Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook [4 ed.] 9780664266981, 9781646982691, 0664266983

Citation preview

“In this fourth edition of the well-known handbook Biblical Exegesis, Holladay offers a fully revised, freshly updated version of the beloved classic published decades ago. Both comprehensive and comprehensible, this volume is an invaluable guide to the wonderfully complex world of biblical exegesis. It tops my list of recommended resources for new students and experienced pastors alike.” —MICHAL BETH DINKLER, Associate Professor of New Testament, Yale Divinity School

FOURTH EDITION

FOURTH EDITION

“This fourth edition of Biblical Exegesis is an amazing gift of scholarly expertise set to the task of defining biblical exegesis; describing its methods, its histories, its values; and ultimately showing why it matters for biblical and nonbiblical scholars. Biblical Exegesis is a wonderful companion for the exegetical beginner and researcher; it is at home with a student in the classroom or a researcher in the library or a prophet on the streets or a preacher in a house of worship.”   —KENNETH NGWA, Professor of Hebrew Bible, Drew Theological School

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

“Over twenty-five years ago, I purchased the second edition of Biblical Exegesis for my first biblical studies class as a seminarian. My scribbled notes revealed both anxiety about the task in front of me and confidence that this book would help me do the work. This fourth edition, with its up-to-date bibliographies, clear explanations of multiple types of exegesis, revised chapters, and words of encouragement, will give students the same confidence to engage with biblical texts. The book is subtitled A Beginner’s Handbook, but it will help beginners become skilled veterans.” —STACY DAVIS, Professor of Religious Studies and Theology, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A Beginner’s Handbook

“Hayes and Holladay have guided countless students over multiple decades by clearly setting forth the tools and methods involved in reading the biblical text well. There is no better onevolume guide that demystifies biblical exegesis.” —JOSHUA JIPP, Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity International University

This revised edition includes several updated and improved chapters with discussions of emerging methods of interpretation, a fully revised chapter on exegesis with a focus on identity and advocacy, and a new concluding chapter on exegesis as the art of seeing. JOHN H. HAYES † was Franklin N. Parker Professor of Old Testament at Candler

School of Theology of Emory University. His books include A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (with J. Maxwell Miller) and Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (with Frederick Prussner).

CARL R. HOLLADAY is Charles Howard Candler Pro-

fessor Emeritus of New Testament at Candler School of Theology of Emory University. He is the author of Introduction to the New Testament: Reference Edition and Acts: A Commentary in the New Testament Library series.

www.wjkbooks.com

HAYES | HOLLADAY

“A book that has now served generations comes to us here afresh in a fully updated version. If you care about the Bible and its meaning, then this is the book for you. To care is to listen. Tools to take the Bible seriously—a wonderful gift.” —WILLIAM LOADER, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

JOHN H. HAYES | CARL R. HOLLADAY

“Generations of students have relied on John Hayes and Carl Holladay to guide them through the complex landscape of biblical studies—a landscape that has undergone vast changes since the last edition of this classic work. Holladay’s fresh revision maps a way through the field, revealing opportunities for new vistas and pointing out the time-tested paths that lead to sound interpretations. Biblical Exegesis is an essential ‘field guide.’ It shows students what to look for when exploring the pages of Scripture. Moreover, it reveals the contours of contemporary scholarship through clear and direct prose, teaching students how they, too, can make sense of this ancient and vital text.”  —Joel M. LeMon, Associate Professor of Old Testament, Candler School of Theology of Emory University “This fourth edition of Biblical Exegesis by Hayes and Holladay is an amazing gift of scholarly expertise set to the task of defining biblical exegesis; describing its methods, its histories, its values; and ultimately showing why it matters for biblical and nonbiblical scholars. Hayes and Holladay marshal an impressive array of exegetical approaches to theorize and demonstrate that ‘exegesis does not allow us to master the text so much as it enables us to enter it.’ Drawing from the fields and subfields of archaeology, cognitive linguistics, cultural and literary studies, postmodernism, postcoloniality, and others, Hayes and Holladay beautifully and lucidly bring together exegetical concerns about biblical sources, traditions, and canons, as well as interpretive communities, cultures, histories, geographies, and technologies, all toward the goal of exegesis as informed understandings of the biblical text without assuming arrival at the meaning of the text. Biblical Exegesis is a wonderful companion for the exegetical beginner and researcher; it is at home with a student in the classroom or a researcher in the library or a prophet on the streets or a preacher in a house of worship.” —Kenneth Ngwa, Professor of Hebrew Bible, Drew Theological School “Hayes and Holladay have guided countless students over multiple decades by clearly setting forth the tools and methods involved in reading the biblical text well. This fourth edition of Biblical Exegesis retains all the virtues that have served students so well in the past by introducing them in a simple way to the traditional aspects of historical criticism. Holladay’s thorough revision will also introduce students to current questions (such as, how does our

social location impact exegesis?), new tools (for example, digital tools), and wise guidance for further research with updated bibliographies. There is no better one-volume guide that demystifies biblical exegesis.” —Joshua Jipp, Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity International University “A book that has now served generations comes to us here afresh in a fully updated version. It is basically a book about listening to the Bible, how to listen in ways that you can hear what biblical writers were saying in their context and their way and not listen selectively or hear only what you want to hear. If you care about the Bible and its meaning, then this is the book for you. To care is to listen. Tools to take the Bible seriously—a wonderful gift.” —William Loader, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia “In this fourth edition of the well-known handbook Biblical Exegesis, Holladay offers a fully revised, freshly updated version of the beloved classic that he and Hayes published decades ago. Both comprehensive and comprehensible, this volume is an invaluable guide to the wonderfully complex world of biblical exegesis. It tops my list of recommended resources for new students and experienced pastors alike.” —Michal Beth Dinkler, Associate Professor of New Testament, Yale Divinity School “Over twenty-five years ago, I purchased the second edition of Biblical Exegesis for my first biblical studies class as a seminarian. My scribbled notes revealed both anxiety about the task in front of me and confidence that this book would help me do the work. This fourth edition, with its up-to-date bibliographies, clear explanations of multiple types of exegesis, revised chapters, and words of encouragement, will give students the same confidence to engage with biblical texts. The book is subtitled A Beginner’s Handbook, but it will help beginners become skilled veterans.” —Stacy Davis, Professor of Religious Studies and Theology, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana

Biblical Exegesis

Biblical Exegesis A Beginner’s Handbook Fourth Edition

John H. Hayes Carl R. Holladay

© 1982, 1987, 2007, 2022 Westminster John Knox Press Fourth edition Published by Westminster John Knox Press Louisville, Kentucky 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31—10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Westminster John Knox Press, 100 Witherspoon Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-­1396. Or contact us online at www​.wjkbooks​.com. Scripture quotations from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible are copyright © 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. and are used by permission. Book design by Sharon Adams Cover design by Lisa Buckley Design Cover illustration: Private Collection © Stephen Farthing. All rights reserved. 2022/Bridgeman Images Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data Names: Hayes, John H. (John Haralson), 1934-2013, author. | Holladay, Carl R., author. Title: Biblical exegesis : a beginner’s handbook / John H. Hayes, Carl R. Holladay. Description: Fourth edition. | Louisville : WJK, Westminster John Knox Press, [2022] | Includes index. | Summary: “In a world where the Bible has been irresponsibly appropriated and proof-texted to oppress, dehumanize, and demean, this book offers a corrective: it lays out methods of interpretation that will help develop a critical consciousness conducive to intelligent, informed, and responsible interpretation of Scripture”—Provided by publisher. Identifiers: LCCN 2022031873 (print) | LCCN 2022031874 (ebook) | ISBN 9780664266981 (paperback) | ISBN 9781646982691 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible--Hermeneutics. Classification: LCC BS476 .H35 2022 (print) | LCC BS476 (ebook) | DDC 221.6—dc23/eng/20220810 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022031873 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022031874 Most Westminster John Knox Press books are available at special quantity discounts when purchased in bulk by corporations, organizations, and special-­interest groups. For more information, please e-­mail SpecialSales​@wjkbooks​.com.

Contents

Preface to the Fourth Edition

ix

Preface to the Third Edition

xi

Abbreviations xv   1. Introducing Exegesis 1 Interpretation Using Everyday Skills 1 Important Considerations Relating to Exegesis 7 The Bible and Exegesis 15 Biblical Exegesis through the Centuries 19 The Task of Biblical Exegesis 24 Bibliography 32   2. Textual Criticism: The Quest for the Original Wording 37 Discovering Textual Variants 37 Preserving and Transmitting Biblical Texts 40 Types of Textual Variants 41 Manuscript Families 43 Critical Editions of the Bible 44 Evaluating Textual Variants 45 How to Proceed 48 Bibliography 49   3. Historical Criticism: The Setting in Time and Place History and the Text Ancient Approaches to Historical Criticism

55 55 56

vi

Contents History in the Text 57 History of the Text 59 Using Reception History in Interpretation 62 Bibliography 63

  4. Grammatical Criticism: The Language of the Text 74 Analyzing the Language of the Text 74 Language Tools 76 Using Concordances 77 Moving from English to Hebrew or Greek 81 Cautions about Wordbooks and Word Studies 82 Grammar and Syntax 84 Bibliography 87   5. Literary Criticism: Rhetorical and Narrative Dimensions of the Text 93 What “Literary Criticism” Means 93 Rhetorical Criticism 95 Literary Context 97 Literary Structure 98 Literary Form and Function: Examples 99 Literary Devices and Rhetorical Techniques 101 Literary Mood 105 Narrative Criticism 105 Developing Literary Sensibilities 109 Bibliography 109   6. Form Criticism: The Genre and Life Setting of the Text 115 Genres and Setting in Life (Sitz im Leben) 115 The Logic of Form Criticism: How It Works 116 Some Biblical Examples 117 Probing the Sociological Setting 120 The Focus of Form Criticism: Stories and Small Units 124 Doing Form Criticism 125 Bibliography 125   7. Tradition Criticism: The Stages behind the Text Recognizing the Origin and Growth of Biblical Traditions Oral and Written Traditions Biblical Examples

128 129 130 132



Contents vii Using Tradition Criticism 136 Bibliography 137

  8. Redaction Criticism: The Final Viewpoint and Theology 140 How Redaction Critics Work 140 Tools for Redaction Criticism: The Gospel Synopsis 141 An Example: The Passion Narrative in the Gospels 142 Some Cautions 144 Discerning the Theology of the Evangelists 145 Old Testament Redaction Criticism 146 Rediscovering Theology 148 Bibliography 148   9. Structuralism and Poststructuralism: Universals and Differences 152 Basic Assumptions of Structuralism 153 Structuralist Exegesis of Biblical Texts 157 Poststructuralism 161 The Way Forward 162 Bibliography 163 10. Canonical Criticism: The Sacred Text of Synagogue and Church 166 Interpretive Strategies among Communities of Faith 167 Distinctive Features of Canonical Criticism 168 Factors Affecting the Practice of Canonical Criticism 171 The Shift from Historical Setting to Canonical Setting 173 Some Examples of Canonical Criticism 174 Finding the Right Balance 178 Bibliography 179 11. Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 182 Recent Changes and Cultural Shifts 182 The Abrams Communication Diagram 185 Identity: Gender, Sexuality, Ethnicity, Interpretive Strategies 188 Advocacy: Liberation Theology, Postcolonialism 197 The Broader Context: Postmodernism 201 Bibliography 203

viii

Contents

12. Integrating Exegetical Procedures Some Preliminary Observations Getting Started The Autonomy of the Text Exegesis: Primary Research or Secondary Reporting? Writing an Exegesis Paper Some Practical Suggestions From Observation to Interpretation

209 209 212 213 214 215 217 220

13. Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 221 Historical and Archaeological Reconstruction 222 Doing Theology 226 Preaching 229 Personal Appropriation 233 Bibliography 236 14. Exegesis: The Art of Seeing Learning to See as a Beginner Language (Semantics) and Literary Genre Literary Contexts History of Interpretation Theological and Religious Issues and Claims Describing What We Have Seen What Do You See?

241 242 243 244 247 249 250 251

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis Biblical Software Some Current Software Packages Websites and the Internet Selected Websites for Biblical Studies

253 253 257 260 262

Glossary 273 Index of Scriptural References

283

Index of Subjects and Names

287

Preface to the Fourth Edition

S

ince the appearance of the third edition in 2007, much has happened. Most notable has been the death of my close friend and colleague John Hayes (1934–2013), of blessed memory, whose vision, wisdom, and vast knowledge and experience as an Old Testament scholar shaped the conception and production of this handbook for beginning exegetes. From the outset, he insisted that the book should cover both the Old and New Testaments so that it would benefit students taking college and university courses introducing the entire corpus of Jewish and Christian writings that are read as “the Holy Bible” in many different settings. But he also wanted to write a book that would serve students in seminaries and divinity schools who were preparing for ministry in its various forms. Above all, he insisted that the book should be written in clear, understandable English prose—“Reader’s Digest English,” he called it. It was to be a book for beginners who are learning about exegesis for the first time. The field of biblical studies has changed since the book first appeared in 1982. New discoveries have been reported, new methods of interpretation have been developed and refined, and new levels of awareness have emerged within and among Bible readers and those who teach and interpret it. The scholarly guilds relating to biblical studies and ancillary fields such as archaeology have expanded and flourished, as have the publishing programs of many church-­related and university presses. In this fourth edition, I have sought to retain what has made this handbook useful to its many readers over the years—its simplicity, straightforward approach, and practical suggestions for doing Bible study and writing exegesis papers for academic settings. An effort has been made to retain chapters that still represent viable approaches to exegesis and that ix

x

Preface to the Fourth Edition

help students understand what they will find in biblical commentaries, scholarly journals, and other study resources such as Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. I have also sought to revise and expand chapters, taking into account new approaches that have received attention over the past two decades. Rather than adding a line or paragraph here and there, I have gone through the entire third edition, attempting to update it, adding, cutting, and revising as appropriate. I have fully revised chapter 11, which is now titled: “Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy.” The chapter on “Exegesis: The Art of Seeing” is entirely new. This chapter represents my thinking on exegesis as it developed toward the end of my teaching career at Emory. I have also updated the bibliographies, now with dates of publication in chronological sequence. An asterisk marks items especially recommended as additional reading for beginning students. The term online includes works that can be consulted online and those that can be obtained as e-­books. Also updated is the appendix on “Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis.” As before, I well understand that some of this information on software packages and websites and the internet will be out-­of-­date when this fourth edition is published, but users, especially those with electronic savvy, can make the needed adjustments easily enough. This appendix still provides useful information for beginning students, and even for more advanced students and scholars. I want to thank Richard Wright (Abilene Christian University), along with Brady Beard and Zane McGee (both at Emory University), for their assistance in revising the appendix on electronic technologies. Also a word of appreciation to Robert Brawley, Claude Cox, and Paul Watson for offering helpful suggestions at several points. As before, I am grateful to Westminster John Knox Press for our partnership over the years, and especially to its editorial staff, most notably Dan Braden, S. David Garber, and Julie Tonini, for their resourcefulness and commitment to high standards of scholarship relating to the Bible. Carl R. Holladay Durham, North Carolina January 2, 2022

Preface to the Third Edition

W

hen this book originally appeared in 1982, there were few such handbooks available. Since then, several have been published. Some focus on doing exegesis of either the OT or NT. Others presuppose knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. Still others provide detailed, step-­ by-­step “how-­to” instructions. Some are collections of essays by scholars treating different approaches to exegesis. From the outset, we thought an exegetical handbook should treat both the OT and NT; provide simple, helpful information and guidance about doing exegesis, without being overly prescriptive; introduce students to various methods succinctly; provide basic bibliography that would take students beyond our introductory discussion; and emphasize exegesis as an everyday activity based on commonsense principles rather than as an esoteric academic discipline. Over the years, our approach seems to have worked. Our book has been used in undergraduate Bible survey classes, in seminary courses— both OT and NT introductions and exegesis courses on individual biblical books—and in various church settings. It has also been used in high schools. It has had a wide reach internationally. Readers seem to appreciate that it is substantial but nontechnical, comprehensive but not inordinately lengthy, helpful but not pushy, and readable. In our second edition (1987), we retained the format of the first edition but included new chapters on structuralism and canonical criticism. In this third edition, we have retained all the chapters of the second edition and added a new chapter, “Exegesis with a Special Focus: Cultural, Economic, Ethnic, Gender, and Sexual Perspectives” [see chap. 11 of 4th ed.]. We have been selective, not comprehensive, realizing that much has xi

xii

Preface to the Third Edition

occurred over the last twenty years. We do think, however, that these new perspectives illustrate some of the most important developments. The appendix, “Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis,” acknowledges the technological revolution that has occurred since our book first appeared. Over the years, we have accommodated to these new technologies in our teaching. Mainly, we have learned from our students, who know far more about these things than we do. Rather than including this appendix as another chapter, along with other chapters that discuss exegetical approaches and methodologies, we have located it at the end of the book. We do this, not because we think it is less important, but to signal that we regard these new technologies as new tools that can benefit us in any approach that we use. Here again, we have tried to make our treatment simple, informative, accurate, and helpful. Knowing how rapidly technology changes, we realize that some of this information will be dated when the book appears. Even so, we believe our observations will remain true over the foreseeable future. Besides adding this new material, we have worked through the second edition completely. We have retained some of it, reworked other parts, and completely rewritten still other parts. The result is a thoroughly revised book. We have tried to retain the simple, uncluttered style that commended the earlier editions. Yet we have added some details and examples that we believe give more texture to our discussion. We have updated and expanded all the bibliographies. Because the field of biblical studies has grown enormously over the last twenty years, we decided to include only books in the bibliographies. Removing some of the articles was a painful decision, since several of them were seminal in their own right. The bibliographical data provide the names of the current or latest publication of a work. Dates in parentheses are those of the original publications [dates are in sequence in 4th ed.]. Along the way, we have accumulated debts, mainly to our students. Derek Olsen scanned the second edition and reworked and updated it. He contributed the core draft of the appendix on computer technology. Since his initial draft, however, John Weaver and Richard Wright of Pitts Theology Library have made further refinements. Eric Barreto and Kevin Muñoz also shared with us their considerable knowledge of computer technology and wrote some of the new sections. Amanda Stephenson read through the entire draft and provided many helpful editorial suggestions, which we followed. In the last stages, Bo Adams generously shared his impressive knowledge and experience of computer and



Preface to the Third Edition xiii

internet technology, in addition to performing a lot of the grunt work on bibliography, diagrams, and general editing. Peter Trudinger extended a helping hand in the final process. Drew Denton, Jason Bethel, and Robert Williamson Jr. also assisted in the final editing, especially in preparing the indexes. We are especially indebted to the students we have taught over the last thirty or so years at Emory University’s Candler School of Theology. It has been a special delight for us to introduce the Bible to them, spark their interest in exegesis, and teach them different approaches to biblical interpretation. We think they are better interpreters of the Bible because of our efforts. Whatever form their exegetical efforts take—and many of them have become ministers in local churches—we think those who hear them teach and preach are better off. At least, we hope so. JHH CRH June 30, 2006 Atlanta, Georgia

Abbreviations

ANE Ancient Near East ASV American Standard Version AV Authorized Version (King James Version) BCE Before the Common Era BDAG Bauer-­Danker, Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament CBGM Coherence-­Based Genealogical Method (of textual criticism) CE Common Era Cn Correction CSAD Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents (Oxford University) DSS Dead Sea Scrolls ESV English Standard Version Gk. Greek GNT 5 Greek New Testament, 5th edition Heb. Hebrew ISSN International Standard Serial Number J, E, D, P Sources used in compiling the Pentateuch JSNTSup Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series KJV King James Version LXX Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, along with other writings MS-DOS Microsoft Disk Operating System MT Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible NA 28 Nestle-­Aland, Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th edition NAB New American Bible xv

xvi

Abbreviations

NABRE NASB NIV NJB NJPS

New American Bible, Revised Edition New American Standard Bible New International Version New Jerusalem Bible Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures: The New Jewish Publication Society Translation according to the Traditional Hebrew Text NKJV New King James Version NRSV New Revised Standard Version NT New Testament OT Old Testament PC Personal computer Q Quelle, hypothetical sayings source used by Matthew and Luke Q Ms Qumran manuscript REB Revised English Bible RSV Revised Standard Version SBL Society of Biblical Literature SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Syr Syriac Tanakh Acronym for the Jewish Bible: Torah (Pentateuch), Nevi’im (Prophets), Kethuvim (Writings) Tg Targum(s) TLG Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, electronic catalog of ancient Greek literature UBS United Bible Societies UBS 5 United Bible Societies, Greek New Testament, 5th edition URL Uniform (or Universal) Resource Locator; address of an internet resource WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament

Chapter One

Introducing Exegesis

Interpretation Using Everyday Skills Exegesis can be understood at two levels: in a general sense, as the explanation of a text, and in a more restricted sense as the critical interpretation of a text. This distinction suggests that any text, no matter how simple and straightforward, can be explained, even if its meaning is fairly self-­evident. But it also recognizes that some texts are more complicated: because their meaning is not so clear, they require closer, more careful reading. This usually implies that some specialized knowledge, or experience in reading such texts, is required in order to provide an informed interpretation of the text. Someone might say, perhaps in reference to a legal text or some other complicated document, “We’ll have to do an exegesis of this text to understand what it means.” Such a comment suggests that a different level of reading is necessary and that the interpreter will need some special expertise relating to the subject matter. The etymology of “exegesis” reflects some of these ambiguities. The term is derived from the Greek verb exēgeomai, a compound word formed from the verb hēgeomai, “to lead,” and the preposition ex, “out.” In ancient Greek it can mean “show one the way to” or “lead the way,” but it sometimes means “expound” or “interpret.” Socrates speaks of “expounding [exēgeomai] the things Homer says” (Plato, Ion 531A). Plato uses the noun form exēgēsis when referring to “exposition of the laws” (Laws 631A). In Herodotus, the term “exegete” (exēgētēs) is someone who interprets oracles, dreams, or omens (Histories 1.78). Exegesis may be a highly specialized interpretive process carried out by experts, yet it usually involves forms of reasoning and commonsense 1

2

Biblical Exegesis

principles that we employ every day. It is helpful to think about exegesis as part of the broader activity of communication in which we all participate. When someone speaks to us, we must listen to what they say and decide what they mean. We usually interpret their words instinctively, even unconsciously. We may ask ourselves: “Is it a question or a statement? Should we take the words literally? Are they joking or being serious? Does their language reflect well-­established ‘templates’ of speech? Is it in the form of a greeting, a sales pitch, a lecture, a sermon, or a threat? How should we respond? Smile and return the greeting? Be skeptical and resist? Take notes? Be open and responsive? Hand over our purse or wallet?” Because we spend so much time speaking and listening, we ask such questions intuitively. We realize that facial gestures and body language may communicate as much as spoken words, perhaps more. As we interpret a “speech act,” we trigger a multifaceted, complex range of responses that may seem second nature to us. We may not even give much conscious attention to how we respond. Even so, when we participate in such acts of interpersonal communication, we are using our exegetical skills. Oral communication generally takes place in familiar situations with persons we know. This enables us to assess the context and intentions of the speaker as well as to analyze the spoken words themselves. The context helps us determine the larger social framework in which the communication event takes place and thus to understand the words spoken. Is someone in an official position giving commands, offering directions, supplying information, or making suggestions? Are the words spoken in a formal, highly structured situation, or is the setting more casual? Is the communication part of a wedding ceremony or a conversation between friends at a bar? Were the words spoken under normal or abnormal conditions? Engaging in oral communication involves more than paying attention to a speaker and listener—the communicators. It also requires us to understand the context in which their words are spoken. Although some of these dynamics are also present in written communication, some important differences appear between oral and written communication. Since the writer is generally not present when we read a written text, the words assume a greater importance than with oral communication. Through imagination and prior knowledge, we may re-­create in our mind a picture of the writer and the situation in which the text was written. If we receive a letter from a friend, we have prior knowledge about the person. We often know something about the situation in which the letter was written. But even when we read a letter from



Introducing Exegesis 3

someone we know, we engage in exegesis. We may know the letter writer intimately, but we still need to interpret the written words to understand what is said. The written text is the medium through which we interpret the person’s words and seek to understand what is being communicated. At a minimum, interpreting written texts presupposes that the writer and the reader share a common world, a common frame of reference, and a common understanding of language. To this extent, the writer and the reader are not remote from one another. And yet, we interpret many written communications in which we have little or no knowledge about the writer. In such cases, the act of interpretation occurs primarily between the text and the reader. Unlike the speaker in oral communication, the writer becomes less important. When we read a highway sign or a traffic direction, it matters little who wrote these words. What matters is that the reader and the words on the sign share a common linguistic field of reference. It is only necessary that the written directions or the symbols painted on the sign make sense to the reader and lend themselves to exegetical understanding. But even highway signs may require interpretation. If we see a sign that reads “Road Construction 1500 Feet,” does this mean that for the next 1,500 feet, or after traveling 1,500 feet, a driver should expect construction activity? Even this seemingly simple written message requires exegesis. Meaningful interpretation depends upon prior experience in understanding such signs. We constantly read and interpret multiple forms of written texts. On any given day, we may read an assignment in a scientific textbook, a short story, a poem, a label on a food container, announcements of meetings and other events, a newspaper, a letter, an advertising brochure, or a traffic sign. All these texts employ different forms of communication. They also represent different literary forms, or genres, of written documents. Since these texts are part of our normal culture, we have been socialized into how to read and understand them in spite of their diversity. We do not read and interpret a poem as we would a recipe. In a poem we expect metaphorical language; in a recipe we want simple, straightforward instructions. Neither do we read the front page of a newspaper in the same way we read the editorial page. In our culture, some types of writing require close, intensive exegetical work. Every profession has a body of specialized, technical literature that must be mastered and constantly consulted. Lawyers and judges spend much of their time interpreting laws and law codes. Such exegesis typically requires legal experts to examine how laws have been interpreted

4

Biblical Exegesis

and applied in the past. So important are these previous rulings that the history of interpretation of laws is a central element in the legal profession. In particular, constitutional lawyers specialize in the exegesis of the constitution and the history of its interpretation. The same is true of other professions. For accountants, tax codes are the definitive texts that must be interpreted and applied. In the health care professions, scientific articles in specialized journals, along with standard textbooks on different topics, constitute the texts that inform daily medical practice. Diplomatic language and treaties often require special exegesis since communication in this area is frequently sensitive and deliberately ambiguous. What is required for the interpretation of written texts varies greatly, depending upon the nature of the texts and their relationship to normal communication. Some texts merely need to be read to be understood. Others require detailed analysis. Some use normal, everyday language, grammar, and sentence structure. Others use specialized vocabulary, involved grammatical and sentence structure, and distinctive forms of expression. Some texts employ symbolic and metaphoric language. Others employ language that severely limits the range of meaning, thus reducing the potential for multiple interpretations and misunderstanding. Some texts seek to clarify; others are intentionally obscure. Some texts seek to persuade; others seek merely to inform. Some texts are written to entertain; others are written to cause sober reflection. Some other aspects of written speech are also worth noting. Once words are written down, they take on a different quality. Our eyes focus on letters that form words, phrases, sentences, and paragraphs. Punctuation comes into play as a whole set of non-­letter markings helps us process how to read the words. These include periods, commas, semicolons, colons, dashes, exclamation points, question marks, and quotation marks. Capital and lowercase letters introduce further nuances. Spaces— the absence of any markings—are also important in written speech, and we learn to interpret their significance. We take note of space between sentences or indented space to signal the beginning of a new paragraph. Ever since the invention of the printing press, interpreting printed texts has posed special problems. But with the invention of computers, the internet, and smart phones, along with the many innovations in communication that accompanied this technological revolution, we have witnessed some fundamental changes. We have relearned that spaces are not required in a string of letters in order to communicate a message; or that a string of letters followed by .com or .org should be read a certain



Introducing Exegesis 5

way. We now instinctively grasp the meaning of https://​customerservice​ .starbucks​.com without having to separate the words and insert spaces between them. A whole new set of abbreviations has entered the picture—BTW, FYI, NRN, and so on. But these also require interpretation. Does LOL mean “Laugh Out Loud” or “Lots Of Love”? With the incorporation of digital images, both still and video, yet another layer of interpretive possibilities has been added. This was also true earlier, beginning with illuminated manuscripts and the use of lithographs and copper engravings in printed Bibles. Readers not only read printed texts; they also view accompanying images illustrating and interpreting the written text. The extensive use of images in social media stretches the interpretive demands even further. Readers now process information on screens displaying printed words and phrases, numerous abbreviations, and illustrative images. An emoji can be used to decorate text messages for special emphasis, or a single message might even consist almost entirely of emojis. Here again, interpretation may be required. What’s the difference between a “thumbs up” and “clapping hands”? Rather than simplifying the task of interpretation, these innovations and expansions have created new challenges. When a quotation is attributed to a political figure or celebrity, we know that it may have been modified or taken out of context. We have learned to be suspicious rather than take such reports at face value. The same goes for videos reporting some event. Does it display “what actually happened,” or has it been edited to slant the scene? Such “photographic records” need to be interpreted critically, as has always been the case with conventional printed texts. If anything, these technological innovations have underscored the need for exegesis, which entails close, critical reading of various forms of communication, whether oral or written, printed or digital. For many people, interpreting the Bible still involves reading a text on a printed page. This may be pieces of paper in a bound volume or an electronic text on a smart phone or computer screen. Such a reader may be aware of the countless forms of digital Bibles, along with scores of electronic study tools and databases available on the internet or in software packages that one can purchase. But even with this plethora of electronic resources that now supplement conventional libraries, with the many shelves of bound books and journals, the process of interpretation is essentially the same: readers trying to make sense of a cluster of letters and spaces that appear before our eyes. Whether we are interpreting oral or written communications, two variables come into play: (1) the commonality of experience and language

6

Biblical Exegesis

between a speaker and listener, or between a writer and reader; and (2) the technical level of the language. One of the most important considerations in communication is whether the sender (speaker, author, or editor/collector) and the receiver (hearer or reader) share a common world of discourse and experience. When two people sharing a common background talk with each other or exchange letters, few, if any, problems of communication occur. But when their manner of speaking and range of experiences differ, it is more difficult for them to understand each other. Two people from a similar rural environment usually experience little difficulty communicating with each other. The same is true with those from a similar urban environment. But misunderstanding often occurs when a city dweller and a rural inhabitant try to communicate with each other. So different are their ranges of experiences and their ways of speaking that it may be nearly impossible for them to understand each other. To explain this communication breakdown, we sometimes say that they live in two different worlds. A second consideration is whether the communication involves specialized content. This point can be illustrated by using examples from letter writing. Personal letters, one of the most common means of personal communication, are generally written in a simple, straightforward manner. Such letters may vary in content and form depending upon the degree of familiarity between the sender and receiver and upon what is being communicated. It usually takes little effort to understand letters from a friend, parent, or child. But a technical letter from an engineer describing some mechanical or chemical process, or from an accountant explaining a bookkeeping procedure, is a different matter. An essay on Paris in the springtime would probably present fewer interpretive problems than an essay on the influence of Renaissance architecture on nineteenth-­century building construction in Paris. Although email may have replaced letter writing as one of the most common forms of communication, familiarity between sender and receiver, plus levels of complexity, remain important considerations. When two friends email each other, their language, usually simple and straightforward, may even include numerous abbreviations such as ASAP or NMP. Signatures may be decorated with various emojis such as smiling faces, a string of hearts, or a series of X’s and O’s. But emails can also be more formal, such as communication between colleagues at work or between business associates. As with letters, an email may contain complex, technical information, perhaps sent from one engineer to an entire



Introducing Exegesis 7

research and development team. In this case, technical expertise is presupposed among the email audience. The use of attachments introduces yet another level of variation and complexity. Knowledge of conventions relating to email is also necessary in interpreting this form of communication. A sentence typed in solid caps and displayed in red conveys special emphasis; italicized print can call attention to terms of special significance. Important Considerations Relating to Exegesis As we have seen, exegesis may have a technical focus, but it also involves interpretive skills and forms of reasoning that we use in our normal, everyday lives. A lot depends on the level of familiarity between those who are communicating with each other; equally significant is the relative difficulty of what is being communicated. Yet there are some additional considerations that should be noted. Third-­Party Perspective Sometimes the interpreter is a direct addressee—someone included among the original circle of readers or hearers addressed by the sender. But often this is not the case. The interpreter may be a third party, not a direct receiver of the communication. If so, the interpreter may be trying to understand not only the message of the text itself but also the viewpoint of both the sender and receiver. Here, the third party can be thought of as an outside observer, an intruder who is “listening in” on someone else’s conversation. Letters pose special interpretive challenges when they are being read by a third party. The persons involved in the original communication may be totally unknown to the interpreter. Generally, most documents are best understood when the sender has some prior knowledge of the receiver and the receiver has some prior acquaintance with the sender. By imagining how the communication will be received and understood, the sender can shape the message accordingly. Similarly, the receiver can imagine the sender in order to understand better both the content and the shape of the communication. To understand a communication between two other parties, a third-­ party reader must imagine, even empathize with, both the sender and the receiver. In one sense, the third-­party interpreter must assume the identities of sender and of receiver, then read the document from these perspectives.

8

Biblical Exegesis

The third-­party interpreter first assumes the role of the sender, then that of the receiver, and out of this imagined situation tries to understand the communication between them. This requires the interpreter—the third party—to search out information or use informed imagination about both the sender and the receiver and their situations. When the content or form of the document is specialized, unique, or ambiguous, this process is even more necessary and imposes greater demands. Communication in a Different Language Further complexity is introduced when a text is composed in a language different from that of the interpreter or exegete. In this situation a language barrier enters the interpretive or exegetical process. If an English-­speaking person receives a letter written in German, or wishes to read a German-­ language textbook, special problems arise. The English-­speaking person must acquire sufficient knowledge of German to read the text or resort to a translator who can aid in overcoming the language barrier. In either case, ascertaining the meaning of something written in another language is not always easy. Since each language has its own distinctive structure, grammatical features, and vocabulary nuances, it is difficult for a translation to convey exactly what the original language expresses. It is widely recognized that translation inevitably involves interpretation. Once a text is translated into another language, this introduces another level of complexity. Interpreting a text translated into another language might be called second-­level interpretation. A first-­level interpretation occurs when a text is read in its original language. This might be done by a native speaker or hearer or by someone who has acquired enough knowledge of the original language. A second-­level interpretation occurs when an interpreter seeks to understand the content of a translation. At this level, the interpreter is always one step removed from the original, regardless of how well the text has been translated. When we interpret texts that have been translated from another language, we inevitably confront a communication gap, however small, between what the translation says and what the writer originally expressed. Cultural Differences Writings produced in one cultural context and interpreted in another setting present special problems. A document may mention, describe, or



Introducing Exegesis 9

allude to special ideas, practices, and customs that would be clearly understood by a person from the original culture who is reading the document. But a reader from a different culture may be completely baffled by what is being described. Communication within a culture frequently assumes a shared body of cultural understanding. This general reservoir of experience, worldview, and perception informing the text would not be shared by the cultural outsider. A document reporting the actions and outcome of a specific sporting event, say a baseball game or a cricket match, would be difficult to understand for a person living in a culture in which the sport and its rules of play are unknown. Differences in culture are not related just to ideas, concepts, and worldviews. Also included are differences in the way things are said and written, in the customary way of reading and interpreting. In some cultures, when someone tells a story, the first character to be mentioned is always the villain. Someone from within that culture would know this immediately without needing to be told or “clued in.” Generally, the more remote the culture reflected in a given text, the greater the difficulty the exegete encounters in interpreting it. Historical Distance When we study a document from the past, we must mentally shift from our own time to an earlier period. The chronological gap between the reader and the text being interpreted does not need to be great for interpretive difficulties to arise. Reading a fifty-­year-­old newspaper can be fascinating. We quickly notice differences in clothing fashions, in prices for advertised items, in issues that were the concerns of the day, and in the style in which articles were written. Questions immediately arise. Why were things that way? Why were certain issues and events considered important? How could prices have been so low? How could people have thought and reacted the way they did? When we read documents from the more distant past—from the ancient Near East or from the time of ancient Greece and Rome—we often encounter persons, places, practices, and perspectives that are a “world apart” from our present situation. This is why editions of ancient classics often contain notes that explain historical persons, events, or customs familiar to persons who lived at that time but are no longer part of our modern frame of reference.

10

Biblical Exegesis Writings That Developed over Time and Collective Authorship

Exegesis is sometimes more complicated because the texts being interpreted are the products of collective authorship and historical growth. Simply put, this means that a text may not have been written by a single author at a particular time—in one sitting, as it were. Rather than being produced by one person, it may have been written or edited by multiple authors. This is collective rather than individual authorship. By historical growth, we mean that a writing may have been composed over a long period of time rather than at one specific point in time. Many writings in our own culture result from collective authorship and historical growth. The United States Constitution, for example, was produced by a constitutional convention. Many people contributed to its composition, and there were many preliminary drafts. Over time, the original document has been expanded through adding amendments. We are all familiar with different editions of textbooks. Often a textbook will be written by one author and then revised by the original author or perhaps by a second author. The later revisions may make it impossible to distinguish original material from what was added later. Unless we have access to the separate editions, we cannot easily detect the different strata of editorial composition. College and university catalogs typically reflect collective authorship that has occurred over a period of time. Usually, different people have written different sections, and these have gone through many editorial revisions. Some of the information in the latest catalog may have been there since the first catalog was published by the school. Other items may have resulted from recent policy decisions. If a researcher wished to explore the development of the school’s policies and curriculum but possessed only the current catalog, it would be difficult. By comparing the current catalog with earlier editions and information gained from other sources, we could draw firmer conclusions. By looking at editorial changes between editions, we could determine when courses in computer science or women’s studies were introduced or when coeducational dormitories became permissible. In the ancient world, books were often produced through collective authorship. Even in medieval times, writers often avoided originality. Instead, they frequently combined older works that had already been compiled and edited from previous works. Ancient works were frequently the products of a long and complex editorial process. Even though the finished work might appear to be a single, unified whole, its content might consist



Introducing Exegesis 11

of layers of materials and traditions from different sources and chronological periods. The ancient Jewish historian Josephus (ca. 37–100 CE) utilized assistants in his writing, which means that some of his works were really the product of a joint effort. In addition, he frequently incorporated or rewrote earlier sources without acknowledging that he was actually doing so, or without naming his sources. But in fairness to Josephus and many other ancient authors, it should be recognized that borrowing the work of one’s predecessors was fairly common practice in ancient times. Our sensitivity about property rights of individual authors and how these are protected by copyright laws is more typical of modern times. Even today, term papers written in academic settings are often composite. We quote words and borrow ideas from others. When we do so, we are expected to acknowledge our sources in footnotes to indicate that we are drawing on previous work as we develop our interpretations. When working with ancient writings, we can usually detect the results of this process of growth and historical development by locating literary “seams” in the material—places where different blocks of material have been patched together. Other indicators of editorial activity include the presence of anachronisms in the text. If a text mentions an event or practice that obviously belongs to a period later than the one in which the author supposedly wrote, the reader instinctively senses that something is amiss—that someone other than the implied author wrote or edited that part of the text at a later time. Differences in literary style, and even internal contradictions within the text, may also suggest different levels of authorship. Interpreters of ancient texts are constantly aware that a given writing may have resulted from collective authorship and editorial activity and that it is necessary to take these considerations into account in their exegetical analysis. Another consideration should be noted about literary productions in antiquity. Works were sometimes produced as if they were the work of another person, generally some venerable figure from the past. Writers would produce a work and attribute it to a person of the remote past, or perhaps even to someone close to their own time. Such writers possibly thought they were expressing the views of the one under whose name they wrote, maybe even preserving some authentic material from that person. Since these works were ascribed to one person but were actually written or edited by someone else, they are known as pseudepigraphs (the broader literary practice or phenomenon is called pseudepigraphy). Such works could be produced by students or followers of important figures in order to pass on the legacy of their teacher. Works produced

12

Biblical Exegesis

in this way tended to be associated with, and attributed to, the revered personality rather than to the person’s students or followers. Some philosophical treatises that were attributed to the eminent Greek philosopher Aristotle (384–322 BCE) are now known to have been written many years after his death, often by his own students. Written works attributed to a revered figure of the past possessed an aura of authority. We see this in the large body of literature that was written under the name of Enoch, to whom the Bible gives only incidental notice (see Gen 4:17–18; 5:18–24). None of these Enochian writings made its way into the Scriptures, although they are referred to in the NT book of Jude (vv. 14–15). Generally the pseudepigraphic quality of such works can be detected by analyzing their literary and linguistic features, along with their purported and actual historical contexts. Multiple Texts or Editions of the Same Writing A sixth consideration that affects exegesis is the existence of multiple texts of the same document. Frequently two or more copies of a given document exist, but they exhibit considerable differences. At this point, the interpreter is confronted with the problem of determining the actual wording of the text to be interpreted. Differences between copies of the same work are more common for ancient than for modern works. The existence of divergent texts of the same work posed problems for interpreters even after the use of the printing press became widespread in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Many of Shakespeare’s (1564–1616) plays exist in such different forms that the study of these texts and their textual history has become a popular, highly controversial field. Before the use of the printing press, copies of texts were always made by hand. Even copies of short texts generally contained numerous differences from the original, including misspellings, omitted words or units, and repeated words or units. We possess few texts from antiquity in their original form. Such texts are usually called autographs. Most often we possess copies of copies of the original. Since no one copy of any text of major size agrees exactly with another copy of the same text, this requires the exegete to inquire about the text in its original or authorial form. The problem of multiple texts of the same work becomes more complicated when those texts have been preserved in several languages. If differences between copies exist but all the copies are in the same language, this presents the problem at one level. If there are diverging copies of the same work in several languages, this adds another level of complexity.



