CRS814 Biblical Criticism

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA
FACULTY OF ARTS
DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS STUDIES
COURSE CODE: CRS814
COURSE TITLE: BIBLICAL CRITICISMS

COURSE CODE: CRS814
COURSE TITLE: BIBLICAL CRITICISMS
CREDIT UNIT: 3
COURSE TEAM
COURSE DEVELOPER(S) Dr Miracle Ajah
Dept of Religious Studies
National Open University of Nigeria
Abuja
COURSE WRITER(S) Dr Miracle Ajah
Abuja
COURSE EDITOR(S) Michael Enyinwa Okoronkwo (Rev Fr, PhD)
Abuja
COURSE REVIEWER Michael Enyinwa Okoronkwo (Rev Fr, PhD)
Abuja
YEAR OF REVIEW: 2021

© 2021 by NOUN Press
Headquarters
University Village
Plot 91, Cadastral Zone Nnamdi Azikiwe Expressway Jabi, Abuja
Lagos Office
14/16 Ahmadu Bello Way
Victoria Island, Lagos
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.noun.edu.ng
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, in any form or by any means, without permission in writing from the
publisher.
COURSE GUIDE
CRS814 Biblical Criticism Course Guide
CONTENTS Page
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... v
What you will learn in this course.................................................................................... v
Course Aims .................................................................................................................... v
Course Objectives ........................................................................................................... vi
Working through this Course .......................................................................................... vi
Course Materials............................................................................................................ vii
Study Units .................................................................................................................... vii
Module 1: Author-Centred Criticism ....................................................................... vii
Module 2: Text-Centred Criticism ........................................................................... vii
Module 3: Reader-Centred Criticism ...................................................................... viii
Textbooks and References ............................................................................................ viii
Assignments File ............................................................................................................ ix
Presentation Schedule ..................................................................................................... ix
Assessment ..................................................................................................................... ix
Tutor Marked Assignments (TMAS) .............................................................................. ix
Final Examination and Grading ....................................................................................... x
Course Marking Scheme .................................................................................................. x
Course Overview ............................................................................................................. x
How to get the best from this course ............................................................................... xi
Tutors and Tutorials...................................................................................................... xiii
Summary ...................................................................................................................... xiii
iv
Introduction
CRS814: Biblical Criticism is a one-semester 3 Credit unit course. It will be available

toward the award of the Masters degree in Christian theology. The course is also suitable
for anybody who is interested in the theological interpretation of the Bible.
The course will consist of 21 units and it will examine a different types of Biblical
criticisms including: Historical Criticism; Source Criticism; Form Criticism; Rhetorical
Criticism; New Criticism; and Structuralism Criticism; etc. The material has been
especially developed for students in African context with particular focus on Nigeria.
There are no compulsory prerequisites for this course. The course guide tells you briefly
what the course is about, what you are expected to know in each unit, what course
materials you will be using and how you can work your way through these materials. It
also emphasizes the need for Tutor-Marked Assignments (TMAs). Detailed information
on (TMAs) is found in the separate file, which will be sent to you later.
There are periodic tutorial classes that are linked to the course.
What you will learn in this course

The overall aim of CRS814: Biblical Criticism is to lead you to study the different
approaches in biblical interpretation that will aid you in a better understanding of the
Bible. Biblical criticism was developed to try to address the question: How should we
approach the various literary genres that we find in the Bible? Was each book written at
one sitting, or was there a longer process of composition? Could there have been previous
editions of some of the books that have gone through the stages of editing to reach the
form in which we now have them? Do some of the books incorporate texts of one genre?
All these questions are part of an attempt to understand the literary mechanisms as much
as possible so that interpretation may proceed.
Biblical Criticism is not an abstract study of the scriptures. In this course, the student will
find enough life application issues with African context in view that would aid one in
proper interpretation and understanding of the Bible.
Course Aims
The aim of this course (CTH 814 – Biblical Criticism) is to study different approaches to
Biblical Interpretation, discussed under three broad divisions: Author-Centred
approaches; Text-Centred approaches; and Reader-Centred approaches. It will draw life
application issues from African context for a better understanding of biblical message for
the believing community in Africa.
This will be achieved by:
 Examining the definition and tools for Biblical Criticism.
v
 Showing how a good understanding of the authorship, dating and

transmission of a text could aid a better interpretation and application of
biblical message.
 Analyzing the importance of surface features of texts, such as repetition and

keywords, etc, that can also aid interpretation and application.
 Recognizing that hearers or readers are involved in the reception of

messages, and have become much more prominent in recent critical
discussion.
 Discussing the history and relevance of Biblical Criticism in African

Context.
 Equipping Christian leaders, teachers and scholars with necessary tools for
a better interpretation and application of the Bible to Africa.
Course Objectives
To achieve the above course aims, there are set objectives for each study unit, which are
always included at the beginning. The student should read them before working through
the unit. Furthermore, the student is encouraged to refer to the objectives of each unit
intermittently as the study of the unit progresses. This practice would promote both
learning and retention of what is learned.
Stated below are the wider objectives of this course as a whole. By meeting these
objectives, you should have achieved the aims of the course as a whole.
On successful completion of the course, you should be able to:
 Define and grasp the tools for biblical criticism.
 Discuss the historical development and relevance of biblical criticism.
 Synchronize the different approaches to biblical criticism, namely: author-

centred; text-centred; and reader-centred approaches.
 Acquire some skills in an attempt to reconstruct the ways and means by

which some texts came to be in its present form.
 Appreciate the role of history before the text, history in the text, and history
after the text in biblical interpretation.
Working through this Course
To complete this course, you are required to read the study units, read recommended
books and read other materials provided by National Open University of Nigeria
vi
(NOUN). Each unit contains self-assessment exercises, and at points during the course
you are required to submit assignments for assessment purposes. At the end of this course
there is a final examination. Below you will find listed all the components of the course
and what you have to do.
Course Materials
Major components of the course are:
1. Course Guide
2. Study Units
3. Textbooks
4. Assignments File
5. Presentation Schedule
In addition, you must obtain the materials. You may contact your tutor if you have
problems in obtaining the text materials.
Study Units
There are three modules, twenty-one study units in this course, as follows:
Module 1: Author-Centred Approaches

Unit 1: Introduction – Definition and Need for Biblical Criticism
Unit 2: Historical Criticism
Unit 3: Source Criticism
Unit 4: Form Criticism
Unit 5: Redaction Criticism
Unit 6: Textual Criticism
Unit 7: Textual Criticism (continued)
Module 2: Text-Centred Approaches
Unit 1: History of Biblical Criticism

Unit 2: History of Biblical Criticism (continued)
Unit 3: Rhetorical Criticism
Unit 4: Rhetorical Criticism (continued)
Unit 5: New Criticism
Unit 6: Structuralism Criticism
Unit 7: Structuralism Criticism (continued)
vii
Module 3: Reader-Centred Approaches

Unit 1: Relevance of Biblical Criticism
Unit 2: Relevance of Biblical Criticism (continued)
Unit 3: Audience Criticism
Unit 4: Audience Criticism (continued)
Unit 5: Indeterminacy Criticism
Unit 6: Ideological Criticism
Unit 7: Ideological Criticism (continued)
Please note that Module 1 focuses on Author-centred approaches, namely: Historical,

Source, Form, Redaction and Textual criticisms. Module 2 discusses Text-centred
approaches, namely: Rhetorical, New, and Structuralism. The last Module 3 presents
Reader-centred approaches, namely: Audience, Indeterminacy and Ideological criticisms.
Each unit contains a number of self-tests. In general, these self-tests question you on the
material you have just covered or require you to apply it in some ways and, thereby, help
you to gauge your progress and to reinforce your understanding of the material. Together
with tutor marked assignments, these exercises will assist you in achieving the stated
learning objectives of the individual units and of the course.
Textbooks and References

The student is encouraged to buy the under-listed books (and more) recommended for
this course and for future use.
1. The Holy Bible (RSV or NIV).
2. Adamo, D T (ed). Biblical Interpretation in African perspective. Lanham:
University of America, 2006.
3. Hayness, S R & Mckenzie, S L (eds). An introduction to Biblical Criticisms and
their application: To each its own meaning. Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox,
1993.
4. Soulen, R N & Soulen, R K. Handbook of Biblical criticism. Louisville, London:
Westminster, John Knox Press, 2001.
5. Stuart, D. Old Testament Exegesis (3rd ed). Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 2001.
6. Wood, D.R.W; Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R. (eds). New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed).
Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996 (pp. 138-140).
viii
Assignments File
In this file, you will find all the details of the work you must submit to your tutor for
marking. The marks you obtain from these assignments will count towards the final mark
you obtain for this course. Further information on assignments will be found in the
Assignment File itself and later in this Course Guide in the section on assessment.
Presentation Schedule
The Presentation Schedule included in your course materials gives you the important
dates for the completion of tutor marked assignments and attending tutorials. Remember,
you are required to submit all your assignments by the due date. You should guard
against lagging behind in your work.
Assessment
There are two aspects to the assessment of the course. First are the tutor marked
assignments; second, there is a written examination. In tackling the assignments, you are
expected to apply information and knowledge acquired during this course. The
assignments must be submitted to your tutor for formal assessment in accordance with
the deadlines stated in the Assignment File. The work you submit to your tutor for
assessment will count for 30% of your total course mark.
At the end of the course, you will need to sit for a final three-hour examination. This will
also count for 70% of your total course mark.
Tutor Marked Assignments (TMAS)

There are twenty-one tutor marked assignments in this course. You need to submit all the
assignments. The best five (i.e. the highest five of the fourteen marks) will be counted.
The total marks for the best four (4) assignments will be 30% of your total course mark.
Assignment questions for the units in this course are contained in the Assignment File.
You should be able to complete your assignments from the information and materials
contained in your set textbooks, reading and study units. However, you are advised to use
other references to broaden your viewpoint and provide a deeper understanding of the
subject.
When you have completed each assignment, send it together with form to your tutor.
Make sure that each assignment reaches your tutor on or before the deadline given. If,
however, you cannot complete your work on time, contact your tutor before the
assignment is done to discuss the possibility of an extension.
ix
Final Examination and Grading

The examination will consist of questions which reflect the type of self-testing, practice
exercises and tutor–marked problems you have come across. All areas of the course will
be assessed.
You are advised to revise the entire course after studying the last unit before you sit for
the examination. You will find it useful to review your tutor-marked assignments and the
comments of your tutor on them before the final examination.
Course Marking Scheme

This table shows how the actual course marking is broken down.
Assessment Marks
Assignment 1-4 Four assignments, best three marks of the

four count at 30% of course marks
Final Examination 70% of overall course marks
Total 100% of course marks
Table 1: Course Marking Scheme
Course Overview
This table brings together the units, the number of weeks you should take to complete
them, and the assignments that follow them.
Unit Title of work Week’s Assessment
Activity (end of unit)
Course Guide 1
Module 1
Unit
1. Introduction – Definition and Need for
Biblical Criticism 1 Assignment 1
2. Historical Criticism 2 Assignment 2
3. Source Criticism 3 Assignment 3
4 Form Criticism 4 Assignment 4
5 Redaction Criticism 5 Assignment 5
6 Textual Criticism 6 Assignment 6
x
7 Textual Criticism (contd) 7 Assignment 7

Module 2
Unit
1 History of Biblical Criticism 8 Assignment 8
2 History of Biblical Criticism (contd) 9 Assignment 9
3 Rhetorical Criticism 10 Assignment 10
4 Rhetorical Criticism (contd) 11 Assignment 11
5 New Criticism 12 Assignment 12
6 Structuralism Criticism 13 Assignment 13
7 Structuralism Criticism (contd) 14 Assignment 14
Module 3
Unit
1 Relevance of Biblical Criticism 15 Assignment 15
2 Relevance of Biblical Criticism (contd) 16 Assignment 16
3 Audience Criticism 17 Assignment 17
4 Audience Criticism (contd) 18 Assignment 18
5 Indeterminacy Criticism 19 Assignment 19
6 Ideological Criticism 20 Assignment 20
7 Ideological Criticism (contd) 21 Assignment 21
22 REVISION 22
23 EXAMINATION 23
TOTAL 23 Weeks
Table 2: Course Overview
How to get the best from this course

In distance learning the study units replace the university lecturer. This is one of the great
advantages of distance learning; you can read and work through specially designed study
materials at your own pace, and at a time and place that suit you best. Think of it as
reading the lecture instead of listening to a lecturer. In the same way that a lecturer might
set you some reading to do, the study units tell you when to read your set books or other
material. Just as a lecturer might give you an in-class exercise, your study units provide
exercises for you to do at appropriate points.
Each of the study units follows a common format. The first item is an introduction to the
subject matter of the unit and how a particular unit is integrated with the other units and
the course as a whole. Next is a set of learning objectives. These objectives enable you
know what you should be able to do by the time you have completed the unit. You should
use these objectives to guide your study. When you have finished the units you must go
back and check whether you have achieved the objectives. If you make a habit of doing
this you will significantly improve your chances of passing the course.
xi
The main body of the unit guides you through the required reading from other sources.
This will usually be either from your set books or from a Reading section.
Remember that your tutor’s job is to assist you. When you need help, don’t hesitate to
call and ask your tutor to provide it.
1. Read this Course Guide thoroughly.
2. Organize a study schedule. Refer to the ‘Course overview’ for more details. Note
the time you are expected to spend on each unit and how the assignments relate to
the units. Whatever method you chose to use, you should decide on it and write in
your own dates for working on each unit.
3. Once you have created your own study schedule, do everything you can to stick to
it. The major reason that students fail is that they lag behind in their course work.
4. Turn to Unit 1 and read the introduction and the objectives for the unit.
5. Assemble the study materials. Information about what you need for a unit is given
in the ‘Overview’ at the beginning of each unit. You will almost always need both
the study unit you are working on and one of your set books on your desk at the
same time.
6. Work through the unit. The content of the unit itself has been arranged to provide
a sequence for you to follow. As you work through the unit you will be instructed
to read sections from your set books or other articles. Use the unit to guide your
reading.
7. Review the objectives for each study unit to confirm that you have achieved them.
If you feel unsure about any of the objectives, review the study material or consult
your tutor.
8. When you are confident that you have achieved a unit’s objectives, you can then
start on the next unit. Proceed unit by unit through the course and try to pace your
study so that you keep yourself on schedule.
9. When you have submitted an assignment to your tutor for marking, do not wait for
its return before starting on the next unit. Keep to your schedule. When the
assignment is returned, pay particular attention to your tutor’s comments, both on
the tutor-marked assignment form and also written on the assignment. Consult
your tutor as soon as possible if you have any questions or problems.
10. After completing the last unit, review the course and prepare yourself for the final
examination. Check that you have achieved the unit objectives (listed at the
beginning of each unit) and the course objectives (listed in this Course Guide).
xii
Tutors and Tutorials

There are 8 hours of tutorials provided in support of this course. You will be notified of
the dates, times and location of these tutorials, together with the name and phone number
of your tutor, as soon as you are allocated a tutorial group.
Your tutor will mark and comment on your assignments, keep a close watch on your
progress and on any difficulties you might encounter and provide assistance to you
during the course. You must mail your tutor-marked assignments to your tutor well
before the due date (at least two working days are required). They will be marked by your
tutor and returned to you as soon as possible.
Do not hesitate to contact your tutor by telephone, e-mail, or discussion board if you need
help. The following might be circumstances in which you would find help necessary.
Contact your tutor if:
 you do not understand any part of the study units or the assigned readings,
 you have difficulty with the self-tests or exercises,
 You have a question or problem with an assignment, with your tutor’s comments
on an assignment or with the grading of an assignment.
You should try your best to attend the tutorials. This is the only chance to have face to
face contact with your tutor and to ask questions which are answered instantly. You can
raise any problem encountered in the course of your study. To gain the maximum benefit
from course tutorials, prepare a question list before attending them. You will learn a lot
from participating in discussions actively.
Summary
CRS814 intends to introduce you to the study of Biblical Criticism. Upon completing
this course, you will be able to answer questions such as:
 What is the definition for Biblical Criticism?

 What tools are used in Biblical Criticism?
 Why is the study of the historical development of Biblical Criticism important?

 Of what relevance is the study of Biblical Criticism to Africa?
 How can a good understanding of authorship, dating and transmission of a text

help in its interpretation?
 What are the physical features in the text that can aid its interpretation?
xiii
 How can a combination of both diachronic and synchronic approaches facilitate a

better interpretation of a text?
Of course, the questions you will be able to answer are not limited to the above list. This
adventure in the study of Biblical Criticism will offer you more. You are welcome to
enjoy your time as you work through this course, which will definitely offer you some
new skills in interpreting the Bible.
xiv
MAIN COURSE
CTH 814 Biblical Criticism Course Guide
MODULE 1: AUTHOR-CENTRED CRITICISM

Unit 7: Textual Criticism (continued)

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Biblical Criticism
3.2 The Need for Biblical Criticism
3.3 The Place of Biblical Criticism in Theological Study
3.4 The indispensability of biblical criticism
3.5 Some limitations of criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignments
7.0 References/Future Reading
1.0 Introduction
This Unit defines Biblical Criticism, and discusses the need for Biblical Criticism,
and the possible implications for Africa. The student is encouraged to pay close
attention to this unit because it gives the foundational basis for the study of modern
biblical criticisms and previews the different approaches of biblical criticism
discussed in this manual.
2.0 OBJECTIVES
By the end of this unit, you should be able to:
16
 Define Biblical Criticism.

 Understand the need for Biblical Criticism.
 Be acquainted with the tools for doing Biblical Criticism.

 Discuss some of the implications of doing Biblical Criticism as an African
 Have an overview of the different approaches to modern Biblical Criticism
3.0 MAIN BODY
3.1 Defining Biblical Criticism
Biblical Criticism refers to the techniques employed by biblical scholars in
interpreting a given text of the Bible in order to ascertain their original wording, the
nature of their composition, their sources, date, authorship and the like. Biblical
criticism is neither a derogatory term nor a value judgment. It is a descriptive
generally brandished proudly by those to whom it is applied. “Criticism” here refers
to the exercise of an expert sense of judgment about the text and should not be
confused with “criticism” in the sense of making negative statements (Wood 138).
Technically, biblical criticism simply refers to the scholarly approach of studying,
evaluating and critically assessing the Bible as literature in order to understand it
better (www.theopedia.com/Biblical_criticism - 7/4/12).
Some critical methodologies attempt to reconstruct the ways and means by which
the text came to be in its present form. These are referred to as “diachronic” for they
explore the history of the text and look for meaning in previous forms and settings
of portions of the text. Other methodologies recognize that there may well be a
history of the text but seek meaning in the form of the text currently possesses.
These approaches view the text as self-sufficient, requiring no outside information
for interpretation and are referred to as “synchronic”. Biblical criticism draws upon
a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology, anthropology, folklore,
linguistics, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious studies.
Biblical Criticism, in particular higher criticism, deals with why and how the books
of the Bible were written; lower criticism deals with the actual teachings of its
authors. The word "criticism" must be one of the all-time least appropriate religious
terms. Theologians do not engage in actual criticism - at least as the word is
commonly understood. They analyze the Bible in order to understand it better.
Mather (1993) defines Higher criticism as the study of the sources and literary
methods employed by the biblical authors,” while Lower criticism was defined as
“the discipline and study of the actual wording” of the Bible; a quest for textual
purity and understanding.
3.1 Self-Assessment Exercise
 Define Biblical Criticism. How would you differentiate between “Higher

Criticism” and “Lower Criticism”?
17
3.2 The Need for Biblical Criticism
In order to provide reasonable answers to the questions of authorship, when, why

and how individual books of the Bible were produced, biblical scholars have
employed scientific and quasi-scientific methods. According to Alan C. Mitchel
(2000), “Biblical criticism is as much an art as it is a science. Its objects are the
interests we have in knowing as much as we can about the Bible, its world, its ideas,
its teachings, indeed its very truth. The point of departure for any kind of biblical
criticism, then, is the human desire to know whatever can be known about the
Bible.
The desire to know the origin of biblical traditions went beyond the establishment
of a reliable text and inquired into the sources of the stories and narratives
included in the Bible. Often comparison of biblical texts with other ancient
literatures, or with other texts in the Bible itself, was helpful in isolating subtle
differences among these texts. The noted differences became important clues.
They may indicate, for example, that some biblical stories did not originate only
with their written transmission. It is very likely that these stories or at least some
parts of them were, at first, handed on by word of mouth. Or, the observed
differences of style, vocabulary, and viewpoint may show that a given biblical
story was passed on in more than one form.
Other scholars were prompted by an interest to know about the kinds of materials
contained in the Bible and how they may have related to the real lives of those
who were responsible for producing it. In view of the realization that the
transmission of biblical tradition may be quite complex, these scholars set out to
catalogue the various shapes that tradition, preserved in the Bible, took. With the
help of comparison with other ancient literature, contemporaneous with the Bible,
they were able to isolate narrative, poetic, cultic, legal, literary and historical
materials, which had their own definite shapes or forms. These, they conjectured,
functioned in relation to the various circumstances of life in the ancient biblical
world. Such criticism came to be known as form criticism. For example, knowing
that in Philippians (2:5-11) Apostle Paul preserved a very early form of a Christian
hymn; one might reasonably conclude that one way of handing on important
tradition about the life, death and exaltation of Jesus was related to early Christian
worship.
Biblical criticism is, also helpful in relating the meaning of the Bible to the world
today. Often the methods employed to connect the Bible with our own experience
are more literary and less historical in nature. Narrative, rhetorical and reader-
response criticism fall under this heading. Appreciating these forms of biblical
criticism helps us to understand how much biblical criticism is informed and
influenced by the language and interests of the day.
Other methods that try to relate the Bible to our own experience use the feminist
method and critique to produce other enriching ways to interpret the Bible
meaningfully. So also does one find interest in relating the Bible to minority and
18
non-Western cultures. Taking their lead from interpretive clues provided by these
cultures, biblical scholars read the Bible in non-traditional ways, rendering its
meaning in a manner that historical criticism is perhaps unable to do.
3.2 Self Assessment Questions
 Discuss five reasons why you think Biblical Criticism is important with
reference to the above section.
3.3 The Place of Biblical Criticism in Theological Study
According Gordon J. Wenham (1989:84-89), “The role we ascribe to biblical

criticism depends to a large extent on our understanding of the nature of Scripture.
Is it a divine book or a human one? Is the fundamentalist right to insist on the
divinity of Scripture, or the biblical scholar more correct in underlining its
humanity?” It is safe to argue that none of these positions should be taken in
isolation. The Scripture is fully human and fully divine. Example, the OT constantly
claims divine authorship. Most of the laws begin 'the LORD said to Moses', while
the Ten Commandments are said to have been written by the finger of God. The
prophets typically introduce their messages with 'thus says the LORD', while the
narrator of the historical books adopts an omniscient perspective (Exodus 20).
Within the NT the divine authorship and authority of the OT is always assumed and
frequently asserted. For Jesus the OT is the word of God (Mk. 7:13; Jn. 10:35).
According to St Paul it is all inspired by God (2 Tim. 3:16). And the claim that the
NT comes from God too is also clear in many passages (Mt. 5:22, 28, 32, 34, etc.; 1
Cor. 14:37). This attitude towards the Bible was continued by the early church.
Kelly writes, 'It goes without saying that the fathers envisaged the whole of the
Bible as inspired... their general view was that Scripture was not only exempt from
error but contained nothing that was superfluous.' According to Jerome, ‘In the
divine Scriptures every word, syllable, accent and point is packed with meaning’
(Wenham 85)
Traditionally, the divine source of the scriptures has been affirmed over the years of
both Judaism and Christianity. But in the last two centuries, human qualities evident
in the scriptures have been spotted by careful readers. Most obviously, the fact that
we have four gospels demonstrates the humanness of Scripture. Here we have four
portraits of our Lord by four authors each with their own particular slant and
emphasis. Then the epistles are addressed to different churches each with their own
special problems, each demanding a response by the apostle to their particular
needs. The variety of styles, the tendency for the writers to go off at tangents, all
attest the fact that we are dealing with human compositions by human authors each
with their own idiosyncrasies. Indeed the more you think about it, the more obvious
it is that Scripture has to be a human book, if it is to communicate with man. For if
it had been written in God's language as opposed to Israelite Hebrew or Koine
Greek, no-one could have understood it without first learning God's language. But
written in Hebrew the OT was at least immediately intelligible to an ancient
19
Israelite, while the NT was equally accessible to first-century readers of Greek

(Wenham 86).
So then, Scripture is both a completely divine book and a totally human book.
Neither aspect should be overlooked in the study of Scripture. We must bear both in
mind as we read it and seek to apply it today. The dual nature of Scripture causes
various problems, but none of the tensions are intrinsically any worse than those
posed by the other doctrines like the Incarnation, Trinity, Law and Grace, etc. There
is a paradox and mystery here, just as we do in understanding the incarnation and
atonement. But if we acknowledge that we do not understand how the immortal
could die, we will not despair when confronted by the mystery of Scripture's dual
nature (Wenham 87).
 How can you reconcile the understanding that the Scripture is both human
and divine in nature?
3.4 The Indispensability of Biblical Criticism
The place of biblical criticism in the study of Scripture cannot be overemphasized.

Biblical criticism is essential to the understanding of Scripture as a divine work. It
is so because Biblical criticism seeks to understand the situation of the original
recipients of the Word, to discover exactly what the original authors of the
scriptures meant by their words. Whenever documents are copied, especially when
copied by hand, mistakes are liable to creep in. The branch of Biblical criticism that
traces this error is Textual criticism. And even in this age of computer typesetting,
very odd mistakes still from time to time. Similar things have unfortunately
happened in the copying of the biblical text. We do not have the original text of
Isaiah or St Paul's epistles, only copies; indeed in most cases copies of copies of
copies, so that there has been plenty of chance for errors to creep in. This is
particularly the case in the NT, partly because there are many more manuscripts of
it and partly because Christians were less careful copiers than the Jews! However
thanks to the skills of the textual critics these errors can be spotted and the text
restored to very nearly its original purity. To quote F. F. Bruce, 'The various
readings about which any doubt remains ... affect no material question of historic
fact or of Christian faith and practice' (Wenham 85). We can in other words be very
confident that our restored texts are so close to the original that there is no
significant difference in meaning between them and the originals.
But once we have our restored texts, as near as makes no difference to the original,
how do we establish what they mean? This brings us to the science of philology and
linguistics, which has been most fruitfully applied to the understanding of the Bible;
in particular James Barr has here made an immense and positive contribution to
biblical interpretation. His studies have transformed our approach to determining
the precise meaning of words in Scripture. So often sermons are based on sloppy
etymologies or words or phrases taken out of context, but linguistics has shown that
20
this is quite mistaken. So quite central terms in the Bible's theological vocabulary,
e.g. faith, soul, redemption, justification, may have been misunderstood by
amateurs who fail to understand how language works. Modern linguistics has taught
us to examine the context in which words are used rather than their etymology to
determine their meaning. It has taught us to study language synchronically before
studying it diachronically. In practice this means we must examine the usage of a
word in a particular book of the Bible before examining its usage and meaning
elsewhere. Just because a word means one thing in one writer, it does not
necessarily follow that another writer uses it in exactly the same way. And once we
recognize this principle we may well be on the way to resolving the apparent
contradictions between different parts of Scripture, for example between Paul and
James.
The next area of biblical criticism has burgeoned in the last decade. It is the new
literary criticism, especially associated in Britain with Sheffield University. It is, I
believe, one of the disciplines in biblical criticism of most potential value to would-
be biblical expositors in that it opens up whole new vistas in the biblical narratives
so that characters in the story come alive as real people not as mere names on the
page. The new literary criticism has made us much more sensitive to the inner
feelings of the actors in the Bible so that we can identify with them more closely.
Let me give a short example. Literary critics insist that repetition within a story
often offers very valuable clues to the attitudes of the people involved. We must
examine closely who says what, and what phrases they use.
There is another area of criticism that sometimes raises problems, but again has
produced many valuable insights, indeed is indispensable to a fair and accurate
understanding of Scripture. It is historical criticism. It includes source criticism,
issues of dating biblical books, and the writing of biblical history. To understand the
message of the Bible it is absolutely essential to have some understanding of the
social setting in which its books were written. Otherwise we shall import our own
twentieth-century models, impose them on the text and come up with quite a
misleading interpretation. According to Wenham (86), we should read in the
context of OT society, rather than modern ideas. Historical criticism has a most
important role to play in delineating the nature of biblical society. Without such
sociological study we are liable to make terrible mistakes in interpreting and
applying Scripture today.
Other disciplines of source, form, and redaction criticism can also contribute to our
understanding of the Bible. Form criticism has made us aware of the conventions
that guided the biblical authors. It enables us to appreciate why they arranged
material in the way they did, for example in the laws, the psalms, and the epistles.
Through form criticism we can be clearer about the writers' intentions: why they
included certain details and omitted others. And this knowledge should keep us
from misinterpreting and misapplying biblical texts today.
21
 Why do you think Biblical Criticism is indispensible?
3.5 Some limitations of criticism
The aspect of biblical criticism that is often the most sensitive is the dating of the
biblical material and the attempt to assess its historicity. Establishing the historical
setting of a book is often of great value in interpreting it. For example it makes a
great difference to the interpretation of the book of Revelation whether we date it
before AD 70, when Jerusalem fell, or afterwards. On the former view we can read
it as a prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem, of the great whore Babylon. Dated later it
is more natural to read it as an anticipation of the end of the Roman Empire. And
there are many other books in the Bible where it makes a considerable difference to
our understanding of them, when we date them (Wenham 88).
While issues of dating and authorship are very important in understanding the
message of the scripture, we are encouraged not to expend all our time on them.
Discussions on them should be kept in perspective for obvious reasons.
Authorship and dating are not as securely based as is sometimes claimed. The
assured results of criticism are not quite as sure as they seem. Commenting on the
source criticism of the Pentateuch, Professor Rendtorff of Heidelberg has written:
‘We possess hardly any reliable criteria for the dating of pentateuchal literature.
Every dating of the pentateuchal sources rests on purely hypothetical assumptions
which only have any standing through the consensus of scholars.’ And in his book
Redating the NT J. A. T. Robinson makes much the same point. He wrote, 'Much
more than is generally recognized, the chronology of the NT rests on
presuppositions rather than facts. What seemed to be firm datings based on
scientific evidence are revealed to rest on deductions from deductions (Wenham
88).
The second thing to bear in mind is that historicity is not everything. It of course
matters whether Jesus lived, died, and rose again. But there is a Jewish scholar
Pinhas Lapide who believes in these facts without being a Christian. And I suppose
that if the Turin shroud had proved to be genuine, it would not have persuaded
many unbelievers that Jesus was indeed resurrected. It is most heartening when
archaeologists find evidence corroborating the historical record of the Bible,
whether it be the names of the patriarchs, the ashes of towns sacked by Joshua, the
pool of Bethesda or the house of Peter in Capemaum. All these discoveries confirm
our faith in the historical reliability of the Bible. But the Bible is more than a human
history book. Throughout, it claims to be offering a divine interpretation of public
historical events, an interpretation that is beyond the scope of human verification.
Finally, we should not spend too much time on the critical issues: it can easily
divert us from the purpose of Scripture. Like the Jews we should be searching the
Scriptures to find eternal life. Or as St Paul said, 'Whatever was written in former
times was written for our instruction, that we might have hope' (Rom. 15:4). The
purpose of the Scriptures is not simply to stimulate us academically, or to provide a
22
living for professional biblical scholars. It is to lead us to God. Biblical criticism

offers us indispensable aids to the interpretation and understanding of the Bible. But
often instead of being the handmaid of Scripture it has become its master. When the
academic study of Scripture diverts our attention from loving God with all our
heart, soul and strength, we should pause and take stock. We should ask ourselves
whether we are using it as it was intended. As said earlier, it is both a divine book
and a human book. Because it is a human book we cannot understand it unless we
employ all the types of biblical criticism to the full. But because it is also a divine
book we must recognize that these tools are insufficient by themselves for us to
grasp and apply its message. To do that we must have a humble mind and a heart
open to the guidance of the Spirit.
 Summarize the three reasons why biblical criticism is limited.
4.0 Conclusion
Biblical criticism simply refers to the scholarly approach of studying, evaluating
and critically assessing the Bible as literature in order to understand it better. It
draws upon a wide range of scholarly disciplines including archaeology,
anthropology, folklore, linguistics, oral tradition studies, and historical and religious
studies. In order to provide reasonable answers to the questions of authorship,
when, why and how individual books of the Bible were produced, biblical scholars
have employed scientific and quasi-scientific methods. Biblical criticism is, also
helpful in relating the meaning of the Bible to the world today. The role we ascribe
to biblical criticism depends to a large extent on our understanding of the nature of
Scripture, whether or not it is a divine book or a human one. While issues of dating
and authorship are very important in understanding the message of the scripture, we
are encouraged not to expend all our time on them. Discussions on them should be
kept in perspective for obvious reasons.
5.0 Summary
This unit discussed the meaning and need for biblical criticism, presented under the
following subheadings: Defining Biblical Criticism; The Need for Biblical
Criticism; The Place of Biblical Criticism in Theological Study; The
indispensability of biblical criticism; and some limitations of criticism. Next unit
will discuss in detail one of the tools in Biblical Criticism, namely: Historical
Criticism.
 Show five reasons why biblical criticism is indispensable

 What limits do biblical criticism present?
23
Mather, G. A. & Nichols, L. A. Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the Occult.
Zondervan, 1993.
Mitchel, A. C. “The Need for Biblical Criticism.”

http://www.americancatholic.org/Newsletters/SFS/an0800.asp, 2000
(7/6/2012).
Soulen, R N & Soulen, R K. Handbook of Biblical criticism. Louisville, London:

Wenham, G. J. “The place of Biblical Criticism in Theological Study”.

http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_criticism_wenham.html (11/6/12).
Wood, D.R.W; Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R. (eds). New Bible Dictionary (3rd ed).
www.theopedia.com/Biblical_criticism (7/4/12).
24

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Historical Criticism
3.2 History
3.3 Interpretation
3.4 Views on higher criticism/historical Methods
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Historical criticism is a branch of literary criticism that investigates the origins of
ancient text in order to understand "the world behind the text"; it is also known
as the historical-critical method or higher criticism. The primary goal of historical
criticism is to ascertain the text's primitive or original meaning in its original
historical context and its literal sense, including authorship and dating. The
secondary goal seeks to establish a reconstruction of the historical situation of the
author and recipients of the text (Levenson). This Unit discusses: Definitions for
Historical Criticism, History of HC, Interpretation of HC, and Views on higher
criticism/historical Methods.
2.0 Objective
 Define Historical Criticism
 Narrate the History of Historical Criticism

 Discuss various Interpretations of Historical Criticism, and
 Identify different views on higher criticism or historical Methods.
25
3.0 Main Body

 Defining Historical Criticism
The approach of Historical-critical methods typifies the following: (1) that reality is
uniform and universal, (2) that reality is accessible to human reason and
investigation (3) that all events historical and natural are interconnected and
comparable to analogy, (4) that humanity’s contemporary experience of reality can
provide objective criteria to what could or could not have happened in past events.
Application of the historical critical method, in biblical studies, investigates the
books of the Hebrew Bible as well as the New Testament.
When applied to the Bible, the historical-critical method is distinct from the
traditional, devotional approach. In particular, while devotional readers concern
themselves with the overall message of the Bible, historians examine the distinct
messages of each book in the Bible. Guided by the devotional approach, for
example, Christians often combine accounts from different gospels into single
accounts, whereas historians attempt to discern what is unique about each gospel,
including how they are different.
The perspective of the early historical critic was rooted in Protestant
reformation ideology, inasmuch as their approach to biblical studies was free from
the influence of traditional interpretation. Where historical investigation was
unavailable, historical criticism rested on philosophical and theological
interpretation. With each passing century, historical criticism became refined into
various methodologies used today: source criticism, form criticism, redaction
criticism, tradition criticism, canonical criticism, and related methodologies
(Levenson). The rise of historical consciousness brought a flood of philosophical,
historical, and literary questions regarding the origin of the biblical texts: date,
place, authorship, sources, and intention (Soulen).

