Both Old Testament and New Testament criticism originated in the rationalism of the 17th and 18th centuries and developed within the context of the scientific approach to the humanities (especially history) which grew during the 19th. Studies of the Old and New Testaments were often independent of each other, largely due to the difficulty of any single scholar having a sufficient grasp of the many languages required or of the cultural background for the different periods in which texts had their origins.

Old Testament

Biblical criticism begins with the 17th century philosophers and theologians - Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, Richard Simon and others - who began to ask questions about the origin of the biblical text, especially the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament - Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). They asked specifically who had written these books: according to tradition their author was Moses, but these critics noticed and then wrote about what they believed to be many contradictions and inconsistencies, which in their minds made the Mosaic authorship tradition improbable. In the 18th century Jean Astruc, a French physician, set out to refute these critics. Borrowing methods of textual criticism already in use to investigate Greek and Roman texts, he discovered what he believed were two distinct documents within Genesis. These, he felt, were the original scrolls written by Moses, much as the four Gospel writers had produced four separate but complementary accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus. Later generations, he believed, had conflated these original documents to produce the modern book of Genesis, producing the inconsistencies and contradictions noted by Hobbes and Spinoza.

Astruc's methods were adopted by German scholars who, in the course of the next century, refined and used them to further investigate the bible. By mid-century the consensus was that the Pentateuch contained four (not Astruc's two) original sources, that Moses had had no hand in any of it, and that the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings made up a unified history of Israel known as the Deuteronomic History because of its links to the book of Deuteronomy. 19th century German biblical criticism reached its peak with two books by Julius Wellhausen, his "Sources of the Pentateuch", and his subsequent and even more influential "Prolegomena to the History of Israel". Wellhausen summarised and distilled the previous century of scholarship into the definitive version of the documentary hypothesis, arguing that the Pentateuch was made up of four originally distinct documents, none of them composed prior to the 10th century BC, and combined by an editor into their present form as late as the 5th century BC.

Wellhausen's hypothesis was immensely influential, but also immensely controversial, especially with believing Christians and Jews, who saw its essentially secular orientation as a challenge to faith. Subsequent scholarship amended Wellhausen and softened the initially hostile reception of religious critics. Hermann Gunkel and Martin Noth developed tradition history, the theory that the biblical texts, even if they were composed after the 10th century, had been based on prior oral traditions, and that the texts therefore contained accurate memories of the events they described. Biblical archaeology as developed by William Foxwell Albright seemed to support the same conclusion: the stories of the bible, especially the Pentateuchal stories of the Patriarchal Age, the Exodus from Egypt, and the conquest of Canaan, were validated by physical evidence from archaeological exploration, and therefore essentially trustworthy. By the middle of the 20th century the Vatican had reversed its original condemnation of biblical criticism, and actually commended it to Catholic scholars.

The consensus at the middle of the 20th century was that the Documentary Hypothesis was essentially correct, but that the bible nevertheless contained genuine traditions of Abraham, Moses and later ages in Israelite history. This began to change in the 1960s: John Van Seters, Thomas L. Thompson and William G. Dever questioned, and effectively demolished, the Albrightean view that archaeology had validated the books of Genesis and Exodus; and Van Seters (again), R. N. Whybray, Rolf Rendtorff and others questioned and abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis, proposing in its place new theories based on supplementary and fragmentary models of composition. In the last decades of the century the biblical minimalists went so far as to propose that the bible was an entirely fictional product dating from the last few centuries before Christ, and of no value as history whatsoever; biblical minimalism remains a minority position, but the nature and scope of source criticism are again, at the opening of the 21st century, a matter of heated debate.