Introducing Exegesis 13

Copies of manuscripts of Aristotle’s works, for example, exist in Greek, Latin, and Arabic. Where there are significant differences between these, the exegete must work across language boundaries to discover what appears to be the most likely reading. Sacred Texts Exegetical practice is further complicated when the text being studied is considered sacred. This special quality is implied by the frequently used title “Holy Bible,” which signifies that it belongs to a special category. “Word of God” has similar significance—the text as a whole is not only about God but is also thought to be from God. Many readers treat such texts differently from other texts, even those from the same historical period. Regarding a text as sacred usually involves more than treating it as good literature or as a classical work. We are all familiar with the concept of Western literature’s classical works as reflected in introductory English literature anthologies. There are certain well-­accepted criteria by which literary works are recognized as classics. For a work to be considered a classic, it must be well written and considered to be a good example of its genre. It must also engage issues and concerns that characterize recurrent human conditions: it transcends the time and place of its original composition. Readers from diverse backgrounds agree that its message is universal. A classic typically possesses a distinctive literary quality and exhibits a level of reflective thought that invites multiple if not infinite interpretations. A sacred text may possess some or all the characteristics of a classic, but it may not be considered great literature by certain literary standards. Even so, its authority does not derive from its literary quality, or even its status as a classic, but rather from the normative status acknowledged by a community of readers who regard it as the Word of God. We may have strong opinions about classical works, even embracing their views of the world and the human condition, but classical “sacred” texts typically possess a distinctive aura of authority that directly informs and shapes the behavior of individuals and communities of believers. They are consequential texts because readers seek not only information from them, but also advice and guidance that relate to their ultimate destiny. Sacred texts belong to the category of Scripture, which has several distinguishing characteristics. First, Scripture possesses an authority for individuals or groups that exceeds normal conditions. In popular parlance, we sometimes speak of

14

Biblical Exegesis

a sportsman’s “bible” or some other authoritative text, such as The Guinness Book of World Records, to which final appeal is made when some point is being argued or contested. By this we mean that its authority exceeds that of other books. It can be used to resolve disputes or controversies. By analogy, religious groups usually possess their own distinctive set of Scriptures, whether it is the Muslim Qur’an or the Jewish and Christian Bibles. Second, Scriptures occupy an official position in the life of the groups that regard them as authoritative. They are sources to which appeal is made and whose contents in a special way inform the lives and thoughts of communities and their members. Third, Scriptures are understood to embody a truer reflection of reality than other writings. This higher reality is thought to have been expressed through the voice, thought, or word of God in a way that is not true of other writings. By their very nature, Scriptures bear special relationships to the communities that consider them sacred. These communities have frequently participated in the production and formation of their Scriptures. The sacredness of Scriptures is based on community decisions that assigned them a special role in their lives. In addition, the manner in which the communities have understood and interpreted their Scriptures becomes a decisive influence in how they are assessed. Communities of faith often bring assumptions to their Scriptures and thereby develop systems of thought and religious practices. Interpreting the Scriptures becomes a central feature of their life together. Traditions of interpretation develop around the Scriptures and sometimes become as important as the Scriptures themselves. Exegetes of a sacred text must take into account the mutual influence between Scripture and tradition. They must recognize that the Scriptures have informed traditions of interpretation and practice and that those very traditions shape how the Scriptures are read and interpreted. Summary So far, we have noted that exegesis can embrace both general explanation of a text and specialized, critical interpretation. But in spite of this technical focus, exegesis is part of a more comprehensive process of oral and written communication. Although exegesis has a specialist dimension, it involves ordinary, commonsense interpretive skills that we all use every day. Even so, some texts require that interpreters possess specialized knowledge in order to understand them. We have also discussed several



Introducing Exegesis 15

considerations that complicate the exegetical process and that require exegetes to operate with a multifaceted understanding of texts—their nature and production, along with their preservation and transmission. The Bible and Exegesis Biblical exegesis belongs to the category of specialized exegesis. Interpreting the Bible differs from reading a letter from a friend, an article in a contemporary magazine, a newspaper account of some event, or a modern novel or short story. The seven considerations that can influence the exegetical process noted in the previous section are all related in one way or another to biblical exegesis. 1. The Bible was originally addressed to ancient readers. None of us was involved in the original communication events as either senders or receivers. Paul’s letters were written to the Romans, the Galatians, the Corinthians, and other early Christian communities and individuals. When we read Paul’s letters, we are reading somebody else’s mail. The books of Luke and Acts were accounts written for someone named Theophilus (Luke 1:3; Acts 1:1). Many other examples could be adduced, but these illustrations remind us that when we interpret ancient biblical writings, we are doing so from the perspective of a third party—someone who is overhearing and trying to understand an earlier conversation. 2. The Bible was composed in ancient languages. The OT was written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the NT in Greek. Even the modern Israeli who speaks Hebrew or someone whose native language is modern Greek recognizes that the languages of the Bible are not exactly the same as modern Hebrew and Greek. Although the Bible was not originally written in Latin, it was translated into Latin early in the Christian era. For many centuries and well into the modern period, the Latin Bible known as the Vulgate was widely used by Christian readers. As modern exegetes of the Bible, we must take into consideration the language barrier that separates us from the original biblical writings and their early translation into other languages. 3. As modern readers of the Bible, we are separated from the original authors and readers of the texts by an enormous cultural gap. The culture presupposed by the Bible is that of the ancient Mediterranean world in general and especially Palestine. Remembering a few general characteristics of biblical culture enables us to appreciate its difference from much modern culture.

16

Biblical Exegesis

The social structures presupposed by the writers of biblical materials were patriarchal and authoritarian. The dominant economic system was based on agricultural production, which was closely related to village life. Diets were seasonal. Medical arts were primitive. Machines were relatively simple. Slavery was widespread. Mortality rates were high, especially for infants. Travel was slow and difficult. Life was characterized by stability and similarity rather than change. Human life was oriented to the cycles of nature and climate. Entertainment was limited. Good artificial lighting did not exist. Animals were slaughtered, dressed, and burned on altars as an integral part of worship. Divine beings, both good and bad, were assumed to be participants in the ongoing course of life and history. Time was also understood and measured differently. While the modern cycle of weekdays and weekends is firmly fixed in most countries, the ancient Mediterranean world has been described as “a world without weekends.” Feast days and other celebrations were regularly observed, but otherwise every day was a workday. 4. Modern readers of the Bible also experience a historical or chronological gap that ranges from almost two millennia to over three millennia. The biblical writings were composed over a period of twelve centuries. Since these biblical writings originated over such a long period of time, informed interpreters must understand the different historical contexts within which the books and traditions of the Bible came into being. In addition to the length of time over which the Bible was written, there are two other historical considerations. First, much of the Bible takes the form of historical narrative. To call the Bible a history book is a misleading simplification, but much of it is concerned with historical matters. Interpreters cannot ignore this pervasive historical dimension of the biblical writings. Second, biblical writers often express their thoughts and develop their theology while using the categories of past, present, and future. Not only do they take seriously the course of historical events; they also operate with categories that are dependent upon historical perspectives. 5. Collective authorship and the gradual growth of biblical traditions are clearly evident in the Bible, especially the OT. Since we do not know for certain who wrote any of the OT books, it is impossible to speak of individual authors of these writings. Instead, most of the OT writings appear to have been composed and developed over time, with many persons contributing to their formation. For centuries, Moses was assumed to have been the sole author of the Pentateuch, except for the account of his death and burial in



Introducing Exegesis 17

Deuteronomy 34. In the twelfth century, the Jewish exegete Ibn Ezra (ca. 1092–1167) hinted, in a cryptic fashion, that some of the Pentateuch might be post-­Mosaic. Gradually the idea of multiple sources and authors behind this material was explored. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, scholars developed the theory that four major sources, none written by Moses, had been combined to produce the Pentateuch. These sources were (1) the J source, so-­called because of its use of the name Yahweh for God (spelled Jahwe in German) and its assumed connection with Judah; (2) the E source, because of its use of Elohim to refer to God and its possible connection with the northern tribe of Ephraim; (3) the D source, found primarily in Deuteronomy; and (4) the P, or Priestly, source, found primarily in the second half of Exodus and the books of Leviticus and Numbers. These J, E, D, and P sources were assumed to have been combined in the exilic or postexilic period to produce the Pentateuch. If we take Amos as a typical example of a prophetic book, the diversity of material in the book makes it impossible to speak of Amos as the author. In the book, we find four types of material: (a) a superscription provides some historical data about the prophet (1:1); (b) much of the book consists of oracles or speeches attributed to the prophet (1:2–6:14; 8:4–14; 9:5–15); (c) some material is biographical, like the superscription, and speaks of the prophet in the third person (7:10–17); (d) other material reports visions by the prophet and appears to be autobiographical, with the prophet referring to himself in the first person (7:1–9; 8:1–3; 9:1–4). These diverse elements in Amos suggest that it was an edited work produced by someone other than the prophet himself. Practically all the prophetic books reflect these same features. Evidence of collective authorship and historical growth is also reflected in thematic changes and the different political situations presupposed in a given OT writing. Since the Middle Ages, scholars have noted that the historical conditions, the style of the speeches, and the content of the first part of Isaiah differ from those in the second part. Isaiah 1–39 presupposes a struggling state of Judah, defending itself against the aggressive and powerful Assyrian Empire. Isaiah 40–66 assumes that the Judeans are in exile and that a faltering Babylonian Empire is the major political power; Isaiah 44–45 envisions a rising Persian Empire. Chapters 1–39 presuppose the historical conditions of the eighth century BCE; chapters 40–66 reflect conditions of the sixth century BCE. To interpret the latter half of Isaiah as though it came from the eighth century BCE would be like interpreting a twenty-­first-­century writing as though it came from the nineteenth century. Like many portions of the OT, the

18

Biblical Exegesis

book of Isaiah must be viewed as an anthology of materials coming from different periods. 6. As with most writings from antiquity, the oldest manuscripts of the OT and NT we possess are approximate copies made long after the original documents were written. The oldest complete manuscript of the Hebrew Bible—the Leningrad Codex—dates from the Middle Ages (the copy was made in 1008 CE). The oldest complete manuscript of the NT—Codex Sinaiticus—dates from the fourth century CE. About 5,000 different Greek manuscripts or fragments of the NT are known. Of these, no two are identical. The manuscript copies of the Hebrew Bible or parts thereof are less numerous. In recent years, however, older fragments and almost complete manuscripts of some books of the OT have been discovered in caves in the Dead Sea region of Palestine. Some of these show considerable differences from the standard Hebrew texts. Since the Bible was translated into other languages, such as Syriac, Latin, and Coptic, these early versions must also be taken into account in our interpretations. This is especially the case with the OT, which was translated into Greek and Aramaic during the last centuries BCE and the early centuries CE. In addition, the first five books of the OT also exist in an early Hebrew form known as the Samaritan Pentateuch, which differs in many ways from the standard Hebrew text. This means that ancient translations of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek writings into other languages can provide valuable information for biblical exegetes. 7. That the Bible falls into the category of sacred Scripture needs little elaboration. Two matters should be noted, one positive and one negative. Today’s biblical exegete has been preceded by centuries of biblical study and interpretation that can be drawn upon for perspectives and insights. But this long history of interpretation also means that the Bible as sacred Scripture is now surrounded by various traditions and traditional interpretations. The exegete is frequently tempted to read the text in light of these traditions—what we were taught it meant—without exercising any critical judgment or allowing the text to speak on its own terms. To do this is to engage in what is called “eisegesis,” an interpretive practice in which we read our own traditions and opinions into the text rather than listening to what the text itself actually says. The above considerations might suggest that exegesis of the Bible is a formidable if not impossible task. In one sense it is; but in another sense, it is not. If the Bible in its manuscript and translated forms were newly discovered and we had to approach its interpretation as a completely new endeavor, we would face a truly overwhelming challenge. Interpretive



Introducing Exegesis 19

tools and resources would need to be developed, along with methods of approaching these new materials. Fortunately, modern exegetes are in a different position. No other book has been studied as extensively as the Bible. Throughout the centuries, thousands of people have interpreted the Bible, developed special methods of interpretation, and prepared study resources that are now available to us. Tools for biblical study have also been prepared by scholars who have spent their lives engaged in biblical exegesis and interpretation. These scholarly materials have always been available in libraries; modern technology makes them even more accessible now. Having these rich resources at our disposal gives us an enormous advantage in our exegetical work. Biblical Exegesis through the Centuries From their earliest days, Jews and Christians have sought to understand their Scriptures, to explain their contents, to appropriate their meaning, and to apply their teachings to daily life. How this has been done has varied throughout history. Some have suggested that the history of Judaism and Christianity cannot be understood apart from the ways in which their respective Scriptures have been interpreted. How these two closely related religious communities have understood the task of interpretation says a lot about their religious self-­consciousness and their relationship to the culture within which they existed. Broadly speaking, the history of biblical exegesis may be divided into three major periods, each of which reflects particular interests and characteristics. These are (1) the early and medieval period; (2) the period of the Reformation, with its roots in late medieval Jewish scholarship and the Renaissance; and (3) the modern period, in which earlier methods of interpretation were refined and new ones were developed. Although this threefold classification oversimplifies many historical complexities, it provides a useful framework for understanding how biblical exegesis has developed over the centuries. The Early and Medieval Period In the early phase of biblical interpretation, readers tended to assume that the faith and practices of their communities were identical with, and directly authorized by, the teachings of the Bible. Since they believed that the Bible was divinely given, they assumed that their appropriation of its

20

Biblical Exegesis

teachings was divinely ordained. Interpreters of the Bible believed that they were discerning the will of God as it had been given to the biblical writers and embodied in the texts. They thought that everything in the Bible, even its difficulties and problematic texts, was divine revelation. One rabbi advised: “Search it and search it, for everything is in it.” Recognizing biblical exegesis as a specialized discipline, ancient interpreters developed special rules for its interpretation. Rabbi Hillel (d. beginning of the first century CE) formulated seven rules for interpreting Scripture in order to determine normative practices. These were expanded to thirteen by Rabbi Ishmael in the second century and later were modified and enlarged. The Christian scholar Tyconius (d. about 400) also formulated seven rules to be used in understanding biblical texts. Generally, the theology of the interpreters and their respective communities influenced the results of their exegesis in this early period. This was especially the case with the Christian use of the OT. In describing how the Bible should be interpreted, Augustine (354–430) wrote: Every student of the Divine Scriptures must exercise himself, having found nothing else in them except, first, that God is to be loved for Himself, and his neighbor for the sake of God; second, that he is to love God with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his mind; and third, that he should love his neighbor as himself, that is, so that all love for our neighbor should, like all love for ourselves, be referred to God. (On Christian Doctrine 2.7.10)

If a text did not teach love, Augustine insisted, it should not be interpreted at face value: “Whatever appears in the divine Word that does not literally pertain to virtuous behavior or to the truth of faith, you must take to be figurative” (3.10.14). This often meant ignoring the “precise meaning which the author . . . intends to express” (1.36.40). Augustine further advised his readers that “when investigation reveals an uncertainty, . . . the rule of faith [the content of Christian faith] should be consulted as it is found in the more open places of Scripture and in the authority of the Church” (3.2.2). When Augustine talked about the figurative meaning of texts, he meant finding a hidden or secondary meaning behind statements in Scripture. The practice of finding several levels of meaning within texts was widespread in the ancient world. The Greek Stoic philosophers employed allegorical interpretation to explain problematic features of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey. This enabled them to account for, or explain away, offensive



Introducing Exegesis 21

behaviors attributed to the Olympic deities. Using allegorical interpretation, readers found philosophical and ethical teachings in the text that were not otherwise obvious in a literal reading. This allegorical approach was greatly developed in the Egyptian city of Alexandria and was applied to the OT by the Jewish exegete Philo (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE). The Christian scholar Origen (ca. 185–254 CE) argued that all biblical texts could have more than one meaning. “Just as [a human] consists of body, soul, and spirit,” Origen wrote, “in the same way so does the Scripture” (On First Principles 4.2.4). Because the literal meaning of some texts did not agree with accepted theology or ethics, Origen said that such texts “have no bodily sense at all, [and] there are occasions when we must seek only for the soul and the spirit, as it were, of the passage” (4.2.5). All texts could thus be taken as having a special, secondary spiritual (symbolic, typological, or allegorical) meaning, and at times the straightforward meaning could be totally ignored. Allegorical interpretation could be applied not only to difficult, problematic texts but also to other texts in order to edify believers. The classic example of this is Augustine’s analysis of the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:29–37). Augustine said the man who went down from Jerusalem to Jericho refers to Adam. Jerusalem is the heavenly city of peace, from whose blessedness Adam fell. Jericho means the moon and stands for human mortality, for the moon is born, waxes, wanes, and dies. The thieves who attacked Adam are the devil and his angels. They stripped him of his immortality and beat him by persuading him to sin. They left him half dead. The priest and the Levite who passed the man by without helping him are the priesthood and ministry of the OT, which cannot bring salvation. The term “Samaritan” is taken to mean Guardian, thus referring to Jesus himself. The binding of the wounds is the restraint of sin. Oil is the comfort of good hope, and wine is the exhortation to work with fervent spirit. The beast on which the man was placed signifies the flesh in which Christ appeared among men. Being set on the beast means belief in the incarnation of Christ. The inn to which the man was taken is the church, where persons are refreshed on their pilgrimage of return to the heavenly city. The two pieces of money that the Samaritan gave to the innkeeper are the promise of this life and of life to come, or else the two main sacraments. The innkeeper is the apostle Paul (Questions on the Gospels 2.19). Not everyone in the early church favored this type of fanciful, allegorical interpretation that enabled readers to find multiple levels of meaning in the biblical text. A group of interpreters associated with Antioch of

22

Biblical Exegesis

Syria, such as John Chrysostom (ca. 347–407) and Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350–428), emphasized the literal, or “plain,” meaning of Scripture. Rather than looking for the hidden (allegorical) meaning behind a biblical statement, they sought to understand the inspired writer’s intended meaning. For the Antiochian school of interpretation, a typological or nonliteral reading of a biblical text was permissible only when it did no violence to the straightforward or literal meaning. Especially important to Antiochian interpreters was honoring and retaining the organic unity of the entire Bible, which they thought was threatened by those who resorted to frequent, ad hoc allegorical interpretation. Eventually the interpretive approach of finding multiple meanings in texts dominated. The standard practice through most of the Middle Ages was to look for four meanings in a text: (a) the literal (straightforward or historical) meaning, (b) the allegorical (spiritualized or symbolic) meaning, (c) the tropological (moral or ethical) meaning, and (d) the anagogical (eschatological or heavenly) meaning. A short medieval Latin poem gave expression to this approach: The letter shows us what God and our fathers did; The allegory shows us where our faith is hid; The moral meaning gives us rules of daily life; The anagogy shows us where we end our strife.

While Jewish exegesis developed in many directions, it tended to adhere more closely to the literal meaning. Perhaps this resulted from Jewish resistance to interpretive approaches influenced by Greek philosophy, or from a greater desire to follow the explicit edicts and teachings of the biblical texts. Nonetheless, even Jewish exegesis eventually devised a fourfold interpretation of texts: (a) peshat (the plain meaning), (b) remez (allusion or allegory), (c) derash (the homiletical appropriation), and (d) sod (the mystical or secret). This fourfold interpretation of a text came to be referred to by the acronym PaRDeS, which means “Paradise.” Late Renaissance and Reformation In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, important shifts of perspective occurred in biblical interpretation and exegesis. The impetus for some of these shifts came from Jewish scholarship of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Scholars like Ibn Ezra (d. 1167) and Rashi (d. 1105) emphasized



Introducing Exegesis 23

the grammatical analysis of texts, which had as its goal the elucidation of the plain meaning (peshat) of texts. Renaissance scholars of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries rediscovered early classical texts; they formulated new approaches that took these new discoveries into account. Some interpreters resisted the urge to find multiple meanings in biblical texts while still holding to the inspiration of the Scriptures. Martin Luther (1483–1546) declared: “The Holy Spirit is the plainest writer and speaker in heaven and earth, and therefore His words cannot have more than one, and that the very simplest, sense, which we call the literal, ordinary, natural, sense.” There was a break with traditional methods of interpretation as the best means of understanding texts. Throughout the Middle Ages, interpretation often meant nothing more than noting what the church fathers and earlier authorities had said about a text. The new impetus tended to bypass church tradition in order to let the original texts speak for themselves. The slogan for this new emphasis was ad fontes (to the sources). Translations into the common languages meant a break with the Christian custom of using the Bible only in Latin. This development raised the problem of which text was to be used in making translations. It also stimulated the study of Hebrew and Greek as well as the printing of texts in the original biblical languages. The freedom granted interpreters in Protestantism, rather than producing the unanimity of opinion that the Reformers had rather naively assumed would result, led instead to a multitude of opinions, each of which some people believed to be based on sound exegesis and interpretation. It soon became obvious that the theological stance and historical situation of the interpreters played an important role in exegesis. The development of secular learning—philosophy, science, and general humanistic thought—meant that the Bible was no longer taken as the final, exclusive authority on many matters. Reason came to occupy an important role in the wider culture. New rationalistic explanations of history and human behavior came into conflict with systems of thought based on the Bible, revelation, and ecclesiastical tradition. A new understanding of history, especially as it related to the Bible, affected interpretation. In the medieval world, the past and present tended to blend into a unified whole. Rather than viewing the past as a previous, distinct period, medieval thinkers often saw the past as an earlier expression of the present. With the development of history as an academic discipline, scholars drew attention to the chronological and

24

Biblical Exegesis

cultural gaps between the present and the past. Firmly anchored in the past, the Bible was increasingly seen as a book that originated in the distant past and reflected an archaic outlook. The Modern Period: Post-­Enlightenment to the Present The modern period of biblical interpretation, extending from the eighteenth-­century Enlightenment to the present, was characterized by one general aim: to study and understand the biblical documents as one would any other set of documents from antiquity. The classic statement of this principle was formulated by the British classical scholar Benjamin Jowett (1817–93), who insisted that the Bible should be understood within its original historical setting and read like any other ancient writing. Interpreters increasingly emphasized the relationship between the content of biblical writings and the contexts in which they were composed. Because of this new emphasis, the Bible was studied from many new perspectives. It was also subjected to a variety of methodological approaches. The Bible was used to reconstruct the history and religion of Israel and the early church. It was also compared with the literature of other early cultures. Many interpreters were also attracted to the Bible because of its aesthetic and artistic values. These new approaches took their place alongside study of the Bible for its religious values and theological insights. Throughout this period, the Bible continued to serve as a foundation document for both Judaism and Christianity. Today the Bible is often studied and taught in contexts that are strictly academic, with no explicit connection to a community of faith. In subsequent chapters of this handbook, we will examine some of the approaches that developed out of this period. The Task of Biblical Exegesis Exegesis should be seen as a systematic way of interpreting a text. As noted earlier, exegesis is employed in many aspects of life, but biblical exegesis has its own specialized needs and disciplines. Its goal is quite simple: to reach an informed understanding of the text. This is different from saying that the exegete seeks to determine the meaning of the text. A biblical text can be meaningful in different ways and at different levels, depending on the interpreter’s perspective and goals. Different types of exegesis have been developed to address these multiple dimensions of meaning.

22

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

biblical text can be meaningful at different levels, depending on the interpreter’s perspective and goals. Different types of exegesis have been of meaning. developed to address these multiple dimensions Introducing Exegesis 25 Because texts yield meaning in different ways, we can never produce an exegesis as though it were the final word.ways, Eachwe time returnproduce to a Because texts yield meaning in different canwenever classic text such as the Bible we can expect to find fresh meaning. With an exegesis of a text as though it were the final word. Each time we return newtext encounter, our Bible, goal iswethecan same: to to develop a coherent, to each a classic such as the expect find fresh meaning. informed interpretation that is based thesame: best knowledge to With each new encounter, our goal isonthe to developavailable a coherent, us. Even if we have read a biblical text many times, with each new readinformed interpretation that is based on the best knowledge available to weifmay see it from a different perspective new us.ing Even we have read a biblical text many times, and with experience each new reading not allow us to master the text so new muchinsights. as it weinsights. may seeExegesis it from does a different perspective and experience enables us todoes enternot it. allow us to master the text so much as it enables Thus exegesis us to Exegesis enter it. may be thought of as learning how to interrogate the text. Our questions in different We may certain questions Exegesis may arise be thought of asways. learning howbring to ask questions of the to Our a textquestions before wearise read in it. different Or readingways. the text new questext. Wemay mayprompt bring certain questions. put many questions to asimple text, but exegesis often tions to aWe textcan before we read it, but the actdoing of reading theistext may a matter of knowing which questions to ask. As we gain experience in prompt new questions. We can put many questions to a text, but doing interpreting texts, we realize that some questions are worth exegesis is often a matter of knowing which questions to ask.pursuing, As we gain while others are not; or that some aresome answerable in ways experience in interpreting texts, wequestions realize that questions are that worth others are not.others As a rule, certain of interpretation have arisen in in pursuing, while are not; or types that some questions are answerable order addressare a specific of questions. The questions we ask ofhave a ways thattoothers not. Asset a rule, certain types of interpretation text determine what methods we employ to interpret it. arisen in order to address a specific set of questions. The questions we ask We determine can appreciate themethods multiplewe aspects of exegesis by drawing on the of a text what employ to interpret it. study of linguistics. way of understanding the process of commuWe can appreciate One the multiple aspects of exegesis by drawing on the nication is through the “communication triangle.” In highly simplified study of linguistics. One way of understanding the process of commuform, itiscan be depicted as follows: nication through the “communication triangle.” In highly simplified form, it can be depicted as follows: (1) Sender

(2) Receiver

(4) Signal

(3) The World of Reality

In this diagram, the sender represents the speaker, writer, or artist with whom the communication originates. The receiver is the audience, listener, hearer, or reader to whom the communication is addressed or is of interest. The world of reality denotes the universe of objects, ideas, and

EXEGESIS 23 In this diagram, the INTRODUCING sender represents the speaker, writer, or artist with whom the communication originates. The receiver is the audience, In this diagram, the sender represents the speaker,iswriter, or artist listener, hearer, or reader to whom the communication addressed or is with whom the communication originates. The receiver is the audience, 26 of interest. BiblicalThe Exegesis world of reality denotes the universe of objects, ideas, listener, hearer,that or reader to whom communication addressed or is and meanings are shared by thethe sender and receiverisand make comof interest. ofbysignal reality of make objects, ideas, munication possible. The isdenotes the means ofuniverse communication. For the meanings thatThe are world shared the sender andthe receiver and communiand meanings that are shared by the sender and receiver and make comartist, the signal is the work of art; for aofwriter it is the text. For the artist, cation possible. The signal is the means communication. possible. The signal the means communication. Forvarithe A similar schematic diagram, which isitwidely used to illustrate themunication signal is the work of art; for aiswriter, isof the text. artist, the signal is the work ofoffers art; originally for a writer itparallels is the text. ous literary-critical theories, some closeintroduced to the A similar schematic diagram, by commuMeyer H. A similar schematic diagram, which is widely used to illustrate varinication triangle. This second diagram is as follows: Abrams and widely used to illustrate various literary-­critical theories, ous literary-critical theories, offers some close parallels to the commuoffers some close parallels to the communication triangle. This second nication triangle. This second diagram diagram is as follows: (3) Universeis as follows:

(3) Universe (4) Work (4) Work

(1) Author

(2) Audience

(1) Author

(2) Audience

If we apply the first model to biblical interpretation, the following triangle result: If we applywould the first model to biblical interpretation, the following triIf we apply the angle would result: first model to biblical interpretation, the following triangle would result: (1) Originator

(2) Audience(s)

(1) Originator

(2) Audience(s) (4) Biblical Text (4) Biblical Text

(3) Universe of Ideas and Events (3) Universe Ideasbe andan Events The originator of the biblical textofmay author, editor, or redactor. A specific text may have had numerous authors, editors, or redactors. In some cases, the originator is best understood as a community, such as a group within Israel responsible for producing certain psalms. The audience may be the original hearer or reader, but it can also include

The originator of the biblical text may be an author, editor, or redactor. Or a given text may have had numerous authors, editors, or redactors. In some cases, the originator is best understood as a community, for example, a group within Israel responsible Introducing Exegesis 27 for producing certain psalms. The audience may be the original hearer or reader, but it can subsequent hearers or readers. The of ideas is theofthought also include subsequent hearers oruniverse readers. The universe ideas isworld, the perspectives, and perspectives, understandings are shared by the thought world, andthat understandings that areoriginator(s) shared by theand audience(s). This universe of ideas, is mirrored withinisthe originator(s) andshared audience(s). This sharedwhich universe of ideas, which biblical text,within enables to occur. The signaltois occur. the medium mirrored thecommunication biblical text, enables communication The of signal communication, which have originally been oral or written, is the medium of may communication, which originally may havebut now exists been oralinorwritten writtenform. but now exists in written form. If we apply processofofbiblical biblicalinterpretainterpretaIf we applythe thesecond seconddiagram diagram to to the process tion, it looks as as follows: tion, it looks follows: (3) Universe of Ideas and Events

(4) Biblical Text

(1) Author

(2) Reader

Problems that confront us as us modern exegetes may be classified accordProblems that confront as modern exegetes may be classified ingaccording to which to part of thepart model ourmodel questions address. We can also which of the our questions address. Weuse canthe model to illustrate ancient or process. We also use the modelthe to illustrate themodern ancient communication or modern communication canprocess. interrogate the text in terms of in theterms author’s communication, We can interrogate the text of theinitial author’s initial comthemunication, (hypothetical) shape original of the text, theofworld of ideas shared the original (hypothetical) shape the text, the world of by theideas original the communication, and the original audience’s sharedparties by the to original parties to the communication, and the orighearing, understanding, reception ofand thereception communication. Or we can inal audience’s hearing,and understanding, of the communiaskcation. about Or later the text, understandweforms can askofabout later later formsaudiences, of the text,and laterlater audiences, and ings of understandings reality. As modern readers, we can readers, see ourselves audience, later of reality. As modern we canasseeanourselves reading text in reading an even the latertext form in translation) and ininthe as an the audience, in (generally an even later form (generally context of a universe of ideas significantly from that that of the translation, for example) and that in thediffers context of a universe of ideas original differsparticipants. significantly from that of the original participants. Specific types of of biblical criticism have been developed to to answer cerSpecific types biblical criticism have been developed answer tain questions or solve certain problems in the tasktask of biblical exegesis. certain questions or solve certain problems in the of biblical exege- In the remainder of this book, we will be discussing some of these methods, what questions they intended to address, and how they developed. Our choice of topics is not arbitrary. Over the centuries, a broad consensus has developed among biblical interpreters about the kinds of questions to ask, the problems to be encountered, and the methods to be employed.

28

Biblical Exegesis

Debates still continue about the value of asking certain questions and the usefulness of various types of biblical criticism. But we cannot pretend that these questions have never been asked before or that our predecessors have not worked hard to formulate meaningful ways of responding to these questions. Like all historical processes, this centuries-­long discussion has registered gains and losses. Some methods of interpretation are no longer in vogue, while others have endured over time. The variety of methods to be discussed attests to the richness and diversity of the biblical documents. Often these methods of interpretation complement each other. This reminds us that there is not just one approach to a biblical text: there are many. Even when we employ several methods, we still cannot establish a single meaning for a biblical passage. We treat these different approaches as types of criticism, which is a technical expression used by scholars to denote a field of study in which some clearly defined principles and techniques have been developed. The word “criticism” derives from the Greek word krinein, meaning “to judge” or “to discern.” It refers to evaluative interpretation in which discerning judgments are made. A literary critic is someone who studies literary writings, attempting to make intelligent and informed judgments about them as literature. A film critic does the same for movies, an art critic for art, a food critic for cooking. In the end, such judgments may be negative or positive, complimentary or uncomplimentary, but “criticism” need not be a pejorative term. Biblical criticism, as a broad category, encompasses many subdisciplines and a wide variety of interpretive activities that seek to make discerning judgments about the Bible. As such, “being critical” is not equivalent to “being destructive.” It rather signifies an attempt to reach an informed judgment about a creative work or writing. Most of the questions that arise when modern readers engage in exegesis can be classified under one or more of the types of criticism. When we discover a variant reading within a text and wonder what the original wording might have been, we are addressing problems that are dealt with in textual criticism. Before interpreting any biblical text, we must decide at the outset the wording of the text to be considered. Another set of questions pertains to the historical, geographical, and cultural setting of the text: the context of the original author(s) and audience(s). If certain customs, events, places, and names mentioned in the text are unfamiliar to us, we must gather information about them in order to develop an informed understanding of the text. This applies not only to matters referred to in the text itself but also to the setting in which the text



Introducing Exegesis 29

originated and its history of transmission. Determining the chronological period, geographical locale, and authorship of the document can be equally important. Such questions fall under the rubric of historical criticism. Grammatical criticism deals with questions relating to the language of the text. This includes the words themselves, either singly or in phrases, as well as syntax—the way in which the words are put together in sentences or paragraphs. Understanding the grammar of a passage may require us to become familiar with the rules of grammar in effect at the time the passage was written. Often interpretive questions can be resolved only through grammatical analysis. Concern with the style, character, compositional techniques, and rhetorical patterns constitutes the field of literary criticism. At an early stage of biblical studies, literary criticism was understood narrowly and identified with source analysis, which seeks to identify the literary (and oral) sources that were used by writers in composing a text. But this constitutes only one aspect of literary criticism. Where the passage is located and how it functions within the larger literary document are often crucial for understanding a text. This is especially the case in narrative texts in which events are arranged in chronological sequence or in some other organizational pattern. Since most of the biblical documents originally existed in oral form or were written to be read aloud, ancient authors usually gave close attention to how the material should be arranged for maximum effect upon listeners. For this reason, we must also attend to rhetorical features of a text. While literary criticism deals with how the passage is structured and how it relates to its larger literary unit, form criticism focuses more narrowly on a single passage or on subunits in a passage. Special attention is given to the literary form, or genre, of the passage. Here we ask whether a passage is a narrative, a story, a parable, a prophetic speech, or a hymn. These questions have become important to biblical interpreters because of the close relationship between form and meaning. We read a poem one way, prose another way. The literary form of a passage creates certain expectations for the interpreter. Form criticism also deals with the social context in which texts originated. These “life settings” include such varied activities as worship, teaching, preaching, and debate. It is now widely recognized that the Bible, in many of its parts, resembles an anthology of sacred writings in which revered stories, traditions, and sayings uttered by individuals and preserved by various communities have been collected, edited, and formed into a single text. Many of these texts have a “prehistory,” which means that they were spoken or written

30

Biblical Exegesis

much earlier than the time they were incorporated into the biblical text itself. Efforts to uncover the earlier stages of development through which a text has passed are dealt with under tradition criticism. Even though a text might have a prehistory, we find it located within a specific biblical writing. For this reason, we also ask how the author(s) or editor(s) intended a passage to be understood in its final literary form. Redaction criticism focuses on the changes or redactions a text underwent in reaching its final form. It assesses the significance of such changes and how these reveal the theological outlook of the author or editor. Some interpreters read the biblical text without regard to such historically oriented matters as the origin of the text, the intention of the author, and the original audience. Such approaches focus on the structure of the text and how universal beliefs are embodied within it. Structural criticism, an approach that draws heavily on literary and philosophical theory in nonbiblical disciplines, addresses these dimensions of the text. This form of biblical criticism uses the structure of a text as a clue for deriving its meaning. While structuralism focuses on coherent patterns of meaning that are seen as reflecting “deep structures” of thought or universal principles shared by everyone, a competing approach—poststructuralism—concentrates instead on fissures within the text. By this is meant tensions, contradictions, or aspects of the text that reflect differences rather than similarities. In order to analyze a text, poststructuralists “deconstruct” the text by identifying and assessing these differences. Poststructuralism should not be seen as an interpretive movement that follows structuralism as a clearly defined “second stage,” but rather as an alternative set of conversations that have occurred concurrently with structuralist criticism. Poststructuralism can be thought of as an umbrella term that encompasses several different critical theories of interpretation. Over the centuries, biblical writings have been compiled into defined collections from which certain writings have been excluded. These prescribed lists of writings constitute the Jewish and Christian canons. When several sacred writings are collected into a single book—the Bible—the whole becomes more than the sum of the parts. Individual writings are read not only in their own right but in light of each other and in light of the whole. Canonical criticism explores how the Scriptures were transmitted and shaped by believing communities to produce a canon and how these texts are to be read and understood as parts of a collection of sacred writings. By distinguishing these different types of biblical criticism, we do not imply that exegesis is a mechanical undertaking that occurs in a stair-­step



Introducing Exegesis 31

fashion, as if one method or stage of exegesis always leads to the next. Depending on the nature of a specific text, questions may arise in different ways. Initially we may be puzzled by literary or historical features of a text and only later discover that an important textual variant within the passage needs to be clarified. Even though questions may arise from the text in a somewhat random fashion, they need not be pursued randomly. Even the novice interpreter soon discovers systematic ways of tackling various exegetical questions. Exegesis generally occurs in two stages: analysis and synthesis. At the outset, we examine different aspects of the passage, including historical, grammatical, and literary questions related to the text. This helps us “break down” the passage into its component parts. We address individual problems and investigate discrete units of material. Even though we may pursue these questions separately, they often relate to each other, even inform each other. As we analyze a text, our understanding of the passage gradually increases. Here we are laying the groundwork for synthesis. By synthesis, we mean the process by which we pull together the results of our investigation. In analysis, we deconstruct the text; in synthesis, we reconstruct it. In the latter, our goal is to relate our analytical investigations to each other, weigh the significance of individual findings in light of the others, and decide how all of these contribute to our overall understanding of the passage. As we engage in exegesis, we discover that it can have both a positive and a negative function. Positively, we are able to make claims about the text that were previously unknown to us or about which we were uncertain. In this way, exegesis produces new knowledge, at least for us as interpreters. Negatively, we may succeed only in determining what the text cannot mean. Sometimes the most productive part of exegesis is exposing ways of reading or understanding a text that are no longer defensible or viable. We may discover that what we thought a text meant is not supported by the evidence we have uncovered. But even negative knowledge can have positive benefit. We may employ the tools, methods, and approaches of different forms of biblical criticism, such as lexicography, textual criticism, and historical analysis, all of which can be highly technical, even scientific, in nature. But exegesis is as much art as it is science. It requires both imagination and creativity, not only in learning how to put questions to a text, but also in learning how to answer these questions. Above all, exegesis requires that we synthesize our answers into a coherent, meaningful interpretation of the passage. Exegesis may draw on several theological specialties,

32

Biblical Exegesis

many of them highly technical, but it also challenges us to draw on our creative capacities in order to develop interpretations that are informed, imaginative, interesting, and compelling. Bibliography (An asterisk marks items especially recommended as additional reading for beginning students.) Bibliographies *Bauer, David R. An Annotated Guide to Biblical Resources for Ministry. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2011. *Childs, Brevard S. Old Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1977. Danker, Frederick W. Multipurpose Tools for Bible Study. Rev. and exp. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2010. *Fitzmyer, Joseph A. An Introductory Bibliography for the Study of Scripture. 3rd ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1990. France, Richard T., Graham N. Stanton, and Alan R. Millard. A Bibliographical Guide to New Testament Research. 3rd ed. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1983. Marrow, Stanley B. Basic Tools of Biblical Exegesis. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. *Martin, Ralph P. New Testament Books for Pastor and Teacher. Rev. and updated. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Stewart, David R., and John A. Bollier. The Literature of Theology: A Guide for Students and Pastors. Rev. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Wagner, Günter, ed. An Exegetical Bibliography of the New Testament. 4 vols. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1983–96.

Biblical Exegesis Abrams, Meyer H. The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition. 1953. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971. *Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. 2nd ed. London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Brettler, Marc Zvi. How to Read the Bible. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005. Brown, Raymond E. Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine. 1986. Repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Broyles, Craig C., ed. Interpreting the Old Testament: A Guide for Exegesis. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Carson, Donald A. Exegetical Fallacies. 1996; 2nd ed. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2007; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2013. Conzelmann, Hans, and Andreas Lindemann. Interpreting the New Testament: An Introduction to the Principles and Methods of New Testament Exegesis. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. Erickson, Richard J. A Beginner’s Guide to New Testament Exegesis: Taking the Fear out of Critical Method. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2005.