 Discuss the four perspectives historical criticism typifies.
 History of Historical Criticism
Historical criticism began in the 17th century and gained popular recognition in the
19th and 20th centuries. Earlier, the Dutch scholars like Desiderius Erasmus (1466
– 1536) and Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677) are usually credited as the first to study
the Bible in this way. The phrase "higher criticism" became popular in Europe from
the mid-18th century to the early 20th century, to describe the work of such scholars
as Jean Astruc (mid-18th century), Johann Salomo Semler (1725–91), Johann
Gottfried Eichhorn (1752–1827), Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860), and Julius
Wellhausen (1844–1918). In academic circles today, this is the body of work
26
properly considered "higher criticism", though the phrase is sometimes applied to

earlier or later work using similar methods.
Higher criticism originally referred to the work of German biblical scholars of
the Tübingen School. After the path-breaking work on the New
Testament by Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), the next generation – which
included scholars such as David Friedrich Strauss (1808–74) and Ludwig
Feuerbach (1804–72) – in the mid-19th century, analyzed the historical records of
the Middle East from Christian and Old Testament times in search of independent
confirmation of events related in the Bible. These latter scholars built on the
tradition of Enlightenment and Rationalist thinkers such as John Locke, David
Hume, Immanuel Kant, Gotthold Lessing, Gottlieb Fichte, G. W. F. Hegel and the
French rationalists.
These ideas were imported to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge and, in
particular, by George Eliot’s translations of Strauss's The Life of Jesus (1846) and
Feuerbach's The Essence of Christianity (1854). In 1860
seven liberal Anglican theologians began the process of incorporating this historical
criticism into Christian doctrine in Essays and Reviews, causing a five-year storm of
controversy which completely overshadowed the arguments over Darwin's newly
published On the Origin of Species. Two of the authors were indicted for heresy and
lost their jobs by 1862, but in 1864 had the judgment overturned on appeal. La Vie
de Jésus (1863), the seminal work by a Frenchman, Ernest Renan (1823–92),
continued in the same tradition as Strauss and Feuerbach. In
Catholicism, L'Evangile et l'Eglise (1902), the magnum opus by Alfred
Loisy against the Essence of Christianity of Adolf von Harnack and La Vie de
Jesus of Renan, gave birth to the modernist crisis (1902–61). Some scholars, such
as Rudolf Bultmann have used higher criticism of the Bible to "demythologize" it.

 Show how historical criticism was referred to higher criticism. Who were the
main players?
 Interpretations of Historical Criticism

Scholars of higher criticism have sometimes upheld and sometimes challenged the
traditional authorship of various books of the Bible. A group of German biblical
scholars at Tübingen University formed the Tübingen School of theology under the
leadership of Ferdinand Christian Baur, with important works being produced
by Ludwig Andreas Feuerbach and David Strauss. In the early 19th century they
sought independent confirmation of the events related in the Bible through Hegelian
analysis of the historical records of the Middle East from Christian and Old
Testament times.
Their ideas were brought to England by Samuel Taylor Coleridge, then in
1846 Mary Ann Evans translated David Strauss's sensational Leben Jesu as the Life
27
of Jesus Critically Examined, a quest for the historical Jesus. In 1854 she followed
this with a translation of Feuerbach's even more radical Essence of
Christianity which held that the idea of God was created by man to express the
divine within himself, though Strauss attracted most of the controversy. The loose
grouping of Broad Churchmen in the Church of England was influenced by the
German higher critics. In particular, Benjamin Jowett visited Germany and studied
the work of Baur in the 1840s, then in 1866 published his book on The Epistles of St
Paul, arousing theological opposition. He then collaborated with six other
theologians to publish their Essays and Reviews in 1860. The central essay was
Jowett's On the Interpretation of Scripture which argued that the Bible should be
studied to find the authors' original meaning in their own context rather than
expecting it to provide a modern scientific text.

 Demonstrate how the Tübingen School sought to interpret Historical
Criticism.
 Views on higher criticism or historical Methods
The historical-critical method of Biblical scholarship is taught widely in Western

nations, including in many seminaries. According to Ehrman, most lay Christians
are unaware of how different this particular academic view of the Bible is from their
own. Conservative evangelical schools, however, often reject this approach,
teaching instead that the Bible is completely inerrant in all matters (in contrast to
the less conservative Protestant view that it is infallible only in matters relating
to personal salvation, a doctrine called biblical infallibility) and that it reflects
explicit divine inspiration. However, the Catholic Church, while teaching inerrancy,
also allows for more nuance in interpretation than would conservative Evangelical
schools, because of its historical understanding of the "four senses of Scripture". In
the Pontifical Biblical Commission's "Interpretation of the Bible in the Church," the
need for historical criticism is clearly expressed and affirmed.
With Protestant historical-criticism, the movement of rationalism as promoted
by Baruch Spinoza (1632–1677), held that reason is the determiner of truth.
Spinoza did not regard the Bible as divinely inspired; instead it was to be evaluated
like any other book. Later rationalists also have rejected the authority of Scripture

 Compare and contrast the different views on Historical Criticism by
Conservative Evangelical schools and Catholic Church.
4.0 Conclusion
28
The emergence of Historical Criticism, evidently, raised questions concerning the

origins of biblical books. Prior to this time, many people looked to the church for
their interpretation and for guidance in their understanding of the Scriptures. By
Reformation period, new era of biblical interpretation evolved, which challenged
the authority of Rome as the sole interpreter of the Scriptures. On the one hand, this
meant that people recognized the fact that Scripture itself is its own interpreter. On
the other hand, this also meant that, in the eyes of some, people had license to
develop their own ideas on the meaning and origin of Scriptural books apart from
an external authority. The whole aim of Historical Criticism is not to seek out faults
from the scriptures, but to develop a systematic way of its interpretation through
verifiable data.
5.0 Summary
This Unit has shown that Historical Criticism or Higher Criticism is an attempt to
investigate the origins of ancient text in order to understand "the world behind the
text", including the dating, authorship and place. It discussed the different
definitions, history, interpretation and views about Historical Criticism. Next Unit
will concentrate on one of the tools of Historical Criticisms, namely: Source
Criticism.
 Discuss the history of Historical Criticisms, comparing and contrasting
the Catholic and Evangelical views.
Mather, G. A. & Nichols, L. A. Dictionary of Cults, Sects, Religions and the
Occult. Zondervan, 1993.
Soulen, R N & Soulen, R K. Handbook of Biblical criticism. Louisville,
London: Westminster, John Knox Press, 2001.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_criticism_wenham.html
(11/6/12).
Wood, D.R.W; Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R. (eds). New Bible Dictionary (3rd
ed). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996 (pp. 138-140).
Levenson, D. ‘Historical Criticism”, Wikipedia.com. Accessed 10/09/14.
29

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Source Criticism
3.2 Scholars of Source Criticism
3.3 Documentary Hypothesis
3.4 Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Source criticism is the tool scholars use to figure out what sources, or materials,
biblical authors drew on. They use it to unravel the pressing questions of why some
passages seem so similar to one another and yet also quite different. In other cases,
Bible scholars use the way a text is written (changes in style, vocabulary,
repetitions, and the like) to determine what sources may have been used by a
biblical author. This Unit defines Source Criticism, Documentary Hypothesis,
Problems of Source Criticism, and Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism.
2.0 Objective
By the end of this course, you should be able to:
 Define source criticism.
 Describe some of the sources that may have been used by biblical authors.
 Discuss some of the problems related to source criticism.

 And survey the recent trends in biblical source criticism.
3.0 Main body
30
3.1 Defining Source Criticism

Source Criticism, which is formerly called “literary criticism” or “higher criticism,”
is a method of biblical study, which analyzes texts that are not the work of a single
author but result from the combination of originally separate documents. This
method has been applied to texts of the Old Testament (especially but not
exclusively the Pentateuch) and New Testament (especially but not exclusively the
gospels).
Reading Genesis chapters 1 and 2 present one with two different accounts of
creation, which poses some questions. Was humanity created last, as chapter 1 has
it, or created at the beginning of the process, as chapter 2 suggests? Similarly, the
same sorts of questions arise when scholars read other parts of the Bible, example:
the Gospels. The first three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are called the
Synoptic Gospels because they seem to see things ‘with the same eye’ (syn-
optically) and are very close in their outline of events. These similarities have led
most scholars to see them as related or interdependent to some extent. So, source
criticism is a tool used by Scholars to unravel the pressing questions of why some
passages seem so similar to one another and yet also quite different.
Source criticism is to be distinguished from other critical methods. Where original

documents prove not to have been free compositions, but to rest on older, oral
tradition, FORM CRITICISM may then be used to penetrate behind the written text.
The study of the editing process, whereby the sources have been linked together and
incorporated into the present, finished text belongs to the province of REDACTION
CRITICISM. Source criticism should also be distinguished from textual (sometimes
called lower) criticism, which is concerned to establish the exact wording of the
earliest manuscript of the present text, not to reconstruct hypothetical earlier stages
in the text’s growth. Nevertheless, there is some overlap between source and textual
criticism, since the tell-tale signs that a text is composite may include the kinds of
minor inconsistency that scribes were apt to correct when copying manuscripts, and
the textual critic needs to be aware of this when making conjectures about textual
transmission. Conversely, source critics must be careful not to appeal to such
inconsistencies without first making sure that they cannot be accounted for as slips
in copying.
 What is the meaning of Source Criticism?
 Explain how Source Criticism differs from Form Criticism or Textual

Criticism.
31
3.2 Documentary Hypothesis

Out of source criticism developed the Documentary Hypothesis. The Documentary
Hypothesis considers the sources for the Pentateuch, claiming that there were four
separate sources that combined to create the first five books of the bible. These
sources are the Yahwist, Elohist, Deuteronomist, and Priestly source. The Jahwist
source is characterized by the use of the name YHWH, has a human-like God, and
is especially concerned with the kingdom of Judah.
The Jahwist source is thought to be written c. 950 B.C. The Elohist source is
characterized with God being called Elohim, and deals more with the kingdom of
Israel. The Elohist source is thought to be written c. 850 B.C. The Deuteronomic
source is characterized by a sermon like style mostly concerned with law. The
Deuteronomic source is thought to be written c. 721-621 BC. The Priestly source is
characterized by a formal style that is mostly concerned with priestly matters. The
Priestly source is thought to be written c. 550 BC. While there are many opponents
to the Documentary Hypothesis, the majority of biblical scholars support it. Some
of the other hypotheses that have been raised by source criticism are the
fragmentary and supplementary hypotheses.
According to this theory, the Torah subsumes a composite of literary works, or

sources, instead of being the work of a single author. Proponents of this theory, the
"sources critics," identify these sources by highlighting sections of the Torah that
display different writing styles, ideological assumptions, word choice, particularly
with regard to Divine names, and any number of other differences. Source critics
attribute the sources to authors coming from different time periods and
ideological backgrounds, and have named them "J" (for passages that use the
Tetragrammaton),"E" (for passages that use Elohim), "P" (Priestly) and "D"
(Deuteronomist). Until recently, this theory was considered the unshakable
bedrock upon which any academic Bible study was to be proposed.
In 1886 the German historian Julius Wellhausen published Prolegomena zur

Geschichte Israels (Prolegomena to the History of Israel). Wellhausen argued that
the Bible is an important source for historians, but cannot be taken literally. He
argued that the "hexateuch," (including the Torah or Pentateuch, and the book of
Joshua) was written by a number of people over a long period of time. Specifically,
he identified four distinct narratives, which he identified as Jahwist, Elohist,
Deuteronomist and Priestly accounts. He also identified a Redactor, who edited the
four accounts into one text. (Some argue the redactor was Ezra the scribe). He
argued that each of these sources has its own vocabulary, its own approach and
concerns, and that the passages originally belonging to each account can be
distinguished by differences in style (especially the name used for God, the
32
grammar and word usage, the political assumptions implicit in the text, and the
interests of the author.
“Briefly stated, the Documentary Hypothesis sees the Torah as having been
composed by a series of editors out of four major strands of literary traditions.
These traditions are known as J, E, D, and P.” We can diagram their relationships as
follows.
J (the Jahwist or Jerusalem source) uses the Tetragrammaton as God's name. This
source's interests indicate it was active in the southern Kingdom of Judah in the
time of the divided Kingdom. J is responsible for most of Genesis.
E (the Elohist or Ephraimitic source) uses Elohim ("God") for the divine name until
Exodus 3-6, where the Tetragrammaton is revealed to Moses and to Israel. This
source seems to have lived in the northern Kingdom of Israel during the divided
Kingdom. E wrote the Aqedah (Binding of Isaac) story and other parts of Genesis,
and much of Exodus and Numbers.
J and E were joined fairly early, apparently after the fall of the Northern Kingdom
in 722 BCE. It is often difficult to separate J and E stories that have merged.
D (the Deuteronomist) wrote almost all of Deuteronomy (and probably also Joshua,
Judges, Samuel, and Kings). Scholars often associate Deuteronomy with the book
found by King Josiah in 622 BCE (see 2 Kings 22).
P (the Priestly source) provided the first chapter of Genesis; the book of Leviticus;
and other sections with genealogical information, the priesthood, and worship.
According to Wellhausen, P was the latest source and the priestly editors put the
Torah in its final form sometime after 539 BCE. Recent scholars (for example,
James Milgrom) are more likely to see P as containing pre-exilic material.
Contemporary critical scholars disagree with Wellhausen and with one another on
details and on whether D or P was added last. But they agree that the general
approach of the Documentary Hypothesis best explains the doublets, contradictions,
differences in terminology and theology, and the geographical and historical
interests that we find in various parts of the Torah.
3.3 Evidence for Composite Character (ABD)
1. Inconsistencies.
Suspicion that a book is not the work of a single author, composing freely, is most
readily aroused when inconsistencies are noticed. These may be of various kinds. In
narrative texts it may be impossible to extract a coherent sequence of events. For
example, in Gen 12:1, Abram is told to leave Haran after the death of his father,
33
Terah. According to 11:26, Abram was born when Terah was 70; according to
11:32 Terah died at the age of 205; hence Abram must have been 135 when he was
called to leave Ur. But 12:4 says that he was only 75 when he left Haran. The
difficulty is explained if the story in Genesis 12 is drawn from a different source
from the genealogical information in Genesis 11. Thematic inconsistency arises
when a text seems to give expression to two incompatible points of view. Thus in
the stories about the rise of the Israelite monarchy in 1 Sam 8-12, some accounts
seem to regard Saul’s election and anointing as reflecting a decision by God (e.g.,
9:15-16; 10:1), while others present the people’s insistence on selecting a king to be
a sinful rejection of God (e.g., 8:1-22; 10:17-19). The simplest explanation is that
the compiler of the books of Samuel used more than one already existing account of
the origins of the monarchy, and that these accounts did not agree among
themselves. On a smaller scale, there are often puzzling inconsistencies of detail,
such as the variation in the names used for God in Genesis and Exodus (“Yahweh,”
“Elohim,” “El Shaddai,” “El Elyon,” etc.).
2. Repetitions and Doublets.
In almost every narrative book in the OT a careful reading reveals difficulties in

following the sequence of events because the same incident seems to be related
more than once. The earliest example is in Genesis 1-2, where in 1:27, “God created
man in his own image,” but then in 2:7, “the LORD God formed man of dust from
the ground,” just as if the man’s creation had not been mentioned before. Where this
kind of repetition is found, the simplest explanation is often that two versions of the
same story have both been allowed to remain in the finished form of the book, not-
reconciled with each other. In some cases material from two or more sources seems
to be interwoven: the classic example is the Flood Narrative of Genesis 6-9, where
one version speaks of a 40-day flood and the other of a 150-day flood, with
incidents from the two versions set down in alternating blocks. Similarly repetitious
accounts, often extremely complex and hard to analyze, may be found in Exodus
24, where Moses seems to go up the holy mountain three times, and Joshua 3-4, in
which the account of the crossing of the Jordan under Joshua’s leadership is
impossibly convoluted. Where two accounts or versions are closely similar in
extent, they are often called a doublet: compare, for example, 2 Kgs 24:10-14 with
24:15-16, or Gen 37:21-22 with 37:26-27.
3. Stylistic Differences.
Some OT books show extraordinary variations of style, ranging from a preference

for particular words or phrases to peculiarities of grammar and syntax. In the
Pentateuch, variation is particularly marked in Genesis and Exodus, where some
sections are written in a lively narrative style akin to that of the books of Samuel,
34
while others are marked by a stylized and repetitive manner, full of recurring
formulas, lists, and technical terms. Compare, for example, the vivid narrative of
Exodus 2—the childhood and early career of Moses—with the ponderous accounts
of the building and equipping of the tent sanctuary in Exodus 36-40. Such
variations in style can also be found in poetic books. Among the oracles in
Jeremiah, for example, there are some (e.g., chapters 30 and 31) whose similarity to
the style of Isaiah 40-55 (the so-called “Second Isaiah”) is so close, and whose
dissimilarity from the rest of Jeremiah is so great, that they seem likely to derive
from a different hand than the rest of the book. Other chapters in Jeremiah,
especially those in prose, seem close to the style of the Deuteronomistic History
(Joshua-2 Kings). While an appreciation of stylistic difference is often to some
extent subjective, the variations within books such as these are wide enough to
make it unlikely that a single author is responsible for all the material. English
translations of the Bible tend to flatten out such differences by using uniform
“biblical English,” but in the Hebrew they are easily detected.
 Discuss some of the evidences for the composite character of the Pentateuch
3.4 Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism

The mid-1980s and the early 1990s witnessed a resurgence of biblical scholars
challenging, revising, and even rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis. First and
foremost, scholars relinquished claims to a scientific methodology. In Empirical
Models for Biblical Criticism, 2 Jeffery Tigay insists that "The degree of
subjectivity which such hypothetical [source critical] procedures permit is
notorious." In fact, he characterizes these procedures as “reading between the
lines." Moreover, Edward Greenstein maintains that source critical analysis is
analogous to the blind men and the elephant: "Each of five blind men approaches a
different part of an elephant's anatomy. only part of the elephant, each man
draws a different conclusion as to the identity of what he encounters."
According to the preceding remarks, not only are source critical methods
subjective, but also account for only a fraction of the total evidence. Especially
when analyzing a literary corpus "as bulky and complex as an elephant," a
system which fails to consider all the evidence, and wherein "scholars shape the
data into the configurations of their own imagination" hardly warrants the label
scientific.
While surveying many conflicting proposals for the nature of the hypothetical
sources, Gerhard Larsson gives a more specific account of the methodological
shortcomings. He says that:
. . . there is no sound objective method for recognizing the
different sources, there is also no real consensus about the
character and extent of sources like J and E, [and] no unity
35
concerning limits between original sources and the

insertions made by redactors.
Rather, as Greenstein says, "each scholar defines and adapts the evidence
according to his own point of view."7 Such an approach not only yields results
which are, as Tigay highlights, "hypothetical (witness the term 'documentary
hypothesis')," but, as David Noel Freedman declares, allows and encourages, "the
pages of our literature [to be] filled with endless arguments between scholars who
simply reiterate their prejudices."
The lack of a sound and rigorous methodology leads scholars to produce varying
and even contradictory theories, which ultimately undermine the enterprise as a
whole. In addition to Wellhausen's four sources J, E, P, and D, some scholars
speculate about sources labeled Lay (L), Nomadic (N), Kenite (K), Southern or Seir
(S) and the "foundational source" Grundlage (G). Not only do scholars multiply the
number of sources, some, applying the same methodology, fragment J, E, P, and
D into further subdivisions, and view these documents as products of "schools"
which "shaped and reshaped these documents by further additions."
After summarizing the different opinions, Pauline Viviano says, the more "sources"
one finds, the more tenuous the evidence for the existence of continuous documents
becomes, and the less likely that four unified documents ever existed. Even for
those able to avoid skepticism and confusion in the face of the ever increasing
number of sources, the only logical conclusion seems to be to move away from
[Wellhausen's] Documentary Hypothesis toward a position closer to the
Fragmentary Hypothesis.
In addition to being a victim of its own ambition, the Documentary Hypo-thesis
suffered many challenges, from the time of its inception through contemporary
scholarship. Scholars have contested and even refuted the arguments from Divine
names, doublets, contradictions, late words, late morphology, Aramaisms, and
every other aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis.
As a result, some scholars denounce source criticism en toto, while others posit
alternate hypotheses. However, one wonders if these hypotheses will not share the
same fate as the ones they just disproved. These problems have brought source
criticism to a sad state. In Greenstein's words, "Many contemporary Biblicists are
experiencing a crisis in faith . . . . The objective truths of the past we increasingly
understand as the creations of our own vision." He continues, "All scholarship relies
on theories and methods that come and go, and . . . modern critical approaches are
no more or less than our own midrash."
This "crisis," or "breakdown" to use Jon Levenson's characterization, has
encouraged droves of scholars to study the Bible synchronically, a method
which effectively renders source criticism irrelevant. Among other advantages,
the synchronic method of biblical study encourages scholars to detect textual
phenomena which, upon reflection, seem obvious, but have not been recognized
until recently. Levenson explains these recent detections as follows:
36
Many scholars whose deans think they are studying the Hebrew
Bible are, instead, concentrating on Syrio-Palestinian archeology, the
historical grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Northwest Semitic
epigraphy, or the like – all of which are essential, but no combination
of which produces a Biblical scholar. The context often sup-plants the
text and, far worse, blinds the interpreters to features of the text that
their method has not predisposed them to see.
This statement could not be truer when referring to source criticism, and to this end
Larsson says, albeit in a harsher tone: "Source criticism obscures the analysis. Only
when the text is considered as a whole do the special features and structures of the
final version emerge."
The rediscovery of the Bible's special features and structures has proven to be
extremely rewarding in its own right, and, in addition, it has recurrently forced
scholars to revise and even reject source critical theories. Larrson states this latter
statement quite clearly: "Many scholars have found that when the different
[patriarchal] cycles are studied in depth it is no longer possible to support the
traditional documentary hypothesis." Even the Flood narrative, traditionally
explained as two independent strands (J and P) woven together, has been unified by
scholars who perceive a literary structure integrating the various sections of the
story. In fact, a statistical analysis of linguistic features in Genesis lead by Yehuda
Radday and Haim Shore demonstrates that with all due respect to the illustrious
documentarians past and present, there is massive evidence that the pre-biblical
triplicity of Genesis, which their line of thought postulates to have been worked
over by a late and gifted editor into a trinity, is actually a unity.
 Give a brief summary of the Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism.
4.0 Conclusion
Source Criticism confirms that the Bible, especially the Pentateuch is a composite
document, and not the work of a single author. The Documentary Hypothesis is an
attempt to identify some of these sources that were used in authoring the
Pentateuch. The reader should note some of the evidences for the composite nature
of the Pentateuch discussed in this unit.
5.0 Summary
This Unit discussed some of the aspects of source criticism, namely: defining
source criticism, documentary hypothesis, evidence for composite nature of
Pentateuch, and the recent trends in source criticism. The next chapter will discuss
another form of Author-centred biblical criticism: Form Criticism.
37
 Define Source Criticism and show how it is different from other biblical
criticisms
 Discuss the main evidences for the composite nature of the Pentateuch.
David Wenham, “Source Criticism,” I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament
Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, Carlisle: The
Paternoster Press, 1977, (pp.139-152).
John Barton, "Source Criticism," The Anchor Bible Dictionary.
Soulen, R N & Soulen, R K. Handbook of Biblical criticism. Louisville,
London: Westminster, John Knox Press, 2001.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_criticism_wenham.html -
accessed 11/6/12.
Wood, D.R.W; Marshall, I. H., Millard, A. R. (eds). New Bible Dictionary (3rd
ed). Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press, 1996 (pp. 138-140).
David Stern, “Recent Trends In Biblical Source Criticism”, Jewish Bible
Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 3, 2008.
38

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Form Criticism
3.2 Scholars of Form Criticism
3.3 How it works
3.4 Some of the Forms found in the Old Testament/New Testament
3.5 Form Criticism and in the New Testament
3.6 Some Limitations of Form Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Form Criticism has since been used to supplement the documentary hypothesis
explaining the origin of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Hebrew Bible or
Old Testament) and to study the Christian New Testament. This Unit discusses:
Definition for Form Criticism; Scholars of Form Criticism; and how Form Criticism
works.
2.0 Objective
At the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 Define Form Criticism
 Identify some of the scholars of Form criticism
 Discuss how Form Criticism works.

 Note some limitations of form criticism
39
3.0 Main body

3.1 Defining Form Criticism
Form criticism is a method of biblical criticism that classifies units of scripture by
literary pattern and that attempts to trace each type to its period of oral transmission.
Form criticism seeks to determine a unit's original form and the historical context of
the literary tradition. Hermann Gunkel originally developed form criticism to
analyze the Hebrew Bible. Form criticism begins by identifying a text's genre or
conventional literary form, such as parables, proverbs, epistles, or love poems. It
goes on to seek the sociological setting for each text's genre, its "situation in life"
(German: Sitz im Leben). For example, the sociological setting of a law is a court,
or the sociological setting of a psalm of praise (hymn) is a worship context, or that
of a proverb might be a father-to-son admonition. Having identified and analyzed
the text's genre-pericopes, form criticism goes on to ask how these smaller genre-
pericopes contribute to the purpose of the text as a whole.
3.2 Scholars of Form Criticism
Form criticism was originally developed for Old Testament studies by Hermann
Gunkel. Martin Noth, Gerhard von Rad, and other scholars, used it to supplement
the documentary hypothesis with reference to its oral foundations. It later came to
be applied to the Gospels by Karl Ludwig Schmidt, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf
Bultmann, and Robert M. Price among others. Over the past few decades, form
criticism's emphasis on oral tradition has waned in Old Testament studies. This is
largely because scholars are increasing skeptical about our ability to distinguish the
"original" oral traditions from the literary sources that preserve them. As a result,
the method as applied to the Old Testament now focuses on the Bible's literary
genres, becoming virtually synonymous with genre criticism.
3.3 How it Works
The Bible is a compilation of individual literary works. The diverse literature of the
Bible represents a wide variety of genres (narrative, history, law, poetry, prophecy,
song, letter, etc.) that were originally intended for use within a specific setting to
accomplish a specific function. Unfortunately, there are no editorial introductions
within the Bible to orient the reader regarding the genre, setting, and function of a
specific text.
In addition, most scholars believe that a large portion of biblical literature was
spoken, or passed on through oral tradition, long before it was written. In their
view, the stories of the Bible are best understood as folk traditions that were
originally spoken for many years, by many different people, and in many different
settings. The biblical text that we now possess is the culmination of this long
developmental process.
By helping the reader recognize the numerous (and not always obvious) types of
literature within the Bible, form criticism attempts to recover the underlying oral
40
form of the biblical text as well as its original social setting (where it was used) and
function (why it was used).
a) Form Criticism and Genre
The method’s originator, Hermann Gunkel (1862-1932), proposed that a text’s
genre is indicated by its structural form and is bound to a particular social setting
and function. As a result, Gunkel attempted to organize the writings of the Bible
according to their genre. In this endeavor, Gunkel was highly influenced by the
Brothers Grimm, who had collected German folk traditions and classified them into
specific categories such as fairy tale, myth, saga, and legend.
For Gunkel and the early form critics, the identification of biblical genres provided
important information regarding the early oral form of a text and its original setting
and function in ancient Israel. For example, an individual psalm (a designation
meaning “praise”) can be classified into specific categories, such as hymn (song of
praise), lament, or thanksgiving psalm. Because each distinct genre was used in a
specific setting for a specific purpose, accurately categorizing a psalm (or any text)
helps to reveal this information.
Even in our society, the genres that we use are bound to the situations in which we
employ them. You would not begin a research paper, “Once upon a time, there lived
a man…” No, this genre (the fairy tale) is used in a different situation and for a
different purpose. Writing a research paper has an identifiable structure (MLA or
APA format) and a specific social setting (school) and function (a graded
assignment).
b) How Does Form Criticism Work?
In order to apply the form critical method, one must first define the boundaries of
the biblical text, to study it on its own. This means isolating an individual literary
unit from its surrounding context. If a passage within a larger narrative begins, “A
long time afterward,” this is a textual clue that a new unit has begun. Or when a
prophet writes, “Thus says the Lord,” readers know that they are reading a separate
divine speech. Generally, a new scene in a narrative or an individual poem,
prophecy, or song constitutes a distinct literary unit.
Second, once a text is separated into its component parts, the form critic identifies
the genre of the specific literary unit under consideration based on its form and
content. Psalm 150 serves as an example from the Bible of the structured form of a
genre. A quick reading of this individual literary unit reveals its key emphasis:
praising the Lord. Based on its content, Psalm 150 is a “hymn” or a “song of
praise.” Aside from its content, however, a hymn provides very clear structural
indications of its genre (cf. Psalms 146-49). First, a hymn begins with a command
to “praise the Lord” (vs. 1). Second, a hymn typically includes reasons why one
should praise the Lord (vs. 2). And third, a hymn concludes with a final command
to praise (vs. 6b). Therefore, the content of the psalm (giving praise) and the
structure of the psalm (the elements included) indicate its genre.
41
Third, the identification of the genre leads us to an understanding of the text’s

original setting, or the situation in which it was used prior to its inclusion in the
Bible. In biblical scholarship, the setting of the text is known as its Sitz im Leben
(“setting in life”). To be clear, form criticism is not attempting to understand the
historical setting of the author, but rather, the social situation in which the text was
used. For example, because Psalm 150 is a hymn, it is very probable that it was
used in the context of ancient Israel’s worship. Consequently, the identification of
the genre also indicates how the text was used (its function), which, in this case, is
to give praise to Israel’s God.
Form criticism is a helpful tool that allows interpreters to gain insights into a text
based on what they can learn about its formal characteristics. By analyzing the form
and genre of individual texts, form critics are able to offer ideas about its probable
social setting and function.
While this method appears daunting for beginners, readers of all levels can identify
genres. Form criticism simply emphasizes this task for a particular purpose – to
recover the early stages of a biblical text.
 Can you describe how Form Criticism works?
3.4 Some of the Forms found in the Old Testament/New Testament
The Pentateuch is a rich collection of literary genre or types. These multiple and
complex literary forms have been directly responsible for the ongoing debate over
the composition and date of the Pentateuch. The literary types in the Pentateuch
include: Prose narrative, ancient poetry, prophetic literature and law.
1) Prose Narrative: The narrative is simple but direct and forceful. The text is
largely a third-person account of early Israelite history interspersed with
prayer, speeches, and other types of direct discourse (e.g. Abraham’s
interesting prayer for Sodom in Gen. 18:22-23) Yahweh’s speech to Moses
in Exd. 3:7-12, and the exchange between Pharaoh and Moses in Exd. 10:1-
21. The narratives artfully blend historical reporting and theological
interpretation (cf. Gen. 50:15-21). The language of the Pentateuch is simple
and beautiful. It uses anthropomorphic language (i.e. ascribing human
qualities to God), and frequent reference to theophany (i.e. a visible and
audible manifestation of God to a human being).
2) Ancient Poetry: The Pentateuch contains some of the earliest examples of
Hebrew poetry in all the OT. Specific poetic forms in the Pentateuch
include:
 Prayers (e.g. the Aaronic Benediction Num. 6:22-27)
 Songs of Praise (e.g. Miriam’s Song, Exd. 15:2) cf. Nu. 21:17-
18)
42
 Victory hymns in epic drama style (e.g. Yahweh’s triumph

over the Egyptian in Moses’ song of the sea, Exd. 15)
 Blessings on family members by Patriarchs (e.g. the blessing
of Rebecca, Gen. 24:60; Jacob’s death-bed blessing of the
twelve sons, Gen. 49)
 Prophetic utterances (e.g. Yahweh’s promise to Rebecca about
her twin sons, Gen. 25:23; Balaam’s oracles to Israel, Num.
23-24.
 Covenant promises (e.g. Yahweh’s promises to Abram, Gen.
12:1-3; 15:1)
 Taunt song (e.g. Lamech’s taunt, Gen. 4:23)
3) Prophetic Revelation: Prophetic literature in the OT include both foretelling
(or divine revelation) and exposition (or interpretation) of Yahweh’s
covenant-oriented revelation to Israel. The Pentateuch contains examples of
both. Prophetic revelation with law occurs in prose narrative and poetic
forms. E.g. there is Yahweh’s revelation to Abram regarding the oppression
and slavery of his descendants (Gen. 15:12-16) and Moses’ prosaic forecast
about a prophet who will appear in Israel (Dt. 18:17-20; ultimately fulfilled –
Jesus of Nazareth according to John 1:45).
Examples of poetic prophecy in the Pentateuch include Jacob’s patriarchal
blessing, which connects kingship with the tribe of Judah (Gen. 49:8-12),
and Moses’ lyrical pronouncements over the tribes of Judah (Gen. 49:8-12),
and Moses lyrical pronouncements over the tribes of Israel (Dt. 33). The
clearest examples of prophetic–like commentary or interpretation of
Yahweh’s divine revelation are Moses’ understanding of Israel’s earlier
covenant history and God’s providential guidance and preservation of his
people (in the so-called historical prologue of Dt. 1-4), and Moses’ pointed
exposition of the stipulations by which Yahweh would enforce covenant
keeping in Israel by means of blessings and curses. In each case, instruction
to the Israelites is followed by admonitions to covenant obedience (Dt. 4:1-
10; 29:9).
4) Law: The OT affirms the divine origin of Hebrew law through Moses as
Yahweh’s law giver. The Pentateuch is most often associated with law, as
many of the Hebrew titles for the five books attest. The English word
translates the Hebrew word Torah, and OT law includes commandments,
statutes, and ordinances. More than six Hundred laws are contained in the
books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. The purpose of the
biblical legislation was to order and regulate the moral, religious or
ceremonial, and civil life of Israel in accordance with the holiness necessary
for maintaining the covenant relationship with Yahweh.
43
The purpose of Hebrew law also had implications for the literary form of OT
legislation. OT law was covenant law; it was contractual law binding and
obligating two separate parties. The covenant law paralleled the so-called
suzerainty covenants of the ancient world, especially those of the Hittites.
Most exemplary are the Covenant Code (Exd 20-24) and the book of
Deuteronomy. The suzerain covenants were granted by independent and
powerful overlords to dependent and weaker vassals, guaranteeing them
certain benefits including protection. In return, the vassal was obligated to
keep specific stipulations certifying loyalty to the suzerain alone.
In general terms, OT law comprised declarative and prescriptive covenant
stipulations for the life of the Hebrew people (quite literally in Deut. 30:15-
17). The bulk of the OT legal materials is found in Exodus 20 –
Deuteronomy 33, and they stem from covenant agreement or renewal
ceremonies at Mount Sinai and Mount Nebo.
 Discuss the four distinctive genre of Form Criticism from the Old Testament.
3.5 Form Criticism and in the New Testament