New Testament

The seminal figure in New Testament criticism was Hermann Samuel Reimarus (1694-1768), who applied to it the methodology of Greek and Latin textual studies and became convinced that very little of what it said could be accepted as incontrovertibly true. Reimarus's conclusions appealed to the rationalism of 18th century intellectuals, but were deeply troubling to contemporary believers. In the 19th century important scholarship was done by David F. Strauss, Ernst Renan, Johannes Weiss, Albert Schweitzer and others, all of whom investigated the "historical Jesus" within the Gospel narratives. In a different field the work of H. J. Holtzmann was significant: he established a chronology for the composition of the various books of the New Testament which formed the basis for future research on this subject, and set out the evidence for a hypothetical source used by three of the four Gospel writers (the source is known as "quelle", or the "Q document"). By the first half of the 20th century a new generation of scholars including Karl Barth and Rudolf Bultmann had decided that the quest for the Jesus of history had reached a dead end. Barth and Bultmann accepted that little could be said with certainty about the historical Jesus, and concentrated instead on the kerygma, or message, of the New Testament. The questions they addressed were: What was Jesus’s key message? How was that message related to Judaism? Does that message speak to our reality today?

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1948 revitalised interest in the possible contribution archaeology could make to the understanding of the New Testament. Joachim Jeremias and C. H. Dodd produced linguistic studies which tentatively identified layers within the Gospels that could be ascribed to Jesus, to the authors, and to the early Church; Burton Mack and John Dominic Crossan assessed Jesus in the cultural milieu of 1st Century Judea; and the scholars of the Jesus Seminar assessed the individual tropes of the Gospels to arrive at a consensus on what could and could not be accepted as historical.

Contemporary New Testament criticism continues to follow the synthesising trend set during the latter half of the 20th century. There continues to be a strong interest in recovering the "historical Jesus", but this now tends to set the search in terms of Jesus' Jewishness (Bruce Chilton, Geza Vermes and others) and his formation by the political and religious currents of 1st century Palestine (Marcus Borg).

Methods and perspectives

The critical methods and perspectives now to be found are numerous, and the following overview should not be regarded as comprehensive.

Source criticism

Source criticism is the search for the original sources which lie behind a given biblical text. It can be traced back to the 17th century French priest Richard Simon, and its most influential product is undoubtably Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (1878), whose "insight and clarity of expression have left their mark indelibly on modern biblical studies."^[2]

Redaction criticism

Redaction criticism studies "the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of sources" within a given text. Redaction criticism is frequently used to erconstruct the community and purposes of the author/s of the text.^[3]]

Form criticism and tradition history

Form criticism Form Criticism contends that the Bible is composed of many smaller sections of text, many of which had oral prototypes. Form criticism breaks the Bible down into sections (pericopes, stories) which are analyzed and categorized by genres (prose or verse, letters, laws, court archives, war hymns, poems of lament, etc). The form critic then theorizes on the pericope's Sitz im Leben ("setting in life"), the setting in which it was composed and, especially, used.^[4] Tradition history is a specific aspect of form criticism which aims at tracing the way in which the pericopes entered the larger units of the biblical canon, and especially the way in which they made the transition from oral to written form. The belief in the priority, stability, and even detectability, of oral traditions is now recognised to be so deeply questionable as to render tradition history largely useless, but form criticism itself continues to develop as a viable methodolgy in biblical studies.^[5]

Canonical criticism

Associated particularly with the name of Brevard S. Childs, who has written prolifically on the subject, canonical criticism is "an examination of the final form of the text as a totality, as well as the process leading to it."^[6] Where previous criticism asked questions bout the origins, structure and history of the text, canonical criticism addresses questions of meaning, both for the community (and communities - subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) which used it, and in the context of the wider canon of which it forms a part.^[7]

Rhetorical criticism

Rhetorical criticism was invented by James Muilenberg in 1968, but remains a rather poorly-defined field. "What Muilenburg called rhetorical criticism was not exactly the same as what secular literary critics called rhetorical criticism, and when biblical scholars became interested in "rhetorical criticism," they did not limit themselves to Muilenburg's definition. ... In some cases it is difficult to distinguish between rhetorical criticism and literary criticism, or other disciplines." Unlike canonical criticism, rhetorical criticism (at least as defined by Muilenberg) takes no interest in meaning, but concentrates on identifying and elucidating the stylistic markers of the text and asks how the rhetoric functions in discourse, beginning with the original audience.^[8]