Introducing Exegesis 33

Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2014. Gorman, Michael J. Elements of Biblical Exegesis: A Basic Guide for Students and Ministers. Rev. and exp. ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Haynes, Stephen R., and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. To Each Its Own Meaning: An Introduction to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications. Rev. and exp. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Kaiser, Otto, and Werner G. Kümmel. Exegetical Method: A Student’s Handbook. Rev. ed. New York: Seabury, 1981. Kaiser, Walter C. Toward an Exegetical Theology: Biblical Exegesis for Preaching and Teaching. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. Kaltner, John, and Steven L. McKenzie, eds. New Meanings for Ancient Texts: Recent Approaches to Biblical Criticisms and Their Applications. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Marshall, I. Howard, ed. New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and Methods. Car­ lisle, UK: Paternoster, 1977; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983. McKenzie, Steven L. How to Read the Bible. 2005. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. McKnight, Scot, ed. Introducing New Testament Interpretation. 1989. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2012. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Handbook to Exegesis of the New Testament. 1997. Leiden and New York: Brill, 2002. Schertz, Mary H., and Perry B. Yoder. Seeing the Text: Exegesis for Students of Greek and Hebrew. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. *Soulen, Richard N., and R. Kendall Soulen. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. 1976. 4th ed. Rev. and exp. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. Steck, Odil H. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the Methodology. 1995. 2nd ed. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998. Strawn, Brent A. The Old Testament Is Dying: A Diagnosis and Recommended Treatment. 2013. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. Stuart, Douglas K. Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 1980. 5th ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2022. Tate, W. Randolph. Handbook for Biblical Interpretation: An Essential Guide to Methods, Terms, and Concepts. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Williams, David M. Receiving the Bible in Faith: Historical and Theological Exegesis. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2004. Yoder, Perry B. From Word to Life: A Guide to the Art of Bible Study. Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1982. Young, Frances M. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. 1997. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Annotated Study Bibles Attridge, Harold W., Wayne A. Meeks, Jouette M. Bassler, Werner E. Lemke, Susan Niditch, and Eileen M. Schuller, eds. The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised

34

Biblical Exegesis

Standard Version, including the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books, with Concordance. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2006. Barker, Kenneth L., John H. Stek, and Ronald Youngblood, eds. Zondervan TNIV Study Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Berlin, Adele, Marc Zvi Brettler, and Michael Fishbane, eds. The Jewish Study Bible: Featuring the Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation. 2004. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014. Coogan, Michael, Marc Zvi Brettler, Carol Newsom, and Pheme Perkins, eds. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha: An Ecumenical Study Bible. 2001. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Harrelson, Walter J., Donald Senior, Abraham Smith, Phyllis Trible, and James C. VanderKam, eds. The New Interpreter’s Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha. Nashville: Abingdon, 2003. Kee, Howard C., ed. The Cambridge Annotated Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Kroeger, Catherine C., and Mary J. Evans, eds. The IVP Women’s Bible Commentary. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2002. NIV Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk through Biblical History and Culture: New International Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. O’Day, Gail R., and David Petersen, eds. The Access Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Saint Mary’s Press College Study Bible: New American Bible. Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press, 2007. Senior, Donald, and J. J. Collins, eds. The Catholic Study Bible: New American Bible. 2006. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Suggs, M. Jack, Katharine D. Sakenfeld, and James R. Mueller. The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with the Apocrypha. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

History of Biblical Interpretation Ackroyd, Peter R., C. F. Evans, G. W. H. Lampe, and S. H. Greenslade, eds. Cambridge History of the Bible. 3 vols. London and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1963–70. Baird, William. History of New Testament Research. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992–2013. Barton, John, ed. The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. ———. A History of the Bible: The Story of the World’s Most Influential Book. London: Allen Lane, 2019. Bray, Gerald Lewis. Biblical Interpretation: Past and Present. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; Leicester, UK: Inter-­Varsity, 1996. *Clements, R. E., One Hundred Years of Old Testament Interpretation = A Century of Old Testament Study. Rev. ed. Guildford, UK: Lutterworth; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976. Cook, John G. The Interpretation of the New Testament in Greco-­Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002. ———. The Interpretation of the Old Testament in Greco-­Roman Paganism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004. De Hamel, Christopher. The Book: A History of the Bible. London: Phaidon, 2001.



Introducing Exegesis 35

Evans, Gillian R. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Earlier Middle Ages. 1984. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ———. The Language and Logic of the Bible: The Road to Reformation. 1985. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Froehlich, Karlfried. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. *Grant, Robert M., with David Tracy. A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible. 1948. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. Greer, Rowan A. Anglican Approaches to Scripture: From the Reformation to the Present. New York: Crossroad, 2006. Hahn, Herbert F., and Horace D. Hummel. The Old Testament in Modern Research. 1954. Exp. ed., with rev. bibliographical essay. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970. Harrisville, Roy A., and Walter Sundberg. The Bible in Modern Culture: Baruch Spinoza to Brevard Childs. 1995. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Hauser, Alan J., and Duane F. Watson, eds. A History of Biblical Interpretation. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003–17. *Hayes, John H., ed. Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. 2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999. Kugel, James L., and Rowan A. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Kümmel, Werner G. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems. Nashville: Abingdon, 1972; London: SCM, 1973. McAuliffe, Jane D., Barry Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering, eds. With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2003. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010. Morgan, Robert, with John Barton. Biblical Interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. *Neill, Stephen, and N. T. Wright. The Interpretation of the New Testament, 1861–1986. 1964. 2nd ed. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. O’Keefe, John J., and Russell R. Reno, eds. Sanctified Vision: An Introduction to Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005. *Pelikan, Jaroslav. Whose Bible Is It? A Short History of the Scriptures. London and New York: Penguin, 2006. Reventlow, Henning G. The Authority of the Bible and the Rise of the Modern World. London: SCM, 1984; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Riches, John K. A Century of New Testament Study. Cambridge: Lutterworth; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1993. Rogerson, J. W. Old Testament Criticism in the Nineteenth Century: England and Germany. London: SPCK, 1984; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ———, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Sæbø, Magne, C. Brekelmans, et al., eds. Hebrew Bible / Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation. 3 vols. in 5. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996–2015. Sandys-­Wunsch, John. What Have They Done to the Bible? A History of Modern Biblical Interpretation. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005.

36

Biblical Exegesis

Simonetti, Manlio, Anders Bergquist, John A. Hughes, Markus N. A. Bockmuehl, et al., eds. Biblical Interpretation in the Early Church: An Historical Introduction to Patristic Exegesis. 1994. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2001. Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages. 1964. 3rd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Trebolle Barrera, Julio C. The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible. Leiden and New York: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Yarchin, William. History of Biblical Interpretation: A Reader. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2011.

Chapter Two

Textual Criticism The Quest for the Original Wording

W

hen studying the Bible, we often discover variations in the wording of the text in ancient manuscripts. The technical terms used to describe such variations are “textual variants” or “variant readings.” The field of study devoted to this aspect of biblical interpretation is known as textual criticism. Scholars who specialize in this area are called textual critics. These questions can be referred to as text-­critical problems. Textual criticism is one of the oldest forms of biblical criticism. Many ancient authors, such as Origen of Alexandria (ca. 185–254 CE), were keenly aware of the different forms in which biblical writings were written and preserved. They recognized the implications of this complex textual situation for interpreting the Bible. By devoting extensive attention to the study of how these texts and translations of the Bible were transmitted, they became pioneers of textual criticism. Origen, for example, placed six different versions in parallel columns, creating an enormous “parallel Bible” (Hexapla), which has survived only in fragments. The first printed edition of the Bible to note variant readings from different manuscripts was an edition of the NT published in 1550 by Robert Estienne (1503–59). By the time John Mills (1645–1707) published his edition of the NT in 1707, more than 30,000 variant readings were included. Discovering Textual Variants As modern interpreters, we encounter textual variants in different ways. Sometimes this occurs when we read the same passage in different translations. For example, reading the story of the Ethiopian eunuch’s 37

38

Biblical Exegesis

conversion in Acts 8 in the KJV, we notice his confession given in verse 37. Reading the same account in the NRSV, we discover that this verse is missing from the text. Instead, it is placed in a footnote and prefaced with the remark: “Other ancient authorities add all or most of verse 37.” One of the most famous textual variants occurs in 1 John 5:7. In the KJV, the text reads: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” When Erasmus (ca. 1466–1536) published the first edition of his NT in Greek (1516), he omitted these words, which appear in the Latin Vulgate, because they were not in any Greek manuscript available to him. They were later included in Erasmus’s third (1522) and subsequent editions because an early sixteenth-­century Greek manuscript “turned up” that included them. Thus they were later translated as part of the KJV. Modern translations, like the NRSV, relegate this obvious Trinitarian gloss to a footnote. We may also detect variant readings in a passage even if we are working exclusively with one of the major committee translations of the Bible, such as the NRSV, REB, NJB, NJPS, NIV, or NAB. Reading a passage in one of these modern translations, we may be referred to a footnote in which we find unfamiliar symbols and abbreviations. For example, in the NRSV text of Micah 4:13, we read: “You shall beat in pieces many peoples, and shall devote their gain to the Lord.” In the footnote attached to the second occurrence of “shall,” we find: “Gk Syr Tg: Heb and I will.” This note tells us that the NRSV wording follows the Greek translation of the OT, also known as the Septuagint, here abbreviated as “Gk”; a reading found also in the Syriac (Syr) and the Aramaic translations of the Hebrew Bible, commonly designated as Targums (Tg). The text of the Bible in Hebrew, here abbreviated as “Heb,” has a variant reading, which is given in italics: and I will. Another example is Genesis 10:5, in which the NRSV has “These are the descendants of Japheth in their lands.” The footnote attached to the word “Japheth” says: “Compare verses 20, 31. Heb lacks These are the descendants of Japheth.” This footnote tells us that the italicized phrase, which is found in the NRSV text of Genesis 10:5, does not appear in the Hebrew Bible. But when we compare 10:20, “These are the descendants of Ham,” and 10:31, “These are the descendants of Shem,” we see that the NRSV translators concluded that a similar phrase was found originally in verse 5 but dropped out for some reason. They decided to include the phrase in verse 5 even though it is not found there in the Hebrew Bible or in any ancient translation.



Textual Criticism 39

A striking example of a modern translation adding a section to the text can be seen at 1 Samuel 10:27 in the NRSV. An entire, previously unknown, paragraph has been added: Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-­gilead.

This addition is made on the basis of the reading of one Hebrew manuscript discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls. The NRSV footnote indicates this by the abbreviation “Q Ms,” which stands for a Qumran manuscript discovered near the Dead Sea. The reference to Josephus (ca. 37–100 CE) acknowledges that this Jewish historian may have been familiar with such a text (see Antiquities 6.5.1 [68–71]). The final note, “MT lacks Now Jahash . . . entered Jabesh-­gilead,” indicates that this paragraph is absent from the Masoretic Text, a vocalized edition of the Hebrew Bible that was prepared in the latter half of the first millennium of the Common Era. Sometimes the reader encounters differences among translations that are not based on any ancient version. A translation may include a term or phrase not found in the original or any version. (The original KJV printed all these in italics.) In Psalm 109:6, for example, the NRSV adds “they say” but reports in a textual note that this phrase is not found in Hebrew (or in any version!). Here the translators have inserted an “interpretive variant” since they believed that, beginning in verse 6, the psalmist began to quote what others said about him. Such readings are generally noted as “Cn,” that is, “Correction” (see note attached to the word “father” in v. 14 of the same psalm). Such notes do not report textual variants; instead, they report interpretive decisions made by the translators and are always open to question. As interpreters, we frequently find textual notations about variant readings in modern translations of the Bible. As we encounter them, we are led to ask: What accounts for these variations of wording within a text? Which of the variants represents the original reading? Or can we even determine the original wording of a text? Understanding the nature of our earliest biblical manuscripts (handwritten texts) can help us appreciate why such notations occur, what they mean, and how to use them.

40

Biblical Exegesis Preserving and Transmitting Biblical Texts

None of the original manuscripts, or autographs, of any biblical writing has been preserved. So far as we know, no firsthand or even secondhand copy of any of the original manuscripts has survived. What have survived are manuscripts written much later than the original, in which scribes have copied earlier copies. These copies vary in date, but the oldest are usually copies of single books of the Bible. Quite often only small parts or even just tiny fragments of individual writings have survived. The oldest surviving manuscript fragment of an OT writing in Hebrew dates from the third century BCE, while the earliest extant NT manuscript is a fragment from the Gospel of John dating from the early second century CE. Since there is a chronological gap between what was written originally by a biblical author (or what was compiled by an editor) and the earliest surviving copy, it is an illusion to assume that we can ever recover with certainty the original wording of a biblical text. Thousands of copies of biblical writings have been preserved from ancient times. Some of these are complete manuscripts containing the entire Hebrew OT or Greek NT or major portions of each Testament. Many others are manuscripts of individual books that are either complete or virtually complete. Still others are manuscripts containing only portions of single books. No two of these manuscripts are identical in every detail. As early as the third century BCE, the OT began to be translated into Greek. Later it was translated into other languages, including Syriac (a Semitic language akin to Aramaic) and Latin. Shortly after the NT was written, it began to be translated, first into Syriac, later into Latin. It was also translated into other languages that were more regional, such as Coptic, an Egyptian dialect. Often manuscripts of these translations, even in the same language, may differ significantly from one another. We frequently find considerable differences between the translations of biblical writings and their original Hebrew or Greek counterparts. For example, the Old Greek version of Job is about one-­sixth shorter than the Hebrew source text. The Old Greek version of Jeremiah is also shorter than the Masoretic form of the Hebrew, and much of the material in the Greek version is arranged in a different order. Until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was thought that the Old Greek version was an abbreviated text. Because of the popularity of the biblical writings, they were often quoted in commentaries and other written works that dealt with biblical



Textual Criticism 41

topics. Quotations of the same biblical passage vary from one writer to another, or even within the same writer. These biblical quotations by later Jewish and Christian writers sometimes differ considerably from what we find in the extant Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, or in the translations of these manuscripts into other languages, such as Syriac, Latin, or Coptic. Types of Textual Variants Since ancient biblical writings were preserved in these different forms, we can identify four types of textual variants: (1) differences among manuscripts in the original languages, (2) variations among the early translations of biblical writings, (3) differences between the ancient manuscripts in the original languages and manuscripts of early translations, and (4) variant quotations in early Jewish and Christian writings. Once we understand not only how ancient writings were originally composed but also how they were copied, preserved, transmitted, translated, and quoted, it is easier to explain how such variations in the wording of a biblical passage could result. Many of the varying quotations in rabbinical and early Christian ­literature arose because writers were quoting from memory. Major differences between early translations and their corresponding source texts may be the result of differing textual traditions or different forms of these books in circulation in their original language. For example, a shorter and longer form of Jeremiah existed in the original Hebrew. For the OT, not all books were well preserved in their original Hebrew— the books of Samuel and Hosea, for example. The Old Greek sometimes attests a Hebrew text closer to the original than do extant Hebrew witnesses (see the notes in the NRSV at Deut 32:8; 1 Sam 4:1; Hos 5:11; 9:1; 10:10). In the case of 1 Samuel 4:1, the Greek preserves a sentence that is entirely missing in the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible. Textual variants within biblical manuscripts written in the original languages often reflect corruptions in the text. Generally speaking, textual critics have detected two types of changes made by scribes as they copied manuscripts: (a) unintentional and (b) intentional. Unintentional errors include both hearing and reading mistakes that scribes made as they copied manuscripts. The former could occur as several scribes, assembled in the same scriptorium (a room in which scribal copying occurred), listened to a single scribe reading aloud from a master copy and then wrote what they heard. While this ancient form of

42

Biblical Exegesis

multiple copying was more efficient than a single scribe sitting at a desk copying a manuscript, it also yielded hearing errors. A scribe might correctly hear a word read aloud, and then record it incorrectly; or scribes could mistakenly record a word because they failed to hear it correctly in the first place. Either way, what they wrote differed from what the scribe in the front of the room saw written in the manuscript. Visual errors occurred when scribes produced a fresh manuscript by looking at a master copy and then writing what they saw or thought they saw. In this form of producing a new manuscript by manually copying an older manuscript, a scribe could commit several forms of reading mistakes. A scribe might skip a word or a line (called “haplography”), write a word or a line twice (“dittography”), misspell a word, reverse the order of letters within a single word, or reverse the order of words within a sentence. Sometimes a scribe would see a note made in the margin of an early text and, thinking it was part of the text, decide to incorporate this marginal gloss into the new copy. These are only some of the ways unintentional errors might occur. Intentional changes in the wording of the text could occur for a variety of reasons. A scribe might feel compelled to “correct” the spelling or “improve the grammar” of a manuscript being copied. Whether the scribe’s “correction” was right or wrong, this would introduce yet another variation into the textual tradition. The scribe might also choose to rearrange the order of words, sentences, or even paragraphs; on occasion scribes might add material if they felt the need to do so. This may have been done to produce a more coherent or a more logically sequential account. In any event, such changes, transpositions, and glosses were made by scribes, even when they were copying sacred texts. Although we may now be able to determine that their “correction” was wrong, they probably thought they were improving the text. Scribes also changed texts intentionally for theological or doctrinal reasons. If the text being copied contained a statement with which the scribe disagreed, it was sometimes changed or expanded to make it ­conform to what the scribe regarded as a more orthodox position. Ancient Hebrew scribes noted at least eighteen cases in the Hebrew Bible in which the text had been changed for theological reasons. In some cases, the scribe might simply omit the offensive verse or passage. Whenever intentional changes were made in the text—and they were made for other reasons as well—they were supposed to improve the text or its content.



Textual Criticism 43 Manuscript Families

Ancient biblical writings were copied frequently and became widespread throughout the Mediterranean world. As one might expect, certain centers, usually major cities—such as Jerusalem, Babylon, Alexandria, Constantinople, or Rome—became the respective homes of certain biblical texts. This occurred either because early copies might have been preserved in one of these centers or because the names of revered biblical personalities or scribes came to be associated with such cities. We can easily imagine how a distinctive textual tradition might develop within one geographical locale. By examining the many remaining copies of the biblical writings, especially the NT and the Greek versions of the OT, scholars have assigned them to families or recensions. These groupings are based on linguistic similarities among manuscripts as well as the association of certain manuscripts with single geographical locales. Not every surviving biblical manuscript easily fits into one of these families, but grouping manuscripts according to geographical location—such as Alexandrian, Caesarean, or Western (Rome)—is a convenient form of classification. This is especially true of NT manuscripts, which have been typically grouped in families based on their genealogical relationship. Such groupings are based on linguistic, grammatical, or even theological tendencies that textual critics detect in manuscripts. For example, a specific textual variant may have been introduced in the fourth century CE and then may have shown up later in an entire group of manuscripts. If this single variant, or if a pattern based upon several variants, occurs repeatedly in a group of manuscripts, these scribal tendencies enable textual critics to group the manuscripts displaying such characteristics into the same family. Since they possess the same genealogical relationship, they are said to belong to the same text type. As scholars have studied the various tendencies within families of manuscripts, they have noticed certain characteristics. Some manuscript families tend to be expansionist, containing variant readings consistently longer than those in other groupings. Other manuscript families, by contrast, may be more conservative, exhibiting reluctance to include any changes, either expansions or reductions in wording. Knowing these tendencies helps us in assessing the relative merits of specific variants. For example, if we encounter a variant reading in a certain passage and discover that it is supported by only a single manuscript,

44

Biblical Exegesis

or a group of manuscripts with an expansionist tendency, we would have good reason to reject it, all other things being equal. Critical Editions of the Bible As the study of textual criticism has developed over the centuries, our knowledge of the process by which early manuscripts have been transmitted and preserved has increased dramatically. In addition, detailed knowledge of specific manuscripts—such as their date and place of origin, peculiarities of style, and how they relate to other manuscripts—has been accumulated. Archaeological discoveries, such as the Qumran writings or Dead Sea Scrolls, have also provided valuable information for textual criticism. The results of these scholarly activities continue to be available in books and journals and on the internet, but they come to fruition most visibly in the production of critical editions of the biblical writings and in the modern translations produced by committees of scholars using such critical editions. A critical edition of any ancient writing, including the OT and NT, contains a text in the original language in which the writing was produced, along with an extensive set of footnotes, the critical apparatus, which lists textual variants and the different ancient sources in which various readings have been preserved. Typically these witnesses are listed in the following order: ancient manuscripts (including papyri and parchment manuscripts), versions (translations into other languages), and patristic citations (the works of early commentators and scholars). Some critical editions provide only a selection of all the textual variants; others attempt to include every variation within the text. Although modern committee translations do not reproduce the text in the original language, these modern translations have been prepared by scholars who have given close attention to text-­critical matters. None of the modern committee translations contains an extensive critical apparatus; they rather provide footnotes that report the most important variations in wording and describe the nature of those variations. In a tightly compact form, these footnotes typically describe the type of variation, whether it is an addition, omission, alteration, or transposition. They also give some indication of the ancient manuscript evidence that supports the reading adopted in the main text and the variant readings listed in the footnote. The latest critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek texts and the latest committee translations of the Bible, both OT and NT, provide the most up-­to-­date accumulation of the scholarship produced by textual



Textual Criticism 45

critics working with biblical texts. These editions are the most compact final form into which the work of textual critics is cast. Evaluating Textual Variants When we encounter variations within the text, our primary task is to examine the variants, assess their relative importance, and decide how they affect the passage to be interpreted. Naturally, the beginning student must rely on the work of experts since textual criticism is a highly developed, complex field of study. Even so, it is important to understand what textual critics seek to achieve and how they work. Textual criticism has a threefold aim: (a) to determine how textual variants arose as ancient biblical writings were transmitted and preserved; (b) to establish the most likely original wording, when this is judged to be possible or feasible; and (c) to determine the best form and wording of the text that the modern reader should use. Textual critics have developed criteria for assessing variant readings. In spite of their complexity, they are often based on common sense and ingenuity. These scholars have identified the kinds of changes that occurred when ancient texts were composed, copied, preserved, and transmitted. They have also established the reasons why such changes occur. Evaluating these changes often requires one to work back from the variants toward the more original form of the text. One of the most fundamental axioms with which textual critics work is this: the more difficult reading is to be preferred. This rule is based on the observation that scribes tended to smooth out difficulties rather than create them. Consequently, given two variations of wording, the more difficult reading is more likely to have given rise to the simpler reading. An example occurs in Mark’s account of the healing of the demoniac (Mark 5:1–20). Verse 1 reports that Jesus and the disciples, after crossing the Sea of Galilee, came to “the country of the Gerasenes.” Since this region was located several miles away from the seacoast, some ancient scribes substituted more probable locations, including “Gergesenes” and “Gadarenes.” Since “Gerasenes” is the more difficult reading, it is preferred (see textual note on “Gerasenes” in Mark 5:1 in the NRSV). Another general rule is that the shorter reading is to be preferred. Because copyists tended to expand the text rather than shorten it, textual critics generally give priority to a shorter reading rather than a longer one. They have discovered that scribes, as a general rule, tended to make additions to the text rather than delete elements from it.

46

Biblical Exegesis

In Acts 19:9, for example, Luke reports that Paul, after meeting resistance from synagogue leaders in Ephesus, began teaching “daily in the lecture hall of Tyrannus.” Some ancient manuscripts read “[the lecture hall] of a certain Tyrannus, from eleven o’clock in the morning to four in the afternoon.” Knowing that this variant reading occurs in an ancient manuscript that tends to add words and phrases to the text, textual critics prefer the shorter reading (see textual note on “Tyrannus” in Acts 19:9 in the NRSV). Yet another general rule is this: a reading that helps explain the origin of the other readings is probably more original. In 1 Corinthians 13:3, Paul writes, “and if I hand over my body so that I may boast,” but some ancient manuscripts read “body to be burned.” Different forms of “burn” are found in other ancient manuscripts. Confusion probably resulted from similar-sounding verbs: kauchēsōmai (I may boast) and kauthēsomai (I may be burned). Several considerations have convinced textual critics that “I may boast” is the preferred reading, since it is probably the reading from which the alternate readings originated (see textual note on “boast” in 1 Cor 13:3 in the NRSV). Scribes also tended to harmonize divergent readings rather than create them. For this reason, a variant reading that looks harmonistic tends to be discounted in favor of one that creates a problem of some sort. In addition to these scribal tendencies, textual critics also take into account matters of style, vocabulary, and literary context. For example, if a variant reading tends to diverge from the author’s vocabulary and style found elsewhere in the same document, it is less likely to be original. A variant reading that does not easily fit into the larger literary context of the document because it introduces a new theme or motif is usually suspicious. All these considerations are regarded as internal evidence because they pertain to statements or characteristics inherent within the text itself. External evidence includes observations from outside the text, such as the date and character of the manuscript witnesses, the geographical distribution of the manuscript witnesses, and the genealogical relationship between the families of texts. As noted earlier, textual critics have classified most of the manuscript witnesses into types or families. They have also established both dates and geographical locales for the manuscripts. In some instances, the manuscripts contain this information; in other instances, it has to be deduced from other considerations, such as the style of writing or the type of material on which the manuscript was written. Lists of the relevant manuscripts, with their assigned dates and locations, are contained



Textual Criticism 47

in critical editions and are easily available in standard works, such as The Text of the New Testament, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland. As we evaluate textual variants, we inevitably raise questions of chronology: When did the variant enter the manuscript tradition? Was it original or not? If not, was it an early or late change? Generally speaking, the earlier a reading, the more likely it is to be authentic. Yet this is not invariably the case because of what we know about the process of manuscript transmission. For example, a corrupt reading might be attested in a fourth-­century manuscript, while an eighth-­century manuscript may preserve a reading that is possibly much earlier and better. In this case, the reading in the later manuscript is to be preferred. Similarly, if a corrupt reading is attested in several extant manuscripts, yet a clearly authentic reading is attested in only one extant manuscript, the latter would be preferred, although supported by only one manu­script witness. Because poor readings may be supported by many manuscripts and good readings may be attested in only one or a few manuscripts, textual critics have also formulated another principle: manuscripts should not only be counted, but also weighed. As we try to decide among variant readings, we soon discover that no single criterion will work in every case. Some criteria apply in certain cases; some do not. In some cases, one criterion tends to cancel another criterion. By reading the scholarly discussions of textual critics or commentators who employ the work of textual critics, we can observe how they proceed. Typically, they begin with a particular instance in a problem text; accumulate all the evidence possible, both internal and external; and try to evaluate the options on their individual merits. Textual critics will consider various criteria that relate to a specific case, but their final decision is based on their own informed judgment and creative insight. Beginning students are sometimes put off by text-­ critical analysis because it is a complicated, technical process. But the more we work with ancient texts, the more familiar we become with text-­critical criteria and how they work. It also helps if we try to understand the logic of text-­ critical analysis and remember that widely accepted text-­critical principles are based on common sense. In many ways, text-­critical analysis resembles detective work. We often find ourselves looking for clues to explain how a particular reading arose and to develop hypotheses that account for the evidence before us. As we develop deeper understanding of the origin and transmission of texts, we can make better sense of what we find in the critical apparatuses of modern editions of the Bible and in the textual footnotes of modern committee translations.

48

Biblical Exegesis How to Proceed

How should the beginning student actually proceed in addressing text-­ critical problems? First, consult the text and the footnotes in a modern committee translation of the Bible. Even better, consult several such translations. These notes are usually located at the bottom of the page, near the actual text. In annotated study Bibles, these notes are typically separated from the notes that serve as a short commentary on the text. Because of limited space, these notes generally report only the most important textual problems. Text-­critical notes are usually introduced with such phrases as “Other ancient manuscripts read . . . ” or “Other ancient authorities lack . . . ” This text-­critical information should be distinguished from other notes located in the same place that indicate alternate forms of translation or other explanatory information. Alternate translations of a particular Hebrew or Greek word are not textual variants or variant readings in a text-­critical sense. Textual variants are variations of wording within the ancient manuscript tradition. Second, determine the type of problem involved. Any abbreviations or symbols used in the text-­critical notes will be explained in the preface of the biblical edition being used. By consulting these explanatory notes, you can determine more precisely the nature of the problem. Third, after looking at the evidence reported in the textual notes of a committee translation, you should consult a biblical commentary on the passage. A critical commentary, as opposed to a more general and expository commentary, will discuss all the important text-­critical problems. Even though critical commentaries employ Hebrew and Greek terms, students who do not know these original languages can usually determine the gist of the problem. If the translators of a specific edition have produced a handbook explaining their choice of readings, these should also be consulted. After making these preliminary moves and examining one or more critical commentaries, you are then ready to move to the next step. Fourth, identify the variant reading or readings and list them alongside the reading adopted in the translation or edition that you are using. Beside each variant, list the supporting witnesses: identify which ancient manuscripts, versions (translations), or patristic authors support each variant. Once this is done, apply the external criteria. Determine the date of the witnesses that support the different readings and evaluate how



Textual Criticism 49

much stock to place in them. Then consider the internal criteria, asking whether a specific reading conforms to the general expectations of the document, based on what is known about it internally. For example, is it consistent with the style, vocabulary, context, and theology of the rest of the document? Is it a simpler reading or a more difficult reading? Is it shorter or longer? Valuable discussions of important passages are often contained in books devoted to textual criticism. You can check the index of biblical references in some of the standard text-­critical works to see if the passage under consideration is discussed. If you have some facility with Hebrew or Greek, your ability to pursue text-­critical questions is considerably increased. In this case, you should first consult one of the standard critical editions of the Bible. This will enable you to identify the alternative readings, determine the exact nature of the problem, and then proceed to collect and assess the evidence. For external criteria, lists of the manuscripts and their characteristics are readily available. These should be consulted as you itemize the manuscript witnesses supporting each variant. In close conjunction with your own listing of the external evidence, you should consult critical commentaries to gain a more informed understanding of the problem. For OT texts, you can compare the text under consideration with the reading of the Aramaic Targums in English translation by consulting the so-­called Aramaic Bible. It may also be profitable to compare the Greek translation (as in Pietersma and Wright, A New English Translation of the Septuagint) as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls readings in English translation in the Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich). Regardless of the level of technical proficiency at which you are working, your aim should be to determine the exact nature of the text-­critical problem, identify and evaluate the main options, and decide how these relate to your overall understanding of the passage. Bibliography Critical Editions of the Old Testament Brooke, Alan E., Norman McLean, and Henry St J. Thackeray, eds. The Old Testament in Greek. 3 vols. in 9 parts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1906–40. Incomplete. Hendel, Ronald S., ed. Hebrew Bible Critical Edition. Multivolume. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2015–. ———. Steps to a New Edition of the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.

50

Biblical Exegesis

Kittel, Rudolf, Karl Elliger, Wilhelm Rudolph, Hans P. Rüger, and Gérard E. Weil, eds. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 1967. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. Rahlfs, Alfred, and R. Hanhart, eds. Septuaginta. 1935. 2nd rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. Rahlfs, Alfred, Joseph Ziegler, et al., eds. Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum, auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1926–. Schenker, Adrian, Yohanan A. P. Goldman, Arie van der Kooij, Gerard J. Norton, Stephen Pisano, Jan de Waard, and Richard D. Weis, eds. Biblia Hebraica: Quinta editione cum apparatu critico novis curis elaborato. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004. Wonneberger, Reinhard. Understanding BHS: A Manual for the Users of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 1984. Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 2001.

Critical Editions of the New Testament Aland, Kurt, ed. Synopsis of the Four Gospels: Greek-­English Edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum. The English text is the second edition of the Revised Standard Version. New York: American Bible Society, 2010. ———, ed. Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum: Locis parallelis evangeliorum apocryphorum et patrum adhibitis. 15th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Aland, Barbara, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament. 5th rev. ed. prepared by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, under the direction of Holger Strutwolf. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; New York and London: United Bible Societies, 2014. Burer, Michael H., W. Hall Harris III, and Daniel B. Wallace. NET Bible: Reader’s Edition. Spokane, WA: Biblical Studies Press, 2009. Funk, Robert W. New Gospel Parallels. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. Huck, Albert, ed. Synopsis of the First Three Gospels. 9th ed., rev. by Hans Lietzmann. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1950. English ed. by F. L. Cross. 1968; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1976. Huck, Albert, and Heinrich Greeven, eds. Synopse der drei ersten Evangelien: Mit Beigabe der johanneischen Parallelstellen = Synopsis of the First Three Gospels with the Addition of the Johannine Parallels. 13th ed. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. Novum Testamenturn Graece. 28th ed. Edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia, under the direction of Holger Strutwolf. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012. Nestle, Eberhard, Erwin Nestle, and George D. Kilpatrick, eds. Hē Kainē Diathēkē. 1958. 2nd ed. London: British and Foreign Bible Society, 1975. Throckmorton, Burton H., Jr., ed. Gospel Parallels: A Comparison of the Synoptic Gospels. 1957. 5th ed. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1992.

Textual Criticism—General *Wegner, Paul D. A Student’s Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic / InterVarsity Press, 2006. Westmont, CA: InterVarsity Press, 2012; online, 2015.



Textual Criticism 51

Old Testament Textual Criticism *Ap-­Thomas, Dafydd R. A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism. 1947. 2nd rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971. Barthélemy, Dominique, Adrian Schenker, and John A. Thompson. Preliminary and Interim Report on the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. 5 vols. 2nd rev. ed. New York: United Bible Societies, 1979–80. Cross, Frank M., and Šhěmaryahū Talmōn, eds. Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Jellicoe, Sidney. The Septuagint and Modern Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. ———, ed. Studies in the Septuagint: Origins, Recensions, and Interpretations: Selected Essays with a Prolegomenon. New York: Ktav, 1974. Klein, Ralph W. Textual Criticism of the Old Testament: The Septuagint after Qumran. 1974. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Leiman, Shnayer Z., ed. The Canon and Masorah of the Hebrew Bible: An Introductory Reader. New York: Ktav, 1974. *McCarter, P. Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. 1986. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1993. Roberts, Bleddyn J. The Old Testament Text and Versions: The Hebrew Text in Transmission and the History of the Ancient Versions. 1951. Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1977. Tov, Emanuel. The Text-­Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. Jerusalem: Simor, 1997; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2015. *———. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Assen: Royal Van Gorcum, 2001; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. *Weingreen, Jacob. Introduction to the Critical Study of the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1982. Wonneberger, Reinhard. Understanding BHS: A Manual for the Users of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 3rd rev. ed. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2001. Würthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Biblia Hebraica. 1979. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014.

New Testament Textual Criticism *Aland, Kurt, and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. 1987. 2nd ed., rev. and enl. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995. *Black, David A. New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994. ———, ed. Rethinking Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Ehrman, Bart D. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Reprinted as Whose Word Is It? The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and Why. London and New York: Continuum, 2006. ———. The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effect of Early Christological Controversies on the Text of the New Testament. 1993. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. ———. Studies in the Textual Criticism of the New Testament. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006. Ehrman, Bart D., and Michael W. Holmes, eds. The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis. 2nd ed. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

52

Biblical Exegesis

Elliott, J. K. New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles: Essays on Manuscripts and Textual Variation. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010. Epp, Eldon J. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 1962–2004. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2005. ———. Perspectives on New Testament Textual Criticism: Collected Essays, 2006–2017. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2021. Epp, Eldon J., and Gordon D. Fee, eds. New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis; Essays in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. ———, eds. Studies in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993. Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. 1983. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Finegan, Jack. Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism. London: SPCK, 1975; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. Greenlee, J. Harold. Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Hatch, William H. P. Facsimiles and Descriptions of Minuscule Manuscripts of the New Testament. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1951. ———. The Principal Uncial Manuscripts of the New Testament. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939. Kenyon, Frederic G. The Text of the Greek Bible. 1937. 3rd ed., rev. and augmented by Arthur W. Adams. London: Duckworth, 1975. Metzger, Bruce M. The Early Versions of the New Testament: Their Origin, Transmission, and Limitations. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. ———. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft; New York: United Bible Societies, 2002. *Metzger, Bruce M., and Bart D. Ehrman. The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Moulton, Harold K. Papyrus, Parchment and Print: The Story of How the New Testament Text Has Reached Us. London: United Society for Christian Literature; Lutterworth, 1967. Parker, David C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Tasker, Randolph V. G., ed. The Greek New Testament: Being the Text Translated in the New English Bible. 1961. London: Oxford University Press, 1964. Taylor, Vincent. The Text of the New Testament: A Short Introduction. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martin’s, 1961. Vaganay, Léon, Christian-­Bernard Amphoux, and Jenny Read-­Heimerdinger. An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. 1937. 2nd ed., revised and updated. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991. *Wachtel, Klaus, and Michael W. Holmes, eds. The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011. Wasserman, Tommy, and Peter Gurry. A New Approach to Textual Criticism: An Introduction to the Coherence-­Based Genealogical Method. Resources for Critical Study 80. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.



Textual Criticism 53

Discussions of English Translations of the Bible *Bailey, Lloyd R., ed. The Word of God: A Guide to English Versions of the Bible. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Brockington, Leonard H., ed. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament: The Readings Adopted by the Translators of the New English Bible. London: Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press, 1973. Bruce, Frederick F. The Books and the Parchments: Some Chapters on the Transmission of the Bible. 1953. Rev. ed. London: Pickering, 1991. *———. History of the Bible in English: From the Earliest Versions. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Confraternity of Christian Doctrine: Bishops’ Committee. Textual Notes on the New American Bible. Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony’s Guild, 1974. Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003. Kenyon, Frederic G. Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts: Being a History of the Text and Its Translations. 1895. New York: Harper & Row, 1958. *Kubo, Sakae, and Walter F. Specht. So Many Versions? Twentieth-­Century English Versions of the Bible. 1975. Rev. and enl. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Lewis, Jack P. The English Bible: From KJV to NIV; A History and Evaluation. 1981. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991. Metzger, Bruce M. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001. Nineham, Dennis E., ed. The New English Bible Reviewed. London: Epworth, 1965. Orlinsky, Harry M. Notes on the New Translation of the Torah. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1969; online, Skokie, IL: Varda, 2000. Pope, Hugh, and Sebastian Bullough. English Versions of the Bible. 1952. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972. Robinson, H. Wheeler, ed. The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions. 1940. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1970. Sheeley, Steven M., and Robert N. Nash. The Bible in English Translation: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 1997. ———. Choosing a Bible: A Guide to Modern English Translations and Editions. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999.

Parallel Bibles The Catholic Comparative New Testament: Douay-­Rheims, New American Bible, Revised Standard Version, New Revised Standard Version, Jerusalem Bible, New Jerusalem Bible, Good News Translation, and Christian Community Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. The CBD Parallel Bible: King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, New Living Translation. Peabody, MA: Prince (Christian Book Distributors), 2003. The Complete Parallel Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments with the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books: New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Kohlenberger, John R., III, ed. The Contemporary Parallel Bible: New King James Version, New International Version. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

54

Biblical Exegesis

———, ed. The Essential Evangelical Parallel Bible: New King James Version, English Standard Version, New Living Translation, The Message. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. ———, ed. The Evangelical Parallel New Testament: New King James Version, New International Version, Today’s New International Version, New Living Translation, English Standard Version, Holman Christian Standard Bible, New Century Version, The Message. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. ———, ed. The Parallel Apocrypha: Greek Text, King James Version, Douay Old Testament, The Holy Bible by Ronald Knox, Today’s English Version, New Revised Standard Version, New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. The New Hendrickson Parallel Bible: King James Version, New King James Version, New International Version, New Living Translation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. The NIV/KJV Parallel Bible: New International Version, King James Version. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002. Weigle, Luther A. The New Testament Octapla: Eight English Versions of the New Testament in the Tyndale–King James Tradition. New York: Thomas Nelson, 1962. Zondervan Today’s Parallel Bible: New International Version, New American Standard Bible, Updated Edition King James Version, New Living Translation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000.

Translations of Ancient Versions *Abegg, Martin G., Peter W. Flint, and Eugene C. Ulrich. The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1999. Brenton, Lancelot C. L., ed. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. 1851. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1986. The Holy Bible, Translated from the Latin Vulgate. Douay Version. 1609 (OT), 1582 (NT). Baltimore: John Murphy, 1914. McNamara, Martin, et al., eds. The Aramaic Bible: The Targums. 22 vols. Collegeville, MN: Michael Glazier / Liturgical Press, 1987–. *Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright. A New English Translation of the Septuagint. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007; online, 2009, 2014, 2021.