a) Some Axioms of Form Criticism
Form-critical methods were first applied systematically to the Gospels by
three German scholars―K. L. Schmidt, M. Dibelius, and R. Bultmann. In order
to understand how the method works, we must now list some of the axioms from
which form criticism proceeds.
(1) The Synoptic Gospels are “popular” or “folk” literature rather than literary
works in the classical sense. And the evangelists, according to Dibelius, “are
only to the smallest extent authors. They are principally collectors, vehicles
of tradition, editors.” Although both these claims are regarded by more
recent scholars as over-statements, they are important because they
emphasize that the evangelists were not historians employing modern
methods of research, but receivers and transmitters of traditions cherished
by Christian communities.
(2) Between the time of Jesus’ ministry and the writing of the Gospels there was
a period when the sayings of Jesus and stories about him were
communicated orally among Christians. Even though “Q” may have existed
as a document as early as A.D. 50, the church continued to set great store by
oral tradition until well into the second century. Thus Papias stated: I
supposed that things out of books did not profit me so much as the utterances
of a voice which lives and abides” (Eusebius, H.E. III.39.4).
44
(3) During this oral period the traditions about Jesus circulated as in dependent
units. It can hardly have been otherwise, since the acts and sayings of Jesus
would be recounted by preachers and teachers as occasion demanded. We
cannot imagine the apostles giving a series of lectures in the temple precincts
on the life of Jesus. Rather they would use some particular story or word of
Jesus to bring home some point in the course of their preaching. This is why
when we look, for example, at Mk. 2:1-3:6 we find a collection of short
paragraphs (known as pericopae), each complete in itself and with no
essential connection with what precedes or follows.
(4) During the oral stage these “units of tradition” assumed particular forms
according to the function which they performed in the Christian community.
Form critics recognize certain forms or categories in the gospel
tradition―such as “pronouncement-stories” and “miracle-stories” and insist
that these distinctive forms are no creation of accident or free invention, but
are determined by the setting in which they arose and the purpose for which
they were used. The technical term for this setting is Sitz im Leben (“life-
situation”). Just as information about the qualities of particular toothpaste
will be told in a distinctive manner by an advertisement, but in a quite
different manner by a scientific report, so stories about Jesus acquired
different forms or shapes according to their Sitz im Leben. Thus form critics
claim the ability to deduce the Sitz im Leben of a gospel pericope from its
form. If we find several pericopae with the same form, we may assume
that they all had the same Sitz im Leben, i.e., they all performed the
same function in the church’s life, whether it be worship or apologetic or
catechesis or some other function.
b) The Various Forms
A form critic’s main purpose, then, is to classify the gospel pericope
according to their forms, and to assign them to their respective Sitze im
Leben. Apart from the Passion Narrative, Dibelius found five main categories,
outlined below:
1. PARADIGMS
These are brief episodes which culminate in an authoritative saying of Jesus, or
sometimes in a statement about the reaction of onlookers. A typical “pure
paradigm” is Mk. 3:31-35:
And his mother and his brothers came; and standing outside they sent
to him and called him. And a crowd was sitting about him; and they
said to him, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, asking for
you.” And he replied, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And
looking around on those who sat about him, he said, “Here are my
mother and my brothers! Whoever does the will of God is my brother,
and sister, and mother.”
2. TALES (NOVELLEN)
45
These are stories of Jesus’ miracles which, unlike paradigms, include details
betraying “a certain pleasure in the narrative itself”, and which Dibelius therefore
attributed to a special class of story-tellers and teachers (for whose existence there
is no New Testament evidence, unless these stories are themselves evidence). The
stories may be subdivided into exorcisms (e.g. Mk. 5:1-20; 9:14-29), other
healing miracles (e.g. Mk. 1:40-45; 5:21-43) and nature miracles (e.g. Mk. 4:35-
41; 6:35-44, 45-52). All the stories follow the same basic pattern: (1) a description
of the disease or situation to be remedied; (2) a statement of the cure or solution
achieved by Jesus; (3) a statement of the results of the miracle―either the
effects on the person healed or the reaction of the onlookers. This is a natural
pattern for any story of this kind, shared by Jewish and pagan miracle-stories, as
well as by TV adverts for vitamin pills and medicated shampoos.
3. LEGENDS
Dibelius took over this term from its application in later Christian centuries to
“legends of the saints”. It does not necessarily imply that what is recorded is
unhistorical―though that may often be the case, in the opinion of Dibelius, and
particularly of Bultmann, who treats these pericopae under the heading “historical
stories and legends”. What is important is the purpose of these narratives. They are
“religious narratives of a saintly man in whose works and fate interest is taken”.
And they arose in the church to satisfy a twofold desire: the wish to know
something of the virtues and lot of the holy men and women in the story of Jesus,
and the wish which gradually arose to know Jesus himself in this way.
Thus there are legends about Jesus (e.g. Lk. 2:41-49; 4:29f), Peter (e.g. Mt. 14:28-
33; 16:13-23), Judas (Mt. 27:3-8) and other characters. In narratives like this the
characters are not simply foils for some word of Jesus, as in
paradigms―they become real people and are presented as examples to follow.
4. MYTHS
Myths are narratives which depict “a many-sided interaction between mythological
but not human persons”―the supernatural is seen breaking in upon the human
scene. 19 Only three narratives are listed in this category: the baptismal miracle
(Mk. 1:9-11 and parallels), the temptations (Mt. 4:1-11 and parallel), the
transfiguration (Mk. 9:2-8 and parallels). Bultmann does not use the term “myth” to
denote a category, but includes these three narratives among the “historical stories
and legends”.
5. EXHORTATIONS
Exhortations (Paränesen) is Dibelius’ term for the teaching material in the Gospels.
Their Sitz im Leben is catechesis. Formally, the sayings of Jesus may be
divided into maxims, metaphors, parabolic narratives, prophetic challenges,
short commandments, and extended commandments including some kind of
motive clause (e.g. Mt. 5:29f, 44-48; 6:2-4).
46
Bultmann’s treatment of the sayings of Jesus is more extensive. He divides them

according to content into three groups: (1) logia or wisdom sayings; (2) prophetic
and apocalyptic sayings; (3) laws and community regulations. Formal
characteristics cut right across these categories, provoking B. S. Easton to ask:
“What formal difference is there between the ‘logion’―Whosoever exalts himself
shall be humbled―the ‘apocalyptic word’―Whosoever shall be ashamed of me,
the Son of Man shall be ashamed of him―and the ‘church rule’―Whosoever puts
away his wife and marries another commits adultery?” On grounds of form
rather than content, Bultmann was able to isolate only two main types: “I-sayings”
in which Jesus speaks of himself, his works and his destiny (e.g. Mt. 5:17; Mk.
10:45); and “Parables”. His analysis of the parabolic material is particularly
illuminating.
 Discuss the various forms of Form Criticism in the New Testament
3.6 Some Limitations of Form Criticism
We must now mention some limitations of form criticism as it has hitherto been
practised, and some questions which it has not yet answered satisfactorily.
(1) How many of the forms or categories commonly referred to by form critics have
in fact been satisfactorily established? We can agree that the “paradigms” and
“tales” are distinctive types (though the names “pronouncement-story” and
“miracle-story” are more meaningful in English), and that parables are a
particular form within the sayings tradition. But what of the rest? Dibelius’
“myths” are classified by their content, not by their style or form. On grounds of
form alone, the temptation story in Mt. 4:1-11 would more naturally be
described as a controversy dialogue (it is not very different from Mk. 10:2-9;
11:27-33 or 12:18-27), and is in fact so described by M. Albertz. Similarly the
“legends”, though they may have certain typical features in common, can hardly
be said to have a common form or shape. “What common form can be
perceived in the stories of the Confession of Peter, the Entry into Jerusalem, the
Transfiguration, and Jesus in the Temple at the age of twelve?” asks Redlich.
He therefore calls such pericope “form-less stories”, and Taylor for similar
reasons speaks simply of “stories about Jesus”. Most of the discourse
material, too, refuses to be categorized according to form. Bultmann’s
categories, for instance, “‘do little more than describe stylistic features; they do
not denote popular forms into which an individual or a community
unconsciously throws sayings.”
(2) The assumption that there was an “oral period” before any of the gospel
material came to be written down has been questioned by H. Schürmann. He
suggests that during Jesus’ ministry his disciples may have written notes on
main aspects of his teaching.
47
(3) How did the traditions about Jesus arise and how did they develop? These are
questions which form criticism has not taken seriously enough. Dibelius and
Bultmann wrote confidently about the “laws of tradition”, giving the impression
that these were well-proven laws of the development of oral tradition which
could be scientifically applied both to biblical narratives and to extra-biblical
material. Their main contention was that traditions develop from the
simple to the more complex―hence, in general, legends were regarded as
later creations than paradigms. But in fact no one has thoroughly
examined these “laws of tradition”, and there is no agreement on this matter
among the experts on “folk tradition”. E. P. Sanders has shown that in the
manuscript tradition and the apocryphal gospels there are developments both
from the simple to the more complex, and from the complex to the
simpler. The situation is not straightforward.
(4) The concern to draw parallels with extra-biblical material can sometimes
distort rather than help exegesis. This is the fault of many form critics’
approach to the miracle-stories. Noting formal parallels with stories of
Hellenistic “divine men” and miracle-workers, they have underplayed the
didactic purpose of the miracle-stories and regarded them as quite distinct
from the proclamation of Jesus as bringer of the kingdom of God. This is
ironical when we observe that Bultmann, for example, regards as genuine
sayings of Jesus Mt. 11:4-6 and 12:28, where Jesus clearly relates his miracles
to his message of the kingdom. It is quite misleading to suggest that the miracle-
stories have “no didactic motive”. In Acts 3:lff, often in John’s Gospel, and in
the paradigms involving a miracle, we see miracles used as springboards
for teaching. And Richardson has shown how suitable many of the
miracle-stories are, not just to exalt Jesus as a wonder-worker, but to point to
various aspects of the Christian message.
 What are the four major limitations of Form Criticism?
4.0 Conclusion
Form criticism begins by identifying a text's genre or conventional literary form,
such as parables, proverbs, epistles, or love poems. It goes on to seek the
sociological setting for each text's genre, its "situation in life". It is often used in a
broader sense with reference to attempts to trace the development of units of
tradition during the oral period and thus to make historical value-judgments on the
material.
5.0 Summary
This Unit defined Form Criticism, Scholars of Form Criticism, how it works, its
forms in NT and OT, and its limitations. Next chapter discusses Redaction
Criticism.
48
 Outline and describe the various forms of Form Criticism in the OT and NT
 What are the limitations of Form Criticism?
James L. Bailey, Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook, Westminster
John Knox Press.
Stephen H. Travis, “Form Criticism,” I. Howard Marshall, ed., New Testament
Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods, 1977. Carlisle: The
Paternoster Press, revised 1979. pp.153-164.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_criticism_wenham.html - accessed
11/6/12.
49

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Redaction Criticism
3.2 Pioneers of Redaction Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Redaction criticism is a historical and literary discipline which studies both the
ways the redactors/editors/authors changed their sources and the seams or
transitions they utilized to link those traditions into a unified whole. The purpose of
this approach is to recover the author's theology and setting. This unit defines
Redaction Criticism;
2.0 Objective
 Define Redaction Criticism

 Discuss the origin of redaction criticism
 Examine the methodology of Redaction Criticism
 Evaluate the weaknesses of Redaction criticism
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Redaction Criticism
Redaction criticism is the third of four schools of criticism developed in the 19th
century to study the Gospels and other biblical narratives: Form criticism, which
seeks the original or authentic tradition behind the final form found in the Gospels
but tends to assume that the Evangelists were mere scissors-and-paste editors who
50
artificially strung together the traditions they inherited; tradition criticism, a

stepchild of form criticism, which tries to reconstruct the history or develop merit of
the Gospel traditions from the earliest to the final form in the Gospels but often
ignores the contribution of the Evangelists; and literary criticism, which bypasses
the historical dimension and studies only the final form of the text, assuming that
the value of the Gospels is to be found apart from considerations of originating
event or author. Redaction criticism originally developed as a corrective to areas of
neglect in form and tradition criticism, but it functions also as a corrective to
excesses in literary criticism.
Discussing the Process of Redactional Inquiry, it is shown that Redaction criticism
must build upon the results of source criticism, for the final results are determined
in part by one's choice of Markan or Matthean priority. The most widely held
hypothesis remains the Oxford, or four-document, hypothesis of B. H. Streeter, who
taught that Matthew and Luke utilized two primary sources, Mark and Q, along
with their own secondary sources (M and L). Redaction critics begin with this
assumption and study the alterations which the Evangelists made to their sources.
This means that redactional study is most relevant for Matthew and Luke, less so
for Mark (we don't know what sources he may have used) or John (independent for
the most part from the Synoptics).
Redaction critics work also with the results of form and tradition criticism,
assuming the process of tradition development but studying primarily the final
stage, the changes wrought by the Evangelists themselves. When examining Luke's
redaction of the crucifixion narrative, these scholars ask which of the three «last
sayings» peculiar to Luke (23:34, 43, 46) may have been added earlier by the
community and which were added by the Evangelist. They believe that these
changes to the tradition provide a clue to the Evangelist's theological intentions and
the life-situation (Sitz im Leben) of his community. This is accomplished by asking
why the changes were made and by seeking consistent patterns in the alterations
made by the redactor. Such modifications denote redactional interests or theological
tendencies on the part of the Evangelist who introduced them. In Luke's crucifixion
narrative two such tendencies might be noted: a christological stress on Jesus as the
innocent righteous martyr (exemplified also in Lk 23:47, «Surely this man was
righteous dihaios ») and an emphasis on the crucifixion as a scene of worship (seen
in the absence of negative aspects like the earthquake, in the redaction of the taunts
which in Luke are contrasted with Jesus' prayer for forgiveness, and in the fact that
two of the sayings are prayers). Finally, the setting or situation of the Lukan church
is reconstructed by asking what led to these changes. This is of course a speculative
enterprise, but most critics believe that sociological factors hinted at in the text were
behind the pastoral concerns which determined the final form. Thus redaction
criticism is interested in both the theological interests and the ecclesiastical situation
behind the Gospel texts.
3.2 The Origins of Redaction Criticism
There were several precursors to this movement, such as W. Wrede's ‘Messianic
secret’; N. B. Stonehouse's study of Christological emphases in the Synoptic
51
Gospels; R H. Lightfoot's Bampton lectures of 1934, which studied Mark's

theological treatment of his sources; or K L. Schmidt's form-critical treatment of the
Markan seams. Like the origins of form criticism via three German scholars
working independently in post-World-War-1 Germany (Schmidt, Dibelius,
Bultmann), redaction criticism began in post-World-War 2 Germany with three
independent works--those of Bornkamm, Conzelmann and Marxsen.
G. Bornkamm launched the movement with his 1948 article, “The Stilling of the
Storm in Matthew”, later combined with articles by two of his students in Tradition
and Interpretation in Matthew. He argued that Matthew not only changed but
reinterpreted Mark's miracle story into a paradigm of discipleship centering on the
“little faith” of the disciples as a metaphor for the difficult journey of the “little ship
of the church.” In a 1954 article, “Matthew As Interpreter of the Words of the Lord”
(expanded to «End-Expectation and Church in Matthew» and included in the
volume mentioned above) Bornkamm considered Matthew's Gospel as a whole,
stating that for Matthew eschatology is the basis for ecclesiology: the church
defines itself and its mission in terms of the coming judgments N. Perrin states, “If
Günther Bornkamm is the first of the true redaction critics, Hans Conzelmann is
certainly the most important”. Conzelmann's study of Luke began with a 1952
article, “Zur Lukasanalyse”, later expanded into The Theology of St. Luke (1954).
He challenged the prevalent view by arguing that Luke was a theologian rather than
a historian; the delay of the Parousia led Luke to replace the imminent eschatology
of Mark with a salvation-historical perspective having three stages--the time of
Israel, ending with John the Baptist; the time of Jesus (the center of time, the
original German book title); and the time of the church. According to Conzelmann
the kingdom in Luke has become virtually a timeless entity, with the Parousia no
longer the focus. Mark's brief interim has become an indefinite period, and the
church is prepared for prolonged conflict in the lengthy period before the final
judgment.
W. Marxsen in his Mark the Evangelist (1956) was the first to use the term
Redaktionsgeschichte, and the first and most influential portion of his work
described the differences between form and redaction criticism, asserting that form-
critical research has missed the third Sitz im Leben (after the situations of Jesus and
the early church), namely that of the Evangelist. His method is called «backwards
exegesis», which interprets each pericope from the perspective of those preceding
it. By this theory Mark used the John the Baptist story not to tell what happened but
rather to provide a base for what came after, the story of Jesus. Marxsen's actual
theory regarding Mark was much less influential; he stated that Mark wrote to tell
the church to flee the terrible persecution during the Jewish war of AD 66 and to
proceed to Galilee where the imminent return of the Son of man (Parousia) would
take place.
3.3 The Methodology of Redaction Criticism
The difficulty in redactional research is determining with some degree of
probability that a redactional nuance is present in the text. The discipline is prone to
highly speculative theories because the methodology as well as the thoroughness of
52
the search completely determines the results. Marxsen, on the one hand, makes
Mark a Jewish-Christian work centering on an imminent Parousia, while Weeden,
on the other hand, turns Mark into a Hellenistic work countering a «divine man»
heresy by recasting Mark's battle with his opponents in the form of a dramatic
conflict between Jesus (= Mark) and his disciples (= Mark's opponents). Few
interpreters have followed either theory because both failed to consider all the
evidence. The key to redactional study is a good synopsis of the Gospels, which
becomes the basis for the research. A scholar compares the Gospel accounts,
compiles the differences and then studies the resultant data by means of the
following stages of analysis.
a) Tradition-Critical Analysis
The historical development of the pericope from Jesus through the early church to
the Evangelist is determined by applying the criteria of authenticity to the passage:
1. Dissimilarity (the tradition is authentic if it exhibits no ties to Judaism or the
church);
2. multiple attestation (the pericope is repeated in several of the primary
sources like Mark, Q, M, L or in more than one form);
3. divergent patterns (it is contrary to emphases in the early church);
4. unintended evidence of historicity (details which suggest an eyewitness
report);
5. Aramaic or Palestinian features (Semitic constructions or Palestinian
customs which point to a early origin); and
6. coherence (it is consistent with other passages proven reliable on the basis of
other criteria).
These in and of themselves do not prove authenticity, of course, but they can
demonstrate that the tradition goes back to the earliest stages and they do shift the
burden of proof to the skeptic.
These criteria were originally developed under a so-called hermeneutic of suspicion
which assumed that the stories were “guilty unless proven innocent” that is, they
were non-historical unless shown otherwise. However, it has repeatedly been shown
that the criteria when used in this manner have proved inconclusive, and most today
use them more positively to trace the text's development. In this way tradition
criticism provides the data for the form-critical and redaction-critical stages which
follow. Nevertheless, demonstrating the text's reliability (the positive side) is an
important step in itself since it grounds the interpreters in history and forces them to
realize that they are not just tracing the ideas of Mark or Matthew (a danger of
redactional study) but also the very life and teachings of the historical Jesus.
Tradition criticism used in this way is an important step prior to carrying out
redactional study. Its primary value lies in the area of historical verification, for it
53
links redactional study with the quest for the historical Jesus and anchors the results
in history. One danger of redaction criticism is the tendency of many critics today to
take an ahistorical approach--to study the Gospels as purely literary creations rather
than as books which trace the life of Jesus. Tradition criticism provides a control
against such tendencies.
Moreover, the study of the history of the development of the text, though admittedly
speculative at times, leads to greater accuracy in identifying redactional tendencies.
By tracing with greater precision how an author is using the sources and how the
sources have developed, the results of redactional criticism will be established on a
stronger data base.
b) Form-Critical Analysis
Before beginning the detailed study of a pericope it is crucial to determine the form
it takes, since the interpreter will apply a different set of hermeneutical principles to
each subgenre in the Gospels. A pericope can take the form of a pronouncement
story (the setting and details lead up to a climactic saying of Jesus); miracle story
(some emphasizing the miracle or exorcism, others discipleship, Christology,
cosmic conflict or the presence of the kingdom); dominical saying (further
classified by Bultmann as wisdom logia, prophetic or apocalyptic sayings, legal
sayings or church rules, «I» sayings and similitudes); parable (further into
similitudes, example stories, and one-, two- or three-point parables depending on
the number of characters involved); event or historical story (episodes in Jesus' life
like the baptism or Transfiguration--often labeled «legends» because of their
supernatural nature); and passion story (considered a separate type even though the
passion narrative contains several actual «forms»). In the final analysis the formal
features help more in the stage of composition criticism than in redactional study,
but these are two aspects of a larger whole and therefore form-critical analysis is an
important part of the redactional process.
c) Redaction-Critical Analysis
The interpreter examines the pericope and notes each time the source (Mark or Q)
has been changed in order to determine whether the alteration is redactional or
stylistic; that is, whether it has a theological purpose or is cosmetic, part of the
Evangelist's normal style. While this process is obviously more conducive for
Matthew and Luke, since sources in Mark are so difficult to detect and John is so
independent, most scholars believe that a nuanced redaction criticism may still be
applied to Mark and John (though without many of the source-critical techniques).
The principles which follow are intended to guide the student through the process as
it applies to all four Gospels. There are two stages--the individual analysis of a
single pericope, and holistic analysis which studies redactional strata that appear
throughout the Gospel. These aspects work together, as the data emerge from the
individual studies and are evaluated on the basis of recurring themes in the whole.
i) Individual Analysis
54
The text of the synopsis should first be underlined with different colors to denote
which readings are unique to a Gospel, which are paralleled in Mark and Matthew,
Mark and Luke or Matthew and Luke (Q), and which are found in all three. The
next step is to evaluate the data. S. McKnight (85-87) notes seven ways the
Evangelists redact their sources:
1. They can conserve them (important because this also has theological
significance for the Evangelist);
2. correlate two traditions (as in the use of both Mark and Q in the
temptation story of Matthew and Luke);
3. expand the source (e.g., Matthew's added material in the walking-on-
the-water miracle, Mt 14:22-33; cf. Mk 6:45-52);
4. transpose the settings (as in the different settings for Jesus'
compassion for Jerusalem in Mt 23:37-39 and Lk 13:34-35);
5. omit portions of the tradition (e.g., the missing descriptions of
demonic activity in the healing of the demon possessed child, Mt
17:14-21; cf. Mk 9:14-29);
6. explain details in the source (e.g., Mark's lengthy explanation of
washing the hands, Mk 7:3-4; or Matthew changing «Son of man» to
«I», 10:32; cf. Lk 12:8); or
7. alter a tradition to avoid misunderstandings (as when Matthew alters
Mark's «Why do you call me good?» Mk 10:18 to «Why do you ask
me about what is good?» Mt 19:17 ).
By grouping the changes the student can detect patterns which point to certain
theological nuances within the larger matrix of the story as a whole. Each change is
evaluated in terms of potential meaning; that is, does it possess theological
significance as it affects the development of the story? For instance, Matthew
changes the endings of both Mark 6:52 («Their heart was hardened», cf. Mt 14:33,
«Surely you are the Son of God») and 8:21 («Don't you understand yet?» cf. Mt
16:12, «Then they understood ... »). In both Gospels these two sets of endings
conclude the group of stories centered on the feedings of the five thousand and four
thousand. It is likely that the differences are due to Mark's stress on the reality of
discipleship failure and Matthew's emphasis on the difference that the presence of
Jesus makes in overcoming failure.
ii) Holistic Analysis
The individual analysis is now expanded to note the development of themes as the
narrative of the whole Gospel unfolds. Decisions regarding single accounts are
somewhat preliminary until they are corroborated by the presence of similar themes
elsewhere. Also, these steps enable one to discover redactional emphases in Mark
and John, for which the interpreter has difficulty noting sources. The «seams» in a
Gospel are the introductions, conclusions and transitions which connect the
55
episodes and provide important clues to the theological purpose of the author. They
often contain a high proportion of the author's own language and point to an
Evangelist's particular reasons for including the pericope. For instance, the two
seams in Mark 1:21 and 3:1 provide a synagogue setting for the Christological
emphasis on Jesus' authority in word and deed as he confronts the Jewish leaders.
Also, the summaries in a Gospel are redactional indicators of theological overtones
An example of this would be Matthew 4:23 and 9:35 (introducing the Sermon on
the Mount and missionary discourse, respectively), which contain similar wording
and summarize Jesus' itinerant missionary activity. The threefold emphasis on
teaching, preaching and healing are major theological emphases in Matthew.
Editorial asides and insertions are key indicators of the theological direction a
narrative is taking John has long been known for his tendency to add explanatory
comments to describe the significance more fully, as in his famous commentary
(3:16-21) on the soteriological significance of the Nicodemus dialog (3: 1-15). In
similar fashion, repeated or favorite terms show particular interests. Again, John is
the master of this technique; nearly every theological stress is highlighted by terms
which appear nearly as often in his Gospel as in the rest of the NT together (e.g.,
aletheia 85 of the 163 NT uses , zoe 66 of the 135 NT uses , or kosmos 105 of the
185 NT uses ) and by word groups of synonymous terms (e.g., the two terms for
«know», two for «love» or five for «see»).
Finally, theme studies (McKnight calls this “motif analysis”) trace the development
of theological emphases within the Gospel as a whole. Here one reads through the
Gospel, noting the theological threads which are woven together into the fabric of
the whole. For instance, one of Mark's primary themes is discipleship failure,
introduced in Mk 4:38, 40 and then emerging as a major emphasis in the «hardened
heart» passages of Mk 6:52 and 8:17. The passion predictions are contrasted with
the disciples' failure (Mk 8:31-33; 9:31-34; 10:32-40). Chapter 14 contains several
scenes of failure (Mk 14:4-5, 10-11, 17-20, 27-31, 374O, 5~51, 66-72), and the
Gospel ends on a note of discipleship failure (Mk 16:8).
Mark is a special test case for holistic analysis and for redaction criticism as a
whole. If one accepts the prevalent theory of Markan priority, then there are no
obvious sources (Matthew and Luke have Mark and C!) with which to compare
Mark in order to determine redactional peculiarities. The traditions behind Mark are
very difficult to detect, and no scholarly consensus has yet emerged as to their
identity. As a result there is a bewildering array of theories regarding the redactional
nature of the Second Gospel. In order to overcome these problems, R. Stein
(positive regarding the possibilities) and M. Black (skeptical about the possibilities)
have proposed several criteria for redactional research:
(1) Study the seams, insertions and summaries;
(2) determine whether Mark has created (a controversial criterion) or
modified traditional material;
(3) note Mark's process of selecting and arranging material;
56
(4) ask whether Mark has omitted material (also controversial because the
question always arises whether Mark has omitted an emphasis or been
unaware of it, e.g., the famous Matthean addendum to the divorce
passage, «except for adultery»);
(5) study Mark's introduction and conclusion; and
(6) Elucidate Mark's vocabulary, style and Christological titles.
When all these tools are used together, the Gospels of Mark or John open
themselves to redactional study.
d) Composition-Critical Analysis
The task is incomplete so long as one focuses only on the redactional changes, so
most recent redaction critics wish to study the traditions included as well as the
redactional modifications. Obviously, each Evangelist unified tradition and
redaction into a larger whole in producing a Gospel. It is erroneous to examine only
the redaction.
i) The Structure
The way the Evangelist arranges material tells a great deal about the meaning of the
whole. At both the micro and macro levels the rearrangement of the inherited
tradition is significant In the temptation narrative Matthew and Luke reverse the last
two temptations. Most believe that Matthew contains the original order and that
Luke concludes with the Temple temptation due to his special interest in Jerusalem
and the Temple (Lk 4:9-12). But it is also possible that Matthew concludes with a
mountain scene for thematic reasons (Mt 4:8-10; cf. 5:1; 8:1; 14:23; 15:29; 17:1).
At the macro level, one could note the quite different things which Mark and Luke
do with Jesus' early Capernaum-based ministry, with Mark placing the call to the
disciples first, due to his discipleship emphasis (Mk 1:16-20), and reserving the
rejection at Nazareth for later (Mk 6:1-6), while Luke begins with Jesus' inaugural
address and rejection at Nazareth (Lk 4:16-30) in order to center upon Christology,
reserving the call of the disciples for later (Lk 5:1-11).
ii) Intertextual Development
Each Evangelist arranges pericopes in such a way that their interaction with one
another yields the intended message. Intertextuality at the macro level is the literary
counterpart to redaction criticism at the micro level, for the Evangelist uses the
same techniques of selection, omission and structure in both. This is exemplified in
Mark's strategic placing of the two-stage healing of the blind man in Mark 8:22-26
(found only in Mark). On one level it forms an inclusion with the healing of the
deaf man in Mark 7:31-37, stressing the need for healing on the part of the disciples
(note the failure of Mk 8:14-21, in which the disciples are accused of being both
blind and deaf!). On another level it metaphorically anticipates the two-stage
surmounting of the disciples' misunderstanding via Peter's confession (Mk 8:27-33.
57
only a partial understanding) and the Transfiguration (Mk 9:1-10, at which time
they glimpse the true nature of Jesus, cf. esp. Mk 9:9).
iii) Plot
Plot refers to the interconnected sequence of events which follows a cause-effect
pattern and centers upon conflict. The student examines how the characters interact
and how the lines of causality develop to a climax. For redaction criticism this
means especially the individual emphases of the Evangelists. The differences are
often striking, as in the resurrection narratives. Mark follows a linear pattern,
tracing the failure of the disciples and concluding with the women's inability to
witness (Mk 16:8). This is countered by the enigmatic promise of Jesus to meet
them in Galilee (Mk 16:7; cf. 14:28), apparently the place of reinstatement (note
Mk 14:28 following 14:27). Matthew constructs a double-edged conflict in which
the supernatural intervention of God (Mt 28:2-4) and the universal authority of
Jesus (Mt 28:18-20) overcome the twofold attempt of the priests to thwart the
divine plan (Mt 27:62-66; 28:1115).
iv) Setting and Style
When the Evangelists place a saying or event in different settings, they often
produce a new theological thrust. For instance, Matthew places the parable of the
lost sheep (Mt 18:1214) in the context of the disciples and the church, with the
result that it refers to straying members, while in Luke 15:3-7 Jesus addresses the
same parable to the Pharisees and scribes, so that it refers to those outside the
kingdom.
Style refers to the individual way that a saying or story is phrased and arranged so
as to produce the effect that the author wishes. There can be gaps, chiasm,
repetition, omissions and highly paraphrased renditions in order to highlight some
nuance which Jesus gave his teaching but which is of particular interest to the
Evangelist. Here it is important to remember that the Evangelists' concern was not
the ipsissima verba (exact words) but the ipsissima vox (the very voice) of Jesus.
They were free to give highly paraphrastic renditions to stress one certain aspect.
One example is the Matthean and Lukan forms of the Beatitudes, which most
scholars take to be derived from the same occasion (Luke's «plain» can also mean a
mountain plateau in Greek). In Matthew the central stress is on ethical qualities
(«blessed are the poor in spirit», Mt 5:3), while in Luke the emphasis is on
economic deprivation («blessed are you poor», Mt S:20; cf. «woe to you rich», Mt
5:24). Both were undoubtedly intended by Jesus, while the two Evangelists
highlighted different aspects.
3.4 The Weaknesses of Redaction Criticism
Many have discounted the value of redaction criticism due to the excesses of some
of its practitioners. Primarily, it has been the application of redaction criticism along
with historical skepticism that has led some to reject the approach. As a result of the
influence of form and tradition criticism in the past and of narrative criticism in the
present, the historical reliability of Gospel stories has been called into question.
58
Certainly some critics have begun with the premise that redaction entails the
creation of Gospel material which is unhistorical, but this is by no means a
necessary conclusion.
Techniques like omission, expansion or rearrangement are attributes of style and are
not criteria for historicity. Another problem is redaction criticism's dependence on
the four-document hypothesis. It is true that the results would look quite different if
one were to assume the Griesbach hypothesis (the priority of Matthew). However,
one must make a conclusion of some sort regarding the interrelationship of the
Gospels before redactional study can begin, and most scholars have judged the four-
document hypothesis to be clearly superior to the others.
As in form criticism, redactional studies tend to fragment the pericopes when they
study only the additions to the traditions. Theology is to be found in the combined
tradition and redaction--not in the redaction alone. The movement to composition
criticism has provided a healthy corrective. The Evangelists' alterations are the
major source of evidence, but the theology comes from the whole. Similarly, there
has been a problem with overstatement. Scholars have often seen significance in
every «jot and little» and have forgotten that many changes are stylistic rather than
theological. Once again, composition criticism helps avoid excesses by looking for
patterns rather than seeing theology in every possible instance.
Subjectivism is another major danger. Studies utilizing the same data frequently
produce different results, and thus some argue that no assured results can ever come
from redaction-critical studies. The only solution is a judicious use of all the
hermeneutical tools along with cross-pollination between the studies.
Interaction between theories can demonstrate where the weaknesses are in each.
Subjectivism is especially seen in speculations regarding Sitz im Leben, which are
too often based on the assumption that every theological point is addressed to some
problem in the community behind the Gospel. This ignores the fact that many of the
emphases are due to Christological, liturgical, historical or evangelistic interests.
The proper life-situation study is not so much concerned with the detailed
reconstruction of the church behind a Gospel as in the delineation of the
Evangelists' message to that church.
3.5 The Place and value of Redaction Criticism
A careful use of proper methodology can reduce the problems inherent in redaction
criticism, and the values far outweigh the dangers. In fact, any study of the Gospels
will be enhanced by redaction-critical techniques. A true understanding of the
doctrine of inspiration demands it, for each Evangelist was led by God to utilize
sources in the production of a Gospel. Moreover, they were given the freedom by
God to omit, expand and highlight these traditions in order to bring out individual
nuances peculiar to their own Gospel. Nothing else can explain the differing
messages of the same stories as told in the various Gospels.
There is no necessity to theorize wholesale creation of stories, nor to assert that
these nuances were not in keeping with the original Gospels. Here a judicious
59
harmonizing approach like that espoused by C. Blomberg is valuable. In short,

redaction criticism has enabled us to rediscover the Evangelists as inspired authors
and to understand their books for the first time as truly Gospels; not just
biographical accounts but history with a message. They did not merely chronicle
events but interpreted them and produced historical sermons.
Until redaction criticism arose, Christians tended to turn to the epistles for theology.
Now we know that the Gospels are not only theological but in some ways
communicate a theology even more relevant than the epistles, because these truths
are presented not through didactic literature but by means of the living relationships
reflected in narrative. The Gospels are «casestudy» workbooks for theological truth,
yielding not just theology taught but theology lived and modelled. Redactional
study enables us to reconstruct with some precision the theology of each of the
Evangelists by noting how they utilized their sources and then by discovering
patterns in the changes which exemplify themes developed through the Gospels.
The whole (tradition, redaction and compositional development) interact together to
produce the inspired message of each Evangelist.
In this way the reader understands the twofold purpose of the Gospels: to present
the life and teachings of the historical Jesus (the historical component) in such a
way as to address the church and the world (the kerygmatic component). History
and theology are valid aspects of Gospel analysis, and we dare not neglect either
without destroying the God-ordained purpose of the Gospels. While redaction
criticism as a discipline centers on the theological aspect, it does not ignore the
historical nature of the Gospels. Finally, redaction criticism is a preaching and not
just an academic tool. The Gospels were originally contextualizations of the life and
teaching of Jesus for the reading and listening audiences of the Evangelists' time.
They were biographical sermons (one aspect of the meaning of the term «Gospel»)
applying Jesus' impact on his disciples, the crowds and the Jewish leaders to first-
century readers and listeners. This is perhaps the best use of life-situation
approaches, for they show how Matthew or Luke addressed problems in their
communities and demonstrate how they can address similar problems in our
churches.
4.0 Conclusion
Redaction Criticism does not operate in isolation. The study of the editing process,
whereby the sources have been linked together and incorporated into the present,
finished text belongs to the province of redaction criticism.
5.0 Summary
This unit defined Redaction Criticism; the origin of redaction criticism; the
methodology of Redaction Criticism; and some of the weaknesses of Redaction
criticism. Next unit discusses Textual Criticism.
 Highlight the main weaknesses of Redaction Criticism
60
 What are the methods of enquiry in Redaction Criticism?