Narrative criticism

Narrative criticism is one of a number of modern forms of criticism based in contemporary literary theory and practice - in this case, from narratology. In common with other literary approaches (and in contrast to historical forms of criticism), narrative criticism treats the text as a unit, and focusses on narrative structure and composition, plot development, themes and motifs, characters and characterisation.^[9] Narrative criticism is a complex field, but some central concerns include the reliability of the narrator, the question of authorial intent (expressed in terms of the context in which the text was written and its presumed intended audience), and the implications of multiple interpretation (meaning an awareness that a narrative is capable of more than one interpretation, and thus of the implications of each).^[10]

Psychological criticism

Psychological Biblical Criticism is a perspective rather than a method. It discusses the psychological dimensions of the authors of the text, the material they wish to communicate to their audience, and the reflections and meditations of the reader.

Socio-scientific criticism

Socio-scientific criticism (also known as socio-historical criticism and social-world criticism) is a contemporary form of multidisciplinary criticism drawing on the social sciences, especially anthropology and sociology. A typical study will draw on studies of contemporary nomadism, shamanism, tribalism, spirit-possession, millinarianism, etc. to illuminate similar passages described in biblical texts. Socioscientific criticsm is thus concerned with the historical world behind the text rather than the historical world in the text.^[11]

Postmodernist criticism

Postmodernist biblical criticism treats the same general general topics addressed in broader postmodernist scholarship, "including author, autobiography, culture criticism, deconstruction, ethics, fantasy, gender, ideology, politics, postcolonialism, and so on." It asks such questions as, What are we to make, ethically speaking, of the program of ethnic cleansing described in the book of Joshua? What does the social construction of gender mean for the depiction of role and female roles in the bible?^[12] In textual criticism, postmodernist criticism rejects the idea of an original text (the traditional quest of textual criticism, which marginalised all non-original manuscripts), and treats all manuscripts as equally valuable; in the "higher criticism" it brings new perspectives to themes such as theology, Israelite history, hermeneutics and ethics.^[13]

Textual criticism

Textual criticism refers to the examination of the text itself to identify its provenance or to trace the history of a family of texts. Textual criticism is a rigorously objective discipline using a number of speciaised methodologies, including eclecticism, stemmatics, copy-text editing and cladistics. A number of principles have also been introduced for use in deciding between variant manuscripts, such as: "The harder of two readings is to be preferred."^[14] Nevertheless, there remains a strong element of subjectivity, areas where the scholar must decide his reading on the basis of taste or common-sense: Amos 6.12, for example, reads: "Does one plough with oxen?" The obvious answer is "yes", but the sense of the passage seems to demand a "no"; the usual reading therefore is to amend this to "Does one plough the sea with oxen?" The amendment has a basis in the text, which is believed to be corrupted, but is nevertheless a matter of judgement. Similarly, the Masoretic (i.e., Hebrew) manuscripts of Genesis 4:8 have: "Cain said to Abel his brother," but stop at that point, with no indication of what it was that Cain said. The Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (Greek), the Latin Vulgate, and two of the three Aramaic Targums, all have Cain saying words to the effect: "Let us go into the fields." Possibly the non-Masoretic texts are adding this, or possibly the Masoretic text has lost it, but there is no way to tell; the decision is ultimately subjective.^[15]