Chapter Three

Historical Criticism The Setting in Time and Place

H

istorical criticism of documents assumes that a text is historical in at least two senses: it may relate history as well as have its own history. For this reason, we can distinguish between the “history in the text” and the “history of the text.” History and the Text

The “history in the text” refers to what the text itself reports about history, whether persons, events, social conditions, or even ideas. In this sense, a text may serve as a window through which we can peer into a historical period. From a critical reading of what the text says, we can draw conclusions about political, social, or religious conditions of the period(s) during which the text was produced. The “history of the text” refers to something different: it is not concerned with what the text says or describes, the story it tells, but with the story of the text itself, what one writer calls the “career of the text.” This includes how, why, when, where, and in what circumstances the text originated; by whom and for whom it was written, composed, edited, produced, and preserved; and the influences that affected its origin, formation, development, preservation, and transmission. If one does a historical-­critical analysis of The Histories of Herodotus (5th century BCE), for example, both these aspects come into play. In investigating the historical and cultural descriptions in the work itself, the critic asks such questions as these: Whose history is being described? What events are seen as important? Who and what are talked about in the text? What information and perspectives gained from sources outside 55

56

Biblical Exegesis

Herodotus’s work can be brought to bear on his work, to aid in understanding? Do special emphases of the author dominate and color the presentation? How reliably does Herodotus describe matters and events? In addition to what Herodotus relates in The Histories, the history in the text, the critic also investigates the situation of the author himself and the context in which the history was written—the history of the text. Here certain types of questions are addressed: What is known biographically about the author and the place of this work in the author’s life? What cultural factors of the day may explain the production of the work? What tendencies and interests of the writer, and of the period in which the writer lived, influenced the work, its shape, and its contents? What goals did the writer have in mind? Historical criticism of the biblical writings is based on assumptions similar to those used in working with other ancient texts. The biblical critic is concerned with what is depicted in the text and the situation in which the text was written. The first of these is more relevant when the biblical books are directly concerned with historical matters, such as Genesis through 2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Gospels, and Acts. Even in nonhistorical books, such as Proverbs and Psalms, the cultural situations and conditions reflected in the texts are of concern to the interpreter. For all the biblical materials, the historical and cultural conditions out of which they came are of interest to the interpreter as an aid to understanding. This is the case even though interpreters frequently know nothing about the actual authors or collectors of various books. Ancient Approaches to Historical Criticism Ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters, along with other readers, applied these two aspects of historical criticism (history in the text; history of the text) in a limited fashion to biblical writings. Jewish interpreters tried to assign the OT books to specific authors and even debated such issues as whether Moses could have written the account of his own death found in Deuteronomy 34. Tradition sought, for example, to depict the life situation within which David supposedly wrote many of the Psalms. These attributions appear even in the biblical text itself (see Pss 3; 7; 18; 34; 51; 52; 54; 56; 57; 59; 60; 63; and 142). Chronological problems and discrepancies in the text were also recognized. The Christian writer Julius Africanus (ca. 160–240) produced a world history and major encyclopedia in which he analyzed the historical reliability of some biblical texts. Jerome (ca. 342–420) reports that he



Historical Criticism 57

once received a letter from Hedibia, a woman living in Gaul, inquiring about the discrepancies in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection and appearances in the four Gospels. Two pagan writers, Celsus (2nd cent. CE) and Porphyry (ca. 232–303 CE), wrote volumes in which they addressed both of these historical dimensions. They challenged not only the reliability of what was reported in some biblical texts on the basis of internal evidence but also what was taught about some texts, for example, the traditional authorship of some books. Ancient believing interpreters, however, sought to defend what was written in, and what was reported about, the text. They attempted to resolve problems within the text by defending traditional views about authorship. Often they tried to harmonize discrepancies in the text at all costs. A rabbinic axiom held that in Scripture “there is no before or after.” This interpretive attitude enabled rabbis to deal with chronological problems more easily or ignore them entirely. Little did ancient Jewish and Christian interpreters recognize that discrepancies in the text might be the result of two different texts having been woven or edited together, each reflecting a different viewpoint or stemming from a different historical setting. Nor was there a clear recognition that two conflicting texts, perhaps from different books, might stem from different historical periods, with one reflecting an earlier outlook and the other a later one. We might say that ancient interpreters overlooked, minimized, or ignored the history of the text and tended to read the Bible “on the flat.” Exegesis based on such a view of the text failed to appreciate that the Bible is an anthology of writings, deriving from different historical contexts and cultural situations, produced and collected over centuries. Since the development of modern historical consciousness and the methodologies that have resulted, the historical aspects of the biblical materials have received extensive attention in exegesis. Given the impact of these developments over the last few centuries, historical dimensions of the Bible cannot be ignored. Instead we must ask: How does the exegete utilize and benefit from historical criticism? What are the tools that can be used to facilitate this endeavor? History in the Text First, let us consider the history in the text, or the situation the text describes. Quite obviously, if the text contains references to persons, places, and customs strange to us as readers, we must become acquainted

58

Biblical Exegesis

sufficiently with the historical period or cultural setting described in the text to understand what is being said at the most elementary level. The tools most useful for obtaining this type of information will normally be the standard Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias. Equally useful are histories, sociological descriptions, and handbooks of the period being described. Histories of Israel and of early Christianity are the most useful sources to consult on matters of history, chronology, names, and events. In addition to these, individual books on the culture, sociological context, and social life of biblical times may provide well-­organized information on different facets of daily life mentioned in the text. This type of information is often included in Bible atlases and geographies, although these works are usually consulted primarily to locate place names and find other geographical information related to the text. Another source that can often illuminate the situation depicted in the text itself is comparative nonbiblical literature. Other writings of antiquity may reflect a similar outlook, derive from roughly the same period, discuss the same topic, or provide valuable background information. Although the importance of these parallel references has been recognized for centuries, they have received even greater prominence since the beginning of the twentieth century, often by scholars interested in studying the history of ancient religious traditions other than Judaism and early Christianity. This history of religions (Religionsgeschichte) approach uncovered and collected vast amounts of materials from the ancient world that illuminate the biblical writings. By reading the creation stories of Genesis 1–3 alongside other creation stories from the ancient Near Eastern world, we can see more clearly their respective similarities and differences. This comparative reading enables us to understand the biblical text even better. Archaeological discoveries have also unearthed hundreds of letters and other ordinary documents from daily life, especially from the Hellenistic-­Roman period. This rich trove of writings has contributed greatly to our understanding of NT letters. In the last two centuries historical scholarship has greatly affected every aspect of our biblical understanding. Not only has our understanding of specific passages been increased, but also our knowledge of the history and language of the biblical text itself. This has led to an increased awareness that the biblical writings reflect the historical situation out of which they arose. Recognizing this historical dimension of biblical writings is now regarded as an essential feature of any informed exegesis of a biblical text. For this reason, most biblical commentaries, especially those



Historical Criticism 59

produced within the past century, provide numerous references to such parallel texts and normally incorporate insights into their interpretation that were gained from studying such documents. To locate such parallel texts, the student should consult two kinds of sources: (a) critical commentaries, which usually provide references in footnotes; and (b) anthologies of writings from the ancient world, usually arranged by literary genre, such as “creation stories,” “legal texts,” “historical documents,” “birth stories,” “letters,” and “apocalypses.” History of the Text The second historical dimension that exegetes must explore is the history of the text. This includes the situation out of which the text arose—both that of the author and the audience. It is now well known that many of the biblical books are anonymous, even though later tradition assigned authors to them. None of the four Gospels, for example, contains an explicit reference declaring who wrote it, even though in the second and third centuries they were assigned to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. It is now widely recognized that many of the writings of the Bible were edited rather than written by single individuals and that many persons and groups engaged in this editing process, which often extended over decades or even centuries. Especially is this the case with the Pentateuch, but also with other parts of the Bible. This has required a shift in the way in which interpreters understand the relationship between the biblical writings and the original senders and receivers of these writings. In very few instances does it appear that a single author penned a writing, from start to finish, in one sitting. Even in those cases where this appears to have happened, there is strong evidence suggesting that these writings frequently continued to be edited, either by the author or by the author’s successors. In some instances, the situation described in the text and the situation out of which the text arose may reflect the same historical setting. In other cases, these two situations may represent different historical settings, separated by long periods of time. The situation described in Paul’s Letters to the Corinthians is contemporary with Paul’s own situation. Handbooks describing the mid-­fifties of the first century CE will be useful in illuminating both. The Pentateuch, however, was written centuries after the events that it purports to describe. Similarly, the Gospels were written decades after the events they describe. In such cases, the exegete should seek to determine as much as possible about the situation out of

60

Biblical Exegesis

which the passage or its source arose, as well as the historical situation it describes. One of the best illustrations of this point occurs in the OT book of Daniel, in which the events depicted in the text extend from the sixth to the second century BCE. The time of the book’s final composition has been established as the mid-­second century BCE. To understand a passage from the book of Daniel, we must become familiar with the sixth century, the period it describes, and the second century, the period in which it was written. Similarly, in interpreting the Gospels, we must know about historical developments in Judaism and Christianity within the last quarter of the first century CE, the time of their probable composition. But we must also be familiar with the early part of the first century, in which Jesus’ earthly ministry occurred. Jesus’ polemic against the Pharisees in Matthew 23 reflects severely strained Jewish-­Christian relations after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE. Hence, to understand this chapter, we must know the historical situation in Palestine both before and after this pivotal event. Authorship An important part of the history of the text is who produced it. This introduces two further considerations: (a) multiple authorship and (b) pseu­ donymous authorship. These may be considered in turn. Although biblical books are often attributed to a single author—such as Isaiah, David, Solomon, Matthew, or Paul—we cannot always assume direct authorship of the works bearing their name. We may find it difficult, if not impossible, to determine who actually wrote the book, or even who is responsible for its final editing. These considerations often require us to modify our interpretations by making more modest claims about the text than what we assumed at the outset. The standard handbooks on the OT provide detailed descriptions of the most well-­known instance of this: the multiple authorship of the Pentateuch and the historical contexts in which its different parts arose. Earlier we noted antiquity’s common practice of collecting writings under the name of a revered individual of the past or of assigning writings to such an individual. Apocalyptic writings, such as the book of Daniel mentioned above, provide numerous instances of pseudonymous authorship, but this practice also occurs elsewhere in the biblical writings. The canonical book of Isaiah, though constituting a single book within



Historical Criticism 61

the OT, is now widely recognized as the work of at least two separate “authors,” one addressing an eighth-­century BCE setting, the other writing in the sixth century BCE. In the NT, thirteen writings are attributed to the apostle Paul, but his direct authorship of six of these letters is widely disputed. Although attributed to Paul, they may have been compiled in their final form after his death. Such questions of authorship and context are dealt with extensively in introductions to the OT and NT, as well as in the introductory sections of commentaries on biblical books. On any specific passage, the student may check either of these sources for help in determining whether the passage is thought to be the result of pseudonymous or multiple authorship and whether it reflects a period of time much later than that described in the passage itself. Literary Composition of the Text Yet another aspect of this “external history” involves the literary composition of the text itself. This will be treated more fully in a later chapter on literary criticism; it is mentioned here as part of the history of the text. Because the final form of the biblical text has often resulted from extensive editing, a single book may contain units whose relationship to each other is not altogether clear. Such sections may have been inserted, or interpolated, into the writing. The interpreter must determine, if possible, why and how this was done. Many of the prophetic books of the OT are not uniform literary compositions, but contain sections consisting of narratives and oracles whose relationship to each other may be unclear. Some of the Pauline letters are probably composite documents in which smaller letters or fragments of letters have been combined into a single document. In such cases, we must be open to a variety of possibilities in explaining how such writings originated. Reusing Older Traditions A third aspect of the external history of a passage relates to the way in which certain parts of the Bible have incorporated older biblical traditions and presented them in a new, modified form. In the OT books of Chronicles, we find material from the books of Samuel and Kings presented in a new way and written from a different viewpoint. Similarly, the book of Daniel appropriates and reinterprets older biblical traditions.

62

Biblical Exegesis

In Daniel 9, the interpretation of the seventy years of desolation draws on Jeremiah (25:11–12; 29:10), which itself is based on an earlier ancient Near Eastern formulaic tradition. In the NT, most scholars agree that Matthew and Luke depend directly on Mark, even though they expand Mark’s story, changing it in many respects. Throughout the Bible, we often find that earlier materials have been incorporated and re-­presented in later materials. Recognizing that the same biblical material has often been “reprocessed” or “recycled” allows us to see how it has undergone historical development. This provides a valuable perspective for us as interpreters. Knowing that Matthew has used Mark, for example, gives us a distinct perspective in interpreting a passage that occurs in both Gospels. We can see how an event in the life of Jesus or one of his sayings is understood by two different biblical authors in their respective settings. This historical perspective exposes several interpretive moments for understanding a passage: What did the event or teaching mean in Jesus’ situation? What did it mean in the evangelists’ situations? This becomes especially important as we interpret the OT and NT together. Since NT writers frequently draw on OT stories and traditions, even citing OT passages directly, we are introduced to “recycling” over a much longer period of time. We often find that an OT theme or motif, such as the new covenant, has been interpreted and reinterpreted many times between the period of its original composition and its incorporation into a NT text. The “career” of an OT text becomes vitally important when we find it quoted and reinterpreted in the NT text. We can state this another way. The authors of the biblical writings were not only composing new texts but also often transmitting and interpreting older texts and traditions as well. Seen this way, much of the Bible may be said to have originated as a series of interpretations in which authors took older traditions and reinterpreted them in light of their own situations. Using Reception History in Interpretation This chain of interpretation did not end when the biblical writings ceased to be written or even when the biblical documents were collected into their final canonical form. Long after the OT and NT writings were recognized as canonical, Jewish and Christian authors continued to quote and interpret them. These later interpretations can be extremely helpful to the contemporary interpreter as well. By paying attention to this “reception



Historical Criticism 63

history of the text,” we can often see a passage of Scripture in a new light and develop new levels of understanding otherwise missed if we jump from our own time to the time of original composition and reception. An illuminating example is the well-­known reference to the conception of a child by a “virgin,” first mentioned in Isaiah 7:14 and later quoted in both Matthew and Luke. In developing an interpretation of Matthew 1:21, we can note, first, the differences between the context of Isaiah and that of Matthew. After examining the passage in its original literary setting, we can trace how this passage was interpreted during the centuries prior to the Christian era. By following the “historical career” of Isaiah 7:14, we gain a better sense of how subsequent readers understood the “virgin-­conceived child.” When we turn to the NT, we are then in a better position to evaluate the birth and infancy stories of Jesus in both Matthew and Luke. Even then, it is useful to see how later Christian writers understood the same passage through the centuries. Because the history of interpretation of a text may be long and continuous, it may provide us a broader framework in which to develop our own interpretations. Bibliography Dictionaries and Encyclopedias Alexander, T. Desmond, and David W. Baker, eds. Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., Everett F. Harrison, Edgar W. Smith Jr., et al., eds. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979–88. Coggins, R. J., and J. L. Houlden, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990. Ford, John T. Saint Mary’s Press Glossary of Theological Terms. Winona, MN: Saint Mary’s Press, 2006. * Freedman, David N., ed. Anchor Bible Dictionary. 6 vols. New York: Doubleday, 1992. = The Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary. New Haven, CT, and London: Yale University Press, 2007. * Freedman, David N., Allen C. Myers, and Astrid B. Beck, eds. Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000; paperback, 2019. Green, Joel B., Scot McKnight, I. Howard Marshall, Jeannine K. Brown, and Nicholas Perrin, eds. Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. 1992. 2nd ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2013. Harvey, Van A. A Handbook of Theological Terms. 1964. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997. Hawthorne, Gerald F., Ralph P. Martin, and David G. Reid, eds. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters: A Compendium of Contemporary Biblical Scholarship. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1993; online, 2018. Jeffrey, David L., ed. A Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992.

64

Biblical Exegesis

Lemche, Niels P. Historical Dictionary of Ancient Israel. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow, 2004. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, eds. Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1997. McKim, Donald K. Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms. 1996. 2nd ed., rev. and exp. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Powell, Mark Allan, Barry L. Bandstra, et al., eds. The HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. Revised and updated 3rd ed. New York: HarperOne, 2011. Roth, Cecil, Geoffrey Wigoder, and Raphael Posner, eds. Encyclopaedia Judaica. 17 vols. 1974. Jerusalem: Keter, 1982. Corrected ed., 1996. Ryken, Leland, James C. Wilhoit, and Tremper Longman III, eds. Dictionary of Biblical Imagery. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; Leicester, UK: Inter-­Varsity, 1998; online, 2010. *Sakenfeld, Katharine D., et al., eds. New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 2006–9. Tenney, Merrill C., James D. Douglas, and Frederick F. Bruce, eds. The New International Dictionary of the Bible. 1963. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. Toorn, Karel van der, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst, eds. Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden and Boston: Brill; Grand Rapids and Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans, 1999. Vanhoozer, Kevin J., Craig G. Bartholomew, Daniel J. Treier, and N. T. Wright, eds. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; London: SPCK, 2005; online, 2014.

Histories of Israel and Judah Ahlström, Gösta W. The History of Ancient Palestine from the Palaeolithic Period to Alexander’s Conquest. 2nd ed. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Bright, John. A History of Israel. 1959. 4th ed., with Introduction and Appendix by William P. Brown. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2000. Coogan, Michael, ed. The Oxford History of the Biblical World. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998; online, 2001. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil A. Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2002. Isserlin, B. S. J. The Israelites. London and New York: Thames & Hudson, 1998; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2003. Kaiser, Walter C., and Paul D. Wegner. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars. 1998. Rev. ed. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2017. Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003; online, 2006. Liverani, Mario. Israel’s History and the History of Israel. London and Oakville, CT: Equinox, 2005. *Matthews, Victor H. A Brief History of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Meyers, Eric M., and Mark A. Chancey. Alexander to Constantine: Archaeology of the Land of the Bible. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012. *Miller, J. Maxwell, and John H. Hayes. A History of Ancient Israel and Judah. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006.



Historical Criticism 65

Provan, Iain W., V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III. A Biblical History of Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. Soggin, J. Alberto. An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah. 3rd ed. London: SCM, 1999.

History and Literature of Second Temple Judaism *Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. 1987. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Goodman, Martin. Rome and Jerusalem: The Clash of Ancient Civilizations. New York: Vintage Books, 2007. Grabbe, Lester L. A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period. 4 vols. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004–21. ———. An Introduction to First Century Judaism: Jewish Religion and History in the Second Temple Period. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Hayes, John H., and Sara Mandell. The Jewish People in Classical Antiquity: From Alexander to Bar Kochba. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. 1974. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981. *Nickelsburg, George W. E. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Sanders, E. P. Judaism: Practice and Belief, 65 B.C.E.–66 C.E. 1992. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2016. Schäfer, Peter. The History of the Jews in the Graeco-­Roman World. 1995. London: Routledge, 2003. *Schürer, Emil. The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.–A.D. 135): A New English Version Revised and Edited. Translated by T. A. Burkill et al. Edited by Géza Vermès, Pamela Vermès, Fergus Millar, Matthew Black, and Martin Goodman. 3 vols. in 4. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973–87. Stone, Michael, ed. The Literature of the Jewish People in the Period of the Second Temple and Talmud. 3 vols. Assen: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984–2006.

Histories of Early Christianity Barnett, Paul. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. ———. Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1999. Brown, Raymond E., and John P. Meier. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity. New York: Paulist, 1983. Bruce, Frederick F. New Testament History. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. *Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. Rev. ed. London and New York: Penguin, 1993. *Conzelmann, Hans. History of Primitive Christianity. London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

66

Biblical Exegesis

Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. *Ferguson, Everett, John D. Woodbridge, and Frank A. James. Church History: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005–13. Goppelt, Leonard. Apostolic and Post-­Apostolic Times. London: Black, 1970; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker, 1977. *Leaney, Alfred R. C. The Jewish and Christian World, 200 B.C. to A.D. 200. 1984. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Lietzmann, Hans. A History of the Early Church. 4 vols. in 2. 1953. Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1993. Niswonger, Richard L. New Testament History. 1988. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. Pfeiffer, Robert H. History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha. New York: Harper, 1949; Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1972. Reicke, Bo. The New Testament Era: The World of the Bible from 500 B.C. to A.D. 100. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: Black, 1968. Repr., 1978. *Schnelle, Udo. The First One Hundred Years of Christianity: An Introduction to Its History, Literature, and Development. Translated by James W. Thompson. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Weiss, Johannes. Earliest Christianity: A History of the Period A.D. 30–150. 2 vols. New York: Harper & Row, 1959. Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1970. Witherington, Ben. New Testament History: A Narrative Account. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; Carlisle, UK: Paternoster, 2001.

Atlases and Geographies Aharoni, Yohanan. The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography. 2nd ed., rev. and emended. Philadelphia: Westminster; London: Burns & Oates, 1979. * Aharoni, Yohanan, Michael Avi-­Yonah, Anson F. Rainey, and ZeTev Safrai. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. 1964. 3rd ed., completely rev. New York: Macmillan; Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan, 1993. Avi-­Yonah, Michael. The Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C. to A.D. 640). 1977. Jerusalem: Carta, 2002. Baly, Denis. Geographical Companion to the Bible. New York: McGraw-­Hill; London: Lutterworth, 1963. ———. The Geography of the Bible. 2nd ed. New York: Harper & Row; Guildford, UK: Lutterworth, 1974. Beitzel, Barry J., and Nicholas Rowland. The New Moody Atlas of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody, 2009. *Curtis, Adrian, and Herbert G. May, eds. Oxford Bible Atlas. 4th ed. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Grollenberg, Lucas H. The Penguin Shorter Atlas of the Bible. 1959. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1984. Lawrence, Paul, Alan R. Millard, Heinrich von Siebenthal, and John Walton, eds. The IVP Atlas of Bible History. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2006. Miller, J. Maxwell. Discover the Holy Land: A Travel Guide to Israel and Jordan. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2020.



Historical Criticism 67

Mittmann, Siegfried, and Götz Schmitt. Tübingen Bible Atlas. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001. Negenman, Jan H., and Harold H. Rowley, eds. New Atlas of the Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; London: Collins, 1969. Pritchard, James B., ed. The Harper Atlas of the Bible. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. ———. The Times Atlas of the Bible. 1987. London: Times Books, 1989. *Rainey, Anson F., and R. Steven Notley. The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World. Jerusalem: Carta, 2006. Rasmussen, Carl. Zondervan NIV Atlas of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Regency Reference Library/Zondervan, 1989. Rogerson, J. W. Atlas of the Bible. London: Phaidon; New York: Facts on File, 1985. *Smith, George A. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. 1896. 25th ed. London: Collins, 1966. *Talbert, Richard J. A., et al., eds. Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2000.

Archaeology Bartlett, John R. Archaeology and Biblical Interpretation. 1997. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Ben-­Tor, Amnon, ed. The Archaeology of Ancient Israel. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; Tel Aviv: Open University of Israel, 1992. Blaiklock, Edward M., and Roland K. Harrison, eds. The New International Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983. Charlesworth, James H., ed. Jesus and Archaeology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Finegan, Jack. The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Life of Jesus and the Beginning of the Early Church. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. ———. The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the Early Christian Apostles. 1981. New York: Routledge, 2015. Hoffmeier, James K., and Alan R. Millard, eds. The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Levy, Thomas E., ed. The Archaeology of Society in the Holy Land. 1995. London: Continuum, 2003. *Mazar, Amihai, Ephraim Stern, Eric M. Meyers, and Mark A. Chancey, eds. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000–586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday; Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1990. Meyers, Eric M., ed. The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East. 5 vols. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. *Stern, Ephraim. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods, 732–332 B.C.E. Vol. 2. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Stern, Ephraim, Ayelet Levinzon-­Gilboa, and Joseph Aviram, eds. The New Encyclopedia of Archaeologcial Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta; New York and London: Simon & Schuster, 1993.

Biblical Backgrounds: Culture and Daily Life Aune, David E. The New Testament in Its Literary Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1989.

68

Biblical Exegesis

Beard, Mary. SPQR: A History of Ancient Rome. New York and London: Liveright, 2015. Bickerman, Elias J. Chronology of the Ancient World. 2nd ed. London: Thames & Hudson; Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1980. Borowski, Oded. Daily Life in Biblical Times. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 2003. ———. Every Living Thing: Daily Use of Animals in Ancient Israel. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira, 1998. Campbell, Ken M. Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2003. Carter, Charles E., and Carol L. Meyers, eds. Community, Identity, and Ideology: Social Science Approaches to the Hebrew Bible. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996. Cary, Max, and Theodore J. Haarhoff. Life and Thought in the Greek and Roman World. 1940. Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1985. Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. 3 vols. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. De Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. 1961. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Esler, Philip F., ed. Ancient Israel: The Old Testament in Its Social Context. London: SCM; 2005; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Evans, Craig A., and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Dictionary of New Testament Background. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2000. *Ferguson, Everett. Backgrounds of Early Christianity. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Northam: Roundhouse, 2004. Finegan, Jack. Handbook of Biblical Chronology: Principles of Time Reckoning in the Ancient World and Problems of Chronology in the Bible. 1964. Rev. ed., 1998. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2015. Gager, John G. Kingdom and Community: The Social World of Early Christianity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-­Hall, 1975. Grant, Michael, and Rachel Kitzinger, eds. Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome. 3 vols. New York: Scribner’s, 1988. Harrison, Roland K. Old Testament Times: A Social, Political, and Cultural Context. 1970. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2005. Hoerth, Alfred J., Gerald L. Mattingly, and Edwin M. Yamauchi. Peoples of the Old Testament World. Grand Rapids: Baker; Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1994. E-­book, 2012. Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. 1969. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. *King, Philip J., and Lawrence E. Stager. Life in Biblical Israel. 2001. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2011. *Klauck, Hans-­Josef. The Religious Context of Early Christianity: A Guide to Graeco-­Roman Religions. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. *Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. Vol. 1, History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. 2nd ed. New York: de Gruyter, 2000. *Lohse, Eduard. The New Testament Environment. Nashville: Abingdon; London: SCM, 1976. Malherbe, Abraham J. Social Aspects of Early Christianity. 1977. 2nd ed., enl. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003.



Historical Criticism 69

Malina, Bruce J. Christian Origins and Cultural Anthropology: Practical Models for Biblical Interpretation. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. ———. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 1981. 3rd ed., rev. and exp. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Matthews, Victor H. Manners and Customs in the Bible. 1988. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. Social World of Ancient Israel, 1250–587 B.C.E. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1993; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011. McNutt, Paula M. Reconstructing the Society of Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. 1983. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003. ———. The Moral World of the First Christians. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986; London: SPCK, 1987. Perdue, Leo G., Joseph Blenkinsopp, John J. Collins, and Carol Meyers, eds. Families in Ancient Israel. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. *Roetzel, Calvin J. The World That Shaped the New Testament. 1985. Rev. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Safrai, S., M. Stern, David Flusser, and W. C. van Unnik, eds. The Jewish People in the First Christian Century. 2 vols. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974–76. Schuller, Eileen M. The Dead Sea Scrolls: What Have We Learned? Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Stambaugh, John E., and David L. Balch. The New Testament in Its Social Environment. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Theissen, Gerd. The First Followers of Jesus: A Sociological Analysis of the Earliest Christianity. London: SCM, 1978. _____. The Religion of the Earliest Churches: Creating A Symbolic World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999. ———. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth. 1982. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004. VanderKam, James C., and Peter W. Flint. The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2005. Van der Toorn, Karel. Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria, and Israel: Continuity and Changes in the Forms of Religious Life. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1996; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017. Van der Toorn, Karel, and Sara J. Denning-­Bolle. From Her Cradle to Her Grave: The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian Woman. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1994. *Van der Woude, A. S., ed. The World of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

Guides for Using Nonbiblical Comparative Materials Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Sparks, Kenton L. Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible: A Guide to the Background Literature. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017.

70

Biblical Exegesis

Collections of Nonbiblical Comparative Materials *Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources for Old Testament Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002. Barnstone, Willis, ed. The Other Bible: Jewish Pseudepigrapha, Christian Apocrypha, Gnostic Scriptures, Kabbalah, Dead Sea Scrolls. Rev. ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Barrett, C. K. The New Testament Background: Writings from Ancient Greece and the Roman Empire That Illuminate Christian Origins. 1987. Rev. ed. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1995. Beyerlin, Walter, ed. Near Eastern Religious Texts Relating to the Old Testament. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978. Cartlidge, David R., and David L. Dungan, eds. Documents and Images for the Study of the Gospels. 1980. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2015. Charles, R. H., ed. The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English: With Introductions and Critical and Explanatory Notes. 2 vols. 1913–17. Berkeley, CA: Apocryphile, 2004. *Charlesworth, James H., ed. The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. 2 vols. Garden City, NY: Doubleday; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1983–85. Chavalas, Mark W., ed. The Ancient Near East: Historical Sources in Translation. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. Crossan, John D. Sayings Parallels: A Workbook for the Jesus Tradition. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. 1998. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. *Elliott, J. Keith. The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation. 1993. New ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. *Feldman, Louis, James L. Kugel, and Lawrence H. Schiffman. Outside the Bible: Ancient Jewish Writings Related to Scripture. 3 vols. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 2013. *Feldman, Louis, and Meyer Reinhold. Jewish Life and Thought among Greeks and Romans: Primary Readings. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996. Foster, Benjamin R. Before the Muses: An Anthology of Akkadian Literature. 3rd ed. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 2005. *Hallo, William W., K. Lawson Younger Jr., and David E. Orton, eds. The Context of Scripture: Canonical Compositions, Monumental Inscriptions, and Archival Documents from the Biblical World. 4 vols. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1997–2017. Hennecke, Edgar, Wilhelm Schneemelcher, and Robert M. Wilson, eds. New Testament Apocrypha. Rev. ed. 2 vols. Cambridge: J. Clarke, 1992; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Kee, Howard C. The Origins of Christianity: Sources and Documents. 1973. London: SPCK, 1980. Lewis, Naphtali, and Meyer Reinhold, eds. Roman Civilization: Selected Readings. 1951. 3rd ed. 2 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990. Malherbe, Abraham J. Moral Exhortation: A Greco-­Roman Sourcebook. 1986. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1989.



Historical Criticism 71

Martínez, Florentino García, and Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar. The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. Matthews, Victor H., and Don C. Benjamin. Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East. 1991. 4th ed. New York: Paulist, 2016. Meyer, Marvin W. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook. 1987. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999. Montefiore, Claude G., and Herbert M. J. Loewe. A Rabbinic Anthology. 1938. New York: Schocken Books, 1974; print and online, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012. Nickelsburg, George W. E., and Michael E. Stone. Faith and Piety in Early Judaism: Texts and Documents. 1983. Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991. Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East: Supplementary Texts and Pictures Relating to the Old Testament. 2nd ed. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969. *———, ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament with Supplement. 3rd ed. Print and online, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016. Robinson, James M., ed. The Coptic Gnostic Library: A Complete Edition of the Nag Hammadi Codices. 5 vols. 1975. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2000. Robinson, James M., and Richard Smith, eds. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 4th rev. ed. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1996. Schiffman, Lawrence H. Texts and Traditions: A Source Reader for the Study of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1998. *Sparks, H. F. D., ed. The Apocryphal Old Testament. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Vermès, Géza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. Rev. ed. 1997. London: Penguin, 2011. *Whittaker, Molly. Jews and Christians: Graeco-­Roman Views. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Introductions to the Old Testament Anderson, Bernhard W., Steven Bishop, and Judith H. Newman. Understanding the Old Testament. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2007. Birch, Bruce C., Walter Brueggemann, Terence E. Fretheim, and David L. Petersen, eds. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. 1999. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Brueggemann, Walter. An Introduction to the Old Testament: The Canon and Christian Imagination. 2003. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Carvalho, Corrine L. Encountering Ancient Voices: A Guide to Reading the Old Testament. 2006. 2nd ed. Winona, MN: Anselm Academic, 2010. Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979; London: SCM: 1983. *Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible. 2004. 3rd ed. Print and online, Minneapolis: Fortress, 2018. Coogan, Michael D., and Cynthia R. Chapman. The Old Testament: A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures. 2006. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. *Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction Including the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha and Also the Works of a Similar Type from Qumran: The History of the Formation of the Old Testament. 1965. New York: Harper & Row, 1976.

72

Biblical Exegesis

Fohrer, Georg, and Ernst Sellin. Introduction to the Old Testament. 10th ed. Abingdon, 1968; London: SPCK, 1976. Gottwald, Norman K. The Hebrew Bible: A Socio-­literary Introduction. 1985. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2003. *Hamilton, Mark W. A Theological Introduction to the Old Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 2018. Harrison, Roland K. Introduction to the Old Testament: Including a Comprehensive Review of Old Testament Studies and a Special Supplement on the Apocrypha. 1969. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. *Hayes, John H. Introduction to Old Testament Study. Nashville: Abingdon, 1979; London: SCM, 1982. Matthews, Victor H., and James C. Moyer. The Old Testament: Text and Context. 1997. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Old Testament: An Introduction. 1983. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991. Schmidt, Werner H., Matthew J. O’Connell, and David J. Reimer. Old Testament Introduction. 1984. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox; Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2014. Soggin, J. Alberto. Introduction to the Old Testament: From Its Origins to the Closing of the Alexandrian Canon. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox, 1989. Varughese, Alex, Robert Branson, Jim Edlin, and Timothy Mark Green, eds. Discovering the Old Testament: Story and Faith. 2003. Kansas City: Beacon Hill, 2018.

Introductions to the New Testament *Boring, M. Eugene. An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology. Louis­ville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Brown, Raymond E. An Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Doubleday, 1997. Abridged ed. Edited by Marion L. Soards. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016. Burkett, Delbert R. An Introduction to the New Testament and the Origins of Christianity. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Carson, Donald A., and Douglas J. Moo. An Introduction to the New Testament. 1992. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM, 1984; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994. Cousar, Charles B. An Introduction to the New Testament: Witnesses to God’s New Work. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Ehrman, Bart D. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings. 1997. 7th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. Guthrie, Donald. New Testament Introduction. 1961–65. 4th rev. ed. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1990. Hagner, Donald A. The New Testament: A Historical and Theological Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Holladay, Carl R. A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ. With expanded CD-­ROM version. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. *———. Introduction to the New Testament: A Reference Edition. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2017.



Historical Criticism 73

*Johnson, Luke Timothy, with Todd C. Penner. 1986. The Writings of the New Testament: An Interpretation. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SCM, 2010. *Koester, Helmut. Introduction to the New Testament. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: de Gruyter, 1995–2000. Kümmel, Werner G., Howard C. Kee, and Paul Feine. Introduction to the New Testament. Rev. and enl. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1986. Marxsen, Willi. Introduction to the New Testament: An Approach to Its Problems. Oxford: Blackwell, 1968; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. *Mitternacht, Dieter, and Anders Runesson, eds. Jesus, the New Testament, Christian Origins: Perspectives, Methods, Meanings. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021. Moule, C. F. D. The Birth of the New Testament. 1962. 3rd ed., rev. and rewritten. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1981. Perrin, Norman, Dennis C. Duling, and Robert L. Ferm. The New Testament, an Introduction: Proclamation and Parenesis, Myth and History. 1974. 3rd ed. San Diego and London: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1994. *Schnelle, Udo. The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Theissen, Gerd. Fortress Introduction to the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ———. The New Testament: A Literary History. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Wikenhauser, Alfred. New Testament Introduction. 1958. New York: Herder & Herder, 1967.

Reception History Carasik, Michael, ed. The Commentators’ Bible: The Rubin JPS Miqra’ot Gedolot. 5 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2005–18. *Klauck, Hans-­Josef, et al., eds. Encyclopedia of the Bible and Its Reception. 30 vols. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2009–. Oden, Thomas C., gen. ed. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1998–. Sawyer, John F. A., Christopher Rowland, and Judith Kovacs, eds. Blackwell Bible Commentaries. Oxford: Blackwell, 2004–.

Chapter Four

Grammatical Criticism The Language of the Text

T

extual criticism is concerned with establishing the wording of the text, and historical criticism with investigating the history in and of the text; next, grammatical criticism analyzes a text through its language. An idea may be conveyed through a single word, but ideas are usually expressed through words arranged in various combinations with each other. Grammatical criticism is concerned not only with how individual words function as carriers of meaning but also with how those words are arranged in phrases and sentences to form meaningful sense units. Using analytical skills related to the study of meanings (semantics), language (philology and linguistics), word origins (etymology), rules of usage (grammar and syntax), dictionaries and lexicons (lexicography), and similar disciplines, grammatical criticism enables us to enter and even re-­create an author’s thought world. It assumes that the language we use gives others access to our thoughts. Analyzing the Language of the Text We may begin by looking at the way in which we analyze the most fundamental unit of communication—the word. Even though meaning can be conveyed through complex patterns of word arrangement, interpretation often focuses on a single word or phrase. Cracking the code of an important term or expression often provides the key to interpreting a much larger passage. When we read biblical texts, we frequently encounter unfamiliar words or phrases. This often results from the cultural gap that modern readers experience when interpreting ancient texts. We may run across a term or expression that means one thing to us 74



Grammatical Criticism 75

as modern interpreters but had a special meaning within ancient Israel or the early church. Some unfamiliar words or phrases, such as the names of persons and places, are treated as part of historical criticism, but others are not. Such terms as “remnant,” “covenant,” “repentance,” or “justification” receive special treatment in Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias because of their specialized usage by biblical writers. Definitions of such terms in standard English dictionaries are often inadequate, even misleading. Not only are these modern definitions usually brief, but their perspective is also limited to English-­language usage. Seldom do these general dictionaries give nuanced treatment to the perspectives of the ancient world that inform the usage of key theological terms in biblical texts. Quite often, we can begin our analysis of a biblical text by isolating prominent words or expressions that we suspect are important but whose meaning we may find unclear. In Jeremiah 31:31–34, the well-­known passage proclaiming the coming of a “new covenant,” we immediately recognize that the term “covenant” is so central to the passage that we must investigate it thoroughly in order to understand the passage. By concentrating on this single term and its frequent use throughout the Bible, we can learn more about both the Israelite and early Christian understanding of “covenant.” By looking at how the term is used in the OT to designate agreements or pacts that God made with such figures as Noah, Abraham, and Moses, we have a conceptual framework within which to interpret the use of this language in NT passages related to the Eucharist (Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24; Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25) or in the portrayal of Christ as the mediator of a “new covenant” in the Letter of Hebrews (Heb 8). As we explore the uses of “covenant” in both the OT and NT, we can see how certain passages come into sharper focus. This also enables us to see why covenantal theology has become such an important interpretive category for biblical and systematic theologians. In Matthew 16:28, when Jesus asserts that some of those in his audience would not die before they see “the Son of Man coming in his kingdom,” we can easily recognize that the phrases “the Son of Man” and “kingdom” must be investigated before we can understand the passage. By focusing on these key expressions, we can examine how they are used elsewhere in the Gospel of Matthew, in other NT writings, in the OT and Jewish writings in the Second Temple period, and in other writings of the first century CE. As we learn more about first-­century usage of these expressions, we can make better sense of their use in Matthew 16:28.

76

Biblical Exegesis Language Tools Bible Dictionaries and Encylopedias

In dealing with individual words or phrases, three kinds of exegetical tools are valuable. First are Bible dictionaries and encyclopedias, which contain articles treating important biblical ideas and concepts. Such articles are usually comprehensive in scope, yet sufficiently specific to provide the exegete with a general grasp of the issues relating to a given passage. They also provide useful bibliography for further study. Wordbooks and Lexicons As a second major resource, biblical wordbooks and lexicons usually focus on specific terms or groups of related terms—semantic fields— that are typically used to express certain concepts. Rather than providing information about biblical history and culture, the articles in these books are usually oriented toward the origin and development of biblical language. Single-­volume wordbooks contain useful word studies of important biblical terms as well as broader concepts to which a whole cluster of biblical terms may relate. Numerous multivolume wordbooks on both the OT and NT are also available. Although these are based on the original languages, they are useful to students who know neither Hebrew nor Greek. These multivolume wordbooks contain lengthy articles on individual words, arranged in word families, in which the usage of terms is treated chronologically, from the time of their earliest usage until the time of their occurrence in the biblical texts, and even after. Although these articles are heavily philological in orientation, they also contain valuable theological, historical, cultural, and bibliographical information. Biblical Concordances A third resource for investigating the language of the text is the biblical concordance. This tool provides little or no explanatory information comparable to what is found in a Bible dictionary, encyclopedia, wordbook, or lexicon. Its primary purpose is to list the biblical verses in which a word occurs. Ordinarily a concordance gives the line of the passage in which the word or phrase occurs in order to assist in discerning the context. The concordance is frequently used to locate a verse in the Bible when we can remember only a word or phrase from the verse. But the



Grammatical Criticism 77

concordance does more than help us find a verse whose location we have forgotten. Properly understood and used, it is a sophisticated tool that gives us access to patterns of language usage within a particular author or biblical writing. In the hands of a technically trained scholar, a concordance is probably the single most useful resource available for doing exegesis. It is helpful for the beginning exegete to understand how biblical scholars use concordances in their exegetical work and even aspire to acquiring similar expertise. Using Concordances There are various types of concordances. First, some concordances—such as the popular Cruden’s Concordance, a work originally published in the eighteenth century—are organized simply. In such works, all the words of the Bible, in this case the KJV, are listed in alphabetical order, and the biblical passages in which the word occurs are listed in canonical order. If we want to know all the places in the Bible where the word “covenant” occurs—rather than having to read through the entire Bible, find the passages on our own, and list them by hand—we can turn in the concordance to “covenant” and find that the concordance has already listed them for us. In this type of concordance, all the passages from Genesis through Revelation are listed, with no attempt to differentiate or classify the various meanings or usages of the word. Second, some concordances are “analytical.” These works classify all the passages in which a term occurs into subcategories based on (a) the different Hebrew or Greek words that are translated by a single English word, (b) general themes or topics under which several different words may be included, and (c) the different senses or uses of a single word or expression. We look at these in turn. 1. The first type of analytical concordance (such as Young, Strong, and Morrison) enables us to determine which Hebrew or Greek word the English term translates. This becomes a useful step for doing further word study, a necessary step, if we want to use the tools based on the original language. 2. The second type of analytical concordance (such as Darton) recognizes that several different words may all relate to the same theme or topic and treats thematically related words as a single group. Since this type of concordance is more topical in its organization, it can be useful for investigating broader concepts that may encompass several different biblical words.