Grant R. Osborne, “Redaction Criticism”, pp. 662-669 i Joel B. Green, Scot
McKnight, m. fl. (red.): Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, Downers
Grove (IL): Inter varsity Press, 1992.
11/6/12.
61

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Textual Criticism
3.2 Principles of Textual Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
If we possessed the original autographs of Genesis or Paul’s epistles, textual
criticism would be unnecessary. Unfortunately we do not. The earliest complete
manuscript of the NT dates from about 300 years after its composition, while in the
case of the OT, the gap is more than 1000 years. Whenever a text wore out, it had to
be copied, and in the course of copying a number of mistakes were introduced. It is
the aim of textual criticism to identify and, if possible, eliminate these mistakes.
Jewish scribes were particularly scrupulous in copying the OT, so fewer mistakes
have crept in than might be imagined, as the Dead Sea Scrolls from the turn of the
era prove. Even in the less carefully copied NT, textual criticism can be fairly
confident of restoring the text to its near-original purity.
This unit discusses: Definition for Textual Criticism; the need for textual criticism;
four principles of textual criticism; textual errors and their causes.
2.0 Objective
 Define Textual criticism
 Discuss the need for textual criticism
 Examine four principles of textual criticism

 Identify textual errors and their causes
62
3.0 Main body

The ultimate goal of textual criticism was almost without exception, the
establishment of texts as intended by their authors. The controversy that has always
characterized the field was concerned with how best to approach this goal, not with
whether this goal was the proper one. There can be no dispute as to the work and
necessity of textual criticism. The ultimate aim of all biblical study is the
interpretation of the biblical text. The first requisite for this work is to have the
biblical text in its original purity. The work of textual criticism is to examine into
the existing text and see, with the help of all the best aids at our disposal, whether
the form of the words as they have been handed down to us are the ipsissima
verba of the sacred scribes; and, if there are legitimate reasons to believe that
the text has in the course of centuries undergone changes, to restore, if possible,
the original readings. Textual criticism thus seeks either to confirm the
traditional texts as the original one, or to restore the original where this is
necessary. Being such in character, textual criticism is really not a theological
discipline at all, but philological, critical and historical. The Old Testament
student has essentially the same work to do that the editor of a Latin or
Greek classic has, when, on the basis of his MSS., he prepares a critical edition of
Cicero, Caesar, Homer or Thucydides. The same principles have been applied,
with no serious opposition at present, to the New Testament text, with the
outcome that the " resultant text" of the three leading authorities, Tischendorf,
Tregelles and Westcott and Ilort, is essentially the same, although differing more
or less from the old so-called textus receptus of former times. Indeed, in the New
Testament field, the work of textual criticism is almost a fait accompli, while in
the Old Testament department the real scientific work is only beginning.
3.2 The Need for Textual Criticism
Unfortunately no original manuscripts (called ‘autographs’) of any of the biblical
books have been recovered, and since no extant manuscripts agree with each other
in every detail, textual criticism is necessary to resolve questions of variation.
Alfred E. Houseman, a text critic of classical works, observes that “textual criticism
is based on ‘common sense and the use of reason’. Briefly stated, textual criticism is
the science and art that seeks to determine the most reliable wording of a text. It is a
science because specific rules govern the evaluation of various types of copyist
errors and readings, but it is also an art because these rules cannot rigidly be applied
in every situation. Intuition and common sense must guide the process of
determining the most plausible reading. Informed judgments about a text depend on
one’s familiarity with the types of copyist errors, manuscripts, versions and their
authors. It is a complex process with few short cuts, but one that can be learned
through systematic effort.
The importance of textual criticism is threefold. First and foremost, it attempts to
establish the most reliable reading of the text. Second, in cases where a definitive
reading is impossible to determine, it can help to avoid dogmatism. Third, it can
63
help the reader better understand the significance of marginal readings that appear
in various Bible translations. Textual criticism is not a matter of making negative
comments or observations about the biblical text; instead, it is the process of
searching through the various sources of the biblical texts to determine the most
accurate or reliable reading of a particular passage. It can, in fact, actually lead to
increased confidence in the reliability of the biblical texts. TC mainly concerns
itself with the small portion of the biblical text called ‘variant readings.’ A variant
reading is any difference in wording (e.g. differences in spelling, added or omitted
words) that occurs among manuscripts.
It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and
all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the scriptures, and our
conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of
God (Sir Frederic Kenyon (d. August 1952, a renowned NT text critic of the 20 th
century)

Jerome adopted the following principles in Biblical Textual Criticism:
First was the importance of the title of a work. Jerome regarded the title as an
important part of the work to which it belonged, for it contained such essential
information as the author's name," the nature of the subject matter, and, if the work
was divided into books, the number of the particular book to which it belonged. In
books made up of a collection of short poems, such as the book of Psalms, the
separate poems might have individual titles serving a purpose similar to that of the
titles of longer works. It seems reasonable to presume, therefore, that Jerome
thought of the title as something to be carefully transcribed by copyists. He
recognized the fact, however, that some works might not have a title, and that
occasionally a title might be added without authority, as was done in the case of
certain psalms which, though lacking inscriptions in the Hebrew text, had been
given titles in the translations. Such titles he regarded as spurious.
Second was the collation of textual readings. The evidence pointing to Jerome's
knowledge of collation as a part of critical procedure must be considered with due
regard for the nature of his works in which most of it occurs - commentaries and
letters, in which he is concerned primarily with the readings of Biblical texts in
translation rather than with the readings of various copies of the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament or of the Greek text of the New Testament. Hence by far the greater
part of the evidence is contained in his citation of readings drawn from different
translations for the purpose of comparison with the text of the original. Such a
procedure is only suggestive of collation in a technical sense; yet because of the
similarity of the method involved, some weight may be given to it as evidence,
especially when the authenticity of the translation is judged by the comparison with
the original. For Jerome frequently rejects readings in translation because they lack
the authority of the original, and he produced an edition of the book of Job and of
64
the Psalms in which all passages of the Septuagint version not supported by the
Hebrew text were marked with the obelus, the symbol of rejection.
It is also significant that he exhibits a familiarity with different Biblical texts, both
Hebrew and Greek. He owned a copy of Origen's Hexapla, which he had corrected
for himself according to the authentic text; he had copied certain Hebrew texts
brought to him from a Jewish synagogue by a friend; he speaks of certain others
which he used as those which the Jews considered authentic, though he realized that
the Hebrew texts available to him might not be identical in their readings with those
used by the Septuagint translators. Of the Greek texts of the New Testament known
to him, he refers to the following: an edition by Origen; an edition attributed to
Lucian and Hesychius; certain other texts which he designates simply as "old." It is
to the latter that he refers when he writes of his translation of the four Gospels:
"Igitur haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quattuor tantum evangelia..
codicum Graecorum emendata collatione, sed veterum."
The evidence thus far presented as indicative that Jerome was familiar with the
procedure of collating textual readings is confirmed by certain passages which,
though relatively few, contain citations of genuine textual variants. One, which is
perhaps unique, points out a difference of reading in the Hebrew texts of the Old
Testament; 38 the others deal with variants in the Greek texts of the New
Testament, of which the following may be cited as typical: two variants in the text
of Corinthians I; one in the text of Galatians; one in the Greek translation of
Hosea. Jerome's citation of variants, moreover, is usually accompanied by a
discussion in which he states his opinion as to which is the correct reading.
Judgments of this sort are based on such considerations as the appropriateness of a
word to its context or the appropriateness of a form, such as the person of a verb.
The weight of support of other MSS. is also taken into account, apparently, but is
not necessarily the determining point.
Third was the evaluation of manuscripts. It is clear from the remarks of Jerome that
he did not consider all MSS. of equal value, but attached considerable weight to the
readings of old ones, realizing that as copies were multiplied in the course of time
errors tended to in-crease.* It may be inferred, however, that apart from age, he
gave due consideration to the reliability of well-written and carefully corrected
MSS." Further, his critical evaluations were extended to editions, such as the Koink
edition of the Old Testament and the edition of the New Testament attributed to
Lucian and Hesychius, both of which he regarded as inferior.
Fourth was the importance of testimonia. That quotations found in the works of an
author are of value in determining the correct reading of the source from which they
are drawn was recognized by Jerome, who on different occasions uses such
evidence in his criticism of textual readings. At the same time he was aware that,
since quotations might be made from memory or might reproduce the thought only
and not the actual words of the original passage, they must be used for the purpose
of criticism with due caution. It should be observed, too, that he made it a habit to
compare all quotations of the Old Testament which he found in the New Testament
with the readings of what he terms the original books.
65
3.4 Textual Errors and Their Causes

In his many discussions of textual readings, Jerome exhibits a degree of caution and
restraint such as should characterize the work of a competent critic. For although
convinced of the necessity of correcting errors; he did not overlook the fact that an
ill-judged attempt at emendation might introduce an error where none had existed
before. Hence at times he cautions others against an unjustified presumption of
error in the readings of a text.52 Yet in the course of his critical remarks he points
out, in addition to a number of errors for which he offers no explanation, some
thirteen types of faulty readings which he attributes to specific causes. The
evidence, therefore, pointing to Jerome's knowledge of the causes of error are
presented next.
First, however, it should be explained that this evidence is derived at times from his
comments on the work of translators rather than of copyists who were transcribing a
text. Nevertheless, on the presumption that faulty translation arising from a
misreading of a text involves the same causes which result in a copyist's errors of
transcription, it seems that such evidence may be regarded as valid.
i) Faulty Word-Division
Since it seems that in Jerome's time the separating of words in texts was little
practiced, it is only natural that he should refer to copyists' errors of word-division
rarely. In fact, it appears that only once does a statement of his imply that copyists
may be responsible for this sort of mistake." Frequent references, however, to
faulty translations which have resulted from the erroneous division of words as read
in the Hebrew texts by the translators of the Old Testament indicate that Jerome
realized the importance of correct word-division."
ii) Faulty Accentuation
The evidence for Jerome's knowledge of errors involving a faulty accentuation of
words is very slight. The use of the signs for the ac- cents seems to have been quite
limited in his time, though a freer use of them in the MSS. of an earlier period may
well have been known to him. At all events, even though he seems not to suggest
anywhere that copyists make errors of accentuation, he discusses in at least three
passages the importance of Hebrew accentuation in the determination of the
meaning of words.
iii) Faulty Punctuation
Frequent references made by Jerome to the effect of punctuation on the sense of a
passage indicate his familiarity with this source of textual errors. In discussing
questions of punctuation, he often exhibits a willingness to expound a passage
according to the punctuation familiar to his readers; yet he also points out what he
regards as the preferable punctuation and suggests that the evidence of the
Hebrew and Greek texts of the Old and New Testaments respectively should be
carefully observed.
66
iv) Confusion of Number-Signs

An interesting example of an error caused by the confusion of numerical symbols
occurs in Jerome's explanation of the reason why Mark seems to disagree with
Matthew and John in his record of the hour when Christ was crucified. Here he lays
the blame for the discrepancy in the record upon the copyists whose confusion of
the number-signs and -y' caused an error in the text; for he writes, "Error
scriptorum fuit: et in Marco hora sexta scriptum fuit, sed multi pro rnarip-p
Graeco putaverunt esse gamma.”
v) Confusion of Similar Letters
Of all the errors discussed by Jerome, those which are caused by the confusion of
similar letters are perhaps most commonly mentioned. Yet the great majority of
examples to be found in his writings illustrate a confusion of Hebrew letters by the
translators of the Old Testament. He frequently speaks of the confusion of the
letters resh and daleth, which are distinguished only by a small apex, and of the
letters yod and vav, which differ only in size. It may be observed further that his
comments indicate confusion of sight rather than of sound; the latter, to my
knowledge, he does not allude to clearly at any time." Furthermore he nowhere, so
far as I have found, refers to the confusion of Latin letters; and only occasionally
does he indicate a confusion of Greek letters, as, for example, when he criticizes
copyists for writing A instead of A and 9 instead of 0.
vi) Confusion of Abbreviations
Specific examples of errors caused by a misunderstanding of abbreviations seem
not to be cited by Jerome. Yet he shows that he was aware of this source of error,
both on the part of a person dictating material to be written by a copyist and on the
part of a copyist reading for himself the material to be copied, when he says that
serious errors were introduced into a text which was copied from dictation because
the reader in his haste misread the abbreviations, and when in discussing Greek
abbreviations he points out that the last letter of the abbreviated word is written to
make the case-ending clear to the reader.
vii) Dittography and Haplography
Both the repetition and the omission of similar letters in a word are indicated by
Jerome in his comments on faulty readings, though examples of these specific
errors are very few. The repetition of letters, however, is noted in his criticism of
the copyist's error in writing Iudaeae instead of ludae, and the omission of letters is
criticized in his comment on the reading Bariona, for which Bar loanna should have
been written.
viii) Metathesis of Letters
There seems to be only one passage in the works of Jerome in which he states that
a textual error has resulted from the transposition of letters in a word, and in this
passage the error is charged not to a copyist but to a translator, whose misreading
67
of a Hebrew word caused an error in the Greek text.70 On another occasion,

however, he seems to be illustrating this same kind of error when he discusses the
variants •iKpl & ow and baKpbwov, although what he says is that the similarity of
the words caused the error.
ix) Assimilation
That a line which a scribe has finished copying may cause an error in the copying of
a following line is noted by Jerome, who cites examples showing that the error may
consist of an addition of a part of the preceding line, or of a substitution of it for
what should have been written. He seems also to indicate a similar cause of error
within a line when he remarks that the change of one letter has resulted in the
reading reppulisti et respexisti instead of the correct reppulisti et despexisti.
x) Omissions
In a few of his comments on textual errors, Jerome points out omissions which he
accounts for by the occurrence of the same word immediately before and after the
omitted portion of the text, which causes the copyist to pass over everything from
the first occurrence of the word to the second. He cannot always be sure, however,
that the copyists were at fault, since he recognizes the possibility that the translators
may have overlooked the omitted passage; but in either case, he assigns the same
cause of error.76
xi) Transpositions
As is clear from several passages in his writings, Jerome was familiar with errors
caused by disturbances in the order of words, phrases, and larger units of a text, for
which he occasionally blames, whether explicitly or implicitly, the negligence of
the copyists."8 Some of the confusions of arrangement he criticizes sharply,
remarking that they make the thought obscure, and that they disturb the sequence of
the parts of a passage. Yet he distinguishes carefully actual confusions in the text
from what may appear to be confusion but is rather a stylistic arrangement peculiar
to the author or to the form of his work. Thus he makes a distinction between the
sequence of facts in the books of the prophets and that in the historical books of the
Bible."8
xii) Conscious Emendation
Very frequently Jerome censures the efforts of copyists to emend the readings of a
text, because such efforts usually result only in making errors. These errors differ in
form, one of the most common being the substitution by the copyist of a familiar
word for an unfamiliar one. Or the copyist, because of a misunderstanding or
because of his disapproval of a word, may substitute one which he judges to be
more appropriate to the context. Still other forms are illustrated in Jerome's
references to a copyist's deletion of a word which he thought was erroneously
repeated in the exemplar," to the addition of what he thought was omitted in the
exemplar," and to the changing of a word from the singular to the plural or from
the plural to the singular."
68
Finally an interesting example is discussed by Jerome which may be included here.

In one of his letters, he writes that someone incorporated in the text of a certain
passage a marginal notation which he himself had written for the benefit of the
reader. The discussion makes it reasonably clear, however, that it was not the
whole note which found its way into the text but only a word which Jerome was
defending against the reading of the text and which he would accept as a correction
of the text. Yet he maintains that the copyist should not have taken it on himself to
insert the reading of the note into the text, but should have followed the text exactly
as it was.
xiii) Interpolations
Examples of Jerome's criticism of interpolations in the text of the Bible are
comparatively numerous. For convenience of presentation, I have divided these
examples into three groups, of which the first comprises discussions of passages
drawn from one book of the Bible and inserted in another. In commenting on
interpolations of this kind, Jerome usually indicates their source in support of his
criticism." In the second group may be included the many passages in which he
points out additions made in the Greek version by the Septuagint translators
without any support in the Hebrew text." The third group consists of two examples
in which his arguments for deleting an interpolation are different from those already
mentioned and different from each other as well. In one he comments on the
inconsistency of the suspected words with the sense of the passage as a whole; in
the other he simply remarks that a word was added through the fault of the copyists.
xiv) Various Errors
In addition to the kinds of errors which have been enumerated, there are many
others mentioned by Jerome from time to time in his works without any specific
indication of their nature. Hence they cannot be classified according to any
explanation offered by Jerome; but a few examples may be included here for their
cumulative value as evidence of his thoroughness in his critical procedure. At times
he remarks that a word or passage found in some copies of the Bible is either
different from the reading of other copies or omitted altogether. He notes also
various faulty readings which have found their way into the text, such as the
erroneous unxit for benedixit. Still other matters which his criticism takes into
account include the inflectional forms of nouns and verbs," and the spelling of
Hebrew words in the translated texts."
4.0 Conclusion
Textual criticism attempts at restoring the text to its original meaning, as it was
intended by its authors. Briefly stated, textual criticism is the science and art that
seeks to determine the most reliable wording of a text. It is a science because
specific rules govern the evaluation of various types of copyist errors and readings,
but it is also an art because these rules cannot rigidly be applied in every situation
5.0 Summary
69
This unit defined Textual criticism, the need for textual criticism, four principles of
textual criticism, and textual errors and their causes.
 Define Textual criticism
 Discuss the need for textual criticism
 Examine four principles of textual criticism
 Identify textual errors and their causes

G. Thomas Tanselle, “Textual Criticism and Literary Sociology”, Studies in
Bibliography, Vol. 44 (1991), pp. 83-143
George H. Schodde, “Old Testament Textual Criticism”, The Old Testament
Student, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Oct., 1887), pp. 44-48.
Paul D. Wegner, A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History,
Methods and Results, Downers Grove, Il: IVP Academic (March 9, 2006) pp
23-25.
Karl Kelchner Hulley, “Principles of Textual Criticism Known to St. Jerome”,
Harvard Studies in Classical Philology, Vol. 55 (1944), pp. 87-109.
70
Unit 7:
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
71
MODULE 2: TEXT-CENTRED CRITICISM
Unit 1: Theology and Biblical Criticism
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 What Difference does Biblical Criticism Make?
3.2 Theology and Scientific Inquiry, Not Hostile to Each Other
3.3 Examples from Christian History
3.4 The Importance of Diversity
3.5 The Primary Question
3.6 Consequences for the Theologian
3.7 Fundamental Nature of Biblical Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Text-centred approaches focus on the text as it exists now, rather than on the
processes whereby it has come into being. These synchronic approaches have a
variety of emphases. Some, like rhetorical criticism, focus on surface features of
texts, such as repetition and keywords, others deal with methods of storytelling, of
writing poetry, yet others claim to elucidate underlying structures of literature. The
module begins with the outcome of biblical criticism and theology, and sets forth
the features of some of the text-centred criticisms like: rhetoric; new criticism and
structuralism.
What is the outcome of biblical criticism for systematic theology? Scholars have
been pursuing their investigations concerning text and date and authorship and
historical setting until it is comparatively easy to know the status of scholarship on
these points. But what does it involve for our theology? This is a practical question
which has not yet received its final answer. This Unit appraises the impact of
biblical criticism with systematic theology
72
2.0 Objectives
 Appreciate the contribution of biblical criticism to systematic theology.
 Discover that theology and scientific inquiry are not hostile to each other
 Confirm that Theology and Scientific Inquiry are not hostile to each other
 Examine the Fundamental Nature of Biblical Criticism
3.0 Main Body

3.1 What Difference does Biblical Criticism Make?
Indeed, there exists a remarkable lack of agreement on this point. Some men are
growing impatient of the leisurely way in which important questions are being
discussed, and are vigorously demanding that criticism shall announce its "assured
results" so that a new dogmatics may be established which shall not need to be
revised. Others, observing the wide variety of opinions among the critics, insist that
the whole critical movement is so pervaded with subjective vagaries that it cannot
be trusted to yield any definite results. A few scholars who employ the critical
method feel that no important changes in theology are necessary. Others insist that
when the full implications of criticism are understood, far-reaching alterations will
take place. Some men fear that if modern biblical scholarship is allowed to go its
way unhampered by doctrinal restrictions, it will prove subversive of Christianity.
Others believe that we have never yet known the real essence of Christianity, and
that critical scholarship will purify and enrich our faith. In view of these conflicting
opinions, it is not superfluous to ask just what the outcome of biblical criticism is in
so far as it affects the task of the theologian.
It is the purpose of this article and of those which follow to inquire whither we are
bound if we make positive use of the principles of critical scholarship. Just what
difference does it make in the theologian's work if he recognizes the legitimacy of
modern methods of biblical interpretation? What ought to be the conception of the
field and the task of systematic theology on the part of the one who welcomes
criticism as a right and fruitful means of discovering the truth ? Does it alter in any
significant way the conception of the task which has hitherto prevailed? If so, what
are the positive principles of constructive thinking which emerge?
3.2 Theology and Scientific Inquiry, Not Hostile to Each Other

At the outset of our inquiry, let us get rid of the feeling which is all too prevalent,
that theology and scientific inquiry are necessarily hostile to each other. The past
generation has, indeed, been so unfortunate as to witness a species of warfare which
was largely due to the fact that neither science nor theology had quite "found itself"
in our modern world. But the attitude of hostility which was so prominent in the last
generation is not characteristic of all ages.
The history of religious thinking reveals the fact that a theologian must use the
scientific tools of his age for the organization of his thought. The man who
73
translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek must possess and use precisely the
same linguistic skill and must adopt precisely the same critical processes as a
translator of Homer or of Plato. The scholar who attempts to tell us what the apostle
Paul meant in his arguments must use methods of interpretation which would also
serve the expounder of Aristotle's philosophy.
The systematic theologian who attempts to put in convincing form the religious
convictions of Christian believers must employ the canons of logic demanded by
the secular philosopher in expounding his system. If the theologian is to make
himself intelligible at all, he must use the thought-processes with which his age is
familiar. It is thus inevitable that he shall make positive use of the science of his
day.
3.3 Examples from Christian History

A single example taken from Christian history will illustrate this fact. It is
customary today to poke fun at those theologians of the late Middle Ages whom we
call "schoolmen" or "scholastics." It seems to us (in our ignorance of what they
actually did) that they often were spending their time on barren questions of no
importance to anyone. But they were really trying to set forth religious doctrines in
terms of the science of the day, which they had learned from Aristotle's writings.
We think the scholastic method uninteresting because we have abandoned the
formal logical science which scholasticism embodied. When pupils in our schools
no longer memorize the Barbara celarent we can scarcely expect that a theology
which proceeds by formal syllogisms will seem to them convincing. But this should
not blind us to the fact that the schoolmen were genuinely scientific theologians in
their day.
Now biblical criticism is simply the study of the Bible by the methods approved by
modern science. How the word "criticism" is misunderstood! It is often assumed
that a critical student of the Bible will proceed to find all the fault possible with the
venerable book. "Higher critics" are thus sometimes portrayed as a class of
disgruntled pessimists whose sole remaining pleasure in life is to destroy whatever
last vestiges of authenticity have been left in the Bible. In their supposed superior
wisdom they are imagined to be adequately described by the word "hyper-critic."
The portrait thus drawn is anything but a lovely one; and a movement which can
outlive the ridicule which has for a half-century been lavished upon biblical
criticism has at least an amazing vitality.
But what is criticism? We feel no resentment at the art critic. On the contrary many
of us pay for the privilege of attending his lectures. We feel that the Shakesperian
critic merits the honorary degree which is perhaps conferred upon him for his
researches. When by critical examination the atomic theory which we learned in our
textbooks on chemistry is modified, we have only praise for the scientists who thus
revise our doctrines. It belongs to the very nature of any scientific procedure to be
"critical." One who adopts the methods of science in any realm must become a
critic. That is, he must use his powers of discernment. He must not be satisfied with
reading another man's statement. He must investigate and verify for himself, if he is
to have any standing among modern scholars.
74
Now an axiom of this critical spirit of modern scholarship is that there can be no
theories which are immune from re-examination. In the realm of natural science the
doctrine of gravitation is, I believe, popularly thought to be absolutely established.
But there are not wanting scientists who question the correctness of Newton's
conclusions in certain particulars. In the field of biology Darwin's name is
universally honored today. But no aspect of the science of biology is more
perplexing to the layman than the wide differences of opinion among specialists
concerning some of Darwin's conclusions. The critical spirit means that every man
has a perfect right to discredit traditional conclusions if he can do it by scientific
methods. And there is nothing to prevent one from putting forth the most
preposterous theories if he chooses. But whoever does so must remember that his
new theory will have to run the gauntlet of critical scholarship. If it does not endure
this test, the author of the theory loses the respect of his scientific colleagues.
3.4 The Importance of Diversity

In the world of science a man is judged not so much by his conformity or
nonconformity to established conclusions as by his fidelity to scientific method.
Scientists who disagree can meet and argue with each other, all the time preserving
the inquiring spirit which prevents denunciation. The fact of diversity in opinion is
thus welcomed in the scientific world as a source of fruitful investigation. It is then
hardly creditable to one's intelligence if questioning in science is looked upon as
honorable and desirable while questioning in theology is identified with disloyalty
to truth. Yet the art critic or the literary critic or the critic of Darwinism is treated
with respect, while the biblical critic is too often misunderstood and caricatured.
The questioning of the scientist has been recognized as the preliminary essential to
a surer understanding of the truth. The questioning of the biblical critic has been
treated as if it were final, involving a denial of everything which is questioned. But
the biblical critic, like the art critic, is simply attempting to investigate things
carefully, in order to put human knowledge on a firmer basis. The simple
recognition of this fact would prevent much confusion. It is true that just as vagaries
in the field of art criticism are accepted as an inevitable accompaniment of freedom
of research, so vagaries in biblical criticism must be expected as a by-product of the
serious work of that science. But the scientific spirit holds that eventually the truth
will be better established by letting every man have a free opportunity to question
the theory of any other man. The dread of the disapproval of one's fellow
investigators can be relied upon to keep most scholars from rash excursions into
absurd realms of theory. Biblical criticism, then, means that the same methods of
investigation which in other realms are believed to lead to the truth shall be applied
in the study of the Bible.
It would seem that nothing but good could come of the application of such sober
methods of inquiry to the Bible. Those who believe in the critical method of Bible-
study are firmly convinced that only good does result. But the applications of
modern biblical scholarship have brought about certain modifications in theological
attitude which have been a source of real perplexity to many earnest and honest
men. The reason for this perplexity, resulting, as it sometimes does, in distrust or
75
denunciation of the entire process of criticism, we must understand, if we are to see

rightly into the relation of theology to biblical criticism. The older theologies were
constructed by what is known as the "proof-text" method. It is true that this method
has been employed by men who first made a careful study of the Bible, collecting
the evidence in an inductive manner and building upon this induction their doctrinal
conclusions. But there are not wanting examples of a more superficial use of
biblical texts. If a man believed strongly a certain doctrine, he felt that it must be
scriptural; consequently he was under the temptation of trying to make as good a
showing as possible from the Scriptures. Such a theologian was likely to overlook
and neglect those passages which made against his theory. The prevalence of this
method of proof has led to the skeptical remark so often heard that "one can prove
anything he chooses out of the Bible." When both total abstinence and moderate
drinking, both emancipation and slavery, both Trinitarian and anti-Trinitarian
appeal to the Bible, the layman may be forgiven for feeling that the ways of the
theologian are past finding out. It is manifestly impossible to retain the confidence
of men in theology if it comes to such varied conclusions without giving to those
who are perplexed any clue as to the method by which the conclusions are reached.
Biblical criticism undertakes to establish a method by which investigations may be
made with the same expectation of reaching stable conclusions in biblical
interpretation as in any other realm where scientific method has taken the place of
unscientific assertion.
3.5 The Primary Question

Now the primary question which the critical Bible student asks is very different
from the primary question which was asked by theologians in the past. The older
theologian assumed that the purpose of Bible study was to ascertain directly what
one ought to believe. But a very short examination reveals the fact that, whatever
our method, it is not so easy to determine what biblical "truth" is. The suggestions
of the tempter in the early chapters of Genesis can scarcely be said to embody
"truth." The speeches of the friends of Job are pronounced untrue by the book itself.
Paul's injunction to women to keep silence in the churches is not generally regarded
as binding today. No one holds that one should literally cut off his hand when it
does wrong, or pluck out the right eye. How many of us always give to any man
that asks, and turn not away from him who would borrow? The matter of finding
what we ought to believe by a mere reading of the Bible is not so simple as it
seems. Consequently, theologians have always been obliged to make
discriminations within the Bible.
One means of discriminating was in ancient times formulated in what was then
regarded as scientific method. This was the doctrine of a double or a triple or even a
quadruple sense of Scripture. Early in the history of Christianity it was laid down as
a rule that nothing discreditable to God could be in the Bible. Any statement,
therefore, which seemed to be unworthy of God was not to be taken literally. It
must be figuratively interpreted. But how may we know whether to take a given
passage of Scripture literally or figuratively? Unless we can discern some test of
this, we are left to the vagaries of individual opinion. It is the recognition of the
76
uncontrolled subjectivism of this allegorical method that has led modern scholars,
following the spirit of Luther and Calvin, to discard the doctrine of a threefold or a
fourfold sense of Scripture. So long as two scholars may take the same text and one
may declare that it means one thing, while the other asserts that it means something
entirely different, it is evident that no really scientific method of discovering the
meaning of the Bible has been established. Modern biblical criticism holds that it
ought to be just as possible for men to agree as to the meaning of the Bible as it is
possible for them to agree concerning the motions of the stars or the constitution of
a chemical substance. And the method by which this desired certainty is to be
attained is called biblical criticism.
The general principles of biblical criticism are too familiar to readers of the Biblical
World to need extended explanation. There are two main tasks, one exactly
technical, the other more vital and general. The technical task is undertaken by
textual criticism, which seeks to ascertain so far as possible the exact text of the
books of the Bible. During the long centuries when copies of the biblical books
were made by hand, many variations in the text appeared. This task of textual
criticism is so complicated that it requires a special training in order to be able to
estimate the relative value of different readings.
So far as systematic theology is concerned the consequences of textual criticism are
comparatively slight. The theologian cannot, indeed, maintain the absolute
correctness of any specific reading of a doubtful passage. In most cases, however,
the variation is of minor importance so far as doctrine is concerned. Yet the
question whether Paul ever called Jesus God is made doubtful by uncertainty as to
punctuation in one crucial text. The famous saying in II Timothy concerning the
inspiration of Scripture is translated in three different ways by scholars, on account
of doubt as to grammatical construction. A Syriac text of Matthew declares Joseph
to be the father of Jesus. Is this reading more authentic than the Greek text
underlying our accepted versions? Just what words did Jesus speak in establishing
the Lord's Supper? These are some of the questions upon which a defensible
conclusion is bound up with the problem of knowing what the authentic text is.
Still, as has been said, the variations are not usually of sufficient importance to
demand serious changes in our interpretation of biblical doctrine.
The other branch of criticism-the so-called "Higher Criticism" -is less exactly
technical, but is quite as difficult. It is concerned to discover the literary and
historical genesis of the books of the Bible, in order that we may better comprehend
what they mean. For example, it is almost impossible adequately to understand the
content of the books of the prophets unless one is able to interpret them in their
historical setting. Then we can see what allusions mean, and can appreciate the
message of the prophets. When we read the contents of the priestly ritual without
reference to the circumstances which produced the law, we have merely a mass of
statistics. But when we see the way in which that law served to hold the nation fast
to the religious ideal of holiness which the prophets had proclaimed, we appreciate
the spiritual significance of this attempt to make all the life of the Jew consecrated
to Jehovah. When we read the Epistle to the Hebrews without regard to the
circumstances which brought it into existence, we are likely to be puzzled by the
77
elaborate argument drawn from priests and sacrifices. But when we picture a group
of Christians, discouraged by persecution and weary of waiting for the triumph of
the kingdom which was so long delayed, thinking perhaps that after all they had
been mistaken in adopting Christianity, the elaborate arguments to show how much
better Christ is than the best that Hebrew religion had produced gain new meaning.
When we try to derive from the Book of Revelation specific predictions of history
in our day so that we may ascertain the exact date of the end of the world, we are
likely to become confused by the visions and beasts and symbols. But when we
know something of the apocalyptic hopes of the Jews and early Christians, we can
see how this book of splendid visions would serve to encourage those who were
disheartened by persecution. It thus is of great importance for the right
understanding of the books of the Bible to know the dates and circumstances of
their composition.
3.6 Consequences for the Theologian

These critical attempts to estimate the significance of a book of Scripture by
appreciating the religious problems which called it forth have certain important
consequences for the theologian. The item which has attracted most public
attention-viz., change of theory as to authorship-is really of little significance, so far
as the theologian is concerned. The contents of the Twenty-third Psalm remain the
same whether David wrote it or whether, as seems to be implied in the words, "I
shall dwell in the house of the Lord forever," the author lived after the temple
existed. The Book of Leviticus, with its elaborate descriptions of tabernacle and
priestly service, is just as foreign to our way of regarding religion if Moses wrote it,
as it is if it comes from post-exilic times. In fact, those questions which are of
primary interest to the critical student are often of little or no consequence to the
systematic theologian. Thus much of the controversy which rages between
conservative and radical scholars in the realm of biblical criticism may be ignored
by the systematic theologian. His business is to set forth Christian convictions; and
conclusions as to the date or authorship of a book can hardly be classified as either
Christian or non-Christian.
So far as theology is concerned the real significance of biblical criticism, then, is
not to be found so much in its technical conclusion as in a change of view as to the
way in which any biblical message is to be interpreted. Instead of seeking to derive
directly from a scriptural utterance a decisive answer to our modern theological
problems, the critical scholar attempts rather to discover what problems were
present in the mind of the biblical writer, and what answers to the questionings of
his heart he discovered. The determination of date and authorship is only
preliminary to an understanding of the historical significance of the book in
question.
If, for example, the last chapters of Isaiah were written by the prophet who wrote
the first portion, we must interpret the passages concerning Cyrus and events in his
time as the result of miraculous foresight on the part of a prophet who lived two
centuries before the events which he prophesied took place. The statements which
he makes must have come in some mysterious way out of an unknown realm. But
78
if, as is now generally believed among scholars, the book was written by a
contemporary of Cyrus, or even at a later date, it becomes possible to interpret it as
an expression of religious aspiration and insight growing directly out of the bitter
experiences of Israel. So, too, the Book of Daniel, if dated in the time of
Nebuchadnezzar, must be viewed as an essentially magical prevision. If it came
from the Maccabean period, its message is seen to be vitally related to the religious
problems of the time.
In short, the modern biblical student is not satisfied with biblical statistics. He is not
content to know what doctrines are in the Bible. He desires to feel also something of
the glow of religious conviction which gave to the doctrine its power. He wishes to
share in imagination the indignation of Amos at the corruption of his day, to have
his soul thrilled with the Isaiah of the Exile at the vision of a people so purified
through suffering and discipline that God calls them his elect to bring the gentiles
unto him. He attempts to reproduce sympathetically that intense longing for
holiness on the part of the later Israelites which led to the elaboration of the
Levitical cultus. And if he succeeds, if he can feel himself one in spirit with the
biblical interpreter of some crisis of history, he gains a sense of reality which
arouses a new wonder at the majesty of the biblical messages. The Bible has
become a new and living book to thousands in our day just by this process of
historical interpretation. But this very sense of reality means that the utterances of a
given author gain their religious power from their connection with specific
historical conditions. And historical conditions change. The religious interpretation
of history at one time may not suit another time. We may follow Isaiah with the
keenest sympathy as he strives to reassure Israel by asserting the inviolability of the
Temple at Jerusalem. Then, a century later, when Jeremiah denounces as false
prophets those who repeat this earlier message of Isaiah, we may with equal zeal do
homage to the courageous soul of the man who dared to face the changes which a
hundred years had brought and in the light of these to reverse the judgment of an
earlier prophet. We may find ourselves with hearts beating higher as we live over in
imagination the scenes of primitive Christianity when religious fervor and courage
were kept up by the apocalyptic expectation of the miraculous consummation, and
yet may realize that history did not fulfil the hopes of those early followers of
Christ. In other words, the modern Bible student has learned to think of the biblical
utterances, not as timeless truths, but as living convictions of men who lived under
definite historical circumstances. The theology of the Bible is a theology framed to
meet definite problems called forth by the exigencies of specific historical
conditions.
The theology is addressed to that particular situation, and gains its vitality from its
ability to lift men's hearts to new courage as they face their peculiar problems. But
if the situation changes, the message also must change. If new problems arise in the
experience of men new solutions become imperative. Thus we find in the Bible a
changing theology as the needs of men change. It is this discovery of a changing
theology in the course of the biblical history which makes impossible the retention
of the older theological practice of treating scriptural statements as if they were
timeless and absolute expressions of truth. Moreover, the perception of an evolution
79
in the biblical literature is only a specific application of the larger recognition of the
fact that human history is continually in the process of change and adjustment. The
ideas which seem absolutely true to one age appear inadequate to a later time. The
doctrines which in one century are potent means of arousing high aspirations may in
a later century have lost their power. If it was impossible for Jeremiah to approve
the reiteration of Isaiah's message in his day, we see that even the word of an
inspired prophet is subject to temporal limitations. Thus the outcome of higher
criticism is something more important than a revision of traditional opinions about
dates and authorship. It leads us straight into the realm of historical interpretation as
contrasted with dogmatic interpretation. One who has accepted the principles of
higher criticism finds that the very process of discovering the literary genesis of the
books of the Bible makes him aware that the literature which he is studying is a
record of genuinely human experience, and that the convictions contained in it were
wrought out by actual wrestling with fundamental problems of life. As one traces
the history of the experience portrayed in the biblical books, one becomes aware
that a virile theology was never produced merely by the repetition of an authorized
message, but that, on the contrary, the greatest books of the Bible owe their origin
to a determined attempt to find an adequate expression for a living faith in
opposition to a dead formalism.
3.7 Fundamental Nature of Biblical Criticism