Notable biblical critics

• Andreas Karlstadt
• Thomas Hobbes
• Isaac de la Peyrère
• Baruch Spinoza (collected discrepancies, contradictions, anachronisms etc from the Torah to show that it could not have been written by Moses)
• Richard Simon (the Bible consists of numerous archival documents that were rather artificially combined by editors without any addition or intervention in the text)
• John Hampden
• Jean Astruc (by adopting the methods used by Classics scholars he inadvertently laid the foundations of biblical criticism)
• Johann Gottfried Eichhorn
• Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette
• Friedrich Schleiermacher
• David Friedrich Strauss
• Ludwig Feuerbach
• F. C. Baur
• Julius Wellhausen (formulated the dominant version of the documentary hypothesis)
• Albert Schweitzer
• Herman Gunkel (the "father" of tradition history, the study of oral traditions and the bible)
• Albrecht Alt
• Martin Noth (important work on tradition history and the Deuteronomistic History)
• William Albright (seminal figure in biblical archaeology, which he claimed had validated the historicity of Abraham etc)
• Rolf Rendtorff
• Thomas L. Thompson (criticised Albright's conclusions about archaeology and the historicity of the Pentateuch)
• Yehezkel Kauffman
• R. N. Whybray (important critique of the Documentary Hypothesis drawing attention to its less tenable assumptions)
• John Van Seters (rejects the documentary hypothesis; favours a supplementary model for the creation of biblical texts)
• Niels Peter Lemche (representative of biblical minimalism, sees the bible as a very late composition, c. 400-100 BC)
• Richard Elliott Friedman (revised and updated the documentary hypothesis in answer to increasing criticism)
• Harold Bloom ("The Book of J": a reconstruction of the Jahwist source according to the documentary hypothesis)
• William G. Dever (Archaeologist and textual scholar, vehement opponent of biblical minimalism)
• Israel Finkelstein (Archaeologist, gives archaeology primacy over the biblical text in interpreting finds)

See also

• Biblical studies
• Internal consistency of the Bible
• The Bible and history
• Biblical archaeology
• Historical method

Notes

Further reading

• Barton, John (1984). "Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-25724-0". 
• Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen (1999). A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament, ISBN 0-687-01348-8. 
• Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. (1990). Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Trinity Press International. ISBN 0-334-00294-X. 
• Ehrman, Bart D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. HarperSanFrancisco. ISBN 0-06-073817-0. 

• Fuller, Reginald H. (1965). The Foundations of New Testament Christology. Scribners. ISBN 0-684-15532-X. 
• Goldingay, John (1990). "Approaches to Old Testament Interpretation. Rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL, InterVarsity, ISBN 1-894667-18-2". 
• Hayes, John H., and Carl R. Holladay (1987). "Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, Rev. ed. Atlanta, GA, John Knox, ISBN 0-8042-0031-9". 
• Knight, Douglas A., and Gene M. Tucker, eds. (1993). "To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications, Louisville, KY, Westminster/John Knox, ISBN 0-664-25784-4". 
• Morgan, Robert, and John Barton (1988). "Biblical Interpretation, New York, Oxford University, ISBN 0-19-213257-1". 
• Soulen, Richard N. (1981). "Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 2nd ed. Atlanta, Ga, John Knox, ISBN 0-664-22314-1". 
• Stuart, Douglas (1984). "Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed., Philadelphia, Westminster, ISBN 0-664-24320-7". 

• Shinan, Avigdir, and Yair Zakovitch (2004). That's Not What the Good Book Says, Miskal-Yediot Ahronot Books and Chemed Books, Tel-Aviv

External links

• David J. A. Clines, "Possibilities and Priorities of Biblical Interpretation in an International Perspective", in On the Way to the Postmodern: Old Testament Essays 1967–1998, Volume 1 (JSOTSup, 292; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998), pp. 46–68 See Section 6, Future Trends in Biblical Interpretation, overview of some current trends in biblical criticism.
• Philip Davies, review of John J. Collins, "The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age", 2005 Reviews a survey of postmodernist biblical criticism.
• Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism.
• Yair Hoffman, review of Marvin A. Sweeney and Ehud Ben Zvi (eds.), The Changing Face of Form-Criticism for the Twenty-First Century, 2003 Discusses contemporary form criticism.

Donate to Wikimedia