78

Biblical Exegesis

3. A third type of analytical concordance (such as Lisowsky, Moulton and Geden, and Aland) employs a principle of classification recognizing that even the same Hebrew or Greek word or expression may be used in various senses throughout the biblical writings. Accordingly, it groups together all those passages in which a term is used in a similar sense. This may be shown by key indicators listed at the beginning of the entry or by arranging the passages in separate groups. In either case, this type of arrangement greatly assists the exegete because it provides a natural place to begin the investigation without needing to examine every single biblical verse in which the word occurs. As we noted earlier, comparing how language is used in related literature, often designated “apocryphal” or “deuterocanonical,” can help us understand the meaning and use of terminology found in other biblical texts. Where concordances exist for this literature, such as biblical concordances that include the apocryphal and deuterocanonical writings (as in the NRSV Concordance Unabridged or Hatch and Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint) or those devoted explicitly to these writings (such as Metzger’s Concordance to the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Revised Standard Version), the same process of investigation can be pursued. Frequently, by examining how a term or expression is used in these writings, we discover information that may be relevant to our understanding of its usage in a specific text or author. Thanks to recent technological innovations, biblical concordances are now readily available in electronic form. Some of the most popular computer-­assisted software, such as Accordance, Logos, or Olive Tree Bible Software, includes electronic concordances, along with numerous options for doing word searches. One can quickly get a sense of overall word counts, frequency of usage in certain biblical writings or sections of the Bible, and distribution patterns—where the term tends to cluster or to occur infrequently. The ready availability of Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), either through private or institutional subscription, enables us to extend our search well beyond the OT and NT in order to see how certain words or phrases are used within the entire corpus of Greek texts from antiquity. Other internet websites such as Perseus also offer similar capabilities (see Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis). While beginning exegetes may not be equipped to use such powerful search engines, they should be aware that technically trained biblical scholars now use such tools regularly in their exegetical work. The results of these searches are now becoming widely available in biblical commentaries and other Bible-­related research tools. While this data-­generated



Grammatical Criticism 79

exposition can be illuminating, it should also be treated critically. Some scholars employ these search engines carefully, giving close attention to checking the references in printed editions of the texts being cited. Others are not as careful, and sometimes their word counts are inaccurate or only approximate. When electronic texts are so readily available, it becomes easier to depend upon them entirely, without ever actually reading the ancient text being cited, in whole or in part. Once we have completed our concordance work and located the relevant passages in which the term or phrase occurs, we can develop interpretive questions that enable us to understand the significance of what we have found: Is the term used in the same sense in the different passages? Does it have a technical meaning? Are there different nuances in its various usages? If so, why? In what type of literature does the term occur? Is it always used in the same literary genre or in the same historical setting? Does it have a literal or metaphorical meaning? Does it tend to be used by one author, or in one section of biblical writings but not in others? If so, why? Do these patterns of usage provide clues to understanding an individual verse, a section, or even an entire writing? By asking such questions—and many others that occur to us as we work with the material—we gradually broaden our understanding of the term, the passage itself, and the other biblical writings in which it occurs, along with a wide range of ancient comparative texts. By formulating such questions and analyzing what we find, we are able to reconstruct the thought world of the author or of the text itself. An Example from the New Testament: Matthew 16:28 We can see how this is done by looking at the example we mentioned earlier, the use of “the Son of Man” in Matthew 16:28. Since this expression is sometimes translated generically in order to make it more gender inclusive, it may be necessary to consult a literal translation, such as the New American Standard Bible, or even go back to the original language. If we look up this expression in an analytical concordance (such as Young, Strong, or Moulton and Geden), we immediately notice several things. First, the expression tends to cluster in certain biblical writings. It is used most frequently in the NT, especially in the Synoptic Gospels. As we scan its occurrences in the NT as a whole, we notice that it occurs less frequently in writings attributed to John and Paul. This suggests that it was relatively unimportant, or even inconsequential, in these writings.

80

Biblical Exegesis

Such a negative observation can be useful because it provides a point of contrast with the Matthean usage. Second, the expression occurs in the OT in several places and in several senses. We should note these different senses (already classified for us in an analytical concordance) and ask which of these, if any, bears on the usage in our passage. As it turns out, a crucial exegetical question discussed in commentaries is whether the term used by Jesus in the Gospels has a general sense, as it does in Isaiah (51:12; 56:2), Jeremiah (49:18, 33; 50:40; 51:43), Ezekiel (2:1, 6, 8; 3:1; passim), and the Psalter (8:4; 80:17; 144:3; 146:3); or a more technical and apocalyptic sense, as it does in Daniel (7:13; cf. 8:17; 10:16). Third, if we examine the usages of the term in Matthew alone, we discover that it is used in at least three ways: (a) in a general sense, almost as a synonym for “man” or “human being”; (b) in an eschatological sense, to refer to a figure who will appear at the end of time as an exalted, universal judge of humanity; and (c) in a specifically Christological sense, especially when the suffering of the Messiah is discussed. Next, we try to determine how the expression is used in Matthew 16:28. We may even ask whether its usage here relates to one or more of its three senses. Does it have one or several senses? Do the three senses tend to merge with each other? After examining patterns of usage in Matthew, we can do the same with Mark and Luke. As we broaden the scope of our investigation, we try to relate what we find in these parallel accounts to Matthew. Here we are trying to determine how Matthew’s use of the expression relates to Mark’s and Luke’s understanding. By examining significant similarities and differences among the Synoptic Gospels, we can sometimes get a better sense of distinctive features of one of the Gospels, in this case, Matthew. Fourth, we can expand our investigation by examining the use of the expression in other writings from roughly the same historical period, especially the OT Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (or deuterocanonical writings), asking similar questions. In broadening our search to include these materials, we find, for example, that “son of man” is an especially important term in the Similitudes of Enoch (1 Enoch 37–71; also cf. 4 Ezra 13). The expression in its generic sense of “human being” or “humankind” is also found in the Qumran writings (Community Rule, Thanksgiving Hymns, Genesis Apocryphon). This naturally raises the question whether Jesus’ own use of the phrase (or its later uses by the evangelists) might have been influenced by its usage in Jewish thought as expressed in texts that are dated around the first century CE.



Grammatical Criticism 81 Entering the “Semantic World” of the Text

This short exercise relating to “the Son of Man” illustrates the importance of examining key terms and concepts as they are used in the biblical writings. By locating the passages in which key expressions occur and formulating questions relevant to these occurrences, we can expand our understanding of the “semantic world” in which these expressions were used. Using concordances in this way assumes that the various texts in which an expression occurs provide a valuable context in which it should be understood. Wordbooks, lexicons, and other studies focusing on single terms or phrases are prepared while using the concordance as the basic tool. To save time, we may consult such works first, but we should not avoid concordance work that requires us to consult the texts directly. Not only do we gain better control of the relevant material by examining the texts for ourselves, but we also often see things that the standard workbooks or lexicons miss. If we defer too quickly to experts, we may miss new insights that we can discover for ourselves in our own firsthand reading of the texts. If we skip this all-­important primary level of investigation, our exegesis tends to be derivative rather than original. It is much better for us to do the primary investigative work first, formulate our own hypotheses and interpretive explanations based on these observations, and then use the wordbooks and similar tools to check our own insights and findings. Our remarks have been suggestive rather than comprehensive. To list all the ways in which a concordance can be used in exegesis would require a lengthy discussion. But we have tried to illustrate how the concordance, rightly and imaginatively used, is the single most valuable resource for the exegete who wishes to do original work on a passage. Moving from English to Hebrew or Greek Knowing the original biblical languages is obviously an advantage to the exegete, but students without such knowledge can still use most of these grammatical and linguistic tools. This requires us to be aware of special problems that arise when our investigation moves beyond the English language to the original Hebrew or Greek. Some suggestions and observations are in order. First, as noted earlier, some concordances are designed to accommodate students without knowledge of Hebrew or Greek. Along with the English words, these concordances list their equivalent Hebrew

82

Biblical Exegesis

and Greek terms. They usually supply the definition of each Hebrew or Greek word and transliterate them into English (that is, write the word using equivalent English letters—“covenant,” Heb., berith; Gk., diathēkē). In this way, students without knowledge of Hebrew or Greek can determine the transliterated form of the original word, which also provides a clue to pronunciation. Second, since a single Hebrew or Greek word is usually rendered by several English words, the analytical concordances provide appendices containing comprehensive indexes of these terms and their English renderings. The terms in the concordances are coded for making reference to the appendices. Third, in recent editions of concordances, words are keyed to their corresponding entries in standard lexicons and wordbooks. This allows the student to (1) to identify a word in the English translation, (2) locate it in a concordance, and (3) use the code number to find the related entry in a lexicon or wordbook. Without knowing the Hebrew or Greek alphabet, a student can move from an English word used in translation to its counterpart in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon. Fourth, a student may determine the original Hebrew or Greek word by consulting an interlinear, an edition of the Bible that provides the original text of the Bible on one line and an English translation on an adjacent line. Moving from an English translation to the original Hebrew or Greek is not an easy process. Nor is it obvious in every case. But the diligent student who has access to basic tools for biblical exegesis can make this transition. By careful use of such resources, and by consulting with those who know the original languages, beginning students can draw on this body of information for gaining deeper understanding of the language of the text. Cautions about Wordbooks and Word Studies Although word studies are often illuminating, they can be misleading. As we use biblical wordbooks, lexicons, and dictionaries, we should be aware that they are sometimes based on faulty conceptions of language. Scholarly critique of well-­known biblical wordbooks and lexicons has identified several principles that we should keep in mind when using such tools. 1. Words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, just as words in any language, can be used in different ways and frequently possess a wide variety of meanings. Dictionaries based on more sophisticated principles of linguistics tend to offer several meanings for words—a range of meanings— rather than give a single meaning from which all others are assumed to



Grammatical Criticism 83

derive. But some biblical wordbooks give the impression that biblical terms had a single core meaning that was “carried” in the root form of the word. This assumption is known as the “root fallacy.” Even though this conception of root meanings informs many wordbooks or word studies, it should be avoided (see Barr, Semantics of Biblical Language). 2. Biblical writers and characters were no more aware of the history of the words and expressions they used than are modern writers and speakers. Most of us are unaware of the history of the words we use. Before using a word, we rarely try to determine its “original meaning.” Unless we are historical philologists, such matters are seldom more than a curiosity. What matters is whether the words we are using communicate what we want to say. As exegetes, we should not assume that some primal meaning exists for each biblical word. Nor should we assume that ancient speakers or authors were especially concerned with the etymology of words they used. In analyzing biblical language, we may notice how the meaning of a word or phrase has developed over time, and in different contexts, but we need not assume that we must determine its original sense in order to understand its usage in a specific passage. 3. Generally speaking, individual words or phrases are not in themselves the bearers of special theological meaning. When a term, even a technical term, occurs in a biblical text, we should not assume that the original reader would automatically associate it with theological concepts, much less a theological system. The term “covenant,” for example, was used in many different contexts in ancient Israel and in the ancient Near East. Its appearance in a text should not be understood automatically as a reference to a special divine-­human relationship. Similarly, the NT word for love, agapē, in spite of its rich, theological nuances, does not necessarily refer to some special form of self-­giving affection (see Luke 11:43). 4. An idea or theological concept can be expressed in one way with one set of terms in one text. But the same idea or a similar concept can be expressed in another way with a different set of terms in another text. We should not assume that ideas or concepts can be expressed with only one set of terms. 5. The best guide to the meaning of a word is the context in which it is used. This means, first of all, the immediate context of the passage in which it occurs. If a word has several meanings, we should explore the range of meanings and see how they fit or do not fit in the context. A broader context is the whole document in which the term appears. This requires us to explore how a term is used elsewhere in the writing. As a further context, we consult the biblical and nonbiblical documents contemporary with the

84

Biblical Exegesis

text being studied. Since the meaning and usage of words change through history, we should not conclude that an expression found in one historical context necessarily denotes the same thing in another time and place. Some of the terms used in the KJV now mean something totally different. In the seventeenth century, “charity” may have been an appropriate rendering of agapē in 1 Corinthians 13, but today the term typically refers to benevolence extended to the poor and those in need, or to an agency or organization that dispenses money or goods for that purpose. Grammar and Syntax As noted earlier, the language of the text consists not only of words but also of words arranged in meaningful combinations. Consequently, grammatical criticism also includes a broad range of issues related to the rules or principles that are derived from observing how changes in the form of words (inflection) and the numerous possibilities for arranging words in relation to each other (syntax) work together to form meaningful sense units. Technically, grammar as a field of classical studies encompasses several subfields, including orthography, inflection, and syntax, among others. Strictly speaking, syntax is the aspect of grammar that deals with the words of the text as they are combined with each other to form phrases, sentences, and paragraphs, as well as the special problems these combinations create. A sound knowledge of English grammar makes it easier to engage in this aspect of interpretation. Many beginning exegetes experience difficulty at this point because in recent years schools at every level have de-­emphasized explicit aspects of English grammar. While students may speak or write acceptable English, they may not have enough formal knowledge of the language and its rules of usage to analyze and discuss the grammar of the English Bible. The beginning exegete may need to consult a standard English composition or grammar book before other exegetical tools will be of much use. We must know the parts of speech (nouns, adjectives, verbs, etc.) and possess some elementary knowledge about them, along with basic grammatical terms, before we can analyze the syntax of a biblical passage. Questions of syntax and grammar often arise when we try to discern the meaning of a sense unit. Such questions can surface when we compare two or more English translations and notice the different ways in which the passage is rendered into English. Translators’ footnotes may also provide indications of such questions. Some examples may be noted.



Grammatical Criticism 85

A familiar example is Genesis 1:1, which the NRSV renders “In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth.” In the NRSV notes, the alternative translations, “When God began to create . . .” (which occurs in the Tanakh, NJPS) and “In the beginning God created . . .” (which is found in the KJV, RSV, NIV, NEB, NJB), are given because the grammatical evidence is evaluated differently. The latter translation envisions a specific point (in time), a beginning moment, when God initiated the act of creation. Based on this understanding of the grammar, the traditional doctrine of creatio ex nihilo, “creation out of nothing,” developed. But the Jewish scholar Rashi (1040–1105) correctly understood the Hebrew grammar to imply a process in which an original chaotic state gives way to the Deity’s activity of imposing order by separating and arranging what already existed. It is the difference between a single creative event before which nothing existed and a creative process that imposes order upon a preexisting, disorderly, even malevolent, cosmos. The confusion probably began with the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (the Septuagint), when the finer points of Hebrew grammar were either unknown to the translators or ignored in the interest of simplicity. Either way, given the importance of this opening verse of the Bible, knowledge of Hebrew grammar and syntax makes a huge difference in any effort to reconstruct the biblical view(s) of creation. Naturally, the Genesis account of creation has figured prominently in scholarly—and scientific—discussions of how the universe originated. Another well-­known example from the NT relates to debates over the past few decades concerning the appropriate translation of the Greek phrase pistis Christou (Rom 3:22, 26; Gal 2:16). Although the NRSV renders the phrase “faith in (Jesus) Christ,” it gives a note indicating an alternative translation: “faith of (Jesus) Christ.” The exegetical decision hinges upon a grammatical point. In Koine Greek, when a noun is modified by another noun in the genitive (or descriptive) case, it can be understood in several ways. In particular, two forms of the genitive are relevant: as an objective genitive, in which case the noun in the genitive case is understood as the object of the action implied in the noun being modified (zealos theou, “zeal for God,” Rom 10:2); or as a subjective genitive, in which the noun in the genitive case is understood as the subject of the action contained in the noun being modified (dikaiosynē theou, “righteousness of God,” i.e., righteousness that God possesses and displays, Rom 1:17). Traditionally, pistis Christou was translated as an objective genitive: we are justified (or made righteous) through our faith, whose object or basis is Christ, thus, through our faith in Christ. In recent years, some

86

Biblical Exegesis

scholars have forcefully argued for reading the phrase as a subjective genitive: we are justified by the faith that Christ himself exercised—the faith of Christ. The theological difference is consequential: in the former, we are justified by God through a decision to place our faith in Christ. Here, Christ becomes the object, or foundation, of our faith. In the alternative translation, we are justified through the actions of Jesus himself—his faith, or faithfulness, especially under duress and trial, even in death, are seen as the decisive element in our salvation. This exegetical decision, which has important theological and ethical implications, depends on how we understand—and negotiate—an aspect of Greek syntax. In 2 Corinthians 5:19, the NRSV reads, “in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself.” An alternative translation is provided in the note: “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.” Consulting other translations, such as the REB, points up the exegetical difficulty even further. The exegetical significance is far-­reaching. The NRSV emphasizes the act of reconciliation as initiated by God, yet the NRSV note focuses on Christ as the locus and agent of reconciliation. The exegete must decide whether the passage is fundamentally a statement about salvation as an act of grace initiated by God—a soteriological claim—or a Christological statement about the incarnation. In this case, the meaning of the words themselves poses little difficulty. It is rather their combination with each other—their syntax—that is the problem. To resolve such questions, we must deal with the grammar and syntax of the passage. This becomes evident when one consults critical commentaries on the passage where the various options are outlined and discussed. Eventually, it may be necessary to consult standard grammars of the Hebrew and Greek languages. To resolve such exegetical questions, it may be helpful to diagram the passage. Older methods of diagramming sentences, once used in English composition courses, may prove useful in this regard. The system of diagramming need not be conventional or even highly structured. What is often needed, more than anything else, is for the exegete to rewrite the passage, diagramming it in a series of sense units, in order to see how the parts relate to each other. In this way, it often becomes clear that certain phrases can be located in one or more places, each altering the interpretation of the sentence. Such diagramming can be a worthwhile practice if the text is poetic since we may discover parallel structures not otherwise obvious. This is especially true if the text is printed as straight prose in the English edition of the Bible we are using.



Grammatical Criticism 87

Analyzing the syntax of the passage and assessing grammatical rules as they apply to the passage should be done only when the text requires it. Some texts require little or no grammatical analysis of this sort, while others—some Pauline passages, for example—will be difficult to understand any other way. This aspect of exegesis deals with the author’s world of thought, or the world of the text, as it is expressed through written words. The language of the text provides the skeletal structure of the author’s thought. Grammatical criticism enables us to enter the author’s thought world through a particular passage. As we relate the patterns of language usage in one passage to other relevant passages by the same author, we gain a better sense of the author’s larger thought world. As we extend our grammatical search to other biblical writings, we are able to place the passage that we examined within the broader framework of biblical thought. Bibliography Old Testament Lexicons and Aids *Armstrong, Terry A., Douglas L. Busby, and Cyril F. Carr. A Reader’s Hebrew-­English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1989. Brown, Francis, Samuel R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-­Driver-­Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, with an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic, Coded with the Numbering System from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. 1906. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1993–2016. Davidson, Benjamin. The Analytical Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon. 1850. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Einspahr, Bruce. Index to Brown, Driver and Briggs Hebrew Lexicon. Chicago: Moody, 1976. Gesenius, Wilhelm. Gesenius’ Hebrew-­Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament: Numerically Coded to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. 1979. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997. *Holladay, William L., ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Based upon the Lexical Work of Ludwig Köhler and Walter Baumgartner. 10th corrected impression. Leiden: Brill; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Jastrow, Marcus. A Dictionary of the Targumin, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature. 2 vols. in 1. 1943. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005. Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner, Mervyn E. J. Richardson, Johann J. Stamm, and Benedikt Hartmann. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. 5 vols. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1994–2000. Study ed. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, eds. A Greek-­English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Rev. ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003. Robinson, Maurice A. Indexes to All Editions of Brown-­Driver-­Briggs Hebrew Lexicon and Thayer’s Greek Lexicon. 1981. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2001.

88

Biblical Exegesis

New Testament Lexicons and Aids Abbott-­Smith, George. A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament. 1937. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999. Alsop, John R. An Index to the Revised Bauer-­Arndt-­Gingrich Greek Lexicon. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1981. Bullinger, Ethelbert W. A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament. 1877. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999. *Danker, Frederick W., Walter Bauer, and William F. Arndt, eds. A Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Friberg, Timothy, Barbara Friberg, and Neva F. Miller. Analytical Lexicon of the Greek New Testament. Victoria, BC: Trafford, 2005. *Kubo, Sakae. A Reader’s Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament. New rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975. Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott, Henry S. Jones, and Roderick McKenzie. A Greek-­English Lexicon. Rev. and augmented. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. *Louw, J. P., and Eugene A. Nida. Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament, Based on Semantic Domains. 2nd ed. 2 vols. New York: United Bible Societies, 1989. Moulton, Harold K. The Analytical Greek Lexicon Revised. 1852. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (Harper Collins), 1991. Moulton, James H., and George Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and Other Non-­Literary Sources. 1930. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. Rogers, Cleon L., Jr., Cleon L. Rogers III, and Fritz Rienecker. The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key to the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. Thayer, Joseph H. Thayer’s Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with the Numbering System from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996. Zerwick, Max, and Mary Grosvenor. A Grammatical Analysis of the Greek New Testament. Unabridged 5th rev. ed. Rome: Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1996.

Hebrew and Aramaic Grammars Arnold, Bill T., and John H. Choi. A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Ben Zvi, Ehud, Maxine Hancock, and Richard Beinert. Readings in Biblical Hebrew: An Intermediate Textbook. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993. Gesenius, Wilhelm, Emil Kautzsch, and Arthur E. Cowley. Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar. 1910. Mineola, NY: Dover, 2006. Green, Jennifer S., G. Brooke Lester, Joseph F. Scrivner, and C. L. Seow. Handbook for a Grammar to Biblical Hebrew. Rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005. Greenberg, Moshe. Introduction to Hebrew. 1965. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Greenspahn, Frederick E. An Introduction to Aramaic. 1998. Corrected 2nd ed. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007. Johns, Alger F. A Short Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. Rev. ed. Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University Press, 1972.



Grammatical Criticism 89

Joüon, Paul, and T. Muraoka. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. 1991. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2009. Kelley, Page H., Daniel S. Mynatt, and Timothy G. Crawford. The Masorah of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia: Introduction and Annotated Glossary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. Kittel, Bonnie P., Vicki Hoffer, and Rebecca A. Wright. Biblical Hebrew: A Text and Workbook. 1989. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2005. *Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1973. Rosenthal, Franz. A Grammar of Biblical Aramaic. 1961. 7th exp. ed. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2006. *Seow, Choon Leong. A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew. 1987. Rev. ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1995. Waltke, Bruce K., and Michael P. O’Connor. An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. 1990. 9th corrected printing. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Weingreen, Jacob, and Hannah C. Jaffe. Practical Grammar for Classical Hebrew. 2nd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959.

Greek Grammars Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, and Robert W. Funk. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973. Countryman, L. William. Read It in Greek: An Introduction to New Testament Greek. 1993. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009. *Croy, N. Clayton. A Primer of Biblical Greek. 1999. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011. Duff, Jeremy, and John W. Wenham. The Elements of New Testament Greek. 3rd ed. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Funk, Robert W. A Beginning-­Intermediate Grammar of Hellenistic Greek. 2nd corrected ed. 3 vols. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1977. 3rd ed. Print and online, Salem, OR: Polebridge, 2013. Kubo, Sakae. A Beginner’s New Testament Greek Grammar. 1979. New rev. ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995. *Machen, J. Gresham, and Dan McCartney. New Testament Greek for Beginners. 1923. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson & Prentice Hall, 2004. Moule, C. F. D. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 1959. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Moulton, James H., Wilbert F. Howard, and Nigel Turner. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906–76. *Mounce, William D. Basics of Biblical Greek Grammar. 1993. 4th ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019. Owings, Timothy. A Cumulative Index to New Testament Greek Grammars. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1983. Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research. 1914. 4th ed. Nashville: Broadman, 1934. ———. A New Short Grammar of the Greek New Testament for Students Familiar with the Greek New Testament. Parts 1, 3, and 4. New York: Harper, 1931; Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985. *Smyth, Herbert W., and Gordon M. Messing. Greek Grammar. 1956. Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.

90

Biblical Exegesis

Swetnam, James, and Randy deJesús Soto. An Introduction to the Study of New Testament Greek: Swetnam-­Soto Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament. Rome: G&B Press, 2019. Thackeray, Henry St J. A Grammar of the Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint. 1909. Hildesheim and New York: Georg Olms, 1987. Voelz, James W. Fundamental Greek Grammar. 1986. 4th ed. St. Louis: Concordia, 2019. Wallace, Daniel B. The Basics of New Testament Syntax: An Intermediate Greek Grammar. 2000. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009. *———. Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament with Scripture, Subject, and Greek Word Indexes. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996; Video lectures, 2017.

Concordances Aland, Kurt, and H. Riesenfeld. Vollständige Konkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament: Unter Zugrundelegung aller modernen kritischen Textausgaben und des Textus Receptus. 2 vols. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1983. Bachmann, Horst, Wolfgang A. Slaby, and Helmut Werner, eds. Concordance to the Novum Testamentum Graece of Nestle-­Aland, 26th Edition, and to the Greek New Testament, 3rd Edition. 3rd ed. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 2015. Cruden, Alexander. Cruden’s Concordance. 1737. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Lutterworth, 2002. Darton, Michael. Modern Concordance to the New Testament. London: Darton, Longman & Todd; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Davidson, Benjamin. A Concordance of the Hebrew and Chaldee Scriptures. London: Bagster, 1876. Ellison, John W. Nelson’s Complete Concordance of the Revised Standard Version Bible. 2nd ed. Nashville: Nelson, 1984. Even-­Šošhan, Avraham, and John Sailhamer. A New Concordance of the Bible: Thesaurus of the Language of the Bible. 2nd ed. Jerusalem: Kiryat Sefer, 1990. Goodrick, Edward W., and John R. Kohlenberger III. NIV Exhaustive Bible Concordance. 1981. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016. Hartdegen, Stephen J. Nelson’s Complete Concordance of the New American Bible. Nashville: Nelson; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press; Toronto: Welch, 1977. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint and the Other Greek Versions of the Old Testament Including the Apocryphal Books. 1954. 2nd ed. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998. See also Elmar Camilo dos Santos, An Expanded Hebrew Index for the Hatch-­Redpath Concordance to the Septuagint. Jerusalem: Dugith, 1987. *Kohlenberger, John R. The Concise Concordance to the New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. ———. The New American Bible Concise Concordance. 2003. Rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. *———. The NRSV Concordance Unabridged: Including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991. Köstenberger, Andreas, and Raymond Bouchoc, eds. The Book Study Concordance of the Greek New Testament. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003. Lisowsky, Gerhard, and Hans P. Rüger. Konkordanz zum hebräischen Alten Testament. 3rd ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1993. Mandelkern, Solomon, Moshe H. Goshen-­Gottstein, and F. Margolin. 1896. Veteris Testamenti concordantiae hebraicae atque chaldaicae. Tel Aviv: Schocken Publishing, 1978.



Grammatical Criticism 91

Metzger, Bruce M. Concordance to the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books of the Revised Standard Version. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; London: Collins, 1983. Morgenthaler, Robert. Statistik des neutestamentlicher Wortschatzes. 1982. 4th ed. Zurich: Gotthelf, 1992. Morrish, George. Concordance of the Septuagint. London: Bagster, 1970; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976. *Morrison, Clinton. An Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. *Moulton, William F., Alfred S. Geden, and I. Howard Marshall. A Concordance to the Greek Testament. 6th ed. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2002. Moulton, William F., Alfred S. Geden, and Harold K. Moulton. A Concordance to the Greek Testament according to the Texts of Westcott and Hort, Tischendorf and the English Revisers. 5th ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1978. Schmoller, Alfred. Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament. 1938–49. 8th ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1989. Strong, James, and John R. Kohlenberger III. The New Strong’s Expanded Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. 1890. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010. Wigram, George V. The Englishman’s Greek Concordance of the New Testament: Coded with the Numbering System from Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. 1903. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1999. ———. The Englishman’s Hebrew and Chaldee Concordance of the Old Testament Numerically Coded to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Wigram, George V., and Ralph D. Winter. The Word Study Concordance. Pasadena, CA: William Carey Library; Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House, 1978. *Young, Robert. Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Bible. 1879. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992.

Wordbooks Bauer, Johannes B., ed. Encyclopedia of Biblical Theology: The Complete Sacramentum Verbi. 1970. New York: Crossroad, 1981. *Botterweck, G. Johannes, Helmer Ringgren, and Heinz-­Josef Fabry, eds. Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament. 17 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974–2018. Brown, Colin, ed. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. 4 vols. 1975. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986. CD-­ROM: Version 5.1. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004. Gowan, Donald E., ed. The Westminster Theological Wordbook of the Bible. 2003. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2014. *Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann, eds. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. 3 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1997. *Kittel, Gerhard, Gerhard Friedrich, and Geoffrey W. Bromiley, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–99. Abridged ed., 1 vol., 1985. Léon-­Dufour, Xavier, P. Joseph Cahill, and E. M. Stewart. Dictionary of Biblical Theology. 2nd ed. London: Chapman, 1988. *Richardson, Alan, ed. A Theological Word Book of the Bible. 1950. London: SCM; New York: Macmillan, 1985.

92

Biblical Exegesis

Robertson, A. T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. 6 vols. 1930. Nashville: Broadman, 1985. Concise ed., 1 vol., Nashville: Holman, 2000. Turner, Nigel. Christian Words. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1980; Nashville: Nelson, 1982. ———. Grammatical Insights into the New Testament. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004; online, 2015. Van Gemeren, Willem A., ed. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. 5 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997. Vincent, Marvin R. Word Studies in the New Testament. 4 vols. 1887–1900. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991. Vine, William E. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. 1981. Nashville: Nelson, 2003. Von Allmen, Jean-­Jacques, and H. H. Rowley, eds. Vocabulary of the Bible. 1958. Cambridge: James Clarke, 2002.

Interlinears Berry, George R. Interlinear Greek-­English New Testament, with a Greek-­English Lexicon and New Testament Synonyms. 1897. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003. *Green, Jay P. The Interlinear Bible, Coded with Strong’s Concordance Numbers. 1986. 2nd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2000. Kohlenberger, John R. The Interlinear NIV Hebrew-­English Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987. *Marshall, Alfred. The Interlinear KJV-­NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. 1975. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992. ———. The Interlinear NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998. *———. The Interlinear NRSV-­NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1993. ———. The RSV Interlinear Greek-­English New Testament: The Nestle Greek Text with a Literal English Translation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970. Mounce, W. D. Interlinear for the Rest of Us: The Reverse Interlinear for New Testament Word Studies. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006.

Semantics and Linguistics Barr, James. Comparative Philology and the Text of the Old Testament. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1987. *———. The Semantics of Biblical Language. 1961. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Caird, George B. The Language and Imagery of the Bible. 1980. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Gibson, Arthur. Biblical Semantic Logic: A Preliminary Analysis. 1981. London: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Louw, J. P. Semantics of New Testament Greek. Chico, CA: Scholars Press; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Nida, Eugene A., and Charles R. Taber. 1969. The Theory and Practice of Translation. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2003.

Chapter Five

Literary Criticism Rhetorical and Narrative Dimensions of the Text

B

roadly speaking, literary criticism encompasses all questions pertaining to the composition of a text, including its authorship, historical setting, purpose for writing, and the overall structure, or form, that gives shape to the writing. These latter two elements are sometimes referred to as literary purpose and literary form, or literary structure. We have treated some of these questions in earlier chapters because they are discrete exegetical tasks. What “Literary Criticism” Means At an earlier period in biblical studies, literary criticism had a narrow focus. In the eighteenth century, it referred primarily to interpretation that focused on identifying sources, especially written documents, that had been used in composing biblical writings. At that time, interpreters became increasingly aware of certain difficulties posed by reading specific portions of the Bible as single, unified compositions. They observed literary clues within biblical texts, such as major thematic shifts or differences in writing style, that suggested compositions in which earlier literary sources, or strands of oral and literary material, had been woven together, or edited, into what we now know as “books” of the Bible. This approach altered the way of understanding sections of the Bible, such as the Pentateuch; or individual books, such as 2 Corinthians. These and similar writings were now seen as composites of earlier works—secondary collections, as it were, of writings that were previously separate, even disparate. Because this interpretive approach sought to identify earlier literary sources lying behind the final edited form of 93

94

Biblical Exegesis

biblical writings, it was referred to as source criticism. Separating out these previous sources or layers of material, describing their content and characteristic features, and relating them to one another eventually also came to be designated as literary criticism. This was an appropriate label since interpreters focused not only on earlier sources but also on the entire process of literary composition. For them, identifying literary markers in the text, such as the author’s use of language and style or editorial “seams” suggesting the stitching together of different documents, was literary criticism. Among scholars who study the literature of different cultures or p ­ eoples, such as English, French, or German literature, literary criticism encompasses a broad range of interests. These include: literary structure—how a text is arranged or organized; literary style—techniques of language usage that distinguish an author or a text; literary purpose—what a writing achieves either as an expression of the author’s intent or as a function of the text itself; literary mood—emotions associated with, or created by, a writing; literary strategy—how various elements are deployed within a single genre to achieve a certain purpose; and literary imagination—the world reflected in a text (or the author’s mind) and the world a text creates in the reader’s mind.

Although literary criticism in this broad sense informs the interpretation of many different literatures, its applicability to the Bible is evident. Each aspect of literary criticism mentioned above is relevant to biblical interpretation. To the extent that these perspectives inform biblical interpretation, the Bible is being read like any other body of literature. As with literature in general, we must read the Bible with some literary competence and discretion. We all realize that different reading conventions are operative depending on the type of literature we are reading. We read prose with one set of expectations, poetry quite differently. Different forms of writing create different expectations of meaning and require appropriate strategies for meaningful interpretation. Readers discern “information” within a given writing in different ways, depending on how the writing is structured and how language is used. As we interpret texts, we must learn to ask different kinds of questions—questions that make sense for a specific form of



Literary Criticism 95

writing. Some questions will yield meaningful answers; others will not. Our skill as interpreters—as literary critics—is directly related to our ability to ask intelligent questions of texts. Rhetorical Criticism Although rhetorical criticism is sometimes treated as a separate form of criticism, we include it with literary criticism. Rhetoric is one of the oldest academic disciplines. In the ancient world, especially in Greece and Rome, the study of rhetoric related primarily to oral discourse. But ancient rhetoricians, recognizing the close relationship between oral and written discourse, discussed strategies for composing written works. Aristotle, for example, gave extensive attention to the rules and conventions for composing narratives, such as history, or drama, both tragedy and comedy, along with many other literary genres. Because ancient rhetorical study encompassed both oral and written compositions, it dealt with many aspects of interpretation that we now include under literary criticism. So closely aligned are these two forms of criticism that we have chosen to treat them together. Biblical writings are “purposeful” literature. Because writers of biblical books seek to persuade the reader about certain truths, positions, and courses of action, it is subject to rhetorical analysis. Biblical writings, for the most part, were produced for very specific situations. Paul, for example, wrote his letters to address special conditions in the lives of early Christian communities. The ancient prophets delivered their speeches in specific historical and social contexts. Seen one way, the occasions and contexts that prompted such writings are rhetorical situations because they presuppose an audience, a speaker or writer, an issue of mutual concern, and an occasion for communication. In a rhetorical situation, the communicator (speaker/writer) seeks to persuade the audience to accept an argument or point of view or adopt some course of action. Ancient Greek Rhetoric The study of rhetoric was highly developed among the ancient Greeks. Rhetorical skills were also valued in ancient Israel even though we do not know how these were taught. According to Aristotle, rhetoric seeks to discover the most effective means of persuasion. Students in ancient Greece learned that rhetoric includes five essential elements:

96

Biblical Exegesis 1. invention—planning a discourse by deciding which arguments should be used and how supporting evidence should be deployed; 2. arrangement—deciding on the most effective way to organize the arguments and supporting evidence; 3. style—choosing effective language that fits the speaker’s character, the content of the speech, and the occasion; 4. memory—preparing for the speech through study and practice; and 5. delivery—using the voice and body gestures in presenting the speech.

In written discourse, only the first three steps are involved. Three Types of Rhetorical Proofs Ancient rhetoric paid careful attention to the nature of proof in developing persuasive discourse. Aristotle discussed three different modes of proof, depending upon whether they focus on the speaker, the audience, or the discourse: ethos, pathos, and logos. Ethos relates to the character of the speaker (or writer). Ethical proofs were seen as an extension of the speaker’s personality. They were used to enhance the speaker’s trustworthiness. The use of this form of ethical proof is found among biblical writers, as in Paul’s frequent autobiographical references and in the prophets’ reports of their experiences. Besides using personal references, biblical writers also reinforced their credibility in other ways. They quoted Scripture or appealed to tradition to align themselves with reliable authorities. The frequent use of lists in 1–2 Chronicles underscores the reliability of the author (or editor) who compiled these writings. Pathos encompasses proofs or appeals that relate to human emotions, especially the feelings and reactions of the audience. A speaker was expected to consider how the speech could be composed and organized in order to appeal to the heart, which was considered to be the seat of human emotions in antiquity. Biblical imagery often appeals to the emotions and feelings of hearers (or readers). It is used to elicit certain responses and create certain moods among listeners. Proofs relating to logos were concerned with whether a speech unfolded in a coherent and consistent manner. This determined whether a speech was compelling and convincing. Rather than focusing on the speaker or the audience, “logical proofs” dealt primarily with the speech itself.