The great prophets of Israel and the apostle Paul were violent nonconformists. The
message of the Bible therefore appears in a fundamentally altered perspective
because of the processes of historical interpretation. The utterances of prophet and
apostle are no longer viewed as finished doctrines which may be appropriated by us
just as they stand. The Scriptures rather reveal to us the mighty upheavals and the
determined struggles of a living faith. One who has come to realize the significance
of this point of view will inevitably seek to ascertain the problems which confront
men of a given age before attempting to give an accurate account of the theology of
that age. Thus the center of gravity is shifted from the outer aspects of doctrine to
the inner aspects of religious experience. The key to the understanding of the
biblical theology lies less in a theory of inspiration than in an adequate
understanding of the thoughts and fears and hopes of men who faced the crises
portrayed in the books of the Bible. The critical scholar must be constantly on his
guard against assuming that a writer in biblical times will have had the same
religious ideas as men in the twentieth century. He must gain as accurate a picture
as possible of the actual problems with which the ancient writer was grappling.
Only thus can he do justice to the messages of the Bible. But this means that when
the message of a biblical writer has been discovered, it will not necessarily be a
universally valid doctrine. It will portray convictions which grew out of a very
definite historical situation. For example, the prophets of Israel lived at a time when
history was apparently disproving the national belief that Israel should be the
supreme nation of the world. The discovery that mighty Assyria on the one hand
and ancient and formidable Egypt on the other were counting for vastly more in
contemporary history than was the little people sandwiched in helplessly between
80
these two world-powers-this fact must be constantly put in the background of the
messages of the earlier prophets. The theology of the prophets, therefore, is
primarily and directly a message to a people whose political future is doomed. Can
a nation's God permit his nation to perish? If so, what does it mean? This is the
problem which the prophets of Israel attempt to answer in their theology. Now to
transfer that theology bodily to another age with its different national problems is
manifestly impossible. Another instance of this difference between biblical
problems and modern problems is to be found in the eschatological hopes of the
early Christians. In order to understand the references to the second coming of
Christ, one must appreciate how the often disappointed expectations of the Hebrew
people that they would become politically supreme in the world had led to the belief
that humanly speaking such triumph was impossible. But their indomitable belief in
the fidelity of God to his promises had taken expression in the belief that God in a
miraculous way would put an end to this evil age in which his people were
oppressed, and would establish on earth a kingdom from heaven under the sway of
his chosen Messiah. It was the persistence of this Jewish belief in the minds of
followers of Christ that led to the emphasis in the New Testament on the second
coming of Christ. When we read the eschatological passages of the apostolic
writings against this background, we can see the tremendous influence which these
visions would possess in fortifying them against persecution and discouragement.
To be able to feel that the Lord would soon come to put down the powers of evil
meant that the hardships of the day could be endured with fortitude. But to transfer
bodily to our own day these millennial hopes means to encourage such movements
as that of the Millerites in the past century, who prepared their ascension robes so as
to be ready on the given day. It means that the numbers in the Book of Revelation
will be made the basis of elaborate computations so that one may have the certainty
that the end of the world will come on a given date. The biblical student must read
these passages with a sympathetic understanding of the hopes and beliefs of the first
century. The systematic theologian must do his work in a century to which the
eschatological visions are foreign. Here, again, a simple transfer of doctrine from
ancient times to modern is out of the question. It is therefore evident that one who
adopts the critical method of studying the Bible will find himself led to the
conclusion that theological doctrines cannot be treated as "truths" existing
independently of religious experience. Religious convictions are answers to the
questions which earnest men ask when confronted with serious issues. To learn the
answer to a question without knowing the exact nature of the question itself is a
proceeding as formal as it is superfluous.
4.0 Conclusion
The attempt of expositors to relate biblical doctrines to the questions which men
were asking in biblical times inevitably affects the work of the systematic
theologian. He, too, must accurately define the questions which men are asking in
his day if his answers are to be pertinent. To preserve a vital relation between
theology and life is the plain duty of the theologian who really understands the
nature of the biblical utterances. Now it requires only a little reflection to see that
81
the problems which confront men of the twentieth century are likely to be quite
different from those which men of the first century were compelled to meet. Indeed,
one of the conspicuous features of present-day theological activity is the attempt to
adjust theology to the vital experiences of men today. To write theology for the
"modern mind" is a favorite enterprise. It is seen that only as doctrines shall actually
help men to answer the questions in which they are interested can they preserve the
function which biblical utterances fulfilled. The most important outcome of biblical
criticism is the recognition of the supreme importance of this fundamental aspect of
theology. But when this conception of the task of theology is clearly apprehended, it
will inevitably lead to a method of theological study which shall seek to do
complete justice' to present-day religious conditions. Some aspects of this new task
will be considered in subsequent articles.
5.0 Summary
This Unit discussed the following subtopics: What Difference does Biblical
Criticism Make?; Theology and Scientific Inquiry, Not Hostile to Each Other;
Examples from Christian History; The Importance of Diversity; The Primary
Question; Consequences for the Theologian; and Fundamental Nature of Biblical
Criticism.

 Theology and Scientific Inquiry are not hostile to each other. Discuss.
 Describe the fundamental nature of Biblical Criticism.

Gerald Birney Smith, “Theology and Biblical Criticism”, The Biblical World, Vol.
40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
11/6/12.
82
Unit 2: Rhetorical Criticism

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Defining Rhetorical Criticism
3.2 History of Rhetorical Criticism
3.3 The Purpose of Rhetorical Criticism
3.4 The Process Of Rhetorical Criticism
3.5 Applying Rhetorical Criticism To The New Testament
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Rhetorical criticism is not just about persuasive techniques, but all approaches
which are concerned with the surface features of the text. We now realize that
Hebrew writers had a range of tricks or devices that they used, maybe
unconsciously, in composing poems or stories. Parallelism is the best known poetic
device. In prose, repetition of phrases or keywords is very important. The beginning
and end of sections may be marked by inclusion (repetition of the opening). Writing
in panels (ABCDABCD), or chiastically (ABBA), or in longer palistrophes (mirror-
image patterns ABCDEDCBA, etc) are some of the devices that have been noted in
both OT and NT. This unit studies definition of rhetoric criticism, history of the
discipline,
2.0 Objectives

 Define rhetoric criticism
 Understand the history of rhetoric criticism
 Apply rhetorical criticism to both OT and NT
3.0 Main Body
83
3.1 Defining Rhetoric Criticism
One branch of literary critics compared the biblical materials to the Greco-Roman
orators. They observed the writers of the Bible had similar interests, similar goals of
persuasion, and similar techniques. They began to look for specific literary devices
that gave clues to the composition of the passage. If these devices could be found,
they would unlock the interpretation of the text.
Rhetorical criticism functioned in two dimensions. (1) Its proponent claimed it

helped focus on the writing as a whole, rather than on its individual parts. Such
knowledge emphasized the progress (movement) of the text, so the reader knew
exactly "where" a particular passage occurred: the logical flow of the book. This
location helped identify how that section functioned in relation to the whole text. (2)
Rhetorical critics claim proper analysis of the text provided better knowledge of the
provenance of a writing. With proper classification of literature came proper
understanding of the circumstances that promoted it. Particularly, they believed the
discipline reveals the emotional attitude of the writer, as well as what he hoped to
achieve through the material. Thus, rhetorical criticism flourished. The founding of
the movement is credited to James Muilenburg perhaps the most influential early
scholar was George Kennedy. The approach better suits the Epistles than the
Gospels and Acts. Consistent with that, it was applied to Epistles like Galatians,
Philemon, Philippians, and Thessalonians. It has application, however, to the
Gospel and some have begun to apply it there.
3.2 History of the Discipline

Scholars agree that the modern emphasis on rhetorical criticism began in 1968. In a
presidential address before the Society of Biblical Literature Muilenburg called for
scholars of the Bible to "go beyond form criticism,,, Specifically, he was interested
in the OT and Hebrew literary composition. He wanted to find "the structural
patterns that are employed for the fashioning of a literary unit, whether in poetry or
in prose," and to discern "the many and various devices by which the predications
are formulated and ordered into a unified whole." He described this "as rhetoric and
the methodology as rhetorical criticism, of course, throughout history scholars had
interacted with rhetorical approaches, but the modern revival came because of the
bankruptcy of form critical approaches. In actuality, rhetorical critics do not
necessarily oppose other critical approaches. Some claim to see values in other
methods. They objected to the fact that a piecemeal dissecting of the text failed to
take account of the "wholeness" of the document. Critical methods employed until
that time traced the prehistory of the text. They had little value in explaining the
impact the whole text had on its readers. Kennedy stated the role of the discipline as
follows: Rhetorical criticism takes the text as we have it, whether the work of a
single author or the product of editing, and looks at it from the point of view of the
author's or editor's intent, the unified results, and how it would be perceived by an
audience of near contemporaries. Most scholars see the discipline as
complementary. It is "a valuable additional methodology, largely untapped, for
understanding biblical material."
84
3.3 The Purpose of Rhetorical Criticism

Rhetorical criticism attempts to understand the text as a whole. It focuses on the
point the author made and the response of the reader. Specifically, the goal is to
understand two important aspects of biblical study: Why did the author write this
text, and how did he put it together? Obviously this relates to issues of biblical
introduction. It assumes that the literature has a purpose and that the document itself
(and sometimes by itself) reveals that purpose. It further assumes a given author had
access to rhetorical devices that enabled him to address a situation powerfully. In
other words, the author arranged his material as he did to make the best impact on
his readers.
Some assumptions underlie this approach. (1) A rhetorical study assumes the author
consciously employed literary devices, Since orators were common in the Greco-
Roman world, it seems likely the writer employed such an honored form of
persuasion. On the other hand, one might ask: Is this too much to expect of the
writers of Scripture who, in some cases, appear to be untrained in classical
disciplines? Further, is this consistent with a concept of the inspiration of the
Scriptures which the church has affirmed throughout the centuries? (2) Rhetorical
criticism assumes the writings were basically formal. If the writers utilized common
rhetorical devices, they obviously thought about what they wanted to write and how
they wanted to express it.17 It is indicative of the discipline that Episodes which
have been understood traditionally as informal were among the earliest objects of
rhetorical criticism. These included Philippians, Galatians, 1 Thessalonians, and
Philemon. (3) The discipline assumes the readers were comfortable with a more
formal address from the writer. According to this approach, a friendly letter from
and to friends seems impossible. The critic assumes the writer employed various
persuasive techniques. Ultimately, rhetorical criticism hopes to reveal the historical
situation.
The style and tone of written persuasion reveals the atmosphere that existed
between the writer and his readers. It also clarifies the seriousness of the situation
and the response the writer desired, Other aspects of biblical study contribute to this
understanding, bur rhetorical critics believe that the flavor of the writing helps most.
3.4 The Process of Rhetorical Criticism

Doing rhetorical criticism involves two major investigations. First, the interpreter
must identify the rhetorical unit. Following that, the interpreter must determine the
structure of the text and what type of rhetoric it is. Both of these require quite
complex forms of analysis. Discovering the Rhetorical Unit: this task includes both
the larger unit; the entire piece of literature-and the smaller units which comprise it.
Every complete literary unit has an introduction, body, and conclusion. These may
occur on a broad, comprehensive scale, or they may occur in isolated portions of
writing. If the unit is a piece of larger work, clear reasons are needed to identify the
particular smaller units. Generally, rhetorical units have clear literary boundaries.
Most of these involve word repetition. The most common "boundary marker" is
indusia, called "inclusion" in English. Inclusion is a literary device by which a
writer reveals the limits of his discussion of a particular subject. Most often,
85
inclusion occurs with a word or phrase. When the writer first employs the phrase,
the discussion begins. At the conclusion of the discussion, the writer uses the phrase
again, thus indicating in a summary fashion the discussion has ended. Of course, the
word or phrase may be essential to the content of the unit and therefore may be
repeated many times within the inclusion.
Sometimes grammatical markers form the inclusion. For example, probably the
most common form of inclusion is the chiasm. A chiasm is a discussion of two parts
of a subject arranged in an A B B A order. That means the first part of the subject
occurs in the first and fourth positions, normally designated as A and N.. The
second portion of the discussion occurs in the second and third positions, normally
designated as Band B'. The inclusion occurs with the more significant material, the
first and fourth positions. When the chiasm concludes, the reader understands that
the particular literary unit also concludes. For example, Moises Silva employed this
technique in his commentary on Philippians. He used it to demonstrate the unity of
1:27--4:3.22 Vernon Robbins used it to mark off the introduction of Mark's Gospel.
Other common lexical devices help the reader isolate literary units. Another
common device is the repetition of words in an anaphoric manner. This means the
author repeats a word or phrase frequently enough that a pattern occurs. The
Beatitudes of Matthew 5 repeat the word "blessed." Hebrews 11 repeats the word
"by faith" (one word in Greek) to form a pattern. Sound devices also form
inclusions and mark literary divisions. Sometimes a writer employs words or
phrases that sounded "poetical" for purposes of memory recall. This may well occur
in Mark 2:1_12.25. A final example of these devices is rhetorical questions.
Frequently in the NT the writer asks such questions. They introduce a subject to be
addressed, and when the address concludes, the writer asks another question. This
device occurs in Romans 5-8 in particular. Not everyone agrees on the specific
rhetorical devices a writer might employ. Sometimes almost diametrically opposite
conclusions occur. Perhaps this happens because the science is in its infancy.
Perhaps there will never be a consensus. Nevertheless, these methods help in text
analysis, particularly in isolating a rhetorical unit.
Analyzing the Kind of Literature. The second step involves analysis of the
rhetorical unit. Here the interpreter considers three major categories of rhetoric:
invention, arrangement, and style. Invention refers to the "proofs" and "refutations"
of a speech or writing. When a writer addressed a reading audience, he first
considered the kinds of proofs he would use. The selecting process came to be
known as "inventions. "
"Arrangement" (Lat. dispositio; Gr. taxis) concerns the organization of the material.
The Greek orators divided their speeches into four main parts. The exordium
occurred first. It consisted of an introduction to the entire writing. The exordium set
the direction of the relationships and prepared for the main elements of the
literature. The rhetoricians then
moved to the narratio. This was the statement of the case. It set the direction for the
literary proofs that would follow. Third came the probatio, which included the body
of the speech or writin~. Finally, each speech ended with the peroratio. This was the
conclusion. These occurred regularly, so any literary piece could be analyzed this
86
way. If the :t\TTdocuments parallel the Greek orations, the rhetorical critic will find
these elements in each NT book. As will be noted later, the forms may vary, but the
structural elements remain. In addition to invention and arrangement, each orator
considered style. This meant he would consciously determine the type of approach
to an audience. Many ancient Greeks, such as Aristotle, pointed to two different
kinds of persuasive techniques. Some persuasions were "artless"; that is, they
occurred "outside" rhetoric. They included such things as laws, witnesses, contracts,
and oaths. On the other hand, a rhetorician had at his disposal many "artful" ways of
persuasion. These were appeals to action which demonstrated the orator's ability. It
made rhetoric powerfu1. These "artful" devices corresponded to different aspects of
persons. Some arguments appealed to the rational faculties. These sometimes
related to logos, the "reasoning" capability of the human mind. Other arguments
appealed to the emotions. These were known as pathos arguments. They intended to
move someone by touching the feelings.
Finally, the ethos involved morality. They called people to action based on ethical
or moral principles. The type of argumentation-tile style-helps to determine the
nature of the discussion. It further anticipates the type of response desired by the
speaker or writer. Ancient orators learned various devices they could use in each of
these areas to persuade their hearers of appropriate action. All of this analysis
provides the interpreter with the data to determine the rhetorical situation. The
discourse is like an answer to a question; the rhetorical sitoation is the question.
Applying that analogy to the NT, the piece of literature is the answer to a question
that surfaces only by considering me rhetorical context. At this point, it is helpful to
note the kinds of rhetoric used by me Greeks. First, they had deliberative oratory. In
general use, this was what an orator used to persuade someone of his or her opinion
or way of going about something. It occurred commonly, because most of the
"everyday" debates involved such decisions. For example, political discussions
were deliberative, as were things that had to do with public affairs. In addition to
deliberative orations, the ancient Greeks had judicial oratory.
This was me language of the courtroom. Particularly suited to defending or
condemning specific actions, it could be used for anyone wishing to accuse or
justify himself or someone else. Because of the highly developed legal system of
me Greco-Roman world, this style developed into a fine art. Finally, mere were
epideictic orations. This was the language of praise and honor, as well as blame and
dishonor. Orators used these techniques when they wanted to inspire an audience. It
was me oratory of festivals as well. NT scholars debate which NT writings contain
these various types of rhetoric. Their assumption is if a writing fits into one of these
styles, it helps me interpreter understand the situation of me readers and the intent
of the writer. Of course, there is a circular element here, since the style depends on
the literary characteristics, and me literary characteristics are derived from the style
of writing.
3.5 Applying Rhetorical Criticism to The New Testament

Many biblical scholars answered the 1968 call of Muilenburg to engage in
rhetorical criticism. A little over a decade later, biblical commentaries began to
87
appear. In addition, in the decade of the 1980s many wrote articles examining the
literary features of biblical books.'! and the rhetorical arguments provided
ammunition for solving critical questions of introduction. At least one series is
dedicated to helping scholars and laypeople appreciate the impact of rhetorical
studies. Rhetorical criticism does not promise an entirely positive picture for
biblical interpretation, however. Two questions haunt biblical scholars. Are the N'F
writings really as rhetorical as many have concluded? Further, is there any
unanimity of conviction regarding the specific conclusions of rhetorical critics? The
last question may pose the most difficulties. For example, a comparison of five
recent approaches to the Epistle to the Romans reveals a broad spectrum of
conclusions about the discourse. Romans provides a particularly good illustration of
the problem, because scholars agree more all. its basic genre than they do on most
other NT books. The table below presents the reader with an overview of how
rhetorical analysis has been applied to NT studies.
4.0 Conclusion
Rhetorical criticism has occupied the minds and energies of an increasing number
of scholars in the last twenty-five years. No doubt it will remain for years to come.
It brings the promise of helpful analytical insights. It particularly helps the
interpreter see the whole of a discourse, and it provides the tools for analysis of the
structure of the parts. Nevertheless, interpreters should move slowly into this study,
particularly if it is the only perspective taken of the text. As with other approaches,
there is need for the wisdom of the community of scholars.
5.0 Summary
This unit discussed: Defining Rhetorical Criticism; History of Rhetorical Criticism;

the Purpose of Rhetorical Criticism; the Process Of Rhetorical Criticism; and
Applying Rhetorical Criticism To The New Testament. Next Unit will continue
with part two of rhetorical criticism.
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
 Narrate the history of Rhetorical Criticism

 Outline the Process of Rhetorical Criticism
 How can one apply Rhetorical Criticism to the New Testament
7.0 References/Further reading

40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
88

11/6/12.
89
Unit 3: Rhetorical Criticism and the Hermeneutics of the New Testament

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Rhetoric and its relation to “communication” and “epistolography
3.2 Rhetorical act and artefact
3.3 Theory of rhetoric
3.4 Objectives of rhetorical criticism
3.5 Methods of rhetoric criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Burke’s book (1950) specifically deals with the question where rhetorical criticism
is taking us. Wuellner (1987:462) answers this question with: “it takes us to
interdisciplinary studies ... (it) approaches all literature”. When interpretations of
the New Testament are studied – especially the use of rhetorical criticism for New
Testament interpretation, it becomes clear that confusion exists about the concepts
“rhetoric”, “rhetorical theory” and “rhetorical criticism”. In some cases writers use
the word “rhetoric” as a synonym for “rhetorical theory” or sometimes “rhetorical
criticism”. Thuren (1990:43) for example, in discussing the nature of rhetorical
criticism, states that “rhetorics seeks to study what is the purpose of any discourse
...”. He, however, continues that “rhetorics analyzes the means utilized in a text ...”
(Thuren, 1990:43). He also describes rhetorics as “a method of practical criticism”,
when he discusses modern conceptions of rhetorics (Thuren, 1990:52). These
quotations serve to demonstrate the confusion in this regard.
2.0 Objectives
At the end of this study, you should be able to distinguish between the following
concepts:
 rhetoric and its relation to “communication” and epistolography”;
 rhetorical act and artefact;
90
 a theory of rhetoric; and

 rhetoric and its relation to “communication” and “epistolography”;
 rhetorical criticism.
3.0 Main Body

3.1 Rhetoric and its relation to “communication” and “epistolography”
Aristotle (Ars Rhetorica I:ii,1) and Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria II:15-21) define
rhetoric respectively as follows: (Rhetoric, then, may be defined as the faculty of
discovering the possible means of persuasion in reference to any subject.)
 Scientia bene dicendi. (Rhetoric is the science/knowledge of
eloquence/speaking well.)
Rhetoric is often seen as part of modern theories of argumentation (Van Eemeren et

al., 1987:55-107). Others consider it to be the art of persuasion (Miller et al.,
1984:400-403). Thuren (1990:58) agrees with the latter definition, except that he
adds that it is the art of persuasion “in general”. Foss (1989:4) defines rhetoric as
“the use of symbols to influence thought and action; it is simply an old term for
what is now commonly called communication”. Kennedy (1992:2) argues that
rhetoric should not be identified with communication, since there seem to be
various degrees of rhetoric among kinds of communication. Kennedy explains that
“zero grade” rhetoric, for example, may be approached but never quite achieved.
Rhetoric in the most general sense, he says, may perhaps be identified with the
energy inherent in communication. Communication involves emotional energy that
impels the speaker to speak, and implies physical energy expended in the utterance,
the energy level coded in the message, and the energy experienced by the recipient
in decoding the message. The point is that a form of communication may be a zero
grade rhetoric, and there may be various degrees of rhetoric among kinds of
communication, but it is still “rhetoric”. Any form of communication is an attempt
to bring about changes in, or a strengthening of people’s thoughts, words, attitudes,
emotions or actions. I therefore persist in identifying rhetoric with
“communication”.
When classical theoreticians of both disciplines are consulted about the relationship
between rhetoric and epistolography, it transpires that confusion exists (see the
survey of Cornelius, 1991:18-30). The whole Elma M. Cornelius debate, Watson
and Hauser (1994:121) says, is based in part upon the fact that epistolary theory and
rhetorical theory were developed separately in antiquity. Epistolary theory in
antiquity belonged to the domain of the rhetoricians, but it was not originally part of
their theoretical systems. Murphy (1974) makes a valuable contribution in this
regard with his Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. He (1974:202-203) is of the opinion
that the existence of the ars dictaminis can be linked with the Benedictine
monastery of Monte Cassino in central Italy. According to Murphy, a monk with
the name Alberic was the first to link rhetoric and epistolography in a formal
treatise round about 1087. Alberic gave an application of the rhetorical principles to
the practice of letter-writing (Alberic Dictaminum radii and Brevarium de
91
dictamine). From this it appears that even Alberic could not succeed in
distinguishing between the formal categories of ancient rhetoric and epistolography.
He considered for example the “letter-greeting” (an epistolary form) as the first part
of the letter and the exordium, narratio, argumentatio and conclusio (rhetorical
forms) as the ensuing parts. Thus he does not consider the first epistolary form (the
letter-greeting) as part of the first rhetorical form (the exordium). Murphy
(1974:194-268) considers the ars dictaminis as “a sharp break with the ancient
rhetorical practice”, but also as “a rare example of applied rhetoric”. He summarizes
the relationship between the two disciplines very well when he says that “eloquent
letters, like eloquent speeches, were expected to be the product of broad rhetorical
education” (Murphy, 1974:195).
In the research tradition, one can identify three different approaches to the
interpretation of New Testament letters:
 Some theoreticians interpret letters only in terms of
epistolographical categories (see for example White, 1972; 1984).
 Theoreticians like Berger (1974), Kraftchick (1985) and Johanson
(1987) interpret letters with an approach in which rhetoric plays a
more important role than epistolography.
 Others, like Wuellner (1976) and Stowers (1986), try to use both
rhetoric and epistolography to the same degree in the
interpretation of letters.
From these different approaches it is clear that the relationship between rhetoric and
epistolography is an actual problem, especially in the development of a method of
interpretation of New Testament letters. Rhetorical criticism and the hermeneutics
of the New Testament Thuren (1990:58) correctly summarizes this problem when
he says that the dilemma of divergent opinions on the relationship between ancient
rhetoric and epistolography is mostly due to different views of rhetoric. If “rhetoric”
is seen narrowly as a study of the conventions of a speech, the first and second
possibilities above will be considered. Thuren, however, chooses the third
possibility because he argues that rhetoric should be perceived on a higher level
than the art of persuasion in general. Vorster (1991:76) is of the opinion that a letter
should be seen as part of the rhetorical act and that all the elements of a letter are
rhetorical. According to him (1991:75-76) letter-writing is a species of the genus
rhetoric. In the interpretation of letters it must thus be an ideal not to work only
formally epistolographically, but to analyze the rhetorical situation as well. Botha
(1994:140) concludes by saying that, from the discussion of the relationship
between rhetoric and epistolography, it is clear how important it is not to confine
one’s conception of rhetoric to classical rhetoric alone, but to work with the broader
perspective proposed by modern rhetoric.
3.2 Rhetorical act and artefact
Campbell (1982:6) defines the “rhetorical act” as an intentional, created, polished
attempt to overcome the obstacles in a given situation with a specific audience on a
given issue to achieve a particular end. Foss (1989:5) differentiates between
“rhetorical act” and “artefact”. The rhetorical act is executed in the presence of the
92
rhetor’s intended audience. The artefact is the trace or tangible evidence of a

rhetorical act.
3.3 Theory of rhetoric
Croft (1965:414) defines rhetorical theory as a basis for criticism which should
consist of a series of formal techniques drawn from the history of rhetorical theory
and unified into a general system. A theory of rhetoric states the basic facts, central
laws, and fundamental components of the rhetorical process. The theory describes
how rhetoric operates in human communication (Johannesen, 1971:2). Brinton
(1981:239) says it is the normative theory of fitting response to certain kinds of
situations – it provides the basis for rhetorical criticism. Any critic has to spell out
his or her theory of rhetoric, which is a theoretical framework for the way in which
rhetoric can be conceptualised for the purpose of rhetorical criticism, and an
explanation of one’s view of the rules and means of effective communication.
It is important to realize that a single, unified, complete, generally accepted body of
precepts for rhetorical theory is an impossibility (see Winterowd, 1968:77-78). It is,
however, essential to spell out the particular theory of rhetoric which I presuppose
in my interpretation and evaluation of the effectiveness of the rhetorical act. It is
important to indicate what I consider effective communication to be, as no unified
theory of rhetoric exists. Choosing an appropriate theory is not an easy task. We are
mainly confronted by two groups of theories: traditional (also called classical) and
the so-called “new rhetoric”. The classical theory of rhetoric, for the first time
systematically recorded in Aristotle’s Ars Rhetorica, is the only systematized
system available. The “new rhetoric” is a concept used by various authors, but none
of these authors interprets this concept in the same way. There is, however, one
resemblance, namely that all the representatives of the “new rhetoric” attempt to
break away from the traditional theory (see for example Simons, 1971; Ohmann,
1971; Perelman & Olbrechts-Tyteca, 1969). Hochmuth Nichols (1971a and 1971b)
also classifies Burke and Richards as representatives of this “new rhetoric”. But still
there is no single theory of the “new rhetoric”.
Croft (1965:407) is of the opinion that the forms or techniques of an art are of no
value in themselves to a critic, but that they are only tools with which to pry into a
specimen of the art. Criticism does not consist of finding illustrations of standard,
preconceived forms. The critic must use the frameworks of standard techniques and
strategies as norms to help him or her discover and evaluate the ways in which the
speaker’s use of these techniques and strategies for example is distinctive. The
theory of rhetoric is thus used for practising rhetorical criticism.
3.4 Rhetorical criticism
Hughes (1989:23) acknowledges that rhetorical criticism is becoming more and

more recognized as a method of interpretation of Pauline as well as other biblical
literature. Rhetorical criticism is more than mere stylistic analyses, social
descriptions or historical reconstructions (see Wuellner, 1995:161). Andrews
(1990:3) considers rhetorical criticism to be the process of focusing attention on
human efforts to be persuasive. To be more specific, rhetorical criticism regards a
93
speech as an act of communication with a specific audience, and mainly concern the
analysis and appreciation of the orator’s method of imparting his or her ideas to the
hearers (Andrews, 1990:6). Foss (1989:5) considers rhetorical criticism to be the
investigation and evaluation of rhetorical acts and artefacts for the purpose of
understanding rhetorical processes. A critic, Richards (1954:180) says, must first
discern what meanings are being Rhetorical criticism and the hermeneutics of the
New Testament communicated, and thereafter, how successfully these are being
communicated. What is common to all these definitions is that rhetorical criticism
concerns the interpretation and evaluation of a specific act of communication. This
definition is closely related to the objectives of rhetorical criticism.
a) Objectives of rhetorical criticism
The primary purposes of rhetorical criticism are to describe or analyse, interpret,

and evaluate a rhetorical act (Scott & Brock, 1972:9; Campbell, 1982:16; Andrews,
1990:6). The central objective of critical research, Croft (1965:411) says, is
evaluation. Thonssen et al. (1970:19) elaborates this view by saying that rhetorical
criticism seeks an answer to the question to what extent, and through what resources
of rhetorical craftmanship, has the speaker achieved the end. One can summarize
this view by saying that the purpose of rhetorical criticism is a determination of the
communicative functions of a text and the evaluation of the probable effectiveness
of a text.
Audience adaptation is very important in this kind of study (Croft, 1965: 408). A
very important function of rhetorical criticism is to show how propositions and
audiences are connected; how speakers use techniques and strategies to adapt their
ideas to the ideas of their audiences. The flaw in many aspects of modern rhetorical
criticism, Croft (1965: 408) says, has not been that it ignored this necessity, but
rather that it has devised inadequate tools to deal with it. Audience adaptation is a
job of being aware of societal and cultural predispositions as premises in arguments,
of fitting the speaker’s basic social values to those of the listeners, of taking into
account the cultural myths or images to which theaudience responds as well as the
nonverbal cues to which the audience reacts – such as artifacts and space (see
Larson, 1998:210-233).
Croft (1965:409) identifies the following objectives of rhetorical criticism:
 The historical function: to report and interpret the manner in which a
speaker’s social values have been related to the social values of his or her
audience in the course of his or her rhetorical adaptation.
 The evaluative function: to evaluate the effectiveness of the rhetorical act
by estimating the appropriateness and evaluating the uniqueness of the
idea-adaptation.
 The creative function: to re-examine, re-evaluate, and if possible to
modify contemporary rhetorical theory through the examination of the
adaptive processes.
94
The creative function seems to be the conclusive function of rhetorical criticism –

the last step in which the rhetorical critic concludes his or her study by re-evaluating
rhetorical theory. It could, for example, be possible to say that, from the specific
study, it became clear that communication took place in a different way from what
has actually been assumed. This study can also, for example, end with the
realization that Paul communicated in a different way from that prescribed by the
rules of classical rhetoric. And that may be the starting point of a new rhetorical
theory, specifically concerning Paul’s communication in the New Testament.
It is a challenge to try not only to describe and interpret, but also to evaluate the
probable effectiveness of a rhetorical act. To determine effect, however, is not just
finding out what happened after the act of communication; it is a careful
examination of the interrelationships between text and context in order to offer the
most reasonable explanation for the probable result of any given message (see
Andrews, 1990:8). But, as I have already mentioned, up till now inadequate tools
have been devised to deal with the particular function of evaluation. Therefore it is
necessary to consider a number of the available methods of rhetorical criticism.
b) Methods of rhetorical criticism
To describe “the” method of rhetorical criticism is an impossible task. The

development of methods of rhetorical criticism is influenced by the development of
rhetorical theories. Cohen (1994:69) observes that the past three decades have
witnessed a remarkable resurgence of interest in rhetorical theory. This interest,
however, has taken a number of distinct forms. Mack (1990:19) acknowledges that
there is no single network of scholars exchanging ideas about rhetorical criticism –
no school, acknowledged master, or canon of methods. “Some theorists”, Cohen
(1994:69) says, “have sought to extend the traditional understanding of rhetoric as a
methodology for the study of argument”. Others have paid little heed to rhetoric’s
historical parameters since they have reconceptualised rhetoric as the analysis of
fictional narrative. Still others have attempted to overcome the ancient antagonism
between philosophy and rhetoric by construing rhetoric as the framework for a
philosophy of discourse. Finally, “post-modernist thinkers have turned to rhetoric
precisely because of its repudiation of philosophical conceptions of knowledge and
truth” (Cohen, 1994:69). Scott and Brock (1972) identify the different trends within
the frame of rhetorical criticism as the traditional perspective, the experiential
perspective, and the “new rhetoric”. In the third revised edition of this book
Rhetorical criticism and the hermeneutics of the New Testament
(Brock et al., 1990) the perspective of the “new rhetoric” was replaced by a
discussion of the dramaturgical perspective, and they also added the sociological
perspective and the postmodern perspective. In the next section I will briefly
summarize both discussions of the various trends in rhetorical criticism. I do this in
order to indicate that the various trends in rhetorical criticism are closely linked to
different underlying theories of rhetoric.
i) The traditional perspective

Within the traditional perspective, the critic concentrates on the speaker to consider
the speaker’s response to the rhetorical problems that the speaking situation poses.
95
The classical system of rhetoric is used as rhetorical theory and the different
rhetorical strategies are studied. With the use of the classical rhetorical theory,
rhetoricians generally agree on what the ideal rhetorical process is, and the critic
makes the following assumptions:
 Society is stable; people, circumstances, and rhetorical principles are
fundamentally the same throughout history.
 Rhetoricians have discovered the essential principles of public discourse.
 Rhetorical concepts are reasonably discrete and can be studied separately
in the process of analyzing rhetorical discourse.
 A reasonably close word-thought-thing relationship exists. Rhetorical
concepts accurately describe an assumed reality.
ii) The experiential perspective

For critics working from this perspective, no single element or rhetorical principle
can be assumed as the starting point for criticism. The critic must make the
fundamental choice. The critic believes that no special pattern exists for the study of
public discourse. Discourse must continually be studied anew. No specific method
is used and the critic makes the following assumptions:
 Society is in a continuous process of change.
 An infinite combination of concepts, strategies, and principles are
available for the study of public discourse.
 Any system of categorizing is arbitrary and does not accurately reflect an
assumed external reality for extended periods of time.
iii) The perspective of the “new rhetoric”