Literary Criticism 97

Ancient rhetoricians gave extensive attention to the kinds of arguments that were most effective. They also developed rules of logic that informed rhetorical compositions. For example, they distinguished between inductive (reasoning from the particular to the general) and deductive (reasoning from the general to the particular) logic. As ancient rhetoricians engaged in these discussions, they devised ways to compose purposeful, persuasive speeches and texts. As exegetes, we must be alert to the literary and rhetorical dimensions of a text. Emphasis on compositional techniques and rhetorical features aids in understanding how a writing has been developed, how its structure and style contribute to its presentation, and what objectives the writer may have had in mind. Literary Context Literary criticism of biblical texts recognizes that a single text, passage, or pericope (a short text or selection from a larger literary passage) generally forms a part of a larger whole, the document of which it is a part. The part not only contributes to the meaning of the whole but also derives meaning from the whole. A passage in Romans or a narrative in Genesis, for example, can be understood best when it is viewed as part of a larger literary whole—the entire Letter to the Romans or the book of Genesis. When we refer to the literary context of a specific text or passage, we can mean several things. Sometimes we refer to the immediate literary context, by which we mean what precedes and follows the text immediately. This may be the chapter in which the text is found or a slightly larger literary unit. Or we might think of the immediate literary context in broader terms—a larger subsection of a biblical book. Sometimes a single biblical book is part of a larger unit; it may be part of a multi-­book document, such as Luke–Acts or 1–2 Chronicles. When we read a passage in its literary context, we are trying to understand how it relates to what surrounds it. Does it fit with the surrounding literary material, or does it interrupt the flow of the argument or the development of a theme? How does the surrounding material inform our specific passage? Do some characters, terms, or themes from the surrounding material illuminate our text? A helpful way to relate a passage to its larger literary context is to read through an entire document, construct an outline, and see where our passage fits within the outline. Consulting the outlines of biblical writings in commentaries and other works can help us see the overall structure

98

Biblical Exegesis

and style of the writing and the compositional techniques employed in its production. Literary Structure Ancient authors and editors, like their modern counterparts, could use various compositional techniques to link smaller subunits and sections of material. Individual writings could be structured according to thematic interests (many Wisdom writings), chronological schemes (most historical books), plot or plot motifs (narratives), argumentative strategies (some Pauline letters), alphabetic lines in which the successive letters of the alphabet are used to give external arrangement to material (several of the psalms, Lamentations), speeches and summations (Deuteronomy–2 Kings, Matthew), geographical references (much of Exodus– Numbers), common subject matter (OT law codes), patterns dictated by use in rituals and worship (many of the psalms), and series of visions (some OT prophetic books and Revelation). A single biblical book may be organized via several of these compositional techniques. A text may reflect standard forms, or genres, characteristic of the author’s time, rather than being a special literary creation of the author or editor. (We will discuss this latter category in chapter 6, on form criticism.) Structuring devices were used not only for single biblical books or groups of books but also for major sections and subsections within individual writings. Individual parts of a document might have their own distinctive structure. Prophetic books often contain a series of oracles, which constitute distinct literary forms in their own right. As exegetes, we must take into account major and minor literary structural units. Because ancient authors and collectors often incorporated existing sources into their works, the structure of sections within a single work may reflect the structure of the earlier sources. We often find multilayered structures within the same document. In a heavily edited work like the Pentateuch, we can detect both the structure of the earlier sources and the structure of the final form of the text. When we interpret a specific text, we should try, at least ideally, to determine its place and function within each of the layers or sources of the text. We can view a passage in the Pentateuch not only within the literary context of the final edited book but also within its context in the earlier sources (the so-­called J, E, D, and P documents). We find similar stratification within the Synoptic Gospels. The earliest Gospel writer, probably Mark, inherited cycles of tradition that were given new meaning when



Literary Criticism 99

they were included in his narrative. When these same materials from Mark were later utilized by Matthew and Luke, they were often incorporated into these works while using different organizing structures and compositional techniques. In this way, they acquired a new literary context. As we analyze the literary structure of biblical writings, we can look for several clues in order to detect the use and incorporation of earlier sources. Among these are (1) changes in literary style, (2) shifts in vocabulary, (3) breaks in continuity of thought, (4) connecting statements that suggest secondary linking, (5) changes in theological viewpoint, (6) duplications or repetition of material, (7) clearly defined and isolatable subunits, and (8) chronological or factual inconsistencies. Utilizing these indicators, we can often isolate earlier sources. Nineteenth-­century biblical criticism focused heavily on identifying earlier sources that lay behind biblical writings, dating these sources, and reconstructing their probable historical contexts. Modern biblical scholarship has devoted enormous effort to establishing the overall literary structure of biblical writings and identifying the underlying sources that have been incorporated into them. Scholars frequently disagree about how individual works should be divided and subdivided, but their discussion of these disagreements in critical introductions to the OT and NT and in other handbooks and encyclopedias is often useful in identifying the main options. Introductory sections to commentaries on individual books often provide information pertaining to in-­text literary markers that indicate structural divisions and structuring techniques. These markers may include such things as the beginning and ending of sections or transitions within sections; temporal, geographical, or spatial indicators; and technical or formulaic phrases. Consulting reference works to ascertain the literary structure of biblical writings is valuable. But it is just as valuable, perhaps more so, for us to do the structural analysis ourselves. It is often helpful to read a certain text or literary unit several times, then read it within its larger literary context—several times. Through these repeated readings, we develop our own understanding of how the overall work is structured, what constitutes the component parts, and how these parts relate to each other. There is no substitute for this direct interaction with the text itself. Literary Form and Function: Examples As we noted earlier, our ability to analyze literary structure often depends on our ability to ask relevant, useful questions about the text: How does

100

Biblical Exegesis

the particular passage function within its immediate and larger context? Is it transitional, serving as a literary bridge from one section to another? Is it climactic, serving as the culmination of several paragraphs or sections immediately preceding it? Is it illustrative, providing an example of an earlier assertion? Is it extrinsic to the larger literary unit, intruding into the literary context? By asking such questions, we are trying to relate the passage to its larger literary context by establishing internal textual connections. Doing so is an important aspect of exegesis because clues to interpreting the passage often lie outside the passage itself and are found in its larger literary setting. If we are interpreting Luke’s account of Jesus’ sermon in Nazareth (see Luke 4:16–30), viewing it in relation to the entire Gospel, we discover that the passage is not merely another event in the ministry of Jesus, but an inaugural event. Its placement at this point in Luke’s account makes it crucial in the overall development of the story. Major literary and theological themes developed later in Luke–Acts are introduced at this point. Only by reading the entire Gospel can we recognize how many important Lukan themes are declared in this passage and how they are developed elsewhere in the narrative. To cite another example, the middle section of Paul’s Letter to the Romans (chaps. 9–11) must be viewed in relation to the whole letter. How we understand the role of these three chapters within the larger letter directly affects our interpretation of the whole letter. If we read them as a digression, in which Paul addresses questions of marginal interest, we will interpret the letter one way. But if we read them as the culmination of a single argument that Paul has developed in chapters 1–8, we will interpret the letter another way. How we understand the literary function of a passage within its larger literary setting is a crucial interpretive decision. Another way of formulating questions that help us determine the literary function of a particular passage is to ask: What if the passage were omitted from the document? Would it make a real difference? Would something critical be lost? Or would it have no effect? We can also ask about how it functions at this location: What if the passage were relocated somewhere else in the document? How would this affect the overall structure and content of the document? Would the overall argument (or narrative) be affected? Asking such questions about the literary placement and function of a passage often enables us to see certain things about the passage that we would otherwise miss. By looking at the immediate literary context, we may discover that the passage is one of a series of prophetic oracles, each



Literary Criticism 101

of which has a particular function within a larger sequence (Amos 1–6). Or we may see that the passage is one of a series of miracle stories, each of which introduces some aspect of a messianic portrait (Mark 1–2; Matt 8–9). If we place the passage in its larger literary context, we can develop a better understanding of the passage in its own right. We can identify the distinctive content and nuances of the passage itself but also characteristic features of the larger document. An individual passage not only shares in the meaning of the larger literary unit but also contributes to it. Literary Devices and Rhetorical Techniques By relating a passage to its larger literary context, we leave open the possibility that the author or editor composed the writing in order to achieve maximum effect. Ancient authors often employed rhetorical techniques or incorporated rhetorical devices within the text itself to help readers (and hearers) comprehend the message. These rhetorical strategies were also used to persuade the readers (and hearers) that the presentation was true. Since biblical writings were typically written to be read aloud, these rhetorical dimensions of the text figured prominently in the composition of texts. Ancient authors knew that messages had to address the ear. They had to construct compositions that hearers could listen to, follow, and respond to. As modern readers, who usually read silently, we often fail to recognize these rhetorical dimensions of the text. But they can be extremely valuable to us as exegetes in our interpretations of biblical writings. The Gospel of Matthew has always been noted for its balance and symmetry. The author’s fondness for organizing information in groups of threes and sevens is well known. Organizing the story of Jesus in this manner certainly makes it easier to remember the information. Catechetical considerations may have been one of the primary motivations in organizing the contents of this Gospel. As interpreters, we should consider that the group of seven parables found in chapter 13 represents the author’s arrangement rather than an actual historical situation. In this instance, giving attention to the rhetorical or compositional aspect of the text will bear directly on historical questions. Since ancient authors were aware of the difficulty hearers and readers had in following an extended argument or narrative, they would often supply periodic summaries throughout the narrative to assist the reader in “catching up” with the story or argument. Numerous instances of this occur in the Gospel of Matthew and the book of Acts.

102

Biblical Exegesis

Various techniques were used for structuring not only individual units but also entire documents. One structural device that was frequently used is chiasmus, or simply “chiasm,” a designation formed on the basis of the Greek letter Chi, which is shaped like an X. In a chiastic structure, four (or more) elements are arranged in a symmetrical pattern corresponding to each of the four points of the X.

A B

B′

A′

In a four-­part arrangement, the chiastic structure thus follows an A-­B-­ B′-­A′ pattern, in which A and B are placed on the top two prongs of the X, and B′ and A′ on the bottom two prongs. The first and fourth items correspond to each other, as do the second and third items. Arranging a saying or literary section this way makes it more memorable. The popular saying “When (A) the going (B) gets tough, (B′) the tough (A′) get going” is arranged by using a chiastic structure. Or, more famously, “Ask not what (A) your country can do for (B) you, but what (B') you can do for (A′) your country.” Numerous examples of chiasm are found in the Bible. One of the clearest OT examples is Isaiah 6:10: A Make the mind of this people dull B and stop their ears C and shut their eyes C′ so that they may not look with their eyes B′ and listen with their ears A′ and comprehend with their minds.

Isaiah 5:20 also achieves rhetorical power through its compact use of repetitive chiasm: Ah, you who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!



Literary Criticism 103

Zechariah 9:5 provides another prophetic use of chiasm in an oracle delivered against Israel’s enemies: A Ashkelon shall see it and be afraid; B Gaza too, and shall write in anguish; C Ekron also, because its hopes are withered. B′ The king shall perish from Gaza; A′ Ashkelon shall be uninhabited.

Sometimes chiasms occur in the form of brief sayings or proverbs. One of the most well known is Jesus’ statement in Mark 2:27: A The sabbath B was made for humankind B′ and not humankind A′ for the sabbath.

Similarly, Luke 16:13: No slave can serve two masters; for a slave will either (A) hate the one and (B) love the other, or be (B′) devoted to the one and (A′) despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.

These examples from small literary units are called micro-­chiasmus, but when a larger literary unit is arranged chiastically, it is referred to as macro-­ chiasmus. Some scholars use chiasm as a way of analyzing the overall structure of larger literary units, but these proposals can be rather subjective. Even so, certain biblical passages reflect a clear chiastic arrangement. An example of macro-­chiasmus is 1 Corinthians 9:19–23: 19For

though I am free with respect to all, I have made myself a slave to all, so that I might win more of them A 20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. B To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) so that I might win those under the law.

104

Biblical Exegesis B′ 21To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law) so that I might win those outside the law. A′ 22To the weak I became weak so that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people that I might by all means save some. 23I do it all for the sake of the gospel, so that I may share in its blessings.

In this passage, Paul differentiates four groups of people to whom he preached the gospel and ministered: (1) Jews, probably non-­Christian Jews; (2) those under the law, probably Christian Jews who were Torah observant, living by the law of Moses; (3) those outside the law, probably Gentile nonbelievers; and (4) the weak, probably Gentile believers who experienced difficulty separating themselves from their previous forms of pagan worship, such as eating meat that had been offered in pagan sacrifices (this may refer to new believers who were marginalized socially or economically). Worth noticing is how Paul uses the chiastic structure to make his point: to the first three groups, he says that he became “as” those in that group. He accommodated to each group in order to relate to them. But in the fourth group, he omits the “as” to emphasize that he identified with them fully, saying, “I became weak” in order to embrace them fully. It is also worth noting that Paul introduces a qualifying statement for the two middle components, B and B′. Verses 19 and 22b–23 serve as the bracketing material, with v. 22b stating the overall principle with which he operated as the apostle to the Gentiles. This passage also illustrates another literary device—inclusio, or “inclusion.” This refers to the practice of restating an opening idea at the conclusion of a passage in order to emphasize its importance. The term suggests that an argument or section returns to the point at which it originated. In Paul’s remarks, verses 22b–23 restate, in somewhat different terms, what he expresses in verse 19—his desire to “win” everyone to the gospel. Such rhetorical devices, used widely in antiquity, are frequently found in the biblical writings. Knowing that ancient writers employed rhetorical techniques often assists us in understanding how a document is structured. As modern readers, we may not grasp the overall structure of a biblical writing because it does not easily conform to how we understand logical sequence



Literary Criticism 105

or coherent organization. But it may fit perfectly into ancient notions of arrangement. Once we understand the organizing principle and how this related to ancient rhetorical conventions, we may easily see the “logic” of how the material is presented. Literary Mood Another aspect of literary criticism should also be mentioned: literary mood. Language is often used as much to create effect as it is to convey information. As beginning exegetes, we sometimes concentrate on analyzing the words and phrases within a passage without being attentive to the more subtle ways in which the language is functioning. If the phrase “You are rich!” (1 Cor 4:8) is read as a straight declarative sentence, it means one thing; but if it is read as irony, or as sarcasm, it means the opposite—“You may think you are rich, but you are really not rich at all!” The Fourth Gospel is highly ironic in its use of language, even in the way the narrative is structured. As exegetes, we cannot ignore this dimension of the text because it directly relates to literary mood. If the mood of a text—or the mood a text creates—is liturgical, we should read the language as poetic. It is probably intended to elicit certain emotions rather than to convey theological propositions. This is especially true of the Psalter but also of many NT texts as well. The richly evocative prayers in Ephesians 1–3, full of elevated language of praise and devotion, are designed to lift the reader’s eyes upward “to the heavenly places” and contemplate the exalted status of the risen Christ. How we understand a highly evocative passage from a liturgical setting differs radically from how we would read the same words within a fiercely polemical text. To read comedy as straightforward narrative is itself comic. As exegetes, we should be attentive to these unspoken dimensions of the text. Narrative Criticism Even though the Bible consists of different types of literary material, it reads like a story. This is true of both the Jewish and Christian Bibles. The Jewish Tanakh begins with Genesis and ends with 2 Chronicles, which means that the biblical story runs from creation to the exile. The Christian Bible, by contrast, tells a different story. Consisting of the OT and NT, it begins with Genesis and ends with Revelation: it moves from paradise lost to paradise restored.

106

Biblical Exegesis

One of the striking features of both the Jewish and Christian Bible is how much of their contents can be classified as narrative. By one estimate, over a third of the OT consists of narrative, and many of its other parts, such as the Prophets or even the Psalter, contain extensive narrative material, often as a framing literary device. In the NT, the narratives of the four Gospels followed by the book of Acts constitute about half of its contents. Even within some of the NT letters and the book of Revelation are passages in which an author gives a narrative account of events (Gal 1–2). The letters also contain summaries of the gospel, whose basic structure rehearses the story of Jesus Christ, especially the events relating to his death, burial, and resurrection (1 Cor 15:3–8). Like rhetorical criticism, narrative criticism can be understood within the framework of literary criticism. But instead of drawing its interpretive categories from Greek and Roman rhetoric, narrative criticism of the Bible was heavily influenced by literary studies in English literature. An especially influential movement within literary studies, New Criticism, rejected the historical contexts of a writing, along with circumstances relating to its composition, as the most important considerations for interpreting a text, whether prose or poetry. Advocates of New Criticism proposed instead a different “theory” of the text, insisting that it be seen as a literary artifact, as existing independently of the author. Rather than seeing the text as a window to the author’s mind, as a way of ascertaining “authorial intent,” New Critics insisted that a text, once it is completed and leaves the author’s hand, is autonomous, capable of speaking for itself. They insisted that trying to interpret a text as though it is an extension of the author’s mind is committing an “intentional fallacy.” For New Critics, texts should be interpreted as texts; the main interpretive conversation is between the reader and the text, not between the reader and an author whose views are expressed in the text. When applied to narrative, this New Critical perspective prompted interpreters to read the text in a different way. Rather than reading the biblical text to determine what was being reported by the story, narrative critics were more interested in what was in the story. This difference in interpretive goal came to be expressed as being less interested in “the world behind the text” and focusing more on the narrative world, “the world within the text.” Once a text is viewed as an autonomous literary artifact, the components relating to the origin and production of the text, along with the literary dimensions of the text, are seen differently. Within this interpretive framework, a new vocabulary emerged. Since there was little, if



Literary Criticism 107

any, interest in the actual or original author and addressees, interpreters turned their attention to the implied author, or the narrator, and the implied reader. It was still possible to imagine someone’s “voice” speaking through the narrative, and even to imagine readers or hearers who were being addressed by the narrative voice. Drawing on the sensibilities and terminology of literary criticism, narrative critics differentiate several elements that are constitutive for composing narratives: (1) narrator, (2) plot, (3) character(s), and (4) reader: 1. Narrator. Biblical narratives are well known for their tendency to hide the identity of their author (though, cf. 1 Chr 29:26–30). Even so, it is still possible for the interpreter to identify the voice of the narrator within the text. This is usually expressed through the use of straightforward declarative sentences. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” An interpreter quickly senses that it is not God who is speaking, but some unnamed narrator who is declaring what happened. This is often referred to as the “omniscient narrator,” since the language implies that the narrator is speaking authoritatively, “telling it like it is.” 2. Plot. Sometimes referred to as the story line, plot signifies the linear movement of the narrative from beginning to end. Typically this occurs by arranging episodes in a manner that denotes forward movement, often through the use of temporal indicators such as “and it came to pass” or “and in those days.” Sometimes the episodes are arranged in a cause-­effect manner, so that one episode introduces another episode as an event that naturally follows. As the plot develops, tension or conflict may occur in a way that heightens the drama of the story. This may take the form of strife between opposing viewpoints or characters in the story. It may occur through some form of threat, perhaps through a natural disaster or an adversary. As the narrative moves forward, conflict or tension usually gives way to resolution, often in a climactic manner. This may occur when two conflicting parties are reconciled, or when one side defeats another in battle. Depending upon the length and complexity of the overall narrative, smaller literary units can function in different ways and in different combinations. Naturally, the plot is often advanced through the use of smaller stories or subplots. Certain sections of the narrative may be read as self-­ contained narratives in their own right. Within the Pentateuch, the individual stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, or of Joseph, function as smaller narratives that move the larger story forward. Within the Gospels, the latter part of the story consists of the passion narrative, which begins with Jesus’ arrival in Jerusalem and culminates with his death and resurrection.

108

Biblical Exegesis

3. Characters. People are perhaps the most crucial component of narratives: the characters whose speech and actions combine to move the story along. They may be depicted realistically; yet given our understanding of the way the world works, narrative criticism understands characters as constructions of the narrator. It is the narrator, after all, who chooses which characters to introduce into the story and which ones to omit. Also decisive is how the characters are portrayed, whether they are named or unnamed, whether they speak or remain silent, and if they speak, what they say and how they say it. The narrator also decides whether to portray the characters as larger than life, as heroic, standing apart from others by their extraordinary wisdom, strength, or bravery; or, conversely, whether to portray certain characters negatively, perhaps as villains or conspirators. Even if the narrator is working with sources or traditions in which the characters have already been presented in a certain way, it is still necessary to decide how they will function within the narrative and how they will be portrayed. Character portrayal plays a central role in narrative criticism. Through what is reported in the narrative, the interpreter can ask about the character’s attitudes or emotions. What is revealed about Abraham when he tells Pharaoh that his beautiful wife, Sarai, is his sister (Gen 12:10–20); or when he is called upon to sacrifice Isaac (Gen 22:1–19)? Within the larger OT story, David figures prominently in two smaller narrative sections: 1 Samuel 10–1 Kings 2 and 1 Chronicles 10–29. One of the main differences between the two accounts is the heroic portrayal of David by the Chronicler, who omits many of the negative episodes found in 1–2 Samuel such as the sin with Bathsheba and Absalom’s revolt. Whereas the earlier account emphasizes David’s military exploits, the Chronicler focuses more on David’s role in building the temple and establishing its cult. In Chronicles, David’s role as the spiritual leader of Israel is in the forefront. In the Gospels, there is one major character—Jesus Christ—who is surrounded by a diverse group of other characters. His inner circle— Peter, James, and John—are part of the larger apostolic circle. And yet, how these characters are portrayed both as individuals and as a group is different in the Synoptic Gospels as compared with the Gospel of John. Within each Gospel, we can see different emphases in character portrayal. Mark’s Gospel typically presents Jesus’ disciples as obtuse and lacking in understanding, whereas Matthew and Luke present them more favorably. These nuances in character portrayal are attributed to the narrator or implied author.



Literary Criticism 109

4. Reader. Just as narrative critics discern certain tendencies in the implied author, so also do they render judgments about the implied reader. From the narrative itself, they can deduce the probable literary abilities, or even the level of literacy, of the intended readers. Depending on whether the narrator explains certain technical terms or gives translations of Aramaic or Hebrew words, the critic can surmise whether the readers were Jews or non-­Jews, or at the very least, whether Aramaic was their first language. It is easy to see how much interpretive leverage narrative critics can achieve by focusing on the text in its final, edited form, without being preoccupied with a wide range of historical questions relating to the real author, the circumstances in which the writing was produced, and how the “world in the text” relates to the “world behind the text.” By contrast, narrative critics are mainly concerned with the “world of the text”—the imaginative world created by the narrator’s decisions about plot and character. They can make informed judgments about whether the narrator views the world tragically or comically; or whether the narrator thinks that the world depicted is just, thus whether throughout the story, and at the end of the story, good or evil triumphs. This way of analyzing biblical narratives has produced many new insights that provide yet another angle of interpretation for biblical exegetes. Developing Literary Sensibilities By focusing on the literary features of a text, along with its rhetorical and narrative texture, literary criticism enables us to see many different dimensions of the text. Numerous studies are available to assist us in doing literary criticism. But nothing is more important than our ability to read a text closely and sympathetically, with both an eye and an ear to the internal dynamics of a text. Some messages come through loud and clear, others in a whisper. Still others are transmitted through pauses and silences. But they lie within the literary texture of a passage, waiting to be heard and read by attentive literary critics. Bibliography General *Beardslee, William A. Literary Criticism of the New Testament. 1969. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.

110

Biblical Exegesis

Crossan, John D., and Loretta Dornisch, eds. Paul Ricoeur on Biblical Hermeneutics. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1975. *Dinkler, Michal Beth. Literary Theory and the New Testament. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019. Exum, J. Cheryl, and David J. A. Clines, eds. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Text and Texture: A Literary Reading of Selected Texts. Oxford: Oneworld, 1998. ———. Text and Texture: Close Readings of Selected Biblical Texts. New York: Schocken Books, 1979. Funk, Robert W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. ———, ed. Literary Critical Studies of Biblical Texts. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1977. Gottcent, John H. The Bible as Literature: A Selective Bibliography. Boston: G. K. Hall, 1979. Habel, Norman C. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. 1971. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. *Juel, Donald H., James S. Ackerman, and Thayer S. Warshaw. An Introduction to New Testament Literature. Nashville: Abingdon, 1978. Kennedy, George A. The Cambridge History of Literary Criticism. 9 vols. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989–2013. Long, Burke O., ed. Images of Man and God: Old Testament Short Stories in Literary Focus. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981. *Malbon, Elizabeth S., and Edgar V. McKnight, eds. The New Literary Criticism and the New Testament. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1994. McKnight, Edgar V. The Bible and the Reader: An Introduction to Literary Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. ———. Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-­Oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. *Petersen, Norman. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Poland, Lynn M. Literary Criticism and Biblical Hermeneutics: A Critique of Formalist Approaches. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1985. Preminger, Alex, and Edward L. Greenstein, eds. The Hebrew Bible in Literary Criticism. New York: Ungar, 1986. Ricoeur, Paul, and Don Ihde. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. 1974. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2007. Ricoeur, Paul, and Lewis S. Mudge. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980; London: SPCK, 1981. Ringe, Sharon H., and Hyun C. P. Kim, eds. Literary Encounters with the Reign of God. New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Robertson, David A. The Old Testament and the Literary Critic. 1977. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Ryken, Leland, ed. The New Testament in Literary Criticism. New York: Ungar, 1984. Schwartz, Regina M. The Book and the Text: The Bible and Literary Theory. Cambridge, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, 1990. Styka, Jerzy, ed. Studies in Ancient Literary Theory and Criticism: Essays. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2000.



Literary Criticism 111

Rhetorical Analysis Amador, J. David Hester. Academic Constraints in Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Rhetoric of Power. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Anderson, R. Dean. Ancient Rhetorical Theory and Paul. 1996. Rev. ed. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1999. Black, C. Clifton. The Rhetoric of the Gospel: Theological Artistry in the Gospels and Acts. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2013. Classen, Carl Joachim. Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Boston: Brill, 2002. Clines, David J. A., David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser, eds. Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1982. Corbett, Edward P. J., and Robert J. Connors. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gitay, Yehoshua. Prophecy and Persuasion: A Study of Isaiah 40–48. Bonn: Linguistica Biblica, 1981. Holloway, Paul A. Consolation in Philippians: Philosophical Sources and Rhetorical Strategy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Hughes, Frank Witt. Early Christian Rhetoric and 2 Thessalonians. JSNTSup 30. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989. Jackson, Jared J., and Martin Kessler, eds. Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1974. Kennedy, George A. The Art of Persuasion in Greece. Vol. 1 of A History of Rhetoric. 1963. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016. ———. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 300 BC–AD 300. Vol. 2 of A History of Rhetoric. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972. ———. Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times. 1987. 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1999. *———. New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1984. Kuypers, Jim A. The Art of Rhetorical Criticism. Boston: Pearson / Allyn & Bacon, 2005. Lausberg, Heinrich. Handbook of Literary Rhetoric: A Foundation for Literary Study. Translated by Matthew T. Bliss, Annemiek Jansen, and David E. Orton. Edited by David E. Orton and R. Dean Anderson. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1998. Lund, Nils W. Chiasmus in the New Testament: A Study in the Form and Function of Chiastic Structures. 1942. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1992. Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990. Mack, Burton L., and Vernon K. Robbins. Patterns of Persuasion in the Gospels. Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1989; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Meynet, Roland. Rhetorical Analysis: An Introduction to Biblical Rhetoric. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998. *Olbricht, Thomas H. Rhetoric and Scripture: Collected Essays of Thomas H. Olbricht. Edited by Lauri Thurén. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 23. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2021. Olbricht, Thomas H., and Anders Eriksson, eds. Rhetoric, Ethic, and Moral Persuasion in Biblical Discourse: Essays from the 2002 Heidelberg Conference. Emory Studies in Early Christianity 11. New York: T&T Clark, 2005. Porter, Stanley E., ed. Handbook of Classical Rhetoric in the Hellenistic Period, 330 B.C.–A.D. 400. Leiden: Brill, 1997; Atlanta: SBL Press, 2017.

112

Biblical Exegesis

Porter, Stanley E., and Thomas H. Olbricht, eds. Rhetoric and the New Testament: Essays from the 1992 Heidelberg Conference. JSNTSup 90. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. ———, eds. Rhetoric, Scripture, and Theology: Essays from the 1994 Pretoria Conference. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. ———, eds. The Rhetorical Analysis of Scripture: Essays from the 1995 London Conference. JSNTSup 146. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Porter, Stanley E., and Dennis L. Stamps, eds. Rhetorical Criticism and the Bible: Essays from the 1998 Florence Conference. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2002. ———. The Rhetorical Interpretation of Scripture: Essays from the 1996 Malibu Conference. JSNTSup 180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Robbins, Vernon. Exploring the Texture of Texts: A Guide to Socio-­rhetorical Interpretation. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1996. ———. Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-­rhetorical Interpretation of Mark. 1984. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. ———. The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology. London and New York: Routledge, 1996. Smith, Abraham. Comfort One Another: Reconstructing the Rhetoric and Audience of 1 Thessalonians. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Stowers, Stanley K. The Diatribe and Paul’s Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1981. Thompson, James W. Apostle of Persuasion: Theology and Rhetoric in the Pauline Letters. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2020. Thurén, Lauri. The Rhetorical Strategy of 1 Peter, with Special Regard to Ambiguous Expressions. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 1990. Tobin, Thomas H. Paul’s Rhetoric in Its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2004. *Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Warner, Martin, ed. The Bible as Rhetoric: Studies in Biblical Persuasion and Credibility. London and New York: Routledge, 1990. Watson, Duane F. Invention, Arrangement, and Style: Rhetorical Criticism of Jude and 2 Peter. SBLDS 104. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988. ———. Persuasive Artistry: Studies in New Testament Rhetoric in Honor of George A. Kennedy. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991. ———. The Rhetoric of the New Testament: A Bibliographical Survey. Tools for Biblical Study 8. Leiden: Deo, 2006. Wilder, Amos N. Early Christian Rhetoric: The Language of the Gospel. 1964. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

Narrative Criticism *Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books; London: Allen & Unwin, 1981; New York: Basic Books, 2011. *———. The Art of Biblical Poetry. 1985. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1990. New York: Basic Books, 2011. Amit, Yairah. Reading Biblical Narratives: Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible. Translated by Y. Lotan. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.



Literary Criticism 113

Bal, Mieke. Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative. 1985. 3rd ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009. Bar-­Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Translated by Dorothea Shefer-­Vanson. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1989; London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994. Boomershine, Thomas E. Story Journey: An Invitation to the Gospel as Storytelling. 1988. Nashville: Abingdon, 1993. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. 1961. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983. Chatman, Seymour B. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1978. Clines, David J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. 1995. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2009. Culpepper, R. Alan. Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. 1983. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Dowling, William C. Ricoeur on Time and Narrative. 2011. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2022. Fewell, Danna N., ed. The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Narrative. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016. Fokkelman, J. P. Reading Biblical Narrative: An Introductory Guide. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999. Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. 1974. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980. *Frye, Northrop, and Alvin A. Lee. The Great Code: The Bible and Literature. 1982. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006. Genette, Gerard. Narrative Discourse: An Essay in Method. 1980. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1988. ———. Narrative Discourse Revisited. 1988. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. *Gros Louis, Kenneth R. R., James S. Ackerman, and Thayer S. Warshaw. Literary Interpretations of Biblical Narratives. 2 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1974–82. *Gunn, David M., and Danna Nolan Fewell. Narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. 2 vols. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986. Kermode, Frank. The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative. 1947. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. McKnight, Edgar V. Meaning in Texts: The Historical Shaping of a Narrative Hermeneutics. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978; Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1991. Powell, Mark Allan. What Is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990; London: SPCK, 1993. Quinn-­Miscall, Peter D. The Workings of Old Testament Narrative. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press); Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. *Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005. Rhoads, David. Reading Mark: Engaging the Gospel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004.

114

Biblical Exegesis

Rhoads, David, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. 3rd ed. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel. 1982. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012. Ricoeur, Paul. Time and Narrative. Translated by Kathleen McLauglin and David Pellauer. 3 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984–88. Sternberg, Meir. The Poetics of Biblical Narrative: Ideological Literature and the Drama of Reading. 1985. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Tannehill, Robert. The Narrative Unity of Luke-­Acts: A Literary Interpretation. 2 vols. 1986– 90. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1991–94. Tolbert, Mary Ann. Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-­Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-­Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984; online, 2022.

Chapter Six

Form Criticism The Genre and Life Setting of the Text

L

iterary criticism, as discussed in chapter 5, focuses on the “world of the text.” In that chapter, we stressed the importance of seeing a text in relation to the larger literary composition in which it is located. Form criticism—or better, genre analysis—though also interested in the larger literary sections of material or even entire books, focuses more on the smaller literary units or pericopes. Genres and Setting in Life (Sitz im Leben)

Genre analysis is criticism that examines the form, content, and the original social setting of a passage. Here we ask whether a literary unit exhibits certain features or conforms to a clearly identified structure and thus typifies a well-­defined genre. If language is used in the passage in a manner typical of a particular genre, or if it conforms to the pattern of that genre, we classify it accordingly. Assigning a passage to a literary genre enables us to ask appropriate interpretive questions. Form criticism seeks to identify various literary genres and then to classify a passage within one of these genres. Form critics also recognize that literary classification is not enough. They also try to ascertain the “situation in life” (German, Sitz im Leben) in which genres originated and developed. The phrase “in life” reminds us that literary forms, texts that we read or hear, had an earlier “life setting.” Distinguishing different situations in the life of a religious community—worshiping together, preaching and teaching, debating with opponents—enables us to imagine the life settings in which these materials originally circulated. As members of religious communities well know, highly formalized, written texts 115

116

Biblical Exegesis

such as creeds and prayers typically acquire their literary shape through oral repetition. Through genre analysis, form critics have explored the close relationship between form, content, and meaning: the meaning of what is said is directly related to how it is said. As noted in an earlier chapter, in ordinary life we recognize that form and content are interconnected. A classified ad in a newspaper represents a well-­defined literary genre, with distinctive features that create predictable expectations. A description of property for sale in a classified ad is quite different from a description of the same property in a courthouse deed. One is an advertisement designed to sell a property; the other is a legal description designed to record accurately what has been sold. We all know that overstatement is allowed, even expected, in the former but not in the latter. Consequently, we read the two literary descriptions with different expectations and interpret them accordingly. How we understand the description of the property—the “meaning” we attach to the description—is directly related to the literary genre in which the description occurs. We also recognize, perhaps unconsciously, the importance of setting in life in interpreting a document. The newspaper advertisement has a life setting remarkably different from that of a legal document bound and shelved in a government building. When we advertise and sell property, we typically emphasize its positive features and de-­emphasize or even ignore its negative features. When we listen to sales pitches, read advertisements on the internet, or watch TV ads, we expect exaggerated descriptions, inflated language, and other forms of dramatic overstatement. Experience teaches us that we should even expect misrepresentation and false statements. All the activities related to advertising, selling, and buying reflect the life setting of marketing, in which such descriptions originate. When we interpret an advertisement, we instinctively recognize the connections between what is said (content), how something is said (form), and in what setting it is said (setting in life). The more we know about a life setting, the better we can understand how form and content relate to that setting. The Logic of Form Criticism: How It Works By focusing on the connections between various forms of speech and their social settings, form critics typically make several distinct interpretive moves. First, they try to understand what is said in a passage—its content—by examining how it is said. By noting the formal arrangement,



Form Criticism 117

they identify its literary genre or structure. They try to determine whether it belongs to an easily identifiable literary category. Is it a legal text, a prophetic oracle, a miracle story, or a parable? As they seek to classify the passage according to its literary form, they also try to determine the life setting in which the text originated and developed. In this way, they try to ascertain how the text functioned in that setting. Efforts to identify both the literary form and setting in life have the same goal: to understand the content of the text. These two dimensions of form criticism—literary classification of biblical material and sociological analysis of literary genres in the life of ancient Israel and the early church—have been increasingly recognized within the past century of biblical scholarship. In the nineteenth century, investigations of the biblical text tended to focus on historical and literary questions in a different sense. But using these perspectives, scholars also learned—or proposed—that many biblical writings developed within certain historical contexts over a long period of time. They also identified sources—both written and oral—upon which the final form of biblical texts was based. These earlier approaches showed little interest in the individual literary units within a biblical writing and how these smaller units could be classified into literary categories. Nor were these approaches especially interested in identifying social situations, or life settings, in which certain forms of speech or writing originated. They were not interested in the sociological soil in which these literary units had taken root and grown. This sociological dimension of literary analysis acquired greater prominence as scholars went beyond historical and documentary analysis in order to understand how biblical texts had functioned in ancient cultures before they became fixed in writing. Some Biblical Examples The Old Testament Psalms Form-­ critical analysis of the book of Psalms yielded fruitful results. Rather than viewing the Psalter as a single genre, form critics distinguished various types of psalms. They saw that each type displayed clear patterns of content, structure, and mood. Three fundamental categories of psalms were identified: (1) hymns of praise, sung during normal times; (2) laments (both individual and communal), offered as prayers in times of trouble; and (3) thanksgivings (both individual and communal), offered

107

FORM CRITICISM

The psalms were classified into three primary and distinct genres: hymns 118 Biblical Exegesis that were sung during normal times; laments prayed in time of trouble (both individual and communal); and thanksgivings offered after the after the alleviation of (both trouble. How these genres wereHow usedthese in worship alleviation of trouble individual and communal). gensettings canused be seen in the services following res were in worship candiagram: be seen in the following diagram: Hymns

Thanksgivings

Normal routine life and activity

After a return to normalcy Laments Disruption of normal life and activity (warfare, disease, famine, illness, etc.)

Form critics of the OTother also genres identified other genres classifying the Scholars also identified for classifying OT for psalms. psalms that are now regularly used in annotated Bibles: royal psalm Equally important was the recognition thatstudy the psalms, far from (Pss 2, 18, 20–21, 45, 72, 89, poems, 101, 110, individual petition being a collection of hymns, and132, odes144), written by a single figure, or lament 3–7, 28), liturgy for entrance the sanctuaryof(Pss 15,to 24), such (Pss as David, were produced within into the community Israel wisdom (Pssneeds. 91, 133), so on.of the psalms were now seen as addresspsalms recurring Theand majority Equally important the recognition that Psalter the psalms—far from liturgical texts used was in Israelite worship. The began to be readbeing as a collection of hymns, poems, and odes written by aitsingle figure, such as the song and prayer book of ancient Israel. As such, reflected the richDavid—were produced within faith. the community Israel address recurness and diversity of Israelite The psalmsof could noto longer be read ring psalms were“the now seenofas liturgical texts as needs. thoughThe they majority were partofofthe a single genre, book Psalms.” They used in now Israelite worship. The with Psalter towithin be readIsrael’s as thelife. song were closely connected lifebegan settings Theand prayer book ancient Israel. As such, it reflected psalms notof only gave expression to Israel’s faith butthe alsorichness reflectedand the diverlife sitysupported of Israelite could noanalysis longer be as though they byfaith. that The faith.psalms Form-critical of read the psalms made were part of a aware single that genre, bookhistorical, of Psalms.” were now closely interpreters the“the literary, andThey sociological dimenconnected with life within Israel’s life. The psalms not only gave sions of these textssettings were interrelated. expression to Israel’s faith but also reflected the life supported by that faith. Form-­critical analysis of the psalms made interpreters aware that the literThe Book of Genesis and the Prophetic Writings ary, historical, and sociological dimensions of these texts were interrelated. Just as the psalms “came to life” through form-critical investigations, so did other biblical texts. The narratives in Genesis were no longer The Book of Genesis and the Prophetic Writings explored merely to ascertain their documentary sources or their historiJust the psalms “came to life” through form-­cthe ritical calasvalue, but were viewed as stories expressing folkinvestigations, life of ancient so didIsrael. otherProphetic biblical texts. in Genesis Rather were nothan longer explored booksThe werenarratives also read differently. being read merely to ascertain their discourses, documentary their historical value as continuous prophetic theysources were noworinterpreted as smaller butunits werethat viewed expressing the folk life ofgenres, ancient Israel. Procouldasbestories classified into different literary such as disphetic books were alsopromise, read differently. Rather than beingInterpreters read as concourses of judgment, admonition, and exhortation. tinuous they units were to now interpreted as collections could prophetic also relate discourses, these individual different life settings, thereby of smaller units could beofclassified different literary genres, such creating newthat possibilities meaning into and explanation. as discourses of judgment, promise, admonition, or exhortation. Interpreters could also relate these individual units to different life settings, thereby creating new possibilities of meaning and explanation.



Form Criticism 119 The New Testament: Gospels, Letters, the Apocalypse

Compared with the long period of time during which the OT writings were produced, the NT writings covered a much shorter time span. Even so, form-­critical analysis of the NT Gospels and letters also yielded fruitful results. The first century could be understood as roughly three periods—the life of Jesus, the first thirty years; the three or more decades after Jesus’ death, in which traditions about him circulated mainly in oral form; and the period from about 50 CE, when the first Pauline letter appeared, until about 70–100, when the written Gospels appeared. New Testament form critics in the early twentieth century were especially motivated by scholarly debates related to the reliability of what the Gospels reported about Jesus of Nazareth. These controversies prompted some form critics to search for parts of the Gospel tradition that could be traced to the period of Jesus’ life and ministry. Accordingly, they began to analyze specific aspects of the Gospel tradition such as individual sayings or types of sayings, including parables, pronouncements by Jesus relating to his identity and mission, and other forms of his teachings. In addition, they began to differentiate between types of narrative such as miracle stories, conflict stories in which Jesus disputes with those who opposed him, and especially the passion narrative, which appeared to be a relatively coherent, organic unity covering the time between Jesus’ final arrival in Jerusalem until the time after his death. From these form-­ critical investigations emerged a fairly standard list of literary forms or genres that included both sayings and narrative material: sayings (logia), parables, pronouncements, Jesus’ use of certain titles such as “the Son of Man,” miracle stories, conflict stories, birth and infancy stories, legends, among other genres. Form critics were especially interested in finding the earliest forms of these sayings and narrative traditions, since they assumed that the earlier the form, the more reliable it would be historically. Although the NT letters contained very little narrative material comparable to the bulk of material found in the Gospels, form critics also turned their attention to the epistolary material. They gave considerable attention to the literary genre of the NT letters themselves. Drawing on ancient Greek and Roman rhetorical traditions relating to the composition of letters, they developed an extensive classification system for NT letters. These included such categories as letters of encouragement (paraenetic letters), letters of instruction, letters of consolation, friendship letters, among many others. Even within the letters themselves,

120

Biblical Exegesis

form critics identified well-­defined structural features that constituted literary subtypes, including the greeting, opening exhortation (usually a prayer of thanksgiving or blessing), body of the letter, and concluding benediction. Using form-­critical analysis, NT scholars found various types of material embedded within the letters themselves. These included hymns (or hymnic stanzas, e.g., Phil 2:5–11), early creedal confessions (1 Cor 15:1–4), preaching (kerygmatic) summaries (1 Thess 1:9–10), prayers (1 Cor 1:4–9; Phil 1:3–11), virtue and vice lists (1 Cor 6:9–10; Gal 5:16–26), and household codes (Col 3:18–4:1; Eph 5:21– 6:9; 1 Pet 3:1–7). Form criticism had the same dramatic impact on our understanding of the NT as it had on the OT. For one thing, the NT was no longer seen simply as a collection of Gospels, letters, and a concluding apocalypse. Each of these large sections of NT materials was now seen to consist of smaller literary units, which could be analyzed and studied in their own right. These new categories cut across the older divisional lines. Just as specialists in the Gospels now saw that much of the sayings and narrative material relating to Jesus had their own prehistory, so did Pauline scholars recognize pre-­Pauline traditions. Just as the Gospel evangelists had predecessors who collected and transmitted traditions about Jesus before these were included in the written Gospels, so also Paul had predecessors, those evangelists and teachers who preceded him and handed on to him the traditions that they had received (1 Cor 11:23–26; 15:1–4). Aspects of the early church’s faith and life acquired richer texture as scholars analyzed NT literary forms and linked these to actual religious practices. Through form-­critical analysis, the NT writings “came to life” as interpreters heard early Christians praying, singing, preaching, teaching, confessing, encouraging each other, and defending their faith. Probing the Sociological Setting If historical criticism allows us to discover the “linear life” of biblical writings, form criticism opens up their “vertical life” by probing the socio­ logical substructure of individual texts. We are able to see that biblical writings not only have historical breadth but also sociological depth. A given text can be one step or link within a continuous history, but it can also be the tip of a sociological iceberg, with a history and life of its own that lie hidden beneath the surface of a printed page.



Form Criticism 121 Old Testament Psalms

When form critics analyze a royal enthronement psalm, such as Psalm 2, they focus as much on the life setting reflected within the psalm as they do on its content. The literary form of the psalm suggests that its pro­bable setting was a coronation event within ancient Israel. In such a setting, the king was crowned and lavished with praise. So solemn was the setting and so elevated the language that the psalm could be repeated on successive occasions. An enthronement psalm composed for one king could be “recycled” in the celebration ceremony of a later king. This helps explain why the identities of certain persons mentioned in enthronement psalms, such as the “king” or “the Lord’s anointed,” remain ambiguous. These terms might have been applied to several different persons over time. But how we understand such terms and other features of the psalm depends on how we classify it and how we relate it to a life setting within ancient Israel. Here again, we see how form, function, content, and life setting inform each other in form-­critical interpretation. A New Testament Example: The Healing of the Demoniac (Mark 5:1–20) As an example from the NT, we can look at a well-­known miracle story, the healing of the Gerasene demoniac (see Mark 5:1–20 and parallels). One way to examine this story is to explore the historical and social setting of Jesus’ own ministry in which the story is reported. We might investigate demon possession within first-­century Palestine, including how this phenomenon related to similar experiences in other cultures outside Palestine. We could also engage in literary analysis by examining how Mark used the story in his narrative. We might ask: Why is the story located at this point? How does it relate to the other episodes immediately before and after the account? How does the story function literarily in the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke? At this level, our interest is primarily in trying to reconstruct the event reported in the story and explore how each evangelist used the story in his larger narrative. Form-­critical analysis takes a slightly different approach by asking other questions. A form critic would first identify the literary genre of the passage: a miracle story, more specifically an exorcism. By noting the formal elements in the story, we can observe its literary structure: (1) the description of the demon-­possessed man (vv. 2–5); (2) his encounter with

122

Biblical Exegesis

Jesus, the miracle worker (vv. 6–10); (3) a description of the healing miracle itself (vv. 11–13); and the aftermath, including the impact on the crowds and a description of the healed man (vv. 14–20). By analyzing the formal structure of similar miracle stories, both biblical and nonbiblical, we see that the story exhibits a typical pattern seen in other ancient miracle stories. It conforms to the standard literary pattern or genre of a miracle story. Once we determine this formal outline, we can see how the parallel accounts in Matthew (8:28–34) and Luke (8:26–39) have either expanded or compressed certain formal features. Besides identifying the genre of the text and analyzing its formal structure, form-­critical analysis also seeks to investigate the so-­called oral period, the time between the original occurrence of the episode within the life of Jesus and its inclusion into the final form of the written Gospel. Form critics imagine that stories like this were probably told and retold not only during Jesus’ own ministry, but also during the decades following his death. Rather than “floating in the air,” as it were, such stories were repeated in specific contexts in which early followers of Jesus were preaching, teaching, worshiping, or arguing with their opponents. These stories may have been remembered and repeated orally, but they acquired a certain shape depending on the life setting in which they were told. Within these settings, such stories as Mark 5:1–20 acquired their present content and form. By the time Mark, the earliest evangelist, incorporated the story into his Gospel, the story had probably attained a definite form, although he may have altered it slightly to fit his narrative setting. By giving special attention to the oral, preliterary period between the time of Jesus and the composition of the Gospels, form critics are able to explain variations within the same story as reported in two or more Gospels. As long as interpreters worked at the literary and historical levels exclusively, it was difficult to provide a satisfactory explanation of the differences in the content and arrangement of certain passages in the Gospels. The healing of the Gerasene demoniac exhibits intriguing variations in each of the Synoptic Gospels. In Matthew’s account, there are two demoniacs, but in Mark and Luke there is only one. Mark records the number of swine as “about two thousand”; Matthew and Luke omit this fantastic detail. Such variations are easier to explain if we imagine that the same story was told and retold on various occasions and in different settings—and that in the retellings certain details were changed. Form critics explain these variations by proposing that Matthew records one version of the story as it was told in the early church, whereas Mark and



Form Criticism 123

Luke preserve other versions of the same story that circulated in different churches or regions of the church. Besides explaining how variations occur within a passage, form-­critical analysis also allows us to see how a story or saying has been shaped, or edited, in the final stage of writing. Even in its final literary form, a text possesses another “life setting,” that of the author/compiler. This setting—the setting of the evangelist—usually differs markedly from earlier settings in which the story or saying was used. The final setting in life includes the author’s own historical, geographical, and social setting, but also his literary purposes and theological interests as well. This latter aspect will be discussed further in chapter 8, on redaction criticism, which focuses on the evangelist’s literary and theological purposes as reflected in the final form of the text. The Parables of Jesus Form-­critical analysis has been especially useful in interpreting the parables of Jesus. At one time, the parables were read as though they belonged to a single genre that could be broadly understood as allegory. Treated this way, parables were interpreted so that they could be related to some aspect of the Christian life. Through a form of interpretive correlation, some feature of the parable was made to correspond to some part of the reader’s life. Form-­critical analysis has enabled us to see that there are different types of parables, such as parables of judgment, parables of growth, or parables of the kingdom—and that, depending on the type of parable, its message can be interpreted accordingly. Form critics have also explored the relationship between the content and formal structure of parables and how both relate to different life settings. When form critics read the parables, they use formal categories to reconstruct the probable settings in which the parables originated. They try to determine how different parables functioned within their respective settings. Useful clues for interpreting parables are often indicated by where they are located within the Gospels. For example, the parable of the Lost Sheep occurs in different contexts in Matthew (18:12–14) and Luke (15:3–7). In Matthew, the literary context relates to proper behavior in the church as the main concern. In this context, the evangelist reminds us to care for the “little ones,” probably recent converts. Accordingly, we can imagine the parable being told in a church setting in which Jesus’ followers were taught the importance of caring for each other. In Luke,

124

Biblical Exegesis

the same parable occurs in a context in which Jesus is disputing with Pharisees and scribes who object to his associating with social outcasts, the tax collectors and sinners. Joined with the parables of the Lost Coin and the Lost Son, the parable of the Lost Sheep in Luke underscores the inestimable worth of a single sinner. Matthew’s catechetical setting provides practical instructions for church conduct, whereas Luke’s polemical setting suggests a different framework for interpreting the parable of the Lost Sheep. These two literary settings may reflect the different life settings in which the parable circulated in the early church. The Focus of Form Criticism: Stories and Small Units Form-­critical perspectives on NT texts focus more on the stories as typical forms of expression rather than as narratives or reports about an event in the life of Jesus. Form critics typically ask how texts were used in the life of the church and how they were shaped for specific purposes in different settings. Form criticism especially emphasizes the church’s role in preserving and shaping stories about Jesus and sayings that were attributed to him. Form criticism usually focuses on smaller literary units and subunits within larger biblical writings. It can also be employed to great benefit in analyzing individual books of the Bible. Apocalypses, such as the books of Daniel (chaps. 7–12) and Revelation, belong to a distinct literary genre. Since they exhibit literary characteristics typical of this genre, we can interpret their content by exploring how they might have functioned within various settings in Israel and the early church. Most of the book of Deuteronomy can be classified within the literary genre of “farewell addresses.” New Testament letters conform to widely used epistolary genres, although there were many different types of letters. To classify a biblical writing as a specific genre does not necessarily mean that it contains no earlier materials or subgenres within it. Apocalyptic literature often contains such subgenres as “vision reports,” which derived from earlier prophetic and historical literature. The book of Deuteronomy may conform to the genre of a farewell address, but it incorporates many other genres, including various forms of laws. Not every biblical text lends itself to form-­critical analysis. Some texts are fresh productions. They display no evidence of having incorporated earlier material. Since they were written for the literary setting in which they occur, they have no obvious prehistory. Their only life setting may



Form Criticism 125

be the document in which they are located and the situation of the author and audience in which it arose. By contrast, texts that display patterns of composition based on typical, recurrent literary forms and that appear to reflect prior stages of literary development yield themselves most readily to form-­critical analysis. Doing Form Criticism Commentaries on biblical books usually classify individual passages according to their literary genres. More specialized studies often contain comprehensive lists of literary genres found in both the OT and NT. Such lists provide us a range of possibilities for approaching a text: Is it a prophetic call narrative? A prophetic oracle? A proverb? A psalm of lament? A miracle story? A letter? A hymn? Even if this preliminary classification is provisional, we must begin by asking questions of literary form and life setting. If we classify a text as a psalm of communal lament, we can pose questions about its probable life setting: What circumstances could have prompted such a lament—a defeat in battle, a natural catastrophe, or a serious breach of trust within the community? How might the lament have been used in a worship setting? Was it connected to an annual event or celebration? Or was it an exceptional event? By asking such questions, we usually get a better sense of how the content and form of the passage are related. This enables us to develop meaningful interpretations. A psalm may be incomprehensible to us until we discover that it is a communal lament sung by a community of worshipers in Israel. Then we understand that the parts of the psalm are stanzas that may have been sung antiphonally, first by the leader of worship, then by the community of worshipers. The “logic” of the psalm may escape us until we grasp its literary form; then the form provides the key to interpreting the content. Here again, we experience the interrelationship of form, content, and meaning. Bibliography General Dowd, Garin, Lesley Stevenson, and Jeremy Strong, eds. Genre Matters: Essays in Theory and Criticism. Bristol, UK, and Portland, OR: Intellect, 2006. *Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition: The Form-­Critical Method. Translated by S. M. Cupitt. 1969. New York: Macmillan, 1988.

126

Biblical Exegesis

*Lohfink, Gerhard, Daniel F. Coogan, and Bill Woodman. The Bible: Now I Get It! A Form Criticism Handbook. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Redlich, E. Basil. Form Criticism: Its Value and Limitations. London: Duckworth, 1956.

Old Testament Form Criticism Boda, Mark J., Michael H. Floyd, and Colin M. Toffelmire, eds. The Book of the Twelve and the New Form Criticism. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2015. *Buss, Martin. Biblical Form Criticism in Its Context. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. ———. Encounter with the Text: Form and History in the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Buss, Martin, and Nickie M. Stipe, eds. The Changing Shape of Form Criticism: A Relational Approach. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2010. Gunkel, Hermann. The Legends of Genesis: The Biblical Saga and History. Translated by W. H. Carruth. 1901. New York: Schocken Books, 1964. Gunkel, Hermann, and Joachim Begrich. Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel. Translated by James D. Nogalski. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1998. Gunkel, Hermann, and James Muilenburg. The Psalms: A Form-­Critical Introduction. Translated by Thomas M. Horner. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1967. *Hayes, John H., ed. Old Testament Form Criticism. 1974. San Antonio, TX: Trinity University Press, 1977. House, Paul R. Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. Knierim, Rolf, Gene M. Tucker, and Marvin A. Sweeney, eds. The Forms of the Old Testament Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 1962. New York: Abingdon, 1967; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Sandoval, Timothy J., Carleen Mandolfo, and Martin Buss, eds. Relating to the Text: Interdisciplinary and Form-­Critical Insights on the Bible. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005. Sweeney, Marvin A., and Ehud Ben Zvi, eds. The Changing Face of Form Criticism for the Twenty-­First Century. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003. *Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. 1971. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.

New Testament Form Criticism *Bailey, James L., and Lyle D. Vander Broek. Literary Forms in the New Testament: A Handbook. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Bultmann, Rudolf. The History of the Synoptic Tradition. Translated by John Marsh. 1963. New York: Harper & Row, 1976; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994. *Bultmann, Rudolf, Karl Kundzins, and Frederick C. Grant. Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research. 1962. New York: Harper, 1966. Dibelius, Martin. From Tradition to Gospel. 1971. Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1982. Güttgemanns, Erhardt. Candid Questions concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism. Translated by William G. Doty. 2nd corrected ed. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979.



Form Criticism 127

*McKnight, Edgar V. What Is Form Criticism? 1969. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1997. Riesenfeld, Harald. The Gospel Tradition and Its Beginnings: A Study in the Limits of “Form­ geschichte.” 1957. London: Mowbray, 1961. Taylor, Vincent. The Formation of the Gospel Tradition. 1935. 2nd ed. London: Macmillan; New York: St. Martins, 1968.

Chapter Seven

Tradition Criticism The Stages behind the Text

A

ll cultures have traditions that are passed from one generation to the next. Such traditions give expression to peoples’ self-­understanding, their sense of the past, their systems of belief, and their codes of conduct. Subgroups within a society may even have their own special traditions. These traditions are passed down in many different forms, including stories, sayings, songs, poems, confessions, and creeds. Tradition criticism is concerned with the nature of these traditions and how they are used in a community’s history. Much of the Bible is composed of traditions that have crystallized at a particular stage in their formation. Within a single biblical writing, stages of the same tradition are sometimes visible at different places within the text. They may even function in different ways in the same writing. These shifts in perspective may reflect different chronological periods or theological perspectives, or both. Within Judaism and Christianity, certain interpretations of biblical traditions have themselves become traditions. In Judaism, the oral Torah, the tradition about how a text was to be interpreted, became almost as authoritative as the written Torah. Not every biblical text passed through stages of growth prior to its appearance in a biblical book, but many did. When this is clearly the case, tradition criticism offers a valuable perspective for looking at a biblical text. Using a distinctive set of methodological approaches, it illuminates features of the text that otherwise may be difficult to explain.

128



Tradition Criticism 129 Recognizing the Origin and Growth of Biblical Traditions

Within the last two hundred years of biblical scholarship, we have learned that many parts of the Bible grew over long periods of time. In some cases, this growth occurred over a period of decades; in other cases, over centuries. The OT reflects this type of organic development in many of its parts; the Pentateuch especially illustrates how one part of the Bible has been formed over a long period of time. Scholars now regard the Pentateuch as a work compiled by numerous editors working in different periods of time. By analyzing distinctive literary characteristics, such as language and style, and different theological perspectives noticeable within the text, scholars have identified different sources, or strata, within the Pentateuch. These layers have been designated J, E, D, and P (see chap. 1). Although the NT was composed over a much shorter span of time than the OT, it reflects a similar period of development prior to the actual writing of the documents themselves. This is especially the case with the Gospels. In both the OT and NT, a period prior to the final literary stage of the biblical documents can be recognized. This is usually called the oral period because it is seen as a time in which stories and other traditions circulated in unwritten form. Before they were written down, these oral traditions were used and reused within the communities of Israel and the church respectively. As these oral stories and teachings were collected and transmitted, they acquired the status of sacred traditions. They were regarded as valuable enough, indeed sacred enough, to be passed on from generation to generation. In its simplest sense, the term “tradition” refers to customs or teachings that have been handed over, or passed along, from one generation to the next, regardless of whether they are regarded as sacred. But in the context of the OT or the NT, tradition refers to those stories and materials that Israel and the church regarded as sacred—and that eventually became normative—in defining their faith and practice. Tradition criticism (in German, traditionsgeschichtliche Studien or überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien) was a direct outgrowth of form criticism. Hermann Gunkel (1862–1934), the German scholar who pioneered the study of biblical materials according to their genres, was one of the first to trace the history of specific biblical themes and narratives. He noted that many elements in the Bible had ancient nonbiblical antecedents. In

130

Biblical Exegesis

1895, he published a work titled Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton), in which he traced the thematic and historical connections of the Babylonian account of creation, Genesis 1, and Revelation 12. As a member of the history of religions school (religionsgeschichtliche Schule), he argued that often interpretations of biblical texts must pay attention to their prebiblical or nonbiblical antecedents. In his commentary on Genesis (1901; 3rd ed. 1910), Gunkel analyzes the stories of Genesis, arguing that originally these were independent narratives, often with nonbiblical prototypes. Many of the narratives about the patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were, according to Gunkel, originally independent stories about nameless characters, sometimes reflecting tribal and class history and relationships. Gradually traditions about these three figures grew into cycles and were assembled so that the patriarchs were depicted as father, son, and grandson. Oral and Written Traditions Since traditions may be oral or written, or even a combination of both, tradition criticism is not limited to the oral period. Even if a sacred story or tradition originally circulated in an oral form and was transmitted orally through several generations, it could still function as tradition after it was written down. Written traditions were also passed along from generation to generation. When we imagine the traditioning process, we should envision the transmission of oral and written traditions. Whether tradition criticism focuses on oral or written traditions, its primary interest is biblical writings that grew over time. Some biblical texts have no prehistory. They appear to have been composed by a single individual at a single point in time for a specific situation. They did not exist prior to the time of composition in any prepackaged form. Such compositions reflect earlier traditions only to the extent that they draw, in a general way, on the ethos and atmosphere of their sacred communities. They always use traditional themes, patterns, or plot motifs known within their communities. Some biblical texts show clear signs of growth and development. They resemble geological formations in which earlier and later layers can be distinguished. In such cases, the interpreter’s task is to identify the different strata of literary materials, then determine how and why the layering has occurred. The purpose of such analysis is to understand the final form of the text—what we read in the Bible itself.



Tradition Criticism 131 Example of Oral and Written Tradition: Hymns

Tradition criticism is not confined to ancient materials. Examples of the growth and development of traditions are all around us. We frequently find different versions of the same hymn in church hymnals. The hymn may have three verses in one hymnbook, five or six verses in another. The wording of the same verse may vary slightly within different hymnbooks. If we are studying one version of a hymn, we might ask: Is this the original version of the hymn? Or even, was there an original version? Is this an earlier or later version? Was it written by the person to whom it is attributed? If so, in whole or in part? How does this version of the hymn compare with a shorter version in another hymnbook? Is the shorter version an earlier version that was expanded later, or is it a shortened form of a longer version? When we find multiple versions of a hymn, we soon discover that it has gone through a traditioning process. It may have been composed by a hymn writer in a single, definitive form; or the original composer may have edited the hymn later, either lengthening or shortening it. Later hymn writers or hymnbook editors may have modified it. Over time, the hymn has been transmitted and preserved in several forms. Changes that occur in hymns often reveal significant shifts within the hymn tradition. Efforts to make the language of worship more inclusive by eliminating sexist language from many traditional hymns have resulted in numerous revisions. Such changes reflect historical, sociological, and theological interests. The new wording of some hymns may be difficult to comprehend unless we understand how changes in the tradition have arisen from specific life settings. Another layer of tradition is added when a hymn is quoted in a sermon (or a journal article). Now the literary setting of the hymn has shifted from hymnbook to sermon. If the hymn is cited to make a theological point, or to illustrate some moral lesson, its function has also changed. If we are interpreting the sermon in which the hymn is quoted, we recognize, first, the hymn itself. Knowing that the hymn was composed prior to the sermon, we deduce that it has a prehistory. Second, we notice that a specific version of the hymn is being cited. It may differ from other versions we know from memory or from ones that we could find in hymn­ books. Third, we can gain a better understanding of the hymn quoted in the sermon if we have some sense of its prehistory: earlier versions of the hymn, their history of development, and changes that occurred in the hymn’s tradition history.

132

Biblical Exegesis Biblical Examples The Sabbath Commandment

The biblical writings often reflect similar stages of growth that lie behind a particular text. Suppose, for example, we are interpreting the OT commandment to observe the Sabbath as recorded in Exodus 20:8– 11. After examining the passage and noting its content and structure, we then discover another version of the commandment in Deuteronomy 5:12–15. We especially note some differences in these two versions of the Sabbath commandment. The Exodus version is shorter by several lines. The primary rationale for keeping the Sabbath is different in the two texts. In Deuteronomy, observance of the Sabbath is grounded in the exodus deliverance, while in Exodus it is related to the creation of the world. Further investigation would uncover other instances in the OT where brief, unelaborated injunctions to keep the Sabbatth occur (Lev 19:3). Noting the differences between these two texts, we would ask several questions: How do the two versions of the same commandment in the supposedly identical Decalogue (Ten Commandments) relate to each other? Is the shorter form earlier than the longer, or is it an abbreviated later version? What accounts for the two different theological rationales that are given for keeping the Sabbath? Were there originally two versions of the Sabbath commandment, each preserved in an independent form? Or were there originally two different settings in which these two versions arose, each representing a different theological perspective? Was there an originally unelaborated form, and if so, how are these elaborated forms of the Sabbath ordinance related to the unelaborated form? Interpreters interested in tradition criticism—tradition critics—pose such questions as these, but they go further. They propose that the written forms of the same commandment in Exodus and Deuteronomy result from a long developmental process. Noting the content, formal structure, and setting reflected in each passage, tradition critics would try to reconstruct how the tradition of the Sabbath commandment originated and developed. After reconstructing the tradition history of the Sabbath commandment, they would return to the final form of the text in Exodus 20, since this was the original point of departure, and propose an explanation of it. They would probably also explain how this form of the commandment fits into its immediate literary context—the book of Exodus.



Tradition Criticism 133 Pentateuchal Traditions about the Patriarchs

Many narratives in the Pentateuch have been analyzed through this history-­of-­tradition perspective. If we assume that these narratives originally existed as independent, self-­contained units, we can imagine some of the stages of development through which they passed. An instructive example is the Jacob narrative (Gen 25:19–36:43; 46:1–50:14). The character Jacob initially appears to have been a trickster who succeeded by outmaneuvering other people (Esau and Laban). At this stage in the tradition, various folktales in Israel were common to many cultures at that time. The early stage of the Jacob saga probably drew on elements from this folktale tradition. When these stories began to identify Jacob with the community Israel and to identify his victims with other groups (Esau = Edomites; Laban = Arameans), the tales acquired nationalistic overtones reflecting actual tensions that existed among different groups within Israel. (At a later period, the prophet Hosea reflects awareness of some of these traditions [Hos 12]). When combined with comparable traditions about Abraham, Isaac, and the tribes of Israel, the Jacob stories moved toward being part of a large theological-­historical portrait prefiguring the origin and history of the nation Israel. The Exodus One of the most widespread traditions in the OT concerns Israel’s deliverance from Egypt. The exodus motif and the tradition of being led out of Egypt occur in OT narratives, psalms, and prophetic books. It was a tradition that could be used in different contexts. In Hosea, for example, the ruin of the nation is depicted as a return to Egypt (Hos 8:13; 9:3), and Isaiah 40–55 presents Israel’s return from exile as a new exodus. The most fully expanded tradition of the exodus in the Pentateuch relates to the period in the wilderness. This section now extends from Exodus 15:22 through Deuteronomy 34. Sometimes the wilderness goes unmentioned in creedal summaries of Israel’s early tradition (see Deut 26:5–11); at other times it is mentioned only incidentally (see Josh 24:7b). The tradition of a wilderness wandering was developed in various ways in ancient Israel. It could be depicted as a time of trouble and wickedness (in most of Exodus–Numbers; Ezek 20) or as a good time (Deut 8; 29:2–6; Jer 2:2–3; Hos 2:14–15). We can see these two perspectives reflected in Psalms 105 and 106.

134

Biblical Exegesis Other Old Testament Examples

Other important traditions surface elsewhere. Within many of the historical books, the traditions about the choice of David, his dynasty, and his city, Zion-­Jerusalem, dominate (1–2 Samuel; 1–2 Chronicles). These same traditions also figure prominently in many of the psalms (see especially Ps 89). Depending on their location and use within a biblical writing, the traditions about David reflect different attitudes toward him and his dynasty. Time and again, Israel expressed its self-­understanding and hopes for the future by drawing on earlier traditions. Older traditions were reused as Israel engaged in dialogue with its past. By paying attention to this ongoing conversation between Israel and its past, the exegete can more fully understand various dimensions of the biblical writings. The German scholar Gerhard von Rad (1901–72), for example, used Israel’s continuing reformulation of its traditions as the clue to understanding the theology of the OT. The New Testament: 1 Corinthians 15:1–11 In the NT, one of the clearest examples of using earlier traditions occurs in 1 Corinthians 15:1–11. In this passage, Paul recites a summary of the message he has preached to the Corinthians on his founding visit. Scholars agree that verses 3–5 contain a pre-­Pauline summary of Christian preaching, at least one version of it. Literary clues indicate this. Paul mentions that he “handed on” to the Corinthians what he “had received.” These are technical phrases used by ancient writers to describe the transmission of a sacred tradition. Such phrases were even used to describe the passing on of other traditions, such as family or national history. This language tells us that the summary of early preaching quoted by Paul comes from an earlier period: it is a pre-­Pauline tradition. The summary has a four-­part structure: Christ (a) died, (b) was buried, (c) was raised, and (d) appeared. This formal literary structure has a creedal quality. It echoes the language of early Christian worship, in which believers confessed their faith. In this instance, Paul is not the author of the creedal formulation, only its transmitter. The person (or community) who transmits such traditions is sometimes called a tradent. It is also interesting to ask where Paul stops quoting the earlier creedal tradition and begins amplifying it, using his own words. Whether this transition occurs at verse 6 or 7 is uncertain, but by the end of the paragraph, we hear Paul himself speaking, not the tradition.



Tradition Criticism 135

Analyzing this passage as tradition critics, we can easily detect the layered quality of 1 Corinthians 15:1–11. The technical language alerts us to the presence of pre-­Pauline traditional material. From the cadence of the fourfold structure, we can also sense that we are dealing with material that has been refined through repetition. Sifting through the layers of tradition, we can separate the portions of the text where Paul himself is speaking from those in which he is drawing on earlier traditional material. Once we recognize that Paul is utilizing an earlier creedal tradition, we can examine other brief summaries elsewhere in the NT (e.g., 1 Thess 1:9–10; Rom 8:34). Or we could look at the more extensive sermon summaries within the speeches in the book of Acts (e.g., 2:14–36; 3:17–26). Finding other summaries of early Christian preaching helps us formulate questions that might illuminate the tradition history of 1 Corinthians 15:3–6. As before, when we looked at the two versions of the Sabbath commandment, we find a longer and shorter form of the text. In 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 we find a four-­part summary, whereas Romans 8:34 presents a two-­part summary: “It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised.” Does the latter represent an earlier form, later expanded into a four-­part form? Or, is it an abbreviated version of a longer form? Or are the two forms independent of each other? How do these early summaries of the creed relate to more fully developed creedal statements, such as the Apostles’ Creed? By answering these questions, we gain a better understanding of the tradition history of 1 Corinthians 15:3–5, which we can then incorporate into our discussion of the larger text, 1 Corinthians 15:1–11. After examining the final form of the tradition, that is, Paul’s quotation of the creedal summary in 1 Corinthians 15, we are prepared to interpret Paul’s use of it. Here, we would try to decide where Paul’s quotation of the tradition ceases and where his own remarks begin. Then we would try to explain how Paul uses this earlier tradition in addressing the Corinthians’ questions about the resurrection. By identifying the creedal tradition, we can see that Paul is quoting a sacred text, which he then applies to the Corinthians’ situation. Here as elsewhere, efforts to understand the prehistory of a sacred tradition are made to illuminate the biblical text itself. The goal of exegesis, we should remember, is to understand the text before our eyes. The New Testament: 1 Corinthians 11:23–26 Another intriguing example is Paul’s recollection of an earlier tradition relating to Jesus’ Last Supper with his disciples. While addressing some

136

Biblical Exegesis

problems relating to the observance of the Lord’s Supper in the Corinthian church, Paul employs the technical terminology for transmitting traditional material: “For I received from the Lord what I also handed on to you” (1 Cor 11:23, emphasis added). He then recites the earlier eucharistic tradition reporting what the Lord Jesus did “on the night when he was betrayed” (v. 23). The two-­part structure describing his taking the loaf and cup, and also reporting what he said (vv. 23–25), reflects the cadence of words that must have been often repeated in early Christian worship prior to Paul’s text here. Paul’s own interpretive remarks are probably given in 11:26. Here is a clear example of Paul, writing in the early 50s, recalling an earlier liturgical tradition that was traceable to the Lord Jesus himself— a tradition probably formulated about twenty years before Paul wrote 1 Corinthians 11. Although the three accounts of this eucharistic tradition found in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt 26:26–29; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:15–20) were written several decades after Paul, they are clearly traceable to the time of Jesus. A closer examination of the Gospel accounts shows that the Lukan version closely parallels that of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, while the Matthean and Markan accounts are almost identical in wording. Scholars have rightly surmised that two traditions of the Eucharist can be detected in these accounts: one version represented by Paul and Luke, another by Matthew and Mark. Using Tradition Criticism Tradition criticism works best when we are dealing with biblical texts in which there has been cumulative growth. In these instances, biblical writers have drawn on earlier traditions, often recorded or alluded to elsewhere in the Bible. They have incorporated these older traditions into their new interpretations, which address new situations. As we noted earlier, these traditions are being recycled as they are being appropriated, reformulated, and reinterpreted. In this sense, the biblical writings reflect the traditioning process. They also reveal how interpreters in every age, both ancient and modern, practice their art. What repeatedly occurs in both the OT and NT is the following: an interpreter, whether an individual or a community, inherits a sacred tradition, oral or written (“receives the tradition,” to use the technical term); repeats and interprets this tradition in light of the interpreter’s own current situation; and then transmits this reinterpreted tradition to successors.



Tradition Criticism 137

The biblical writings not only “received” and “handed on” earlier sacred traditions, but they also became sacred traditions, which were used by Israel and the Christian church and then transmitted to later generations. This traditioning process reveals multiple aspects of the faith and life of these related communities. The communities’ participation in the process of transmission is itself illuminating because it helps us understand the final written text. Tradition criticism alerts us to these different dimensions of the biblical text. Tradition criticism clearly depends on earlier methodologies and insights. In order to reconstruct the stages of development that led to the final form of a biblical text, tradition critics engage in form-­critical analysis. They also need to examine historical and literary issues raised by the text. Textual criticism can also play a vital role in establishing the history of the tradition. Although tradition criticism works in close concert with other exegetical disciplines, it nevertheless constitutes a separate exegetical approach. We should also note the hypothetical nature of tradition-­critical work. Tradition critics are the first to admit the theoretical nature of their reconstructed history of specific texts or traditions. Isolating distinctive forms of the text, arranging them in chronological sequence, and assessing significant aspects in the stages of development requires scholarly imagination. In some instances, this can be done confidently; in other instances, the results may be only probable, or even only possible. Some reconstructions do not gain scholarly support at all. But all these reconstructive efforts are made in order to interpret the final form of the biblical text, which becomes the ultimate control for all tradition-­critical investigation. Bibliography General Jaffee, Martin S. Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism, 200 B.C.E.–400 C.E. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001; online, 2004. Lord, Albert B., Stephen A. Mitchell, and Gregory Nagy. The Singer of Tales. 1960. 3rd ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2019. With CD. Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Vindication of Tradition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984; online, 1993. Shils, Edward. Tradition. 1981. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Vansina, Jan. Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology. 1965. Somerset, NJ: Aldine; London: Eurospan, 2005. Vermès, Géza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 1961. 2nd rev. ed. Leiden: Brill, 1983.

138

Biblical Exegesis

Old Testament Tradition Criticism Ackroyd, Peter R. Studies in the Religious Tradition of the Old Testament. London: SCM, 1987. Brueggemann, Walter, and Hans W. Wolff. The Vitality of Old Testament Traditions. 1975. 2nd ed. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. Culley, Robert C., ed. Oral Tradition and Old Testament Studies. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1976. Fishbane, Michael. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Gunkel, Hermann. Genesis. 1901. 3rd ed. 1910. Translated by Mark E. Biddle. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1997. Gunkel, Hermann, and K. C. Hanson. Water for a Thirsty Land: Israelite Literature and Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Gunkel, Hermann, John Scullion, and William R. Scott. The Stories of Genesis. 1910. Vallejo, CA: Bibal, 1994. Gunkel, Hermann, and Heinrich Zimmern. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton: A Religio-­historical Study of Genesis 1 and Revelation 12. 1895. Translated by K. William Whitney Jr. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Jeppesen, Knud, Benedikt Otzen, and Frederick H. Cryer, eds. The Productions of Time: Tradition History in Old Testament Scholarship. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1984. *Knight, Douglas A. Rediscovering the Traditions of Israel: The Development of the Traditio-­ historical Research of the Old Testament, with Special Consideration of Scandinavian Contributions. 1973. 3rd ed. Leiden and Boston: Brill; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. ———, ed. Tradition and Theology in the Old Testament. 1977. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990. Mowinckel, Sigmund, and K. C. Hanson. The Spirit and the Word: Prophecy and Tradition in Ancient Israel. 1946. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Niditch, Susan. Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox; London: SPCK, 1996. Nielsen, Eduard, and H. H. Rowley. Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Introduction. London: SCM, 1954. Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. 1972. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1981. Ohler, Annemarie. Studying the Old Testament: From Tradition to Canon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1985. Rast, Walter E. Tradition History and the Old Testament. 1972. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Von Rad, Gerhard. From Genesis to Chronicles: Explorations in Old Testament Theology. Edited by K. C. Hanson. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. ———. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. 1962–65. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

New Testament Tradition Criticism *Barbour, Robert S. Traditio-­Historical Criticism of the Gospels: Some Comments on Current Methods. 1972. London: SPCK, 1974. Bornkamm, Günther, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz J. Held. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Byrskog, Samuel. Jesus the Only Teacher: Didactic Authority and Transmission in Ancient Israel, Ancient Judaism and the Matthean Community. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1994.



Tradition Criticism 139

*———. Story as History—History as Story: The Gospel Tradition in the Context of Ancient Oral History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000; Boston: Brill, 2002. Conzelmann, Hans, and Geoffrey Buswell. The Theology of St. Luke. London: Faber & Faber, 1960; New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Davis, Casey Wayne. Oral Biblical Criticism: The Influence of the Principles of Orality on the Literary Structure of Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999. Dodd, C. H. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments. 1936. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1980. Gerhardsson, Birger. The Reliability of the Gospel Tradition. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2001; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2010. Gerhardsson, Birger, and Eric J. Sharpe. Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Written Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity; with Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity. 1961. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Livonia, MI: Dove, 1998. Hahn, Ferdinand. The Titles of Jesus in Christology: Their History in Early Christianity. London: Lutterworth; New York: World, 1969. Horsley, Richard A., Jonathan A. Draper, John M. Foley, and Werner H. Kelber, eds. Performing the Gospel: Orality, Memory, and Mark. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Kelber, Werner. The Oral and the Written Gospel: The Hermeneutics of Speaking and Writing in the Synoptic Tradition, Mark, Paul, and Q. 1983. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Kirk, Allen, and Tom Thatcher, eds. Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. Mournet, Terence C. Oral Tradition and Literary Dependency: Variability and Stability in the Synoptic Tradition and Q. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005; online, 2019. Perrin, Norman. Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus. 1967. New York: Harper & Row, 1976. Thatcher, Tom, and Barry Schwartz. Memory and Identity in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity. Atlanta: SBL, 2014; online. Wansbrough, Henry, ed. Jesus and the Oral Gospel Tradition. 1991. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004.

Chapter Eight

Redaction Criticism The Final Viewpoint and Theology

R

edaction criticism is a type of biblical criticism that explores how an author’s theology is reflected in changes that the author makes to previous material. Since these changes are usually made to literary materials, they are editorial in nature. “Redaction” and “redactional” are technical terms used to describe such editorial changes. In our discussion, we use “editorial” and “redactional” interchangeably. A redaction of a text is an editorial change made to that text. How Redaction Critics Work

As used in biblical exegesis, redaction criticism refers to interpretation in which the primary focus is the editorial stage(s) that produced the final written form of a passage. This type of criticism draws on the insights and methods of tradition criticism and form criticism. It assumes that many biblical texts have a prehistory, which can be detected and reconstructed with relative certainty. Like tradition critics and form critics, redaction critics are interested in how a given story or tradition has undergone changes in its transmission history to reach its final stage. Having noted changes in the form, content, and function of earlier materials, the redaction critic tries to account for them. The redaction critic’s real focus is the final form of the written text: to explain how editorial changes within the history of transmission relate to the final, edited form. Redaction critics also try to assess how these editorial changes, especially as reflected in the final written form, reflect the theological tendencies of the author or editor. Redaction critics view editorial changes as clues to the author’s theological agenda. 140



Redaction Criticism 141

Not all biblical texts readily lend themselves to redaction-­critical analysis. Some texts are freshly composed. They show no signs that the author has drawn on earlier materials or traditions. Even if some texts employ conventional expressions or reflect cultural commonplaces, they are not suitable for redaction-­critical analysis. If we cannot show that a text has incorporated previous traditions or is based on easily identifiable sources, we have no way of tracking editorial or redactional changes. In such cases, the most we can say is that the text has been written by an author. When it is clear that a text incorporates previous traditions, texts, or stories, redaction criticism can be a valuable exegetical tool. The Gospels provide some of the best examples of such texts. The same event, episode, or saying is often reported in two, three, or even four different versions. Scholarly research on the Gospels over the last two centuries has enabled us to place these multiple versions of a passage in a probable chronological sequence. While there will never be universal agreement that Mark was the earliest Gospel, and that both Matthew and Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of their sources, this theory (commonly called the two-source hypothesis) has strong support among scholars. Even when scholars use other models to explain how the four Gospels are related to each other, they usually posit some form of literary dependence. If Matthew is seen as the earliest Gospel, which was used as a source by Luke, and if Mark wrote his Gospel utilizing Matthew and Luke as sources, an event or saying recorded in all three can still be analyzed redaction-­critically. In this case, the redaction critic would try to track the editorial changes Luke made to Matthew, or that Mark made to Matthew and Luke. We can see that the technique of redaction criticism does not change even if one works with different assumptions about the order in which the Gospels were written; the interpreter is still trying to track editorial changes and assess the significance of those redactions. Using the two-source hypothesis, we can examine a story or saying of Jesus in Mark, then look at the same story in either Matthew and Luke. By comparing the different Gospels, we can identify the ways in which Matthew and Luke have redacted Mark’s version of the story. Tools for Redaction Criticism: The Gospel Synopsis A valuable resource for doing redaction criticism of the Gospels is the synopsis. Several good synopses are readily available, but they all have one thing in common: they arrange the accounts of the Synoptic Gospels— Matthew, Mark, and Luke—in parallel columns. Some synopses display

142

Biblical Exegesis

all four Gospels in parallel columns. In some cases, they also include the second-­century gnostic Gospel of Thomas for further comparison. Displaying the Gospels in this manner enables the reader to compare the various versions of a passage, noting both differences and similarities. (For a list of recommended synopses, see chap. 2, bibliography, under “Critical Editions of the New Testament.”) The “Gospels synopsis” should not be confused with another exegetical tool, the harmony, even though both are arranged in similar fashion. Unlike a synopsis, a harmony of the Gospels seeks to harmonize the various stories into a single, coherent story. The attempt is to produce a single Gospel, as it were. A synopsis, by contrast, makes no conscious attempt to harmonize the Gospels or to underscore the differences, for that matter. It takes seriously the existence of four Gospels—not one Gospel—in the NT canon. Rather than weaving the different accounts into a single, coherent account, the synopsis isolates well-­defined passages (pericopes) and presents them in parallel columns. In displaying each account, editors of synopses use spaces that enable readers to spot similarities and differences more easily. The term “synopsis” itself means “seeing together.” As a study tool for doing exegesis of passages in the Gospels, the synopsis allows students to “see together” the different accounts of the same passage. An Example: The Passion Narrative in the Gospels Within the four Gospels, the passion narrative—the account of the final days of Jesus—exhibits the greatest literary uniformity. In this section of narrative, it becomes especially clear that Matthew and Luke have used Mark’s account of Jesus’ passion as their basic outline. This enables us to see at least two stages in the “tradition history” in almost every episode. First, we can look at the episode in Mark as stage 1; then we can examine how it has been retold by either Matthew or Luke, in stage 2. Once we have posited these two stages in the tradition history of an episode, we can then interpret an episode in Matthew or Luke in light of how each has edited or redacted Mark. With such a convincing case that one text is literarily dependent on an earlier version of the same story, we can do redaction-­critical analysis with some confidence. The scene describing Jesus’ death on the cross (Matt 27:45–56; Mark 15:33–41; Luke 23:44–49; see John 19:28–30) may serve as an example. Reading the accounts carefully, we note that each one has its own distinctive profile. Matthew’s account is longer than Mark’s; Luke’s is shorter than Mark’s. Matthew has redacted Mark by expanding it, Luke by



Redaction Criticism 143

abbreviating it. Specific points are also different. In Matthew, the death of Jesus is followed by the tearing of the temple veil and an earthquake, which results in tombs being opened and saints being resurrected. Neither Mark nor Luke reports this sequence of events. Luke, in contrast to Matthew, omits certain features of Mark’s account, most notably the cry of dereliction, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34; also Matt 27:46; Ps 22:1). Instead of this, Luke records Jesus’ final words on the cross as follows: “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit!” (23:46). These last words of Jesus are recorded in none of the other Gospels (cf. John 19:30). Another important difference is the statement attributed to the Roman centurion standing guard at the crucifixion. Matthew follows Mark in recording his confession as “Truly this man was God’s Son!” (Mark 15:39; Matt 27:54). The Greek also allows the translation, “Truly this man was a son of a god,” thus expressing a pagan point of view. Luke’s account of the confession is completely different: “Certainly this man was innocent” (23:47). Redaction critics, rather than trying to harmonize these differences into a single story, try to let each account speak for itself. They also interpret the distinctive features of each account in light of two considerations: (a) how the later versions of Matthew and Luke compare with Mark’s earlier version, and (b) how the distinctive features of each account relate to the theological perspective of the Gospel in which it occurs. In addressing the first concern, a redaction critic would try to explain why Luke omitted Jesus’ cry of dereliction. Perhaps Luke found this desperate utterance theologically offensive. It may have accented Jesus’ suffering too heavily. By contrast, Jesus’ words, “Father, into your hands I commend my spirit,” may have been more compatible with Luke’s view of Jesus as someone who died willingly, even obediently. Similar questions would be posed to explain why Luke’s version of the centurion’s words differs from Matthew and Mark. Did Luke simply alter the form of the confession that he found in Mark? Did he have access to another tradition of the centurion’s confession, which focused on Jesus’ innocence rather than his divinity? If so, why did he record this alternative tradition? What Is Being Said in and through the Story At each point, the redaction critic interpreting Luke’s account of Jesus’ death focuses on the final written form of Luke’s text, but constantly

144

Biblical Exegesis

compares it with the earlier account in Mark. Redaction critics distinguish between what is being said in the text and what is being said through the text. What is being said in Luke is that Jesus died, uttering words of hope and confidence, not desperation; and that a Roman soldier, seeing this, declared him innocent. What is being said through Luke’s account? To answer this question, the redaction critic looks for clues elsewhere in the Gospel. The point of this broader review is to determine whether Luke’s handling of this episode is typical of how he tells the story of Jesus and the church as a whole. What we discover is revealing. De-­emphasizing the agony of the cross is consistent with Luke’s Christology. Portraying Jesus as an obedient Son, who is responsive to his Father’s will, is also a Lukan theme. Some scholars see in Luke’s account an image of Jesus as the innocent martyr, who dies confidently, even triumphantly. Others see in Luke’s account echoes of Plato’s portrayal of Socrates’s death: the religious teacher, unjustly convicted, who dies willingly. The centurion’s declaration of Jesus’ innocence also reflects a broader Lukan theme. Throughout the passion narrative, Luke emphasizes Jesus’ innocence. He consistently redacts Mark’s account to make this point, either by additions, expansions, omissions, or abbreviations (see Luke 23:4, 14–15, 20, 22, 41; also Acts 3:13–14). What is being said through the story is consistent with other features of Luke’s Gospel: a serious miscarriage of justice was done to Jesus, the innocent prophet, who died confident that he would be vindicated as God’s righteous prophet. By allowing the text to speak for itself, the redaction critic concentrates on what is being said in the story. But by listening to what is being said through the story, we gain insight into Luke’s theological understanding of Jesus’ death. Some Cautions When interpreting the Gospels, we may not always be confident that we can sketch the tradition history behind a text, but this is not an absolute prerequisite for doing redaction criticism. If we read a story in three or four different versions, we may not always be able to place them in a clear chronological sequence and show that one has depended on the other. But we can compare them in order to find distinctive features in each account. Such comparative study enables us to see each account in sharper profile. Once we identify these distinctive characteristics, we can



Redaction Criticism 145

try to correlate them with similar features elsewhere in the writing. Looking for recurrent themes in this manner may reveal important theological tendencies within the writing as a whole. Although redaction criticism depends heavily on the insights of tradition criticism and form criticism, this is not true in every case. For beginning exegetes, it is important to remember that a text may exhibit editorial features that are clear and distinctive enough to develop a deeper understanding of the passage. Whether these features are uncovered by comparing the final version of a story with an earlier version on which it depends, or whether they are detected by more general comparisons—either with other biblical versions of the same story or even with nonbiblical versions of a similar story or saying—matters little. What matters is to let the text speak its full message. We should not obscure the message of a text by reading other versions into it or by harmonizing other versions with it. This is an important caveat because many readers of the Bible have inherited a single, homogenized version of the Gospel story. Christmas nativity scenes mix the birth and infancy stories of Luke and Matthew by placing the “three wise men,” farm animals, and shepherds in the same scene. By fusing the Lukan and Matthean stories together, such “harmonies” effectively block each evangelist’s message being conveyed through the story. Discerning the Theology of the Evangelists Redaction criticism has been a useful corrective in emphasizing the overall theological perspective conveyed within each Gospel. Interestingly enough, in the second and third centuries this same point was made as the early church ascribed titles to each Gospel. The “Gospel according to . . .” was their way of calling attention to the distinctive theological message of each Gospel. When we speak of the “theology” of Matthew, we are recognizing that the first evangelist is doing more than collecting stories and traditions about Jesus and arranging them in a coherent narrative. Different traditions about Jesus have been collected, but they have been arranged to express a certain theological purpose. Matthew’s theology is expressed through his arrangement of the stories and teachings of Jesus. Although the figure “Matthew” is now understood as a more shadowy figure than once thought, it is still possible to speak of Matthew’s G ­ ospel as a literary work that reflects a distinctive theological outlook. This emphasis on the evangelist’s theology is one of the important legacies of redaction criticism.