According to the perspective of “new rhetoric”, rhetorical criticism must find a
starting point in the interaction of humans and their social environment. The
perspective of the “new rhetoric” can be divided into different approaches. The
semantic-grammatical and dramatistic approaches are examples of the “new
rhetoric”. In these approaches we find, for example, textual analyses and analyses
of motives. All “new rhetoric”-critics, however, agree that a unified rhetorical
framework is necessary for productive rhetorical criticism. The following
assumptions are made:
 Society is in a process of change, but fairly stable relationships can be
found that govern the interaction of humans with their environment.
 A flexible framework may be constructed for the study of public
discourse.
 People’s symbol systems influence their perceptions of reality.
iv) The sociological perspective

For rhetorical critics employing the sociological perspective, society and
communication are intimately related forces that mutually define each other. The
structure, institutions, and processes of society and communicative exchanges are
96
viewed as continuously interacting and mutually defining systems. A wide diversity

of theories is likely to emerge from this perspective of rhetorical criticism. The four
major approaches to rhetorical criticism that can reasonably be viewed as related
extensions of a sociological worldview, include the “sociolinguistic”, “generic”,
“social movements”, and “feminist” approaches. The following assumptions are
made:
 Societies develop built-in adjustment and control mechanisms that
minimize change and promote stability and inertia.
 The values and consensus mechanisms of societies establish the
parameters for the study of communication.
 The symbolic frameworks unifying and regulating society determine the
psychology of individuals and the range of feasible rhetorical options
available to individuals in rhetorical situations.
 The word-thought-thing relationship is directly regulated by the structure,
institutions, and processes of society.
v) The postmodern perspective

The purpose of the postmodern critic is to identify how power texts construct social
realities and in their turn can be deconstructed. Postmodern criticism is essentially
anti-theoretical. Of these approaches the constructionist and deconstructionist
approaches are examples. The following assumptions are made:
 The modern industrial state creates, maintains, and uses a series of
paradoxical symbolic constructions of reality as modes of social control.
 To understand the control systems employed by societal systems, the
diverse symbolic constructions of reality must be identified by the
rhetorical critic.
 In order to promote equality, the rhetorical critic functions as a social
activist, deconstructing the symbolic constructions of reality erected by
political elites.
 The word-thought-thing relationship is directly challenged by
postmodern critics. The word-thought-thing relationship is cast as solely
arbitrary and conventional, designed to create and reinforce word thought
relationships that facilitate dominant and subordinate relationships.
Watson and Hauser (1994:115) summarizes this process as follows: “Rhetorical

analysis using modern rhetoric is often combined with literary criticism, text
linguistics, semiotics, social description, stylistics, reader response criticism,
discourse analysis, and/or speech act theory”. And they then acknowledge that these
cross-disciplinary studies and their trends are difficult to identify and categorize.
From this summary, it is clear that there are different perspectives of rhetorical
criticism just as there are different theories of rhetoric. Attention has been given to
the assumptions underlying each perspective which are closely connected with the
philosophical presuppositions of each perspective. But still, it has not been spelled
97
out how rhetorical criticism should be done. Rhetorical critics usually limit
themselves to descriptions of typical strategies used in communication, while one
hardly finds an evaluation of the probable rhetorical effectiveness of the rhetorical
act. Clearly there are serious problems with rhetorical criticism. Rhetorical
criticism, understood as interpretation and evaluation, remains a vague concept. In
the next section I will briefly review and criticize various proposals for a suitable
approach to rhetorical criticism.
c) Problems of a method of rhetorical criticism
With regard to rhetorical critical studies in the field of biblical interpretation,

Vorster (1991:22, 35) distinguishes between rhetorical studies before 1975 and after
1975. Those before 1975 (and some of these even proceeded after the attempts of
Betz [1975] and Wuellner [1976]) are mere ornamental or elocutional rhetorical
criticism, while Wuellner (1976) advocated a departure from elocutional rhetorical
criticism to argumentative analysis. “Rhetorical criticism as exegetical activity
within New Testament studies”, Vorster (1991:22) says, “developed from problems
posed by epistolographical studies”. Because epistolographical studies are mainly
concerned with the structure of the letter, the problems posed by epistolography are
therefore structurally related. “Structure” plays a very important role in the work
done by New Testament rhetorical critics. This can be seen in the attempts to prove
the relationship between various textual parts.
Croft (1965:406) describes the situation of rhetorical criticism as follows: … a
researcher takes the old theory, finds illustrations of it, piles these up, and
concludes, for example, that a given man’s speaking exhibits characteristics which
may be said to fall properly within the categories of traditional rhetoric. “This sort
of criticism,” he says, “works upon the presumption that rhetoric is rhetoric, and,
beyond deciding which traditional doctrine he prefers, the critic shall not fancy
himself a creative theorist.” “And so,” Croft concludes, “we have made rhetorical
criticism a dead-end street”.
Croft (1965:406) is of the opinion that the standard forms in rhetorical criticism in
the field of speech treat traditional theory as a closed, fixed system and that very
little effort is made to evaluate the rhetorical act –no critical conclusions are drawn.
This approach, he says, cannot be called criticism in the sense of evaluation. Croft
(1965: 406) encourages creative theorizing as a part of criticism. Wuellner
(1987:451) is of the opinion that rhetoric has been restricted, distorted and
paralysed throughout history, while biblical exegetes remained unaware of it. He
identifies two fragments of rhetorical criticism from Augustine in the fourth century
to Eagleton in the twentieth century: Augustine views rhetorical analysis as
synonymous with literary criticism (with the emphasis on stylistics), while Eagleton
views it as synonymous with practical criticism (Wuellner, 1987:450-453).
Muilenburg (1969) made rhetorical criticism fashionable again with his Presidential
Address at the Society of Biblical Literature entitled “Form Criticism and Beyond”.
Even so, Wuellner (1987:451) claims that the Rhetorical criticism and the
hermeneutics of the New Testament
98
Muilenburg school still did not succeed in developing an identifiable model. Black
(1989:254) suspects that Muilenburg’s definition of rhetoric is too narrow because
his method focuses upon the literary features of texts. Muilenburg probably
considered “rhetoric” to be “literary artistry”. Black (1989:253) describes the
Muilenburg method as exhibiting the structural patterns that are employed for the
fashioning of a literary unit and discerning the many and various devices by which
the predications are formulated and ordered into a unified whole. Black (1989:253)
is, however, of the opinion that with his definition and execution of rhetorical
criticism, Muilenburg was the most influential figure in Old Testament rhetorical
criticism. For most Old Testament scholars “rhetorical criticism” meant what
Muilenburg proposed, namely the study of a particular text in its present form,
separate from its generic rootage, social usage, or historical development. It thus
seems as if Muilenburg was responsible for a change in Old Testament
interpretation to rhetorical criticism, but he did not succeed in defining a clear
method. The greatest merit of his work was that he pointed to a challenging task
(Kessler, 1982:5).
In 1977, Kikawada (1977:67-91) also called for a method of rhetorical criticism.
During the past twenty years, alternative methods have indeed been developed. And
if one wants to study the different methods, it is of great help to start with the
methods used by those who are considered to be the “leaders” – who made the most
important contributions. Wuellner (1987:453-454) is of the opinion that Perelman
(1982) and Kennedy (1984) have turned rhetorical criticism around. Kennedy’s
model of rhetorical criticism (1984) was in a way an answer to the need for renewed
interest in rhetoric. He also paid attention to other researchers’ interest in the
development of rhetoric. Kennedy (1984:3-14) considers “rhetoric” as “the art of
persuasion”, as practised by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Based on the precepts
of ancient classical theorists, Kennedy (1984:33-38) proposes the following method
of rhetorical criticism:
 Determine the rhetorical unit.
 Define the rhetorical situation.
 Identify the rhetorical problem.
 Examine the arrangement of the parts into a unified discourse.
 Analyse each part for its invention and style.
 Evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness of the unit.
Black (1989:255) is of the opinion that Kennedy’s primary contribution is

methodological: the presentation of a distinctive method of rhetorical criticism that
is lucid and systematic. Kennedy’s approach to a text is purely rhetorical. He
approaches a letter as an argument, considers the methods of persuasion in the
various parts of the argument, and determines their functions. His analysis of the
rhetorical situation entails mainly two aspects: the audience, and the rhetorical
problem faced by the speaker (Kennedy, 1984:25, 36). Kennedy, therefore, intends
to explain the form of communication by means of the “rhetorical situation”. Even
so, he confuses his categories again when he inquires about the author’s intention
(1984:4,12) which is part of the “historical situation”. According to Kennedy
99
(1984:34), this concept of “author’s intention” more or less corresponds to the Sitz
im Leben. The rhetorical critic, he says (1984:4), takes the text as it is, and
considers it from the perspective of the author’s intention, as well as the way in
which it would have been received by a contemporary audience. When Kennedy
distinguishes between rhetorical and literary criticism (1984:4-5), he explains that
literary criticism investigates the reception of a text by modern audiences, while he
himself endeavours to read the text in the same way as it would have been read by
its first readers. Thuren (1990:68) says that Kennedy (1984) employs rhetoric as an
ancient version of literary criticism. Kennedy’s model is based completely on the
ancient rhetorical system, which he uses both formally and functionally.
The sixth step in Kennedy’s method, namely to evaluate the rhetorical effectiveness
of the rhetorical unit, seems to remain only one step in the whole process. In
Kennedy’s (1984:141-144) interpretation of 1 Thessalonians, he never comes to an
evaluation of the possible success of the rhetorical act constituted by this letter. A
clearer method of rhetorical criticism is therefore no guarantee for writing good
criticism. It seems as though the last step of evaluation remains a vague concept.
Wuellner (1987:461) says that “... rhetorical criticism leads us away from a
traditional message- or content-oriented reading of Scripture to a reading which
generates and strengthens ever-deepening personal, social and cultural values” and
he regards Perelman as the scholar who brought about radical changes in rhetorical
criticism. Arnold, who translated Perelman’s work (1982), notes in the introduction
of this book (1982:xvii) that the broad conception of rhetoric, as presented by
Perelman, primarily originated in the USA, where students in literary prose were
responsible for its rebirth. According to Arnold, Baldwin’s work,
Rhetoric in Monroe’s Cyclopaedia (1914), emphasized the fact that rhetoric is more
than stylistics. At the same time, a group of rhetoricians, and literary and classical
scholars, referred to as the Cornell University School, focused their research on the
study of the theory and praxis of ancient rhetoric. Since 1914, the Speech
Communication Association has emphasized the importance of practising rhetorical
criticism from a variety of disciplines. These studies were conducted in a number of
disciplines, including psychology and historical criticism. Starting with Perelman,
philosophy received more and more emphasis. Arnold (in the introduction of
Perelman, 1982:xix) indicates that Perelman writes as a philosopher. Perelman
analyses the logic of arguments in a philosophical way and he can thus be regarded
as a rhetorical critic working from a philosophical perspective.
The new rhetoric, presented by Perelman (1982), entails communication directed at
all kinds of audiences on any topic. The general study of argumentation should,
according to Perelman (1982:5), be supported by various disciplines that might be
valuable. He does take note of the ancient rhetorical system (1982:6), but also
transcends it. In 1987 Schussler Fiorenza (1987:386) identified the need for an
“integrative” paradigm for rhetorical criticism. This new paradigm requires a
balance between the historical approach and literary criticism and sociological
approaches to New Testament exegesis. Her work presents an important indicator
for the future direction of rhetorical criticism, and it also emphasizes the importance
of interdisciplinary studies. Thuren (1990:42) defines rhetorical criticism as a
100
“general approach”. He says that rhetorical criticism in the field of biblical exegesis
is not yet based on a unified view of rhetoric (Thuren, 1990:45). Some scholars
apply ancient rhetoric, while others use modern linguistics, still others work with
rhetoric, but they use new terminologies and concepts. His own method of
rhetorical criticism is closely related to that of Kennedy (1984), and comprises the
following:
 identification of the rhetorical unit;
 identification of the rhetorical situation;
 study of the order; and
 analysis of stylistic elements.
With these four steps, Thuren makes full use of the ancient rhetorical system, both
in the formal and in the communicative-functional sense. The same critique can,
however, be applied to Thuren as to Kennedy. An evaluation of the probable
effectiveness of a rhetorical act in its original rhetorical situation does not occur.
Wuellner (1987:449) makes good use of Perelman’s model and indicates that
rhetorical criticism brings us to a greater harvest – a harvest of new attempts made
in various fields of rhetoric. Rhetorical criticism goes further than the view of
language as a reflection of reality. It takes us to the social aspects of language as an
instrument of communication, an instrument with the potential to influence people.
Black (1989:256) is of the opinion that in most rhetorical critical studies, with the
exception of Kennedy’s (1984), the interpretative tactics and exegetical implications
have not yet come completely into focus. The question remains whether Kennedy
really succeeded in doing what he had in mind in the last step of his rhetorical
criticism, namely the “evaluation.” Most of the work that has been done on Paul in
the name of rhetorical criticism, Wuellner (1987:455) says, falls short in his (that is
Wuellner’s) view.
For Vorster (1991:23) rhetorical criticism is concerned with the question of why an
argument could be deemed appropriate within a certain context. It is concerned with
pragmatics. He (1991:39) typifies his work as an “interactional analysis” and uses
an “interactional model”. He further acknowledges that to a certain extent he has
adopted an eclectic and pragmatic approach because he has used elements from
various models and adapted where necessary. To establish the purpose of the letter
to the Romans, he restricts the field of study to the framework of the letter,
especially the beginning and end of the letter (1:1-17 and 15:7-16:23). He uses
insights from reader-oriented disciplines such as pragmatics, reception-criticism and
rhetoric. Vorster definitely brought new insights concerning the purpose of the letter
to the Romans.
Methodologically he introduced us to the value of pragmatics. This study, however,
also does not provide us with a method of rhetorical criticism, specifically when it
comes to the evaluation of the probable effectiveness of a rhetorical act. Robbins
(1996a and 1996b) calls his method of biblical interpretation “socio-rhetorical
criticism”. With this method he approaches a text as a thick tapestry, seen from
different angles in order to grasp different configurations, patterns and images.
“When we explore a text from different angles”, he says, “we see multiple textures
of meanings, convictions, beliefs, values, emotions and actions” (Robbins,
101
1996a:18). He describes four arenas of texture: inner texture, intertexture, social and
cultural texture and ideological texture (Robbins, 1996a). And then in another book
he adds the sacred texture (Robbins, 1996b).
 Inner texture, he (1996b:3) says, concerns features like the repetition of
particular words, the creation of beginnings and endings, alternation of
speech and storytelling, particular ways in which the words present
arguments, and the particular “feel” or aesthetic of the text.
 Intertexture concerns a text’s configuration of phenomena that lie outside
the text. Examples of such texture are social intertexture such as the
structure of families, political arrangements, and cultural intertexture
such as the ideas of people about their responsibilities in the world, and
historical intertexture such as events which occur outside the text.
 Social and cultural texture concerns the capacities of the text to support
social reform, withdrawal, or opposition and to evoke cultural
perceptions of dominance, subordinance, difference, or exclusion.
 Ideological texture concerns the way the text itself and interpreters of the
text position themselves in relation to other individuals and groups.
 Sacred texture exists in the texts that somehow address the relation of
humans to the divine and exists in communication about gods, holy
persons, spiritual beings, divine history, human redemption, human
commitment, religious community, and ethics. Robbins focused our
attention on the multiple textures of a text and the necessity of various
disciplines to interpret such a text. His method is also a very thorough
way of interpretation. But I still miss the issue of evaluation of the
probable effectiveness of the rhetorical act in his method.
Scott and Brock (1972:404) conclude their study by saying that we should expect,
at the very least, a lessening of interest in theorizing about rhetorical criticism and a
revitalized concern with criticizing public discourse. During the past twenty five
years, however, this still has not happened. In connection with this, Andrews
(1990:62) states that it is most important that a practising rhetorical critic does
criticism. We have to realize that the ideal of a “unified view” of rhetorical criticism
will remain an ideal. Rhetoric is much too complex a concept to capture in one
single system. For much too long researchers on the New Testament have been
quarrelling about the proper method of rhetorical criticism. Knowledge about what
rhetorical criticism is, does not automatically translate into the ability to do
criticism (Foss, 1989:11). The goal of rhetorical criticism, Andrews (1990:62) says,
must be to write good criticism, and good criticism is that which ultimately
promotes a richer understanding of the influence and operation of discourse and
contributes to the comprehension and refinement of humane values. The complex of
interactions that take place between a speaker and his or her audience is never easy
to understand fully indeed; total comprehension of any rhetorical exchange is not to
be obtained (Andrews, 1990:61), but the critic, nevertheless, should strive to come
102
as close to the achievement of that goal as he can to contribute to the ongoing work
of other rhetorical scholars.
In this section I have tried to give an overview of the problems regarding a method
of rhetorical criticism in general.
d) Choosing or developing a method of rhetorical criticism
Foss (1989:17) gives three possibilities when selecting a method:

a. use an existing critical method;
b. create a method from an existing concept; and
c. create a new method.
Many critics have already done rhetorical critical studies of the New Testament. As
I have already indicated, there does not exist only one method for rhetorical
criticism. In so far as rhetorical criticism concerns description and interpretation of
typical persuasion strategies, to find a method is no problem at all as there are many
different methods and strategies to explore the different textures of discourse. But in
the case of an evaluation of the probable effectiveness of the rhetorical act,
“method” is an issue. Although there are various expositions of possible approaches
to rhetorical criticism available today, nobody has spelled out a clear method for the
evaluation of the probable effectiveness of the rhetorical act as an integral part of
rhetorical criticism. According to Andrews (1990:5) any rhetorical critic has one or
both of the following tasks: to answer questions about the rhetorical message or to
develop a methodical way of answering those questions. The best way to interpret a
text would be to investigate all three main elements in the process of
communication, namely the author, text and readers. Such an attempt, although not
an easy one, can open up new perspectives and make possible the consideration of
old issues, although on a different level. The question, however, is – will such a
design of a paradigm not end up in eclecticism? Kael (1964:309) answers this
question as follows: “eclecticism is the selection of the best standards and principles
from various systems of ideas ... it requires more orderliness to be a pluralist than to
apply a single theory”. Campbell (1982:5) agrees that a rhetorical perspective is
eclectic and inclusive in its search for what is influential and why. A method of
rhetorical criticism is the use of a combination of existing and “old” methods in
order to answer new questions.
The challenge for any critic is to use a method which has the potential to answer
questions about the probable effectiveness of the rhetorical act represented by the
artefact. An adequate rhetorical analysis of an ancient document is according to me
an analysis that is thorough, consistent, taking cognizance of ancient theory, and
providing the analytical tools for an eventual evaluation of the probable
effectiveness of the rhetorical act constituted by the artefact. The question, however,
remains how to determine effectiveness. Bettinghaus and Cody (1994:6) are of the
opinion that the effects of an act of communication are determined by the change in
(or strengthening of) behaviour, cognition and affect. They present four criteria to
be considered in judging the effects of persuasive communication, namely the
nature of the correspondence between the intentions of the participants, the degree
103
of correspondence between the intentions of the source and the subsequent

behaviour of the receiver, the nature of the opposition to be expected to the
communicator’s position, and the difficulty level of the task being engaged in
(Bettinghaus & Cody, 1994:16-17). In the interpretation of New Testament texts, it
is impossible to determine to what degree there has been a change in or
strengthening of the first readers’ concepts, beliefs, values and perceptions. It is also
impossible to determine whether there was indeed a change in, or strengthening of
the readers’ emotional states, their actions, thoughts and words. It is, however,
possible to determine the “probable” effectiveness of the New Testament by asking
the following questions:
a) Is the author’s creation and presentation of the “truth” similar to what the
readers will accept and acknowledge to be the “truth”? If it is not similar, the
effectiveness of the text will probably decrease.
b) Does the author attempt to arouse in the minds of his readers as clear,
accurate, and complete a picture or conception of his subject as possible? If
the readers have a blurred image of the subject, the effectiveness of the act
will be influenced.
c) Are relevant aspects provided by the text to inform the readers in order to
respond constructively to the purpose of the text? If not, readers may not
respond effectively.
d) How does the pattern of the argument in the letter contribute to the clarity of
the author’s intentions and subject?
e) How creatively does the author respond to the obstacles faced with regard to
his creation of an environment of socialization, his creation of the attributes
and roleplay of the participants in the socialization process, his use of
persuasion strategies, style, and epistolary conventions? All these aspects
contribute to the effectiveness of the author’s act of communication.
f) How inventively does the author fulfil the requirements of the situation?
g) How ethical are the author’s means of persuasion as well as his appeals to
the readers’ emotions, and his use of language?
h) What will be the cost of participation for the readers? As the power of a text
depends on the reader’s willingness to participate in the communication
process, it is important to determine how much inconvenience and
discomfort are involved, how much time, energy and commitment are
needed, how much of the reader’s resources, money, and expertise must be
expended, and how much social resistance can be expected from family,
friends and neighbours (see Campbell, 1982:106-109).
i) What is the potential power of the text to change beliefs, attitudes and
actions? In order to answer the above questions a rhetorical analysis
consisting of the following elements is needed:
j) the nature of the text (in the case of the New Testament we are confronted by
“sacred” texts e.g. which will ask more commitment from the readers);
104
k) the structure, argument, pattern of the arguments, persuasion strategies and

style (in order to determine the clarity e.g. of the text and the author’s
creativity);
l) the value system presented in the text (to determine the clarity of the text);
m) social and cultural topoi (to determine whether the relevant aspects are
provided);
n) the purpose of the text (to determine whether the purpose of the text has been
reached, we at least need to know what the purpose of the text is);
o) the characteristics of the author, his/her role, social power, relationship with
the readers, value system, issue orientation, and communication (to
determine e.g. whether the readers will be willing the accept the author’s
presentation of himself);
p) the readers’ characteristics, their receptivity to the rhetorical act and top of,
their circumstances, their knowledge and faith presupposed by the author,
their value system, and the cost of participation (to determine whether the
readers can recognize themselves in the author’s presentation of the ideal
readers).
A method for rhetorical criticism will be a holistic approach and will involve a close
reading of the text in which different methods may play a role. The text will also be
approached from a socio-historical perspective for the interpretation of typical
ancient communication strategies, typical ancient topoi, ancient epistolary
structures, ancient values, and roles in ancient society and the ancient church.
4.0 Conclusion
It was argued that rhetorical criticism is becoming more and more recognized as a
method of interpretation of biblical literature. From the discussion it became clear
that there are different perspectives of rhetorical criticism just as there are different
theories of rhetoric. There are, however, serious problems concerning rhetorical
criticism. Rhetorical criticism, understood as interpretation and evaluation, remains
a vague concept. Rhetoric has been restricted, distorted and paralysed throughout
history. Critics need to develop an interdisciplinary method of rhetorical criticism in
order to answer questions about the potential effectiveness of a rhetorical act. It is
concluded that the rhetorical critic needs a combination of “old” methods in order to
answer new questions.
5.0 Summary
This unit discussed: Rhetoric and its relation to “communication” and
“epistolography; Rhetorical act and artefact; Theory of rhetoric; Objectives of
rhetorical criticism; and Methods of rhetoric criticism. Next Unit will study New
Criticism and Structuralism.
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignment
105
 Outline and discuss the methods of rhetoric criticism

40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
11/6/12.
ANDREWS, J.R. 1990. The practice of rhetorical criticism. London : Collier
Macmillan Publishers.
MACK, B.L. 1990. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis : Fortress Press.
SCHUSSLER FIORENZA, E. 1987. Rhetorical situation and historical
reconstruction in I Corinthians. New Testament Studies, 33:386-403.
106
Unit 4: New Criticism and Structuralism

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Explaining New Criticism
3.2 Defining Structuralism

3.3 Other Perspectives of Structuralism
3.4 History of Structuralism
3.5 The Purpose of Structuralism
3.6 The Process of Structuralism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
New criticism holds that a literary work should be interpreted as a text on its own,
without reference to its historical background or the author’s intention. To this end,
new critics pay very close attention to the way a book is composed: its plot, themes,
its use of ambiguity and irony, the portrayal of character, the viewpoints of the
actors and the narrator, etc. this involves close reading of the text, attention to subtle
detail, such as slight variation in wording when material is repeated. Often new
critics take account of the clues rhetorical criticism relies on (e.g. keywords), but try
to integrate them within a total understanding of the work. This approach has led to
some rich and powerful interpretations of biblical texts.
Whereas rhetorical and new criticisms pay attention to textual features that may be
presumed to have been consciously employed by writers, structuralists argue that
literature also expressed deep structures that characterize all communication (e.g.
binary contrasts). The jargon of structuralism makes many of its ideas difficult to
grasp, but it is concerned to elucidate recurrent patterns of thought, e.g. in grammar,
law, folk-tales and parables.
This unit explains the dynamics of New Criticism and structuralism.
107
2.0 Objectives
 Describe the concept new criticism and structuralism
 Make a distinction from New criticism and other forms of text-centred
criticism
3.0 Main Body
3.1 Explaining New Criticism
The origins of new criticism appeared in the 1940s and 1950s by secular literary
critics such as T. S. Eliot, I. A. Richards, and William Empson. W K. Wimsatt's and
M. C. Beardsley's article "The Intentional Fallacy" articulated New Criticism's
challenge to traditional criticism. New Criticism distinguished literary history,
which answers historical questions concerning author and composition, from the
proper business of literary criticism, which is the study of the literary object itself. J.
Barton describes New Criticism as a reactionary movement to the ideals of
Romantic criticism, which viewed the task of literary criticism as discovering the
poet's experience of reality. As a result, literary biography was an important
component in traditional literary studies. New Critics contended, however, that the
author's state of mind and feelings as well as the circumstances of the work were
distractions. They did not believe that all historical questions concerning the text
were irrelevant (e.g., what words meant in the author's day), but that a ualid
interpretation had to be based on the text alone. The literary object itself was
determinative for meaning. This opinion opened the door for viewing texts as
having lives of their own with many possible meanings as the text experienced new
contexts.
Since New Criticism perceived the text as an autonomous entity, it took an
ahistorical stance toward the text, a position which significantly departed from
traditional literary criticism. While this criticism had a short life among secular
literary critics, superseded by structuralism and deconstructionism, it has had a
stronger hold on biblical studies. Among these are the studies edited bi literary
critics K. R. R. Gros Louis, ]. Ackerman, and T. Warshaw.2 Gras Louis comments,
"Our approach is essentially ahistorical, the text is taken as received, and the truth
of an action or an idea or a motive, for literary criticism, depends on its rightness or
appropriateness in context."
In the same essay, he adds, "We know, as students of literature, that the author's
intention, his goals in writing for his contemporary audience, and his religious
convictions playa small role indeed in literary criticism and, more important, in the
analysis of literary texts., Biblical scholars who are text-focused do not always
follow a strictly uniform theoretical approach. Their methods at times are eclectic,
bridging composition and New Criticism with the more pragmatic features of
structuralism
108
3.2 Defining Structuralism

More impressive in secular literary circles was the emerging discipline of
structuralism in the 1960s. By "structure," we are not referring merely to an internal
plan or design of a composition; this is organizational structure and it describes the
appearance (surface) level of the text which is consciously created and perceived.
Structuralism, however, is a philosophy of reality; it is far more than a method of
literary study.
Theoretical structuralism is applied to any entity that is a "system. As a theory it
cuts across diverse disciplines, such as anthropology, linguistics, mathematics, and
literature. Literary structuralism is indebted to the structural linguistics of F. de
Saussure. De Saussure's theory envisions language as systems of signification. He
centered on defining the relational- effects in language systems, that is, the
syntagmatic and the paradigmatic relationships, rather than on the origins and
changes of language systems. E. McKnight illustrates these relationships by the
sentence "James runs." The syntagmatic relationship is the linear sequence between
"James" as the topic and the second word in the series "runs."
Together they form an acceptable sentence, and the sequence helps define the
relationship of the words. Paradigmatic, on the other hand, looks at each word in
isolation. Each word bears "associative" meanings. Thus, "runs" has the related
meanings "move," "flee," and "hasten," which also help define the word.
A second feature of Saussure's theory is his understanding of how words convey

meaning in a language system. Words are arbitrary signs. There is a gap between a
language sign (signifier) and what that sign signifies (the signified). For example,
there is no inherent conceptual relationship between the word "pencil" (sign) and
the mental concept "pencil" (signified). This means that words have meanin~ only
in terms of their contrast with other signs within a language system.
Third, Saussure differentiates between language as a system (langue) and language

as a speech act (pat·ole). Langue is the structural network of language which is
intuitively imposed on a speaker. Parole is the specific expression of language, a
particular discourse. The structuralist seeks primarily to discover the underlying or
"deep" structure which governs specific language acts. It is contended that the brain
discerns meaning at the underlying structure by contrasts or oppositions. These
opposites are known as binaries or pairs of opposites. In other words, to know what
something is, the mind must know what it is not. Typical of binary pairs, for
example, are life/death, wet/dry, and light/dark. Since literature is conceived by
structuralists as a language product, it is fertile ground for structuralist readings.
Literature, it is contended, is a network of self-regulating operations. A specific text
has many potential meanings (polyvalence) because it possesses several structures
working at different levels.
Semiotic research focuses on the systems of signification which are the universals
of language's network. For a structuralist the task is to discern the hidden, intuitive
109
network of relationships; the deep level is the determinative meaning that gives rise
to a derivative literary expression.
Meaning, it is assumed, is a relational-effect-"the effect produced by the relations

among various elements which in and of themselves do not have meaning, but are
merely poles between which the sparks of meaning flash.,,Therefore, a specific text,
while a textual system, is secondary to the semiotician's analysis, because universal
meaning is discovered at the langue level. The quest is to describe bow literature is
created as opposed to iabat is created. Structural exegesis, on the other hand,
acknowledges the universals of the semiotician's network of meaning and brings
them to bear in the analysis of a specific literary expression. The exegete seeks to
show how the universals take part in the meaning of a specific text.
Related to structuralist theory is the recognition that the communication process

includes conventions (rules) of reading that are unconsciously shared by the
author/speaker and the audience. Conventions of communication function both at
the cultural and language (oral/written) levels. We have already clarified that
surface structure is a conscious exchange between author and reader whereas deep
structure is an intuitive exchange. A reader who is competent at the surface level
must know the rules of grammar and syntax to both process and generate text at the
conscious level.
Structuralists believe that the deep level also has its "grammar." The conventions
are public codes (accessible to all) that determine the meaning of the composition.
Therefore, the "meaning" of the text resides not in the authorial intention or even at
the surface level of the composition but in the conventions themselves. An analogy
is a board game where a knowledge of the rules is required for the game to be
executed meaningfully. A move on the board has meaning because the conventions
a priori dictate the meaning. When a reader is not competent in recognizing the
conventions of a particular genre (i.e., parable or law), then determinative meaning
is lost.
With these features in mind, we can turn to structural narratology, the discipline
which has had the greatest impact on biblical strllcturalism. Structural narratology
attempts to define the components of narrative as a system. Representative of this
movement are V Propp, C. Levi-Strauss, and A. J. Greimas Propp, the Russian
formalist, defined the "grammar" of folktale by defining its form, By analyzing one
hundred examples of Russian folktales, he identified the possible number of plots
and character roles that make up "folktale."
The structure of folktale consists of any combination of seven character "spheres of

action" (e.g., villain, donor, hero) and thirty-one plot functions (e.g., a family
member leaving home, hero marries and ascends the throne). Moreover, there are
six kinds of possible plot "moves" that occur within a tale. In other words, folktale
has a fixed range, or set of "recipes," which determine what constitutes folktale. His
approach was syntagmatic since he described the organization of the folktale in
terms of its chronological (linear) sequence or narrative plot development.
110
Structural reading of OT texts was pioneered by French structuralists, particularly

R. Barthes whose studies in narrative drew largely on the theories of Greimas and
Propp. His analysis of Jacob's struggle with the angel (Gen. 32:23-33) has become a
signal example of structural readings among biblical texts. Appealing to Greimas'
model of actants, he recognizes that the narrative Structure of the account expresses
an unexpected and ambiguous picture for the roles of "Sender" and "Opponent"-
both are filled by God. Clearly, Jacob is the "Subject" and the crossing of the
Jabbok is the "Object," but God who sends Jacob on this "Quest" proves to be the
very "Opponent" who guards the river. Moreover, Barrhes points out the structural
oddity of the struggle itself where the angel delivers the "deathblow," disabling the
patriarch. Yet, rather than victor, the angel himself, surprisingly, cannot wrench free
from Jacob until he concedes to the patriarch's wishes. This kind of analysis,
Barthes points out, exposes the discontinuities layered in the text at the unconscious
leve!
Propp's model of structural narratology has made its impact on Hebrew narrative
studies through, among others, ]. M. Sasson and R. C. Culley. Sasson applied
Propp's model to the Book of Ruth. He identified the character roles of the story in
terms of Propp's folktale roles: "Dispatcher" (Naomi), "Hero on a Quest" (Ruth),
"Sought-for Person" (Obed), and both "Donor" and "Helper" (Boaz). On the basis
of the story's agreement with Propp's model, Sasson concludes that the appropriate
genre for Ruth is "folktale. Culley, who modified Propp's theory, organized a group
of fourteen biblical narratives around a series of linear sequences or actions. His
goal was to define what makes up Hebrew narrative plot. He describes the patterns
for particular story prototypes, such as deception stories and miracle stories, and
offers a typology.
Finally, the field of biblical studies has shown an indebtedness to Levi-Strauss'

model for understanding myth. Edmund Leach, the British anthropologist by using
Levi-Strauss' paradigmatic model analyses Genesis 1-4 as comprising three
"myths": the seven-day creation, the Garden of Eden story, and the Cain and Abel
story. He explains that myths contain the same recurrent patterns, regardless of their
outer trappings, which can be recognized when each tale is superimposed upon
another paradigmatically. These mythic structures are best interpreted where they
are expressed as contradictions or binary oppositions in a series of paradoxes, such
as death/life, static world/moving world, God/ man, man/woman. The Genesis
myths taken together therefore tell the same story.
There is a flood of structuralist studies in Hebrew narrative. In particular, the

experimental journal Semeia has devoted several issues to this subject. Among
them, for example, is a collection of essays on Genesis 2 and 3, which shows
different structuralist approaches to the same passage.
3.3 Other Perspectives of Structuralism

From another perspective, scholars analyzed the structure of the text. The leading
contributors in biblical studies were Daniel Patte, Edgar McKnight, Eugene Nida,].
111
P. Louw, and Robert Longacre. Some, such as Patte and McKnight, moved in more
philosophical directions with the discipline. Others, such as Nida, Louw, and
Longacre, approached the subject as professional linguists who had deep interests
in the practical use of the Bible. They ultimately hoped to facilitate Bible
translation. From their study of many languages, they refined tools of analysis and
applied them to the biblical texts. Discourse analysis, one aspect of structuralism,
basically observes the patterns of discourse. It analyzes the way people talk and
what they mean by what they say. Meaning comes from the deep structure of
language, found in what lies beyond normal semantic and grammatical categories,
New approaches to syntax developed, and the discipline took a language of its own.
It is particularly helpful in gospel-like narratives, but the initial investigation of
books came from the Epistles.
3.4 History of Structuralism
Structuralism is, in part, a reaction to a traditional approach to analysing texts. It

came out of the linguistic schools of France, Russia, and the United States and
applied linguistic theory to biblical documents. In actuality, structuralism is a broad
movement encompassing many disciplines. It includes linguistics, anthropology,
law, philosophy, and sociology., Structuralism is difficult to define. The term
describes more a movement than a specific form of exegesis. Those who apply the
basic principles of-ten differ with each other, so there seems to be no clear result to
the study. Structuralism, therefore, implies more of a statement regarding a
perspective of reality than an organized system or method. Before the twentieth
century, most grammarians operated on what now may be called a traditional
approach. The first grammatical studies came from the fifth century B.C. in Greece.
They represented a clear philosophy about language and corresponded to a
consistent philosophical view of reality. The Greek philosophers "debated whether
language was governed by 'nature' or 'convention.' ,, If a grammatical or lexical
form was "natural," it came from some universal or even eternal principle. If it were
conventional, it came from the construct of the writer only. "To lay bare the origin
of a word and thereby its 'true' meaning was to reveal one of the truths of 'nature.' ,,
Etymologies and emphasis on the individual words dominated grammar.
In the twentieth century, several challenged this attitude toward language.

Particularly, Ferdinand de Saussure, a Swiss scholar, turned his attention to another
perspective. He published his Cours de linguistique generale in the first quarter of
this century and spawned a host of linguistic interest. Saussure is considered by
most to be the founder of modern linguistics. He was followed by Noam Chomsky
and others who accepted his basic formulation of linguistic meaning.
3.5 The Purpose of Structuralism

Structuralism attempts to understand meaning by observing the deeper levels of
thought expressed by language. Saussure articulated three major premises which
determined the future of linguistic studies. First, he distinguished between langue
and parole. Langue refers to a system of organized sounds which communicate
112
effectively. It is a person's ability to speak a given language. Parole refers to the

specific use of a language in making sentences. It occurs when one speaks. This
meant the system must be separated from a person's speaking within that system.
Saussure also distinguished between structural and functional features of language.
For him, languages function differently at times from what one would expect by a
cursory evaluation of their systems. This means language must be considered
functionally, since a writer or speaker may actually mean something different from
what he or she expresses. For Saussure, words must be analyzed according to the
signified and the signifier. The particular word employed is the signifier.
Determining the meaning of that word, however, requires some knowledge of how
the signifier was used. The meaning given the word is what the writer signified. In
actuality, there may be little or no correlation between the two. In modern English,
for example, the word "bad" may signify something to some readers, e.g., that one
should avoid what is described by it. On the other hand, the speaker might use the
word in a positive sense. He or she might be actually complimenting someone by
the term ("He is a bad ball player," meaning he is great!). Thus what is signified has
no actual relationship to the signifier, the word chosen. Only a knowledge of
American idiom discloses what the speaker meant. A third distinction of Sassure's
work left a lasting impression. He distinguished between the syntagmatic and
paradigmatic relationships of words. A paradigmatic view of word relationships
studies each word according to the "slot" it occupies in a sentence. Any given word
may be related to other words in a paradigmatic relationship. That means a word is
defined largely by its relationship to words which are not used in the sentence. For
example, in the phrase "a brown dog," "dog" is defined by its relationship to other
animal forms, such as "cat" or "sheep." In a sense, meaning comes from what is
imported into the text by a preconceived understanding of the meaning of words. In
a syntagmatic relationship, the reader sees the whole statement of which a word is a
part. The entire context shapes the understanding so no word has meaning apart
from the other words used in connection with it. This would be expanded beyond
the words to the sentences and paragraphs, so the basic unit for understanding
would become the paragraph.
Other linguists added to and modified these ideas. Most notably, Noam Chomsky,
Leonard Bloomfield, Edward Sapir, Benjamin Lee Whorf, and I. A. Richards
contributed to this field of linguistics. The most significant, however, was Noam
Chomsky. Among the m3l1Y contributions he made, the most significant for
biblical studies was the concept of "deep structure." Chomsky identified deep
structure as "the underlying abstract structure that determines its semantic
interpretation? In contrast to deep structure, the interpreter first confronts "surface
structure." Chomsky called surface structure the "superficial organization of units
which determines the phonetic interpretation and which relates to the physical form
of the actual utterance.
Chomsky's work meant that what appeared on the surface did not express the intent
of the writer. The author's meaning occurs in the deep structure. The words chosen
to express the meaning only function to provide that meaning. Chomsky developed
a system of rules to allow an interpreter to get to the deep structure, or the meaning.
113
He called these rules "transformational systems" which allowed one to see how the
deep structure became the surface form.42 Chomsky developed two sets of rules for
analyzing literature: the transforms (which allow the interpreter to bring deep
meaning to the surface) and the base structure rules (which are employed at the
deepest level). These principles formed the basis of Chomsky's system, now called
transformational-generative grammar.
Among others, Eugene Nida applied these principles to biblical interpretation. He

identified five basic steps in analyzing the deep structure. (1) Identify the basic
structural elements of each word. (2) Make explicit any implicit structural elements
which are needed to clarify these elements. (3) Determine the basic kernels
(elements) which are necessary in making a structurally complete sentence. (4)
Group the kernels into related sets. (5) State these relationships in a form which will
facilitate understanding and translation. From this perspective, interpretation has
three elements: determining the base meaning; determining the transforms
employed to bring it to the surface; and determining the best meaning of the
combination of "deep" and "surface" structures.
Structuralist exegesis contains at least three common elements. First, the whole of a
statement is explained by examining the relationships of its parts. Structuralists
sense that the whole will be greater than any individual part. Second, the significant
part of communication lies below the surface of the literature. The interpreter,
therefore, seeks to analyze meaning beyond what may be seen on the surface. Third,
synchronic analysis predominates over diachronic. Synchronic analysis involves
examining a word, phrase, or sentence in light of the contemporary setting, rather
than taking a historical view through time (diachronicj. All of this helps
demonstrate the purpose of structural criticism. Structuralists seek to understand the
message by analyzing the deeper forms of the text. Assuming that the surface is
purely functional, they hope to uncover a real meaning by working beyond the text.
In this, structuralists have moved in many different directions. Some assume the
author has no meaning intended by the deep structure. For them, the structure is the
meaning. Others assume this knowledge of linguistic reality provides the necessary
tools for understanding and interpreting. They employ the various methods to arrive
at the author's intent.
3.6 The Process of Structuralism

Structuralism approaches the text in various ways, depending on the particular
nuance of the structural system. Some apply the basic methods in a philosophical
sense. For example, the principles of Heidegger and Dilthey may be interpreted as
conducive to structuralist thought. Indeed, the interaction between reader and writer
has led to a "reader-response" hermeneutic which points out the structure of the
language (text) and the meaning of the author (or, more likely, the reader's
understanding of the text). Like the other methods, one of the frustrations is the fact
that differing conclusions have been reached by scholars who apply the same
114
methods to specific biblical texts. Others apply structuralism in more textually

oriented ways. For example, Eugene Nida's work attempts to help translate the text
by understanding the author's meaning in the deep structure. Similarly, Robert
Longacre and Kenneth Pike developed theories of discourse analysis which applied
the functional nature of language and deep structure mode1s in exegesis of texts.
These have been applied to various texts and entire books of the NT. The results
differ from traditional exegetical approaches but have many fruitful possibilities for
analysis. Structuralism offers many positive helps for the exegesis of texts. It
provides tools for understanding language and its functions. Further, it recognizes
the dynamics of language and the contexts of people who use it. The distinctions
between function and form, and syntagmatic versus paradigmatic approaches are
especially helpful. Negatively, however, some of this type of exegesis is prone to
"faddisrn." In its more philosophical aspects, it depreciates the biblical text and,
certainly, the author's intent. Nevertheless, the desire to expose deeper meaning is
positive, as long as this quest is undertaken with a seriousness appropriate to
understanding an ancient author's mind. That, after all, is the task of biblical
exegesis.
4.0 Conclusion
Whereas New criticism holds that a literary work should be interpreted as a text on
its own, without reference to its historical background or the author’s intention;
structuralists argue that literature also expressed deep structures that characterize all
communication (e.g. binary contrasts). These approaches nonetheless have
contributed to some rich and powerful interpretation of biblical texts.
5.0 Summary
This unit studied: Explaining New Criticism; Defining Structuralism; Other
Perspectives of Structuralism; History of Structuralism; the Purpose of
Structuralism; and the Process of Structuralism.
6.0 Tutor Marked Assignemts

 In summary explain New Criticism
 Outline and discuss the purpose of structuralism.

40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
11/6/12.
115
Andrews, J.R. 1990. The practice of rhetorical criticism, London : Collier
116
Unit 5: Gains and Losses of Modern Biblical Criticism

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 What Gains Can Be Mentioned?
3.2 What Losses Can Be Mentioned?
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
There is a distinction to be made between biblical criticism unmodified, and modern
biblical criticism. We cannot conceive of their being anything lost through biblical
criticism when by it we mean a devout and prayerful seeking of God's will
concerning man in the Bible, and the gracious salvation through Jesus Christ which
is its grand purpose to reveal. It is true, when we take biblical criticism in this sense,
that "there is everything to hope and nothing to fear from its progress." But modern
biblical criticism cannot be taken exclusively in this sense. It is not bringing a false
accusation against it, in view of the destructive criticism of the Tuebingen school,
and such wild, irreverent if that word is too strong then let us say presumptuous
study of the Word of God, as shown by Kuenen, Wellhausen, Robertson Smith and
others, to say that there are dangers and evils connected with it which make the
question whether there is gain or loss to be derived from it; a pertinent one, and one
which it is well earnestly to consider. It probably is too early in the day to hope to
get a satisfactory or a just estimate of the gains and losses of modern biblical
criticism. We have not yet reached final results in this. Its modern phase is only in
its beginning, and there is still much to be done by it; yet it will not be out of place
to stop a moment and see where we have arrived, and what ground we have
covered. And this unit aims not at a final summing up of gains and losses, but will
call attention only to a few of these.
2.0 Objectives
117
 Outline and discuss some of the gains and losses of Modern Biblical
criticism.
3.0 Main Body

3.1 What Gains Can Be Mentioned?
First, the fact that attention is called by it to a direct study of the' Bible. That is, the
destructive attacks upon the Bible by some who claim to be "of the household of
faith;" their apparently reckless treatment has directed to the Bible the attention of
many who were occupied with discussions of things suggested by it, who were
speculating about it, but were not engaged in its direct study. Now, undoubtedly,
greater gain is to be derived from a direct study of the Bible than from the study of
speculations about it, or of inferences drawn from it. If we can turn men's attention
from a discussion -or study of non-essentials in religion, to a direct study of the
Bible, with its "plain fact of a personal Creator, a God in history, a revelation of
divine love and duty in his Son," we have gained much; and not the least gain is the
fact that when this has been done, "we need not fear the atheism of to-day." There is
nothing so refreshing to the thirsty soul, as to go directly to the fountain of truth,
and drink deep draughts of divine, loving, inspiring truth. If it is served at second
hand, be it brought in ever such beautiful and attractive cups, it loses its sparkle and
its full power to assuage the thirst. Whatever, therefore, tends to turn men's
attention to a direct study of the Bible, is a great gain to true religion. And certainly
modern biblical criticism has done this.
A second gain is that through it the Bible has become a more real book to us. It has
not always been such to men. They looked upon its history, poetry, song and story,
as something which had nothing in common with other history, poetry, song and
story. The Bible is indeed, a sui generis book: a book, which, in its application,
construction and teaching, has for its object something distinct from any other book
on earth; it has its peculiar characteristics. This is true because of its inspiration, and
because of the fact that it is "our supreme and sole authority in matters of faith, and
'contains all truth necessary for salvation.'"
That it has so distinct an object, and characteristics of so unique a nature, has led
men to look upon it as if it were not a real book-a book which all should read,
ponder and study. This being the case, it was laid aside for only special use, and
was not also used for the good a study of its history, its language, and its literature
would do the world. A procedure which is fatal in many respects, since in
accordance with it:
(I) The Bible was not man's constant companion, to help him, to cheer him, to
instruct him, to encourage him, to warn him.
(2) Much valuable knowledge which the Bible alone contains, besides a knowledge
of God and salvation, was kept hid from men's view. Sir Walter Scott said, "There
118
is only one book-the Bible. The other books are mere leaves, fragments." And our
own Whittier has well written, " We search the world for truth; we call The good,
the pure, the beautiful From graven stone and written scroll, From all old-flower-
fields of the soul; And, weary seekers of the best, We come back laden from our
quest, To find that all the sages said, Is in the Book our mothers read."
(3) People dared not approach the Bible with that holy boldness which makes it an
arbitrator in all disputes with conscience in the various departments of life, outside
of the salvation of the soul. Now, biblical criticism, and especially biblical criticism
of our day, has assisted in making the Bible a real book. And this, Robertson Smith
rightly calls its "great value." It is, however, true, that the Higher Criticism goes too
far in this direction. It looks upon the Bible too much as it does upon a book of
merely human origin, and hence has a tendency to destroy the reverence and
holiness with which it should be approached, no matter how real it becomes to them
or may be to them. The true course lies between the two extremes, and if the Higher
Criticism will have ultimately as its end a following of this middle course, great
gain will come from it. This seems to be the hope and promise of it. And, therefore,
Professor Green rightly says, "Every encouragement should be given to the freest
possible discussion.
The attempt to stifle discussion in the present posture of affairs would be in every
way damaging to the truth."
A third gain, in brief, is found in the fact that the more the Bible is directly studied
the more the divine truth is learned and discovered. Daniel Webster said, "There is
more of valuable truth yet to be gleaned from the sacred writings that have thus far
escaped the attention of commentators than from all other sources of human
knowledge combined."
Biblical criticism which has for its object a direct study of the Bible helps in
discovering, either intentionally, or accidentally, new truths which would never be
discovered but for it.
The fourth gain: again, in so far as the modern biblical criticism has led to a
rejection of the two extreme phases of biblical interpretation-the allegorical and the
dogmatic-so as to rest the defence of revelation upon a ground which commends
itself to reason and common sense, and upon facts, there is a great gain. The
arbitrary fancies and the mystical principles of the allegorists cannot satisfy this age
of critical knowledge of history and language. "The truth of Christ and his spiritual
Gospel, which only could give the key to the Old Testament, was indeed a profound
one. But instead of studying it in the clear method of history, the Bible was made a
sacred anagram; the most natural facts of Jewish worship or chronicle became
arbitrary figures of the new dispensation. Type and allegory were the master-key
that unlocked all the dark chambers, from the early chapters of the Genesis to the
poetry of David or the grand utterances of Isaiah. Whereever we turn to the fathers,
to the Epistle of Clement, or the sober Irenaeus, to Tertullian, who finds tlW type of
baptism in the Spirit brooding on the waters and in the passage through the sea; or
119
to Augustine, who explains the six creative days as symbols of the ages/of divine
history, we have the numberless cases of this style of exposition.
We prize the early Christian writers for their intellectual and spiritual power in the
great conflict of the faith with a Pagan wisdom; nay, we can often admire, with
Coleridge, the rich, devout fancy glowing through the homilies of Augustine; but as
biblical scholars all were simply of a time when true criticism was hardly known.
Nor will the dogmatic principle of the Latin Church satisfy men of to-day; a
principle which found in the Bible, by proof-texts, wrested from their real meaning
often, support for any metaphysical or religious dogma which they might hold.
Luther called such a procedure "a rover and a chamois-hunter." It was rightly done
by Luther when he rejected the analogia fidei, and claimed the analogia Scripturce
sacrce (Washburn). And in so far as modern biblical criticism has corrected such
arbitrary rules, and has taught men "the study of Scriptures in their own meaning" it
has led to great gain.
3.2 What Losses Can Be Mentioned?
We turn now to a few of the losses of biblical criticism.
i) And there may be named the danger of its causing men to read the Bible with
a too critical eye. When they do this, they lose the spirituality of heart and
the inspiration to personal piety, which come from reading it in loving trust,
and with a devotional heart. There is a great difference in reading the Bible
with an eye to find in it literary beauty, or merely history, or reading it in a
devotional frame of mind, for growth in spirituality of heart, and personal
piety. The purpose for which the Bible was written was not its literary and
historical value; on the contrary, it was given to us for our growth in
Christian spirit, and as a revelation of God's will to and concerning man, and
a revelation of salvation full and complete in Christ. Dr. Washburn has well
said, "This word may speak to the mind and heart of a Christian reader,
although he knows nothing of the methods of exact learning; and if the
keenest criticism do not approach it with special reverence for a book, which
has fed the spiritual life of men, as no other has done, it will be barren indeed
even for the scholar."
Anything, therefore, which tends to cause men to look upon the Bible in any
other than a devout, spiritual frame of mind is baneful. And who doubts that
this has been the case, to some extent at least, with the Higher Criticism of
our day ? Having raised its many doubts --many uncalled for and unfounded
doubts, we may add-it has led men to take up their Bible with an eye too
exclusively critical, and to study the Bible with a mind too full of doubts.
ii) This leads us to mention a second evil resulting from our Higher Criticism,
viz.: That it has a tendency to cause men to lose their confidence in certain
portions of the Bible. This tendency may not be seen or felt so much among
specialists in biblical study, or among ministers, who have time and
120
inclination and whose business it is, to study the Bible critically, as among
the people in general, who have no time to follow out the discussions, and
only know that doubts exist in the minds of men who make biblical study a
specialty. Learning that these are unsettled on many points, the natural
consequence is that doubts are awakened in their minds and they lose their
trust in the Bible. Could the work of biblical criticism go on quietly among
specialists, and the rest not know of it, until results definite and satisfactory
have been reached, the evil would not be so great. But as the discussions are
now carried on, in every religious paper, and even in secular papers, there is
no doubt that the result is to unsettle many in the faith of the Bible as the
word of God. Let us devoutly hope and pray that this all-important
department of sacred learning may be directed by the Spirit of God, to the
end that the Word of God may not be made void, but may be glorified as a
power of good and righteousness in the world.
4.0 Conclusion
The whole aim of biblical criticism is not find faults with scriptures, and overthrew
people’s faith in it. Biblical criticism has as its object a direct study of the Bible,
which helps in discovering, either intentionally, or accidentally, new truths which
would never be discovered but for it.
5.0 Summary
This unit highlighted some of the gains and losses associated with modern biblical
criticism.
 Outline and discuss three gains of modern biblical criticism
 Why do you think modern biblical criticism pose some problems to the
believer in the bible?

40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
11/6/12.
121

122
MODULE 3: READER-CENTRED APPROACHES
Unit 1: Reader-Response Criticism

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Reader-Response Criticism: What is it?
3.2 Deconstructionism
3.3 Canon Criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
Whereas traditional criticism focuses behind the text and composition criticism and
structuralism in the text, reader-response criticism may be said to discover meaning
in front of the text. For the reader-response critic, reading the Bible "as literature is
to retrieve it from the museum, to relate it to the life of contemporary readers. The
actualization of literature is dictated by the interaction between the text and reader.
All other readings, such as historical or theological ones, are valid but not complete.
Full(er) meaning is possible only when the Bible is read as literature, where the
Bible is reimaged by the reader in the sense of the reader's own world. This is the
focus of this module.
2.0 Objectives
 Have an overview of reader-response criticism
 Discuss Deconstructionism and Canon Criticism
3.0 Main Body
3.1 Reader-Response Criticism: What is it?
Reader-response criticism assumes that knowledge is grounded in life. Meaningful

knowledge is discovered when the reader's social experience impacts the text so as
123
to make it meaningful to that person. As McKnight contends, "readers make sense"

of texts, the world, and themselves. Since the interpretive process includes me
reader's own worldview as well as that presupposed by the text, the text becomes
infinite in its potentialities for meaning. Paul Ricoeur's hermeneutics of symbolism
and phenomenology acknowledges that the text had a meaning for the author and
original audience, but once that was experienced, the sense of the text lies beyond it
and resides in us as readers "in front of" the text.
All other aspects of literary analysis, such as historical and text-centered readings,
are incomplete and subject to the reader-significance reading. McKnight, however,
cautions not every reading is valid. There are controls of interpretation in the
process, "for systems of interpretation involve components that must be correlated
with each other and with the reader=-componenrs that are dynamic in themselves as
well as parts of a dynamic system. These include an interpretation that is possible,
consistent, and satisfying to the reader and his worldview, Radical reader-response
criticism, whose heart is the reader's eyes, invites readers to bring to the text their
own ideological nuances. Marxist, feminist, materialist, and liberation readings are
among these sociological approaches to the Bible.46 Exemplary of ideological
readings is feminist criticism which reads a biblical account through the lens of
gender. E. Schussler Fiorenza explains the shift from androcentric readings to a
feminist hermeneutic: "A feminist critical interpretation of the Bible cannot take as
its point of departure the normative authority of the biblical archetype, but must
begin with women's experience in their struggle for liberation. The means, then, is
to deconstruct the male voice that dominates the story and its chauvinist ideology
and construct the feminist voice by a retelling of the story.
P. Trible combines her feminist readings with structural exegesis to critique the role
of women and men in the Bible. In the account of Ruth, for instance, Naomi and
Ruth are engaged in the on-going struggle of women to obtain security in a male-
dominated society. Trible concludes, "Ruth and the females of Bethlehem work as
paradigms for radicality. All together they are women in culture, women against
culture, and women transforming culture, what they reflect, they challenge. And
that challenge is a legacy of faith to this day for all who have ears to hear the stories
of women in a man's world.
3.2 Deconstructionism
Also known as "poststructuralism," this literary analysis has its roots in the
philosophy of Jacques Derrida whose theory has resulted in extreme skepticism
about the possibility of meaning. The publication of Derrida's De la grammatologie
in 1967 inaugurated the movement. It has become an important force in literary
criticism since the 1980s, but it has had lime impact on biblical studies. To
understand Derrida's theory, we must recall the long-held opinions of Western
society concerning how meaning is achieved in communication.
First, it has been assumed that meaning is grounded in an objective reality which
can serve as a basis for communication. This reality is referred to as the
124
"metaphysics of presence." Derrida terms this assumption "Iogocentric": Original

truth is attributed to the logos, that is, a word, reason or the Word of God. In
logocentricism, being is always determined in terms of an entity's presence. It is this
ontological presence (being) or center that gives the elements of a system its
balance and coherence.
Second, Western civilization has accepted that speech (word) is more reliable for
discovering and relating meaning man writing since the speaker can exercise greater
control. There is created an opposition between the origin (speech) and the
manifestation (writing). Logocentricism assumes that these oppositions occur
between an origin and its fall, with the first having priority; for example:
presence/absence, voice/writing, sound/silence, being/nonbeing,
conscious/unconscious, truth/lie, transcendental/empirical, meaning/form,
literal/metaphorical, signifier/signified, and so forth.
All literary-critical methods assume this logocentricism, but Derrida challenges the
tradition. He argues there is no absolute ground or origin. Every term is itself a
product. Derrida exposes the weakness of Saussure's proposition of a gap between
the signifier and what is signified in a language system (see structuralism above).
Derrida contends that the gap is far less stable than Saussure's system permits.
Derrida holds that meaning is not an original presence, rather an absence which
distinguishes a word.
Moreover, a sign always has a dependence on a prior context or differentiation in a

speech act. Writing, Derrida argues, is prior to speech. Thus, mere is no original
logos, and there is left a perpetual instability or distancing between the signifier and
the signified. The oppositions created in this system are inverted, e.g.,
absence/presence, non being/being, signified/signifier, metaphor/literal.
Derrida invents the term diffirance as a concept to reveal the slippage between
signifier and the signified. Diffirance has three significations: (1) to differ (to be
unlike, dissimilar); (2) differre from Latin (to scatter, disperse) and (3) to defer
(delay, postpone). In French the a in diffirance (to defer) is silent; the word sounds
like diffirence (to differ). This distinction is perceived only in writing. "Differ" is
spatial distinction and indicates the sign arises in terms of its differences or spaees
(absence!) within the system. The "defer" is a temporal distinction, and the sign
perpetually postpones presence. Diffirance for Derrida is not just a word or concept,
a force or event; it can be conceptualized as "me structured and differing 'origin' of
difference.,,53 An example is me sign "chair" which brings to mind (consciousness)
rhe idea of a chair (signified), but the real chair is not actually present. The sign is
employed, but we delay or postpone producing me actual referent. In other words,
me sign "chair" marks an "absent present." Both diffemnce (delay) and difference
between sign and referent disrupt logocentricism's center of presence. It is not
actual presence but metaphor or delusion.
When applied to literary analysis, deconstructionists explain how the text subverts
or deconstructs itself. J. Culler comments, to deconstruct a discourse is to show how
125
it undermines the philosophy it asserts, or the hierarchical oppositions on which it

relies, by identifying in the text the rhetorical operations that produce the supposed
ground of argument, the key concept or promise."
The text does not have a meaning as a reference to something that is signified; the
text is an infinite "play of signifiers" that is brought about by the contingencies of
language. For the deconstructionist, meaning is not in the author, the textual artifact,
the deep structure, or me reader. There can be no determinative judge or arbiter of
meaning, for that, too, is sub" ject to deconstruction; the text is metaphor or pun.
The critic "plays with the text" as an exercise of criticism for its own aesthetic sake.
This kind of radical skepticism has hindered deconstructionism's influence among
biblical scholars. P. D. Miscall is an Old Testament scholar who has read Genesis
12 and 1 Samuel 16-22 from a deconstructionist perspective. His "close reading" of
the text exposes what he believes are the ambiguities, ambivalences, and gaps of the
narrative. He concludes that no consistent reading is possible for rhe characters
Abraham or David. He reads the text as "decidedly undecidable," which means
there is no determinative meaning, wherher it be authorial, phenomenological,
structuralist, or existentialist. The indeterminateness of the text prevents a definitive
reading and a coherent one; there can be no historical or theological or ideological
meaning.
3.3 Canon Criticism
We turn now to a criticism which is better known among biblical scholars because it
was introduced by one of its own members and is uniquely suited to biblical studies.
Canon criticism can be better apprehended by the student in light of what we have
discovered up to this point since it shares fearures of the literary approaches. The
seminal work of canon criticism is B. S. Childs' Biblical Theology in Crisis, which
outlined a new direction in biblical interpretation. His contention was mat the
development of historical-critical methods had created a crisis in rhe possibility of
doing biblical rheology, He set forth a new agenda to save the discipline of biblical
theology by giving it a new basis. This new beginning point is the extant canon
which functions as the normative expression of religious faith by the believing
communities of Judaism and Christianiry. The proper stance of the critic toward the
Bible, contends Childs, is a person of faith within the communiry who views the
text as "Scripture." Thus, Childs' Introduction focuses on the text in its final form as
a fixed religious canon. 58 fu "religious" texts they are only properly interpreted
when related to the fuller affirmations espoused by synagogue and church. In other
words, the present canonical shape provides the interpretive framework for the
expositor's reading.
Childs acknowledges his criticism shares with the synchronic literary approaches
whose emphasis is the integrity of the text. Yet he insists canon criticism differs
from such studies by its relating the text to a community of faith. Canon criticism is
driven by theology, he says, not literary categories for their own sake. Approaching
the text as "Scripture" gives the text its referential orientation in the roots of historic
Israel whereas synchronic studies view the Bible as non-referential. Nevertheless,
126
Childs speaks of canonical context in the sense of its literary context, not its
historical. Childs distances his analysis from historical-critical methods by insisting
that only the canon, that is, the final form and arrangement of the biblical texts, can
serve Functionally as a hermeneutical norm. He opposes the fragmentation of the
text as typically achieved by historical criticism.
Childs does not deny the efficacy of historical-critical methods when it comes to
answering historical questions, but he believes such methods cannot provide an
adequate basis for doing theology. In his opinion, the failure of historical criticism
is its restriction of textual meaning to the past. A rival voice within this movement
is J. A. Sanders whose work has much in common with Childs but which differs at
significant points. Sanders agrees that historical criticism effectively cut the Bible
off from the very communities that revered it. He comments, "For some the Bible
has become a sort of archaeological tell which only experts can dig. He adds that
the old criticism assumed that the original meaning of the text alone had a valid
meaning worthy of "scientific" study. Consequently, such interpreters gave the
original context, as reconstructed by form criticism, the only authoritative meaning.
This false notion of authority encouraged a deconstruction of the canon where the
layers of canonical shaping given by the faith corrununities were systematically
stripped away. Sanders also agrees with Childs that an adequate hermeneutic
requires relating the literature to the historic communities of faith. Thus, they
concur that the concept of canon is not merely the closure of a sacred list but how
the canon functioned within community.
Sanders, unlike Childs, sees canon criticism as a natural extension of the historical-
critical methods. Canon as a process for Childs is limited to the period once the text
was stabilized. Sanders believes that the proper canonical context is not solely the
final form of the text but also includes the prior successive stages of the canonical
process in its historical development. Sanders disagrees with Childs that there is one
canon, but rather he contends for many canons. Historical tools, therefore, are
needed to isolate the various stages of canonical development, tracing the function
of those traditions that finally reside in the extant canon. For this reason Sanders
insists on the terminology "canonical" criticism, as opposed to canon criticism,
because he believes that the canonical process is a continuum operating along the
same dynamics whether in the past (intrabiblical) or among the Jewish and
Christian communiry life settings today. He sees canonical shaping reaching
beyond the stabilization of the text, for he believes that the on-going history of
hermeneutics continues along the same basic tenets as the canonical processes in
antiquity.
Both Childs and Sanders make it clear their call for canon or canonical criticism is
not a return to pre-critical traditionalism. Their work presupposes the advances of
historical-critical studies, particularly the work of Sanders. Canon criticism does not
provide solace for "fundamentalism." Childs does not encourage the pre-critical
practices of allegory or harmonization practiced by the church fathers and
reformers. Unlike evangelical scholarship, he admits the canon possesses
theological and historical disagreements, but unlike historical critics he seeks to
127
discover a coherent: meaning within the parameters of the community’s vision of

the whole. He shows how the church successfully read the Bible despite its
incongruities.
Evangelical scholars can applaud some consequences of Childs' and Sanders'

efforts. (1) The correction of historical criticism, that is, its "decanonizing" of the
text, is long overdue. (2) Childs' affirmation that the text is Scripture which can be
and should be read as a cohesive whole is refreshing among critical scholars. (3)
Childs acknowledges that the extant text provides the normative reading for
understanding the text as opposed to the historical critic's specious "original"
meaning. (4) The canonical method encourages evangelical scholars to look at
passages in their whole biblical context, permitting them to impact and be impacted
by the whole. The evangelical approach to canon understands the Hebrew Bible as
"Old Testament," which affirms the genetic relationship between the Old and New.
"Where canon criticism fails is its continued dependence on historical-critical

conclusions, though it curbs its excesses. Also, the opinion that the original
meaning of a passage has been significantly altered in the development of the canon
is unfounded. Rather, the canonical shaping of a passage unveils the already-present
meaning ~Iatent) which is clarified and deepened by the intra-biblical commentary.''
4.0 Conclusion
A message is encoded and sent by a speaker, then received and decoded by a

listener. Similarly, a writer encodes a message in a text which is then read and
decoded by a reader. The recognition that hearers or readers are involved in the
reception of messages, though not a new insight, has become much more prominent
in recent critical discussion. Previously, most attention had been given to trying to
discover what the text said or what the author intended. Now it is recognized that
the reader’s input may significantly affect his understanding of the message. It is of
course, obvious that if a reader is a poor Hebraist, he or she could easily
misunderstand an OT text. Or if a reader were insensitive to genre, he or she might
misunderstand parable of the Good Samaritan as history. Reading incompetence
will lead to misinterpretation. But the reader contributes much more than this. The
reader brings to the text the pre-understanding, the questions, the cultural
assumptions, the religious and ethical convictions, that are bound to affect his
conclusions.
5.0 Summary
This unit studied: Reader-Response Criticism: What is it?; Deconstructionism; and

Canon Criticisms.
 Give a brief description of Deconstructionism as a form of biblical criticism
 Canon Criticism is the brain child of B. S. Childs. Discuss
128
David S. Dockery; Kenneth A Matthews; Robert B. Sloan (eds), Foundations for

Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources.

40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
11/6/12.
129
Unit 2: Reader-Response Criticism (contd)

Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objective
3.0 Main body
3.1 Audience Criticism
3.2 Indeterminacy
3.3 Ideological criticism
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
This unit is a continuation of reader-response criticism. It gives a quick overview of
the following: Audience criticism, Indeterminacy; and Ideological Criticism.
2.0 Objectives
 Discuss the dynamics of Audience criticism, Indeterminacy and Ideological

Criticisms.
3.0 Main Body
3.1 Audience Criticism
When prophets preached, or apostles wrote epistles, they were addressing real
people with particular outlooks and problems which the writer tried to address.
Sometimes these beliefs were explicitly referred to, as Paul does in writing to the
Corinthians: he seems to have received a letter to which 1 Cor. is a reply. In the
case of Amos, there are few allusions to what his hearers were thinking, but if we
are to make sense of the book’s message, we must read it as a kind of dialogue
between and his listeners. Though the term ‘audience criticism’ is new, scholars
have long been aware of the importance of establishing the original situation a text
envisages if it is to be correctly understood.
130
3.2 Indeterminacy
It is one thing to envisage the situation of the original readers: they knew the writer,
his language, and the situation he was addressing. But the situation of the 20th
century reader is different. There are many ‘gaps’ in the text, that is, things left
unsaid, which a modern reader must supply. And different readers will fill these
gaps in different ways. Can we be sure who is right on how these gaps should be
filled? The world of ideas we inhabit is quite different from the biblical, and our
knowledge of the original setting of the texts is so patchy that we may completely
misconstrue them. Furthermore, according to deconstructionists, there are
contradictions within texts, which make establishing a determinate meaning
impossible.
3.3 Ideological criticism
Not only is it very difficult for moderns to understand the biblical world, but it must
be recognized that our preconceptions affect our reading of the text. Rather than
pretend that we have no pre-understanding that we bring to the text, ideological
critics believe that they should be openly acknowledged and that their effect on our
readings be explored. One may approach the text as a materialist or a vegetarian.
What would materialists make of the frequent references to the supernatural in the
Bible? How would a vegetarian react to the concept of animal sacrifice? Criticism
of biblical texts from these perspectives is rare, but liberationist/Marxist and
Feminist criticism is much more popular. Liberationists insists that texts be read
from the standpoint of the poor and oppressed in the Third World, not, as is often
done, from the standpoint of the comfort of the Western middle classes. What do
the texts have to say about poverty and oppression? Feminist critics urge that texts
be read from a woman’s standpoint. Some insist that texts should be evaluated
against the principles of modern feminism and the patriarchy of many biblical
passages exposed. Others merely highlight those passages that acknowledge the
equality of the sexes or laud women’s achievements.
4.0 Conclusion
The issues raised by modern criticism are highly complex and cannot be adequately
dealt with here. Though author-centred approaches have dominated biblical studies
for more than two centuries, and still do, there is much more validity in the other
critical methods than has been recognized. In particular, the –oriented approaches
offer much of great value. Studies emanating from this school are gold mines of
exegetical insight. Though many proponents of this school have wanted to divorce
text from author and historical context, this is not really possible when we are
reading an ancient text.
Reader-oriented approaches have drawn proper attention to the subjective input of

the reader to all criticism. All readers come with their own agenda and
preconceptions, which will inevitably colour their reading of a text. But this does
not mean all readings are equally valid, or that texts are of indeterminate meaning.
If that happened in everyday life, we should cease to communicate. Obviously, it is
131
easier to understand friends than those we meet for the first time, or those who
speak a foreign language. But that does not mean we cannot understand someone or
text better if we work at it.
Reader-oriented critics are right to draw attention to the ideology of the reader.
What we bring to a text in the way of assumptions and questions will influence
what we find in them. It is the postmodern world, where all truth is held to be
relative, this does mean that any ideology may be brought to a text. But from a
Christian perspective, there is only one God and therefore truth must be one, too. So
it is essential for Christian critics to approach the text with a Christian ideology, not
a secular one, or we will read against the grain of the text, imposing our own ideas
on the bible instead of letting it address us with God’s message for us. Its agenda is
to show us how to love God with all our heart, soul and mind, and our neighbour as
ourselves. Unless we readers make that our priority, we are likely to distort its
meaning at many points.
5.0 Summary
This Unit studied the remaining types of Reader-centred approaches in biblical

criticism, namely: Audience Criticism; Indeterminacy; and Ideological Criticisms.
 Write short notes on:
o Audience Criticism;
o Indeterminacy; and
o Ideological Criticisms
David S. Dockery; Kenneth A Matthews; Robert B. Sloan (eds), Foundations for

Biblical Interpretation: A Complete Library of Tools and Resources.

40, No. 1 (Jul., 1912), pp. 17-30
11/6/12.
132
Unit 3: Some Other Hermeneutical Issues and Approaches (Adapted

from CTH 711)
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Sensus Plenior
3.2 Hermeneutical Circle
3.3 Socio-Critical Hermeneutics
3.4 Reader – Response Hermeneutics
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
6.0 Tutor – Marked Assignments
7.0 References and Further Readings
1.0 Introduction
What will be done in this unit is to further discuss some of the Hermeneutical
issues and other approaches, namely, Sensus Plenior, Hermeneutical circle, socio-
cultural Hermeneutics and reader – response Hermeneutics.
2.0 Objectives
It is hoped that by the end of this unit, you should be able to:
 Explain the perennial problem of Sensus Plenior in Biblical

Hermeneutics,
 Discuss the Hermeneutical circle in modern Biblical
interpretation,
 Describe and analyse socio-cultural Hermeneutics and reader-response
Hermeneutics.
3.0 Main Body
3.1 Sensus Plenior
One perennial issue in biblical interpretation is the question of whether a particular

text has single meaning or multiple sense. Some scholars are of the opinion that
several scriptures (especially Old Testament) do have
a fuller sense (called Sensus Plenior). In contemporary study Raymond E. Brown
133
popularized the study and he defined Sensus Plenior as “that additional, deeper
meaning intended by God but not clearly intended by the human author which is seen
to exist in the words of a biblical text (or a group of texts or events or a whole book)
when they are studied in the light of further revelation or development in the
understanding of revelation”.
This controversy is based on the understanding that the Bible has double authorship,
divine and human. It means that there may be fuller sense of a text meant by the divine
author not known to the human author. For example, was Daniel aware that his dream
(Daniel 2:31-35) which was interpreted in verses 36-45 would have a later ultimate
fulfillment in Jesus Christ? (Rev. 19:17-21).
Some aspects of Sensus Plenior concern interpretation of allegory prophecy as well as

typology and it will be done later.
Self – Assessment Exercise
What do you understand by the concept of Sensus Plenior in biblical hermeneutics?
3.2 Hermeneutical Circle
Hermeneutical circle can be defined as the process involved between the question (and
prior understanding) that an interpreter brings into a text and the dialogue with
subsequent questions reshaped or raised by the text (along with enlargement of
understanding). This definition implies that interpreters do not approach the Bible
text “neutrally, rather they move within a Hermeneutical circle.”
David J. Bosch (1997, p.423) explained the same point further: “Interpreting a text is
not only a literary exercise, it is also a social, economic and political exercise. Our
entire context comes unto play when we interpret a Biblical text.”
The various dimensions, types of Hermeneutical circle are: One, between the parts of a
text and the whole or context,
Two, between the past (historical conditions) and the present,
Three, between the text and the context of worldview/human situation,
Four, between theory (orthodoxy) and practice (orthopraxis),
Five, between linguistic level (the scientific consideration of grammar and
vocabulary) and psychological experience (the
interpreter has to enter into psychological rapport with the author), Six, between
revelation (faith) and reason (logic).
Write a short note on the Hermeneutical circle.
3.3 Socio-Critical Hermeneutics
134
In social sciences Hermeneutical explorations have called attention to the role of

‘interest’ in interpreting texts. Those interests have to do with social assumptions
and practices. Examples of contemporary socio-cultural Hermeneutics are liberation,
feminist and black theologies that interpret Biblical texts about the
poor/slavery/oppression, women and the black race, respectively.
Socio-critical Hermeneutics is an integral part of the methodology adopted for

liberation theology. Liberation theologians interpret the Christian faith from the
perspective of the poor, oppressed and marginalized. Three-part Hermeneutical
agenda of liberation theology, according to Klein and Others (1993, 45) are:
Experience taking precedence over theory. The reference is to the experience of

injustice, poverty, suffering, etc in the Third-world, Attempts to analyse or assess the
reason for the impoverishment, Precedence of action over rhetoric.
Feminism, women voices in liberation theology, is concerned with the exploited sex.
In some feminist Hermeneutics the Bible is accepted as only one of the sources of
authority. Others are experience, tradition and intellectual research. The experience
refers to the oppression of women.
It should be clarified, however that there are different and diverse models and
agenda within the feminist hermeneutical group. While some are biblical and
liberal others are social, radical and reject the biblical, Christian faith and theology for
been hopelessly chauvinist.
In black theology the focus of liberation is freedom from racist oppression. Black
theology emerged in the late 1960s as “a new reading of the black socio-political
condition in the light of God’s revelation in Christ Jesus” (Copeland, 1987, 138).
The idea developed in the USA and South Africa from black consciousness and black
power due to the experience of racial oppression of black people. Some black
theologians like J. H. Core endorse the use of violence to achieve liberation.
 Describe and analyse socio-critical Hermeneutics in liberation

Theology.
3.4 Reader-Response Hermeneutics
The reader-response approach to Hermeneutics has become more prominent in the

early 1970s. It “stresses the reciprocal relation between the text and the reader. This
is opposed to an earlier emphasis on the autonomy at the text” (Corley and Others,
1996, p.137). Paul Ricoeur (1913) has explored the role of suspicion in interpretation
of dreams, symbols and languages. He has also examined metaphors and theories
of signs (called semiotics). The active role of the reader in creating meaning is being
investigated in literary and biblical hermeneutic. This is what is called reader-
response hermeneutics. The full meaning of the text is to be supplied by the reader.
135
This makes reader-response hermeneutics to be subjective and relativistic.
One issue close to the centre of current hermeneutical debate is what Ricoeur called
the ‘career’ of the biblical texts after leaving the hands of the authors. This idea
appears to go along with some aspects of biblical criticism.
 Discuss Paul Ricoeur’s idea of reader-response hermeneutics.
4.0 Conclusion
One recurrent issue in the history of Biblical Hermeneutics is whether a scripture has
one or multiple sense or meaning. The issue is studied in contemporary interpretation
with the term fuller sense (Sensus Plenior). Hermeneutical circle is a modern process
that arose from the work of Friedrich Schleiermacher. Two contemporary approaches
in the interpretation of biblical texts are socio-critical and reader-response.
5.0 Summary
This unit has considered some other Hermeneutical issues and approaches not
discussed in the previous units. These are Sensus Plenior, Hermeneutical circle,
socio-cultural Hermeneutics and reader- response Hermeneutics.
6.0 Tutor – Marked Assignment Questions
 Write short notes on two of the following issues and approaches in

contemporary Biblical Hermeneutics:
o Sensus Plenior,
o Hermeneutical circle,
o Socio-critical Hermeneutics,
o Reader – response Hermeneutics.
Virkler, Henry A. (1981) Hermeneutics, pp. 25-27

Akano, J. O. (2003) “Sensus Plenior: Matters Arising” BETFA, Number 2, pp. 10-17.
Nihinlola, Emiola (1997) The Task of Bible Interpretation, pp. 46-49. Bosch, David J.
(1997), Transforming Mission. Maryknoll, New York:Orbis Books, p. 423.
Corley, Bruce and Others (1996), Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 137-140. Klein, William
W. and Others (1993), Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics, pp. 450-457.
Copeland M. Shawn, OP (1987) “Black Theology” The New Dictionary of Christian
Theology, p. 138.
136
Unit 4: Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 The Torah subsumes a composite of literary works
3.2 Mid 1980s and 1990s
3.3 Crisis in Faith
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
1.0 Introduction
This unit is a selection of articles on recent trends on biblical criticism. It is aimed at
reinforcing the lessons of previous units on the subject.
2.0 Objectives
 At the end of the unit, you should be able to know the recent trends in biblical
source criticism
3.0 Main Body
3.1 The Torah subsumes a composite of literary works

. . . all hypotheses are working proposals until confirmed in detail, and . . .
many must be discarded while others will require drastic overhauling in the
face of new evidence. There is a grave temptation to hold on to a hypothesis
that has served well in the past, and the more serious temptation to bend
data to fit, or to dismiss what cannot be accommodated into the system. The
commitment must always be to observable or discoverable data, and not to a
hypothesis, which is always expendable (Freedman).
In the 19th century, scholars of the Bible posited the Documentary Hypothesis.
According to this theory, the Torah subsumes a composite of literary works, or sources,
instead of being the work of a single author. Proponents of this theory, the "sources
critics," identify these sources by highlighting sections of the Torah that display
different writing styles, ideological assumptions, word choice, particularly with regard
to Divine names, and any number of other differences. Source critics attribute the
sources to authors coming from different time periods and ideological backgrounds,
137
and have named them "J" (for passages that use the Tetragrammaton),"E" (for passages
that
use Elohim), "P" (Priestly) and "D" (Deuteronomist). Until recently, this theory was
considered the unshakable bedrock upon which any academic Bible study was to be
proposed.
3.2 Mid 1980s and 1990s
The mid-1980s and the early 1990s witnessed a resurgence of biblical scholars
challenging, revising, and even rejecting the Documentary Hypothesis. First and
foremost, scholars relinquished claims to a scientific methodology. In Empirical
Models for Biblical Criticism,2 Jeffery Tigay insists that "The degree of subjectivity
which such hypothetical [source critical] procedures permit is notorious." In fact, he
characterizes these procedures as "reading between the lines." Moreover, Edward
Greenstein maintains that source critical analysis is analogous to the blind men and the
elephant: "Each of five blind men approaches a different part of an elephant's anatomy.
Perceiving only part of the elephant, each man draws a different conclusion as to the
identity of what he encounters."3 According to the preceding remarks, not only are
source critical methods subjective, but also account for only a fraction of the total
evidence. Especially when analyzing a literary corpus "as bulky and complex as an
elephant,"4 a system which fails to consider all the evidence, and wherein "scholars
shape the data into the configurations of their own imagination"5 hardly warrants the
label scientific. While surveying many conflicting proposals for the nature of the
hypothetical
sources, Gerhard Larsson gives a more specific account of the methodological
shortcomings. He says that:
. . . there is no sound objective method for recognizing the different sources,
there is also no real consensus about the character and extent of sources like
J and E, [and] no unity concerning limits between original sources and the
insertions made by redactors. Rather, as Greenstein says, "each scholar
defines and adapts the evidence according to his own point of view." Such
an approach not only yields results which are, as Tigay highlights,
"hypothetical (witness the term 'documentary hypothesis')," but, as David
Noel Freedman declares, allows and encourages, "the pages of our literature
[to be] filled with endless arguments between scholars who simply reiterate
their prejudices.’
The lack of a sound and rigorous methodology leads scholars to produce varying and
even contradictory theories, which ultimately undermine the enterprise as a whole. In
addition to Wellhausen's four sources J, E, P, and D, some scholars speculate about
sources labeled Lay (L), Nomadic (N), Kenite (K), Southern or Seir (S) and the
"foundational source" Grundlage (G). Not only do scholars multiply the number of
sources, some, applying the same methodology, fragment J, E, P, and D into further
subdivisions, and view these documents as products of "schools" which "shaped and
reshaped these documents by further additions." After summarizing the different
opinions, Pauline Viviano says,
138
The more "sources" one finds, the more tenuous the evidence for the existence of
continuous documents becomes, and the less likely that four unified documents ever
existed. Even for those able to avoid skepticism and confusion in the face of the ever
increasing number of sources, the only logical conclusion seems to be to move away
from [Wellhausen's] Documentary Hypothesis toward a position closer to the
Fragmentary Hypothesis.
In addition to being a victim of its own ambition, the Documentary Hypothesis
suffered many challenges, from the time of its inception through contemporary
scholarship. Scholars have contested and even refuted the arguments from Divine
names, doublets, contradictions, late words, late morphology, Aramaisms, and every
other aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis.
3.3 Crisis in Faith
As a result, some scholars denounce source criticism en toto, while others posit
alternate hypotheses. However, one wonders if these hypotheses will not share the
same fate as the ones they just disproved. These problems have brought source
criticism to a sad state. In Greenstein's words, "Many contemporary Biblicists are
experiencing a crisis in faith . . . . The objective truths of the past we increasingly
understand as the creations of our own vision."He continues, "all scholarship relies on
theories and methods that come and go, and . . . modern critical approaches are no
more or less than our own midrash."16 This "crisis," or "breakdown" to use Jon
Levenson's characterization, has encouraged droves of scholars to study the Bible
synchronically, a method which effectively renders source criticism irrelevant.
Among other advantages, the synchronic method of biblical study encourages scholars
to detect textual phenomena which, upon reflection, seem obvious, but have not been
recognized until recently. Levenson explains these recent detections as follows:
Many scholars whose deans think they are studying the Hebrew Bible are, instead,
concentrating on Syrio-Palestinian archeology, the historical grammar of Biblical
Hebrew, Northwest Semitic epigraphy, or the like – all of which are essential, but no
combination of which produces a Biblical scholar. The context often supplants the text
and, far worse, blinds the interpreters to features of the text that their method has not
predisposed them to see.
This statement could not be truer when referring to source criticism, and to this end
Larsson says, albeit in a harsher tone: "Source criticism obscures the analysis. Only
when the text is considered as a whole do the special features and structures of the final
version emerge."
4.0 Conclusion
The rediscovery of the Bible's special features and structures has proven to be
extremely rewarding in its own right, and, in addition, it has recurrently forced scholars
to revise and even reject source critical theories. Larrson states this latter statement
quite clearly: "Many scholars have found that when the different [patriarchal] cycles
are studied in depth it is no longer possible to support the traditional documentary
hypothesis."19 Even the Flood narrative, traditionally explained as two independent
strands (J and P) woven together, has been unified by scholars who perceive a literary
139
structure integrating the various sections of the story.20 In fact, a statistical analysis of
linguistic features in Genesis lead by Yehuda Radday and Haim Shore demonstrates
that
. . . with all due respect to the illustrious documentarians past and present,
there is massive evidence that the pre-biblical triplicity of Genesis, which
their line of thought postulates to have been worked over by a late and gifted
editor into a trinity, is actually a unity.
5.0 Summary
This unit discussed the current trends in biblical source criticism under the following
subheadings: the Torah subsumes a composite of literary works; Mid 1980s and 1990s;
and Crisis in Faith

 Evaluate the developments of biblical criticism in the mid 1980s and 1990s.
7.0 References/Future Readings

D. Freedman, Divine Commitment and Human Obligation: Selected Writings of David
Noel
Freedman. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1997) p. 160.
J. Tigay, Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. (Philidelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 1985)
E. Greenstein, "Formation of the Biblical Narrative Corpus," AJS Review 15,1 (1990)
p. 164.
David Stern, ‘Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism’, Jewish Bible Quaterly, Vol.
36, No. 3, 2008
140
Unit 5: Recent Trends in Biblical Source Criticism
Contents
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Objectives
3.0 Main Content
3.1 Nature and Scope of Early studies
3.2 Historical criticism challenges the chronology.
3.3 The spectrum of studies embraces the cultural context
3.4 The Influence of social locations on religious tenets and positions.
3.5 Cultural Categories
4.0 Conclusion
5.0 Summary
8.0 Introduction
TODAY, CULTURAL STUDIES ARE OPENING new vistas in our readings of the
prophets, bringing the variety and complexity of these biblical traditions into rich
engagement with the multiplicity of our contemporary situations and concerns. The
developing story of biblical scholarship on the prophets shows how we have come to
our present perspective and sheds light on its significance. This is the focus of this unit.
9.0 Objectives
 Appreciate the variety and complexity of biblical traditions in conversation with
contemporary situations.
10.0 Main Body
10.1 Nature and Scope of Early studies
Studies on the biblical prophets have taken various routes over the past centuries. How
prophecy arose in Israel, the formation of the prophetic books, the distinction between
authentic and inauthentic sayings of individual prophets, the problem of false prophecy
- these have been among the many focuses for study. Amidst this variety of topics, the
relationship of the law to the prophets has commanded much attention and best
exemplifies the nature and scope of early studies. The sacral traditions of the
141
Pentateuch, particularly the law and covenant, have long been recognized as
intrinsically interwoven in the prophetic writings - as formative for them.
Early studies on the prophets During the nineteenth century, pre-critical scholarship
assumed the Pentateuch to be chronologically prior to the rest of the biblical writings.
Hence, the prophets' extensive engagement with materials from the Pentateuch was
viewed as commentary on that treasury of sacred traditions. The prophetic message
was understood to be derived from and built on the premise of the prophets' recalling
of God's liberating action in the wilderness, the divine revelation at Sinai, the
bestowing of the commandments, the binding nature of covenant - in short, the entire
sacred heritage of the Pentateuch. When Jeremiah condemned the spiritual bankruptcy
of cultic and religious formalism, he reminded the people, 'Yahweh, the God of Israel,
says t h i s . . . "For when I brought your ancestors out of the land of Egypt, I said
nothing to them, gave them no orders, about holocaust and sacrifice"' (Jer 7:21-22).
Similarly, Hosea's condemnation of Israel's promiscuous political policies grew out of
a rehearsal of the events of the past. 'When Israel was a child I loved them, and I called
my child out of Egypt. But the more I called to them, the further they went from me'
(Hos 11:1-2). Rather than being innovators in their own right, the prophets were
viewed as reformers who, from the eighth century onward, summoned Israel to
remember all that God had already done and to remain faithful to the sacral traditions
and the promises made of old.
10.2 Historical criticism challenges the chronology.
With the advent of historical criticism at the beginning of this century, and particularly
the work of Graf-Wellhansen on the sources for the Pentateuch, the assumptions of an
early date for the Pentateuch as a whole were summarily dismantled. This kind of
investigation, well known today as 'source criticism', identified at least four different
strands making up the Pentateuch (Yahwist, Elohist, Denteronomist, and Priestly). It
established them as being composed some time from the era of Solomon (c. 900 BCE)
on down through the post-exilic period (540 BCE). Of particular importance for the
work on the prophets was the late date assigned to the Priestly tradition or 'P'. The P
material, much of which includes law and covenant traditions, was previously thought
to have originated in the late exilic and post-exilic period in conjunction with the
formation of Judaism. Suddenly, as a consequence of this historical criticism, the
prophets' relationship to the law had to be drarnatically reconceived. Scholars taking
extreme positions hurried to redefine the prophets as creators of the law, as the authors
of the sacral traditions themselves, even of the Very idea of covenant. Such positions
erupted out of the enthusiasm for critical study of the Bible and, in particular, for
source critical studies. However, in his Prolegomena, Wellhausen himself argued that
while such material as P may not have been composed until quite late, the legal
traditions that make up P may well have existed in early periods in various other forms.
By the middle of our century, a more qualified and refined position prevailed on the
prophets and their relation to law. Building upon the findings of source investigations,
form critics led by Hermann Gunkel attempted to trace the development of the
Pentateuchal traditions back to their earliest oral formulations. At the same time,
tradition critics such as Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth mapped the accumulation of
these early forms that collectively led up to the development of the four Pentateuchal
142
strands. Consequently, the cumulative results of these sources of historical criticism

made clear that the early developmental stages of Pentateuchal traditions predated at
least the classical prophets of the eighth century (e.g., Amos, Hosea, Isaiah).
While most scholars agreed that by the time of the prophetic era in Israel many of the
traditions concerning Moses, Exodus and the covenant, and especially much of the law,
had already taken shape, they did not return to the precritical view that the prophets
were merely commentators on these traditions. Von Rad's second volume of Old
Testament theology in the 1960s best represented the reigning position on law and
prophets: it integrated the findings of the first half of this century while avoiding any
extremist claims. He argued that while the prophets and their message were indebted to
the sacral Pentateuchal traditions that preceded them, the prophets also interpreted and
appropriated the traditions for their own time and setting. Hence, the prophets both
depended upon the early formulations and gave shape to the subsequent final edition of
these traditions.
The preoccupation of historical criticism with the law and prophets during the first half
of this century had a limiting impact on studies on the prophetic writings. Most
notably, the direction and shape of research on the biblical prophets was all too often
dependent upon the current state of research on the Pentateuch. The impact of other,
equally formative factors upon the prophets and their message has gone largely
unacknowledged and thus unresearched. Social theorists such as Max Weber argued
that the emergence of Israel's prophets and their message was conditioned by Israel's
political realities; the investigations of biblical critics remained focused upon such
matters as composition history, authenticity of the prophets' words, and relation to
sacral Pentateuchal traditions.
10.3 The spectrum of studies embraces the cultural context
In the late sixties, reservations about the adequacy of historical criticism as a whole
emancipated the research on biblical prophets from the previously dominant questions
and preoccupations, and enabled it to turn its attention elsewhere. Scholars began to
consider the prophets and their message as being intimately tied to a culture, and
influenced and shaped by that culture.
Questions regarding sources, literary genres and tradition history were all but replaced
with a different kind of inquiry: what were the material living conditions of the people
to whom the prophets spoke? Was there a social institution known as 'prophecy'?
Where did this institution fit into the social structure of the society? What was the
relationship between prophet and cult? What was the prophet's relationship to political
forces and the hegemony of different kings?
Today, as scholars wrestle with these fundamental questions, they do so through the
understanding of a host of disciplines - anthropological criticism, sociological
approaches, social science criticism, cultural anthropological studies etc. Collectively
they constitute 'cultural studies'. Theories and approaches from the disciplines of
economics, anthropology, communication, psychology and sociology become the
lenses through which to view these individuals and their writings. As a result, social,
economic and cultural features of the texts and their context become central while the
preoccupation with the religious or theological significance in isolation from other
143
cultural factors recedes. Prophecy is considered as a social institution rather than as a

private religious call. The conventional notion of prophet as spokesperson for Yahweh
is replaced with attention to the roles the prophets play in society.
Drawing upon anthropological studies and role theory, David Petersen defines the
prophets' relationship to society along two lines. The first arises out of the individual's
kinship with socially oppressed or underprivileged populations. Petersen investigates
prophetic figures like Elijah and Elisha as advocates for such social groups with whom
they are allied. By contrast, the second type is not clearly identified with any group or
alliance and emerges in a time when society is under pressure or in crisis. Jeremiah and
Isaiah, who function relatively independently in and around Jerusalem in response to
national crisis, are good examples.
Similarly, Robert Wilson investigates the social role of prophets as intermediaries
between the complexities of the sociocultural world and the elusiveness of the divine
world. 6 Wilson examines this social function of intermediation by studying other
comparable societies with similar specialists such as the shaman, diviner or medium.
He distinguishes two groups among Israel's prophets, 'peripheral' and 'central'
intermediaries, each with characteristic maintenance functions in the society. With the
rise of monarchy those prophets who once had important social roles, such as
responsibilities of cult, became peripheral, divested of their duties. As peripheral
prophets, they championed the concerns of small support groups and worked to change
the prevailing social structure. By contrast, central prophets worked within the
establishment of monarchy. Concerned with fostering the status quo, they worked to
bring about any necessary changes in an orderly and regulated fashion. Wilson enlists
communication theory and anthropological parallels in support and development of
these 'peripheral' and 'central' categories. In turn, these investigations serve to deepen
our understanding of an individual prophet's social location and function within
society.
10.4 The Influence of social locations on religious tenets and positions.
Building upon this work, Wilson also studies conflict between prophets such as the
dispute between Jeremiah and Hananiah (Jer 27---28). Jeremiah advocates surrender of
Jerusalem to the Babylonians while Hananiah predicts that God will deliver Jerusalem
from the Babylonian threat. Wilson shows that the theological clash between the two
prophets has much to do with their different social locations and different groups of
supporters. Jeremiah is a peripheral prophet who with his small group of supporters
stands against the political and religious establishment in Jerusalem. Hananiah, a
central prophet, plays an important role in the Jerusalem-based temple and royal
institution. In both instances, the prophet's relation to the capital city appears bound to
their vision of its future. Hence, Wilson contextualizes the conflict and shows how
social location in culture and community affects one's religious tenets and positions.
Burke Long also investigates prophetic conflict by using parallels from shaman studies,
s Investigations on disputes among shamans show that these conflicts may have
something to do with an individual's credibility among peers, maintaining one's social
position in a community, or, in some instances, readying the community for necessary
social change. Informed by these anthropological parallels, Long's study on Jeremiah
144
makes clear that not only is conflict an essential and formative element in prophetic
activity but that the conflict is much more complex than a mere dispute over a religious
issue. It establishes the integrity and credibility of a prophet and may also serve as an
instrument for provoking social change. Moreover, beyond what these investigations
reveal about prophetic conflict, Long's work discourages distortions that arise when
matters such as disputes between prophets are treated solely as religious clashes and
isolated from other forms of social discourse and concerns.
In another study, Robert Carroll makes use of cognitive dissonance theory from social
psychology to interpret prophets. Cognitive dissonance is the description of how
individuals, in this case, the prophets, react to contradictions or clashes between
expectations and reality, between what they think will happen and what actually
occurs. Attention to the individual's conscious perception of their own work in relation
to the larger world explains the discordant elements. For example, the discordant
elements in Isaiah of Jerusalem's call (Isai 6:9-13) stem from the prophet's response to
the failure of his proclamation. Similarly, Jeremiah, having been faithful to his call
while at the same time being rejected by his own people for his prophetic activity,
wonders whether he has been deceived by God (Jer 15:15-18). Hence, by attending to
the traces of dissonance in Jeremiah's confessions, Carroll discloses the prophet's inner
struggles and conflicts in coming to terms with his role as prophet in Judaean society.
10.5 Cultural Categories
This shift towards the study of the biblical prophets by cultural categories has been
significant. First, it has radically qualified our understanding of the individual prophets
and their messages. Hence today our reading of Amos is intrinsically bound up with
whether we think of Amos as a peasant farmer from a southern garrison town, as a
Jewish nationalist, or as a landholding entrepreneur from the Tekoa with material
interests in the North. Second, investigations regarding both prophecy as institution
and the cultural role of individual prophets contribute to our understanding of the
dynamics, conflicts and power relations of Israelite society. The instance of Jeremiah's
response to Josiah's religions reform is illustrative. King Josiah has instituted a
comprehensive religious reform supposedly motivated by the finding of the law book
during temple renovations (2 Kg 22 23). Interpreted by Huldah the prophet, the law
book reveals how far the king and people have strayed from covenant fidelity, with
regard to apostasy. In response, Josiah orders all local shrines to be dismantled, altars
honouring foreign deities to be destroyed and the high places abolished, along with
many other cultic changes. Jeremiah's silence concerning this major religious overhaul
is curious, and thus often explained as an error in chronology - that Jeremiah was not
really prophesying during Joshiah's reign as king. However, this national renewal had
consequences that extended beyond the cult. Many peasants who maintained local
shrines lost their jobs. Moreover, the centralization of the cult in Jerusalem also
centralized allegiances and monies in the capital city. Jeremiah’s silence regarding
Josiah's religious reform could be interpreted as disapproval, as well as inviting
consideration of the political motivations and gains accompanying Josiah's plan.
Hence, what a prophet says or, in this case, does not say can contribute to our
investigation and understanding of the complexity of Israelite culture and society.
145
The cultural world grows more complex and particular Recently, there has been
another development. Initially, these investigations tended to explain the social and
cultural dimensions of prophecy in general categories - for example, social location of
prophets as either central or peripheral, or conflict as a formative ingredient in all
prophecy, or intermediation as the defining characteristic of all prophecy. Cultural
anthropological thought has become more sophisticated, turning attention away from
these general features toward a more particular, culturally specific understanding.
Culture itself, with all its component features, is considered 'text'. Pottery, scrolls, a
cultic practice, seals, the biblical text and all cultural artefacts are viewed as 'texts'
inscribed with narrative or story. Hence, the work of anthropologists begins to parallel
the work of literary critics. Both read the narrative of these 'cultural texts' closely for
meaning rather than data.
The work of cultural anthropologist and theorist Clifford Geertz has been especially
influential in bringing about this shift. Borrowing from Max Weber, Geertz defines
culture as 'webs of significance'. Religious, literary, aesthetic and economic
conventions and meanings form these webs. Geertz calls the analysis of these webs
'thick description'. Thick description strives to discover and sort out the webs, to detail
the significant features, layers and networks of prophetic discourse, interactions,
institutions, contexts, behaviours, conventions etc. Thick description burrows deep into
the labyrinth of a prophet's social world. It exposes the incongruities, the contradictions
and the questions embedded within the text. Moreover, these descriptions capture the
uniqueness, significant import and potential meaning of social reality of the Israelite
world for the prophet. Here, the cultural study of the prophetic texts is not just confined
to how the prophets addressed the realities of their culture but also to how culture
shaped and influenced the prophets and their message.
How was Elijah's potential for social advancement intertwined with his activity against
the prophets of Baal? What part did the agricultural policies of the reigning political
party play in Amos' activity in the North? How did Micah's alignment with peasants of
the hill country permeate and shape the production of the tradition assigned to him?
The Prophetic writings are encoded with social data about class configuration and
conflict; about the dynamics of societal roles, behaviours and identities; and about the
functioning power of institutions. Rather than impartial religious treatises, these texts
are viewed as sociocultural artefacts shaped by, inscribed with, and responding to the
particular and prevailing values and ideologies.
Various studies on the Elijah-Elisha traditions exemplify this focus upon these kinds of
intricacies and interchanges. In the biblical account (1 Kg 18), Elijah mounted a
campaign of harassment on Mt Carmel against the religious waywardness in the
Northern Kingdom. He opposed the Baal cult, Jezebel's prophets and Ahab's slaughter
of Yahweh's prophets. But close attention to the intricacies of the discord suggests that
such conflicts involved deeper and broader disputes than mere religious matters. The
prophet's sphere of influence increased according to the extent of his or her victory
over rival intermediaries. Hence, the contest between the deities, Yahweh and Baal, on
Mt Carmel was in fact a competition between prophets, a competition riddled with
social consequences. The end of the story confirms this. Yahweh's fire falling from the
heavens as the sign of Yahweh's victory over Baal is not the conclusion. This comes
146
with Elijah's slaughter of the prophets of Baal. What appears as mere religious
confrontation reveals itself instead as a rivalry fuelled by a complex network of social
issues with significant consequences for these individuals. In another study on the
Elijah tradition, Tamis Hoover Renteria challenges conventional understandings of
Elijah as the model prophet who champions Yahwism and monotheism. 12 Instead she
reveals an individual ensnared in political controversy among the peasants of the
Northern hill country who are resisting oppressive state rule. Her cultural analysis sets
forth much about the struggles and sufferings of the people as well as about the
prophet. It uncovers the experience of women and other oppressed peasant groups of
the ninth century who suffered most under the Omride tyranny. Renteria shows how
the interaction with the prophet empowered these people. Such studies dislodge the
prophets and their religious identity from a lofty place above the fray and locate them
in the thick of the human condition.
The recent work abandons pursuit of the author's intention as the privileged locus of
meaning. It replaces interests in composition history and the authentic words of the
prophet with an analysis of the prophet's discourse in conversation with the broader
social discourse. It retreats from the distinction of text and historical context and
instead views the text as cultural artefact, as a part of or piece of the context. Thus, it
rejects popular but uncritical caricatures of the prophets - destabilizing, outraged or
adversarial - that risk distortion and reduction of the multivalent character of biblical
prophecy. Cultural studies dismantle any notion of a consistent theology - the product
of sacral traditions - to which all the prophets subscribed. It situates the prophet's
religious ideas and theological reflections squarely in the midst of other prevailing
religious, social, economic and cultural ideas and values. Moreover, it understands
these religious ideas as having an impact upon as well as being conditioned by this
amalgam. As the various prophetic traditions are studied in this way, their inherent
reflections on God not only differ from one another and from the sacral traditions of
the past, but they emerge as samples of individual social location and statements of
local theologies.
At the same time as we receive and interpret the prophetic word, whether it be
Jeremiah's condenmation of cult in and around the holy city Jerusalem or Amos'
admonition of the wealthy 61ite in the agricultural milieu of Northern peasant workers,
we do so in the midst of our own location in the current postmodern secular culture.
Interpretation of the prophetic message, as with all the biblical writings, involves us in
that 'hermeneutical circle' that engages both the culturally contextualized understanding
of the prophet's word and a culturally contextualized assessment of ourselves in our
own local setting.
11.0 Conclusion
Meaning once located in the biblical text now appears to arise as a fusion of the
sociocultural horizon of the prophet with our own sociocultural horizon. Attention to
the cultural context of both the prophetic writing and the reader/interpreter opens the
biblical text to a multitude of understandings. But this does not invite anarchy in
interpretation. The responsible contemporary reader is called to mediate between his or
her individual culture and the biblical text after the manner of the prophetic encounter
with the sacral traditions of Israel This is the witness of the prophetic tradition, of the
147
whole biblical tradition: that divine activity first understood in the life of the people of
Israel continues to be recognized in the life of the biblical community and its individual
members in each new age. Attention to culture, both that of the prophets and our own,
makes possible that continuing recognition of the divine.
12.0 Summary
This unit discussed: Nature and Scope of Early studies; Historical criticism challenges
the chronology; the spectrum of studies embraces the cultural context; the Influence of
social locations on religious tenets and positions; and Cultural Categories.
13.0 Tutor Marked Assessment

 Discuss the nature and Scope of Early studies
 Historical criticism challenges the chronology. Discuss
Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the history of ancient Israel (Cleveland/New York:
Meridian Bks, 1965; first published in German in 1878).
Gerhard yon Rad, Old Testament theology volume II, trans D. M. G. Stalker (New
York/San Francisco: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1960).
Robert Wilson, Sociological approaches to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress
Press, 1966), pp 67-80.
148
149
CTH 811 Biblical Criticism
-1-

CRS814 Biblical Criticism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRS814 Biblical Criticism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRS814 Biblical Criticism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NATIONAL OPEN UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA

COURSE TITLE: BIBLICAL CRITICISMS

COURSE TITLE: BIBLICAL CRITICISMS

YEAR OF REVIEW: 2021

What you will learn in this course.................................................................................... v

Course Aims .................................................................................................................... v

Course Objectives ........................................................................................................... vi

Working through this Course .......................................................................................... vi

Course Materials............................................................................................................ vii

Study Units .................................................................................................................... vii

Module 1: Author-Centred Criticism ....................................................................... vii

Module 2: Text-Centred Criticism ........................................................................... vii

Module 3: Reader-Centred Criticism ...................................................................... viii

Textbooks and References ............................................................................................ viii

Assignments File ............................................................................................................ ix

Presentation Schedule ..................................................................................................... ix

Tutor Marked Assignments (TMAS) .............................................................................. ix

Final Examination and Grading ....................................................................................... x

Course Marking Scheme .................................................................................................. x

Course Overview ............................................................................................................. x

How to get the best from this course ............................................................................... xi

Tutors and Tutorials...................................................................................................... xiii

Summary ...................................................................................................................... xiii

CRS814: Biblical Criticism is a one-semester 3 Credit unit course. It will be available

What you will learn in this course

 Examining the definition and tools for Biblical Criticism.

 Showing how a good understanding of the authorship, dating and

 Analyzing the importance of surface features of texts, such as repetition and

 Recognizing that hearers or readers are involved in the reception of

 Discussing the history and relevance of Biblical Criticism in African

 Synchronize the different approaches to biblical criticism, namely: author-

 Acquire some skills in an attempt to reconstruct the ways and means by

Module 1: Author-Centred Approaches

Module 2: Text-Centred Approaches

Unit 1: History of Biblical Criticism

Module 3: Reader-Centred Approaches

Please note that Module 1 focuses on Author-centred approaches, namely: Historical,

Textbooks and References

Tutor Marked Assignments (TMAS)

Final Examination and Grading

Course Marking Scheme

Assignment 1-4 Four assignments, best three marks of the

Final Examination 70% of overall course marks

Total 100% of course marks

Table 1: Course Marking Scheme

7 Textual Criticism (contd) 7 Assignment 7

How to get the best from this course

Tutors and Tutorials

 What is the definition for Biblical Criticism?

 Why is the study of the historical development of Biblical Criticism important?

 How can a good understanding of authorship, dating and transmission of a text

 How can a combination of both diachronic and synchronic approaches facilitate a

MODULE 1: AUTHOR-CENTRED CRITICISM

Unit 1: Introduction – Definition and Need for Biblical Criticism

Unit 1: Introduction – Definition and Need for Biblical Criticism

 Define Biblical Criticism.

 Be acquainted with the tools for doing Biblical Criticism.

3.1 Self-Assessment Exercise

 Define Biblical Criticism. How would you differentiate between “Higher

3.2 The Need for Biblical Criticism