146

Biblical Exegesis

Redaction criticism corrected the tendency within tradition criticism and form criticism to focus on small literary units and subunits. Instead, it viewed the Gospels as literary works composed to express a theological point of view. While redaction criticism can focus on individual pericopes and methodically analyze editorial changes made by an evangelist, it consistently tries to relate these individual findings to the larger perspective of the Gospel. Redaction critics may be interested in how editorial changes within a specific passage express an evangelist’s theological outlook, but they are equally interested in relating these findings to the entire work. A single passage may provide clues to an evangelist’s theology, but redaction critics are finally interested in understanding the evangelist’s overall theology. So far, we have concentrated on NT examples. This is only natural since the term “redaction criticism” was coined by a NT scholar, Willi Marxsen, working on the Gospel of Mark in the 1950s. Other NT scholars, taking their cues from Marxsen, applied redaction-­critical analysis to the other Gospels. Old Testament Redaction Criticism Although OT scholars were generally reluctant to speak of “redaction criticism” as a distinctive type of interpretation, at least initially, this language has become more prominent within OT scholarship in recent years. It would be a serious mistake to leave the impression that redaction criticism as an exegetical discipline began only in the 1950s. Scholars have long recognized that the biblical writings exhibit distinctive theological “tendencies” or portray clearly defined theological messages. Biblical scholars have also recognized that such theological tendencies must be taken into account when reading different texts. It has long been noted that the editors responsible for the final compilation of the Pentateuch displayed distinct theological outlooks that were consistent within certain sections of material. Similarly, the theological outlook of the Chronicler (the assumed editor[s] of 1–2 Chronicles) has long been recognized. This distinctive viewpoint has been used to explain differences in how certain stories and traditions from 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings are interpreted in 1–2 Chronicles. David is portrayed in a more realistic fashion in 1–2 Samuel than in 1 Chronicles. Reinterpreting these earlier stories, the Chronicler portrayed David and his time in a more idealistic light. The portraits of David in 1–2 Samuel and 1 Kings as contrasting with



Redaction Criticism 147

his depiction in 1 Chronicles have been noted by scholars for well over two centuries. OT scholars have long given attention to such theological tendencies and how they relate to editorial activity in compiling various biblical writings. For this reason, redaction criticism should not be viewed as a completely new exegetical approach but as a self-­conscious refinement of an older interest of biblical criticism. In the nineteenth century, the Documentary Hypothesis gained broad acceptance because biblical scholars became convinced that four distinct literary sources could be detected within the Pentateuch. Certain passages in Genesis tended to identify the Deity as “Yahweh” (German pronounciation of the Hebrew, “Jahwe,” hence the J source); other verses used “Elohim” as the divine name (hence the E source). Besides distinct patterns of usage relating to the names for God, scholars also detected certain tendencies in the narrative. The J source displays a tendency to depict God anthropomorphically (Gen 3:8, 21), whereas E tends to portray divine revelation through angels or prophets. Parts of the narrative in which the temple and its worship received heavy emphasis (Exod 1–16 and Numbers) were attributed to the priestly source (P). The D source is closely identified with the book of Deuteronomy (esp. chaps. 12–26), but also other parts of the Pentateuch that echo its emphasis on obedience to the law. An emphasis on God’s invisibility also typifies D (Deut 4:12). We can illustrate some of the differences between the older type of “theology” criticism and the more recent redaction criticism by looking at 1 Samuel 8–12. In this section of biblical material, scholars have identified two basic attitudes (and probably sources) related to the origin of the monarchy. One is pro-­monarchy (9:1–10:16; 11:1–15) and the other is anti-­monarchy (8:1–22; 10:17–27; 12:1–25). Most older interpreters were content to point out these differences, to work on their possible connections with other sources, and to correlate these different views with different historical periods or groups. Redaction critics, however, go further. They ask: Why have these materials been redacted into their final form? Why have the pro-­monarchy materials been “enveloped” and interlaced with anti-­monarchy materials? From such questions, we can see that the anti-­monarchy materials are more dominant. The redactions in the final form of 1 Samuel 8–12 have placed qualifications on the monarchy as a historical institution. Redaction critics would further note that 1 Samuel 8–12 is only one section within a larger work, 1–2 Samuel. They would also try to explain the significance of this editorial placement. In 1 Samuel 2:1–10 and

148

Biblical Exegesis

2 Samuel 22:1–23:7, we find that three poems on kingship have been redacted into the text. Again, in “envelope” fashion, these redactions tend to modify the restrictions placed on kingship in 1 Samuel 8–12 but do so in idealistic and “messianic” terms. In describing the theology of kingship found in 1–2 Samuel, redaction critics would need to take all these texts into account. They would especially have to explain how the redactional activity relates to the overall theology of kingship in 1–2 Samuel. Opportunities to apply redaction-­critical analysis appear throughout the OT. For example, why does the Pentateuch (with its laws) end before the people enter the land? Was the Pentateuchal material redacted in this way to stress that Torah (the law) is the constitutive element of the society? Or was it done to address a community in “exile,” away from the land? Or to emphasize that obedience to the law was a prerequisite to possession of the land? What is the significance of the redacted form of the prophetic books? Material from different chronological periods has been compiled to form the single book of Isaiah. How does this overall redactional activity affect our reading of Isaiah? Rediscovering Theology From this discussion, we see that redaction criticism received special prominence in NT studies in the latter half of the twentieth century. Yet it built on earlier efforts within OT scholarship to identify theological tendencies within the biblical writings, even to correlate these with different strands of literary material. For NT studies, redaction criticism was received as a welcome change to the increasingly narrow focus of tradition and form criticism. By calling our attention to how individual redactional changes were related to the larger writing in which they occurred, redaction critics redefined the role of the evangelists. They were no longer seen as anonymous editors, who were “scissors-­and-­paste” figures collecting and arranging discrete bits of tradition; they were now seen as theologians—evangelists who operated with larger theological visions, far bolder in their outlook than editors sitting at a desk, obsessing over minute scraps of papyri. Bibliography Old Testament Redaction Criticism Amit, Yaira. The Book of Judges: The Art of Editing. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 1999. Biddle, Mark E. A Redaction History of Jeremiah 2:1–4:2. Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1990.



Redaction Criticism 149

*Blenkinsopp, Joseph. Prophecy and Canon: A Contribution to the Study of Jewish Origins. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1977. Boorer, Suzanne. The Promise of the Land as Oath: A Key to the Formation of the Pentateuch. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1992. Collins, Terence. The Mantle of Elijah: The Redaction Criticism of the Prophetical Books. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993. *Coote, Robert B. Amos among the Prophets: Composition and Theology. 1981. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Dozeman, Thomas B. God on the Mountain: A Study of Redaction, Theology, and Canon in Exodus 19–24. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1989. Fox, Michael V. The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1991. Keinänen, Jyrki. Traditions in Collision: A Literary and Redaction-­Critical Study on the Elijah Narratives 1 Kings 17–19. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2001. Marttila, Marko. Collective Reinterpretation in the Psalms: A Study of the Redaction History of the Psalter. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006; online, 2019. Mayes, Andrew D. H. The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History. London: SCM, 1983. McKenzie, Steven L. The Trouble with Kings: The Composition of the Book of Kings in the Deuteronomic History. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1991. Morrow, William S. Scribing the Center: Organization and Redaction in Deuteronomy 14:1– 17:13. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1995. Nelson, Richard D. The Double Redaction of the Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. Nogalski, James. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1993. Noth, Martin. The Deuteronomistic History. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005. Rendsburg, Gary A. The Redaction of Genesis. 1986. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. Seitz, Christopher R. Zion’s Final Destiny: The Development of the Book of Isaiah; A Reassessment of Isaiah 36–39. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. Van der Meer, Michaël N. Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2004. Van Seters, John. The Edited Bible: The Curious History of the “Editor” in Biblical Criticism. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2006; online, 2021. Vervenne, Marc, ed. Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction, Reception, Interpretation. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 1996. Wagenaar, Jan A. Judgement and Salvation: The Composition and Redaction of Micah 2–5. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2001. Wénin, André, ed. Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction, and History. Louvain: Leuven University Press, 2001. Wilson, Gerald H. The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1985. Yee, Gale A. Composition and Tradition in the Book of Hosea: A Redaction Critical Investigation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1987.

150

Biblical Exegesis

New Testament Redaction Criticism Bornkamm, Günther, Gerhard Barth, and Heinz J. Held. Tradition and Interpretation in Matthew. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1963. Conzelmann, Hans, and Geoffrey Buswell. The Theology of St. Luke. London: Faber & Faber, 1960; New York: Harper & Row, 1961. Fortna, Robert. The Fourth Gospel and Its Predecessor: From Narrative Source to Present Gospel. 1988. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: T&T Clark, 2004. Güttgemanns, Erhardt. Candid Questions concerning Gospel Form Criticism: A Methodological Sketch of the Fundamental Problematics of Form and Redaction Criticism. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1979. Humphrey, Hugh. From Q to “Secret” Mark: A Composition History of the Earliest Narrative Theology. London: T&T Clark, 2006. Johnson, Sherman E. The Griesbach Hypothesis and Redaction Criticism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1991. Kingsbury, Jack D. The Parables of Jesus in Matthew 13: A Study in Redaction-­Criticism. Richmond: John Knox, 1969. Lightfoot, Robert H. History and Interpretation in the Gospels. London: Hodder & Stoughton; New York: Harper, 1935. *Marxsen, Willi. Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel. Nashville: Abingdon, 1969. Neyrey, Jerome. The Passion according to Luke: A Redaction Study of Luke’s Soteriology. New York: Paulist, 1985; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2007. Osborne, Grant. The Resurrection Narratives: A Redactional Study. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984. Peabody, David B. Mark as Composer. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press; Louvain: Peeters, 1987. *Perrin, Norman. What Is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969; London: SPCK, 1970. Repschinski, Boris. The Controversy Stories in the Gospel of Matthew: Their Redaction, Form, and Relevance for the Relationship between the Matthean Community and Formative Judaism. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2000. *Rohde, Joachim. Rediscovering the Teaching of the Evangelists. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1968. Selvidge, Marla J. Woman, Cult, and Miracle Recital: A Redactional Critical Investigation on Mark 5:24–34. Lewisburg, PA: Bucknell University Press; London: Associated University Presses, 1990. Stein, Robert H. Gospels and Tradition: Studies on Redaction Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991.

Representative Biblical Theologies Albertz, Rainer. A History of Israelite Religion in the Old Testament Period. 2 vols. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1994. Barr, James. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress; London: SCM, 1999. *Bultmann, Rudolf. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1951–55; London: SCM, 1952–55. Caird, George B., and Lincoln D. Hurst. New Testament Theology. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.



Redaction Criticism 151

Childs, Brevard S. Old Testament Theology in a Canonical Context. London: SCM, 1985; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster; London: SCM, 1961–67. Gerstenberger, Erhard. Theologies in the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress; London: Bloomsbury, 2002. *Goppelt, Leonhard, and Jürgen Roloff. Theology of the New Testament. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981–82. Kümmel, Werner G. The Theology of the New Testament according to Its Major Witnesses: Jesus-­ Paul-­John. Nashville: Abingdon; London: SCM, 1973. Ladd, George E., and Donald A. Hagner. A Theology of the New Testament. 1974. Rev. ed. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Cambridge: Lutterworth, 1994. Levenson, Jon D. The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and Historical Criticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1993; Princeton: Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic, 2005. Ollenburger, Ben C., ed. Old Testament Theology: Flowering and Future. 1992. Rev. ed. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2004. Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994. Rendtorff, Rolf. The Canonical Hebrew Bible: A Theology of the Old Testament. 2005. Leiden: Deo, 2011. Schnelle, Udo. Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2009. Seitz, Christopher R. Word without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. 1998. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004. *Strecker, Georg, and Friedrich W. Horn. Theology of the New Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox; New York: de Gruyter, 2000. *Terrien, Samuel L. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. 1978. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000. *Von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology. 2 vols. 1962–65. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001.

Chapter Nine

Structuralism and Poststructuralism Universals and Differences

M

ost of the methods we have considered in the preceding chapters are primarily historical in orientation. Generally, they seek to understand an author’s thought or intention within the original historical context. This is true even if a text has been produced by several “authors” over a long period of time. The goal remains the same: to understand the text in light of the circumstances that produced it. In terms of the Abrams diagram mentioned earlier (see chap. 1), historical methods of interpretation focus on (1) the originator of the text, (2) the original audience, and (3) their shared universe of ideas and events (their historical conditions and circumstances). Through exegesis, the interpreter reads, examines, and listens to the words of the text as a medium communicating the author’s message. The text serves as a vehicle for expressing the author’s thoughts. The exegete asks, “What did the author intend to say to the reader(s) through the text?” The text is the “signal” through which the author’s thoughts are transmitted to the reader. The text may lie in the forefront, but ultimately the reader’s task is to get through, or get behind, the text to the author’s intended message. The text serves not as an end but as the means for understanding the author’s intentions. The various methods of historical criticism use the text as a window through which the interpreter can view the author, the author’s intention, the setting, and the context. Within the last few decades, other methods of studying texts have de-­emphasized, or even ignored, such historical considerations. In this sense, they are nonhistorical or ahistorical in their approach. We now look at these approaches under structuralist and poststructuralist criticism. These terms derive from methodologies used to analyze many types 152



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 153

of human thought and behavior. Structuralism has been employed in academic fields as diverse as general anthropology, linguistics, and literature. Basic Assumptions of Structuralism Several basic assumptions inform structuralist studies. Structuralist critics assume that all social activity is governed by certain conventions, convictions, and rules. These foundational structures of all cultural systems manifest themselves in every form of human social activity. Humans have an innate capacity to structure their experiences into patterns of meaning. An important part of this structuring activity is creating polarities and binary oppositions, such as left/right, good/bad, up/down, subject/ object, light/darkness, and male/female. Rather than being used as conscious categories, these structures may function at the unconscious or subconscious level. Some structural patterns are universal, shared by different cultures and expressed in all languages. All forms of social activity, even art and literature, reflect numerous structures. Easily perceived structures are referred to as “surface structures.” Speech, for example, reflects certain surface structures that we ordinarily associate with proper use of language, such as correct grammar. The use of any language, however, is also based on complex linguistic structures that are called “deep structures.” We may use proper speech and be aware of the surface structures associated with our language but be unaware of the complex grammatical and linguistic structures—the deep structures—that shape our language. Structuralists assume that literature reveals both surface and deep structures. Deep structures reflect patterns of thought that transcend time and space, but they can be extracted from literary texts. In structuralist interpretation, a text is viewed more as a mirror than as a window. As a mirror, the text reflects universally shared structures and concerns. Texts have their own integrity apart from the circumstances in which they originated. In structuralist analysis, a text stands on its own: it is autonomous, regardless of how it originated. It can be interpreted meaningfully without asking about the author’s original intention. Generic considerations, such as the shape of the text, are more important than genetic considerations, how it originated. Structuralists do not deny the existence, or even importance, of genetic dimensions of a text, but they think historical/genetic issues can blur our perception of generic features of a text. Structuralists are more interested in how texts communicate meaning than in what they communicate and mean. They ask: How does a text

154

Biblical Exegesis

produced within particular cultural constraints express universal concerns? How does a reader decode the text? How do the deep structures of the text connect with those of the reader? Structuralist literary critics focus on the text, the reader, and the process of reading and understanding rather than the author’s composition of the text and authorial intention. Besides noting the differences between structuralist and other kinds of interpretation, we should look at some of the underlying exegetical assumptions of structuralism. Two major emphases are especially important: (1) ahistoricity and (2) universal ordering principles. 1. Ahistoricity According to structuralist criticism, any text is ahistorical, not in the sense that what is reported does not conform to historical reality, but in the sense that historical dimensions of a text—its origin, authorship, setting—are not the primary focus. It might be more accurate to say that their focus is atemporal because they read texts without relating them to their time of composition or some other temporal framework outside the text. Every effort is made to exclude the dimension of time unless it is a particular concern of the text. This is in sharp contrast to earlier methods that emphasized the temporal distance between an ancient text and a modern reader. Structuralist critics do not frame interpretive questions by distinguishing between what a text meant and what it now means. When they read a text, they experience it as present to them—now. In this sense, a text—any text—is timeless. While form critics ask questions about the origin of a text and how it functioned in its original setting, structuralist critics try to discern underlying assumptions of the text and how it expresses universal concerns. They concentrate on how the text “works” in the reader-­text relationship. Interpreters using more traditional methods of analysis may resist this atemporal approach, but understanding how structuralist critics tend to bracket questions relating to time helps explain two basic features of their interpretive approach. a. The final form of the text. The completed text sets the agenda for structuralist critics. They do not inquire about the prehistory of the text, distinguish between earlier and later forms of the text, or try to identify later interpolations or editorial redactions of the text. They know that a text may exist in different recensions or versions. They are also aware of the complexities that different versions of the same text pose for textual critics. But explaining why different forms of a text exist is not their main



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 155

concern. Rather, they accept a given text as “received” and work with it. How a text originated and the process though which it reached the interpreter do not interest them. They instead focus on what lies before the reader—the finished text, waiting to be interpreted. b. Structuralist understanding of time. Structuralists’ atemporal view of texts explains why they are not interested in its historical setting. They know that texts do not just happen: they were written by someone, at some time, in some place and setting. But they set aside questions related to author, original audience, and historical setting. They do not ask the usual historical questions: Who wrote it? To whom was it written? When? Where? How? Why? Under what circumstances? Because structuralist critics work with a different theory of texts, they formulate a different set of interpretive questions. Rather than seeing a text as something through which an author conveys meaning to a reader, they think the text itself generates meaning. One way to understand their approach is to distinguish between synchronic (literally, “with or at the same time”) and diachronic (literally, “through time”) analysis. Diachronic analysis conceives of a text as having developed over time. If we do a diachronic word study, we may look at its etymology to determine the original root from which the term derived. Or we might trace how a word has been used in various historical periods and the meanings it has conveyed at different times. Diachronic analysis implies a linear form of investigation, in which we can chart development along a time line. Synchronic analysis of texts, by contrast, is atemporal or ahistorical. It thinks of literary works suspended, as it were, in time. When we analyze texts synchronically, our first impulse is not to arrange them in chronological order. Regardless of when they might have been written, we experience all of them together and in the present. Synchronic analysis of two biblical themes from Genesis and the book of Acts would not approach one as earlier, the other as later. Structuralist critics would read both texts together in time. A better designation might be “achronic,” that is, “without time” or without reference to time. 2. Universal Ordering Principles A second major emphasis in structuralist criticism is to see all forms of human experience and behavior as concrete manifestations of certain ordering principles or universal structures. This basic outlook has several implications.

156

Biblical Exegesis

a. Theory of language. Structuralist critics operate with a distinctive theory of language. For them, language is not simply a medium we use to communicate meaning but a complex set of ordered symbols, verbal and nonverbal, through which meaning is conveyed. All forms of social behavior have “languages.” If customs of dress within a given society conform to well-­established rules, we can speak of a “language of dress.” The rules governing dress—what to wear, what not to wear, and when to wear what—resemble the rules of grammar and syntax that govern what, when, and how we speak or write. Kinship patterns can be viewed in the same way. Within a given family or tribe within a society, relationships between persons are based on established principles. Informed by such principles, persons within a given social group relate to each other and make basic decisions, such as whom they can and cannot marry. Persons within a social group may be thought of as the “words” of a language whose arrangement and placement are based on certain principles of “social syntax and grammar.” b. Surface and deep structures. When structuralists read texts, they distinguish between surface structures and deep structures. Beneath the surface structures, a text reflects deep structures of conviction and world ordering. These deep structures are encoded within the text. Rather than trying to ascertain the meaning of specific words or phrases at the surface level, the exegete’s task is to decode the text to identify the deep structures from which it ultimately stems and to which it points. Surface structure refers to contours of a text that we can visibly trace, such as the outline of an argument or the flow of a story. Deep structures, by contrast, are those underlying, ordering principles that are embodied within the text. They may not even be explicitly stated within the text. To return to our earlier example, we may use good principles of grammar when we speak without being conscious of these rules as we formulate our speech. Or we may decide not to wear our bathrobe to work without thinking about the underlying “social grammar” that informs our decision. And yet the underlying principles of grammar and syntax that govern what we say and wear can be deduced from our actual use of language and our customs of dress. c. Binary opposition. A third basic structuralist principle used to interpret all empirical forms of social behavior and their deep structures is binary opposition. Structuralist critics work with interpretive categories of opposites, especially those they have observed in a wide variety of texts. Certain pairs of opposites are fundamental to all human experience and may be at work in producing any given text. This would include such



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 157

binary opposites as light/darkness, good/evil, reconciliation/alienation, divine/human, and male/female. The principle of binary opposition applies not only to deep structures but also to structuralist method generally. Even in analyzing the surface structures of a text, we can look for pairs of opposites in the arrangement of the text. Structuralist Exegesis of Biblical Texts Now that we have discussed some of the general perspectives of structuralist criticism, we can consider some examples of how it has been applied to biblical texts. Genesis 1–2 A well-­known example is a structuralist interpretation of the OT creation story in Genesis 1–2. Instead of analyzing the opening chapters of Genesis using source criticism, which posits two creation accounts (Gen 1:1–2:4a [P] and 2:4b–25 [J]) with their respective theologies, a structuralist analysis would see Genesis 1:1–2:1 as the basic unit in interpretation. This analysis is based on the following structuralist observations: (1) The unit is naturally defined this way since it begins with a reference to God’s creating the heavens and earth (1:1) and concludes by noting that the “heavens and the earth were finished” (2:1). (2) The phrase “God said” occurs ten times (vv. 3, 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, 28, and 29). (3) The unit divides into two roughly equal parts, with five uses of the expression “God said” in each: 1:1–19 (containing 207 Hebrew words) and 1:20–2:1 (containing 206 words). The first part describes the creation of the world’s inanimate order; the second part describes the creation of the world’s living beings. (4) Each half moves toward a similar climax: the first part concluding with a reference to the sun, moon, and stars to rule over the heavens, and the second part with humanity to rule over the earth. Here we see some principles of structuralist exegesis. First, the structures of the text reflect the subject matter and theology of the material. Second, the principle of binary opposition is evident throughout: two roughly equal literary units, inanimate orders / animate orders, rule of luminaries over the inanimate world / rule of humans over the animate world. Third, the focus is on how we read a text instead of how the author writes a text. How we perceive meaning in the text is more important than what the author originally intended.

rule of luminaries over the inanimate world/rule of humans over the animate world. Third, the focus is on how we read a text instead of how the author writes a text. How we perceive meaning in the text is more important than what the author originally intended. 158 Biblical Exegesis The Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35) The Parable of thethe Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–35)of Genesis In the previous section, structuralist interpretation focuses on thethe surface level of interpretation the text. Texts may be analyzed In 1:1–2:1 the previous section, structuralist of Genesis 1:1–2:1 to reveal deeper structures, such as universal values and convictions. focuses on the surface level of the text. Texts may be analyzed to reveal On the basis of such folklore studies, a values narrative has been On developed deeper structures, as universal andgrid convictions. the basis to interpret narrative structures. The grid may be used to determine of folklore studies, a narrative grid has been developed to interpret narthe structures. structural The relationships appear in narratives. How many rative grid maythat be used to determine the structural relarelationships appear in any given narrative depends on the story’s tionships that appear in narratives. How many relationships appear in any complexity. on on thisthe grid, the complexity. following diagram identifies thethe given narrativeBased depends story’s Based on this grid, typical roles (called actants by structuralists) present in the narrative following diagram identifies the typical roles (called actants by structuralstructures stories, although notofallmost rolesstories, are reflected in every ists) present of in most the narrative structures although not all story: roles are reflected in every story: sender 030 Hayes Ch9-13 (139-212)

helper

object 1/22/07

12:50 PM

subject

recipient Page 146

opponent

The sender is the originator of an action meant to communicate a mesThe is the originator of action meant to This communicate a mes146orsender EXEGESIS sage transmit some objectBIBLICAL theanrecipient needs. is done to ensure sage or transmit some object the recipient needs. This is done to ensure the recipient’s well-­being. The subject is the agent commissioned by the the recipient’s well-being. Theto subject is the agent commissioned by the sender transmit theobject object to The opponent attempts sender tototransmit the the recipient. recipient. The opponent attempts frustratethe theaction actionwhile whilethe the helper helper assists outout to to frustrate assiststhe thesubject subjectinincarrying carrying action. thethe action. analysisofofthe thenarrative narrative structure structure of AnAn analysis of the the parable parableofofthetheGood Good Samaritan (Luke10:30–35), 10:30–35),forforexample, example,shows showsthe thefollowing following actants actants in Samaritan (Luke the narrative: theinnarrative: sender (God?)

object (well-being)

recipient (wounded person)

helper (innkeeper)

subject (Samaritan)

opponent (robbers)

plots, thethe AmeriIn most most narratives narratives(and (andalso alsoininmany manymodern modern plotssuch suchasas American Western or TV sitcoms), the characters and plots possess a remarkcan Western or TV sitcoms), the characters and plots possess a remarkable consistency.InInmost most narratives, narratives, life’s is is able consistency. life’s normalcy normalcyororequilibrium equilibrium disturbed some way. Anarchy trouble develops. Some subject is disturbed in in some way. Anarchy or or trouble develops. Some subject is sent takes action to restore order/well-being. This subjectisisopposed opposed by or sent takesoraction to restore order/well-­ being. This subject by the creator of the anarchy or other opponents but is assisted by a helper or helpers.



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 159

the creator of the anarchy or other opponents, but is assisted by a helper or helpers. The Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) The parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11–32) consists of two parts, the first focusing on the younger son (vv. 11–24), the second on his elder brother (vv. 25–32). Interpreters have often wondered about the relationship between these two parts, even speculating that the story originally ended with the return of the prodigal. Some think that the elder brother episode might have been added later as a way of addressing the Pharisees or some other group of opponents of early Christianity (see Luke 15:2). Structuralist critics do not analyze the story by asking about the story’s prehistory. They focus on the story in its present form, the final form of the text in Luke’s Gospel. Since the story now exists with the elder brother episode, it must be interpreted in that form. In this form, the story reflects a basic folktale plot. It may also be seen as the story of a character who moves through a sequence of being “at home,” “away from home,” and “at home.” Binary oppositions are found in various sets of opposites: lost/found, alienation/reconciliation, presence/absence. One way of structuring the story is to trace the movement from presence (the young man at home) to absence (the young man away from home) to presence (the young man back at home) to absence (the elder brother ironically not “at home” with the father). In this way, the younger brother would typify “presence” or “foundness” while the elder brother would typify “absence” or “lostness.” By analyzing the story this way, structuralist critics are not concerned with how the story functions in the Gospel of Luke, or with how it reflects the theology of Luke the evangelist. Instead, they try to discern how the structures of the story itself express meaning through universal categories. Surprises On occasion, plots and characters may startle us because they depart from what we expect. For example, in the parable of the Good Samaritan, the Samaritan is the outsider, the heretic, the opposite of what ancient Jewish culture would assume to be the ideal religious person. In the story, however, the Samaritan is the subject who brings aid to the wounded. In the story of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22), God plays two major

160

Biblical Exegesis

roles: the Deity is the opponent who demands the sacrifice of Isaac and thus produces anarchy; but the Deity simultaneously acts as the subject who provides the substitute offering and alleviates the tension. In the narrative of Jacob’s wrestling with the angel (God) at the ford of the Jabbok River (Gen 32:22–32), Jacob is the hero on a quest. In the story, God appears not only as the originator of the quest but also as Jacob’s opponent. As for the NT, in the overall structure of the Christ story, God is not only the sender and, in the Son, the subject who brings salvation to the world, but also the world’s opponent, since humankind needs to be reconciled to God. Structuralist Analysis of the Psalms A structuralist interpretation of the book of Psalms has shown that the psalms can be understood through their deep structures. Practically all the statements in the psalms cluster around four actants. These are (A) the protagonist, who may be the psalmist, the just person, the community, or the king; (B) the opposition, who may be the enemy, enemies generally, the wicked, or the nations; (C) God; and (D) others, including witnesses, the faithful, the just, and the nations. In individual psalms these four elements assume different roles, generally with A as the recipient, B as the opponent, C as the helper and sender (although sometimes the opponent), and D as the corecipient. Various binary oppositions run throughout the psalms in the descriptions of persons, states of being, and expectations. These include life/death, joy/sorrow, lament/praise, weeping/dancing, blessing/curse, and so on. Using such structuralist insights, we can analyze specific psalms without trying to ascertain their actual life situations, the identity of the author or persons mentioned in the psalms, or the historical contexts in which they were written. Paradoxically, references in the psalms to disorder, evil, sin, and anarchy, which disrupt normal equilibrium, along with petitions for resolution and redemption—all these give the psalms a strong biographical/narrative flavor. Our ability to understand and identify, even subconsciously, with these universal structures in the psalms helps explain why, over time, they have appealed to people in every culture. Mythic Structures and Narratives Some biblical narratives lend themselves to even greater levels of abstraction that reflect mythical patterns of thinking and symbolic expression.



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 161

Within some texts, mythical structures are found at an even deeper level of abstraction than narrative structures. We noted above how structuralists analyze the narrative structure of the parable of the Good Samaritan. At a deeper level of abstraction, the parable reflects mythical or paradigmatic structures. The story reflects polar opposites: life, order, health, and the kingdom of God, which are set against death, disorder, woundedness, and the kingdom of Satan. At the surface level, the Samaritan as a religious outcast would have belonged in the camp of the disordered, while the Levite and priest occupied the arena of the ordered; but well-­ being in the story is produced by the Samaritan. The reader is challenged to venture outside the established order and ordinary religious boundaries and become, like the Samaritan, a “truly religious person.” In the story, Jesus challenges the normal mythical pattern by making the antihero into the hero. (Worth noting are the similarities between such structuralist interpretations and medieval allegorical readings; see chap. 1.) Poststructuralism Rather than being seen as a movement or a set of conversations among a group of academicians and other intellectuals that arose after the emergence of structuralism and that developed in critical response to it, poststructuralism should be seen as part of an ongoing debate that has been occurring at the same time. The prefix “post” should be understood not so much in a temporal sense but in a modal sense—responses that challenge some of the basic tenets of structuralism. Like structuralism itself, which encompasses several academic disciplines ranging from literary and cultural studies to philosophy and anthropology, poststructuralism is a fairly loosely defined category that includes ongoing scholarly and interdisciplinary conversations. Participants in these debates see disciplinary boundaries as porous; for this reason, it is difficult to locate poststructuralism within one or two academic disciplines. Because the debate often centers on how individuals or social communities use language and are themselves shaped by language itself, there is a strong linguistic component. And since our use of language is closely related to our sense of consciousness, both the unconscious and the subconscious, psychoanalytic perspectives also inform the discussion. Closely related is how language and consciousness are related to power and the dynamics of power within human relationships, and how these

162

Biblical Exegesis

are expressed and reflected in human discourse. Also figuring into the debate are how the present is understood in relation to the past and how our understanding of the past is rendered into written form, producing history via historical method. The work of Jacques Derrida, in which the notion of deconstruction plays a critical role, serves as a focal point in these discussions. Other participants include Julia Kristeva, Roland Barthes, Luce Irigaray, among others. Although diverse in their approach and disciplinary focus, these critics typically challenge the structuralist assumptions about universals (principles, ideas, binaries) and how these function within written discourse. For poststructuralists, “difference” or “differences” are key concepts. Rather than looking for patterns of coherence or underlying conceptual structures within a text, poststructuralists tend to focus on patterns or elements of incoherence, or tensions and inconsistencies within a text. They see this “field of differences” within a text as the linguistic arena within which meaning functions, and even as the originative discourse out of which the reader’s self-­understanding as a subject and the resulting sense of historical reality arise. Structuralists tend to look for what is fixed and static within a text; poststructuralists tend to look for what is fluid and ambiguous. Poststructuralist interpreters of biblical texts look for aspects or dimensions of a text that display these kinetic qualities and analyze that text accordingly. The Way Forward The brief examples of structuralist criticism mentioned above illustrate some of the main principles of structuralist criticism. Rather than serving as detailed examples of structuralist exegesis, they are intended to show how exegetes using this interpretive method approach texts. The challenge for interpreters accustomed to historical-­critical analysis is to resist asking the usual questions, such as Who composed a text? When? Where? Under what circumstances? Instead, we must read biblical texts differently, attentive to both surface and deep structures, trying to discern such principles as binary opposition and how these deep structures convey universal truths and concerns. While interest in structuralist criticism among biblical critics seems to have waned, some biblical scholars continue to produce biblical commentaries and articles using structuralist principles. Poststructuralist approaches have attracted the interest of several scholars who are eager



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 163

to find ways in which literary studies of the New Testament can draw on this ongoing conversation in order to enrich biblical exegesis. Bibliography General Aichele, George. The Play of Signifiers: Poststructuralism and Study of the Bible. Brill Research Perspectives. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Barthes, Roland. Writing Degree Zero. London: Jonathan Cape, 1967. New York: Will & Wang, 1968; paperback, 2012. ———. Writing Degree Zero; and Elements of Semiology. Boston: Beacon Press, 1970; London: Jonathan Cape, 1984. Calloud, Jean. Structural Analysis of Narrative. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Culler, Jonathan D. On Deconstruction: Theory and Criticism after Structuralism. 1982. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2007. ———. The Pursuit of Signs: Semiotics, Literature, Deconstruction. 1981. Augmented ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2002. ———. Structuralism. London: Routledge, 2006. ———. Structural Poetics: Structuralism, Linguistics and the Story of Literature. 1975. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. De George, Richard T., and Fernande M. De George, eds. The Structuralists: From Marx to Lévi-­Strauss. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books, 1972. Detweiler, Robert. Story, Sign, and Self: Phenomenology and Structuralism as Literary Critical Methods. 1978. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. *Dinkler, Michal Beth. Literary Theory and the New Testament. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2019. Greimas, Algirdas J. Narrative Semiotics and Cognitive Discourses. London: Pinter, 1990. ———. Semiotics and Language: An Analytical Dictionary. 1982. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. Kermode, Frank. The Genesis of Secrecy: On the Interpretation of Narrative. 1947. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. *Lane, Michael, ed. Introduction to Structuralism. New York: Basic Books, 1970. ———, ed. Structuralism: A Reader. London: Jonathan Cape, 1970. Leach, Edmund R. Claude Lévi-­Strauss. 1974. Rev. ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989. Lodge, David. Working with Structuralism: Essays and Reviews on Nineteenth and Twentieth-­ Century Literature. 1981. London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1991. *Propp, Vladimir. Morphology of the Folktale. 1958. 2nd ed., rev. and edited by Louis A. Wagner, with a new introduction by Alan Dundes. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1968. Ricoeur, Paul. The Conflict of Interpretations: Essays in Hermeneutics. 1974. New ed. London: Continuum, 2004; Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 2007. Ricoeur, Paul, and Lewis S. Mudge. Essays on Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985; London: SPCK, 1981. *Robey, David, ed. Structuralism: An Introduction. Oxford: Clarendon; London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1973.

164

Biblical Exegesis

Scholes, Robert E. Structuralism in Literature: An Introduction. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974.

Biblical Structuralism Barthes, Roland. Structural Analysis and Biblical Exegesis: Interpretational Essays. 1974. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 2008. *Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1984; 2nd ed., rev. and enl. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. Greenwood, David C. Structuralism and the Biblical Text. Berlin and New York: Mouton, 1985. *Keegan, Terence J. Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. New York: Paulist, 1985. Patte, Daniel. What Is Structural Exegesis? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Polzin, Robert M. Biblical Structuralism: Method and Subjectivity in the Study of Ancient Texts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Tollers, Vincent L., and John R. Maier. The Bible in Its Literary Milieu: Contemporary Essays. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979.

Old Testament Buss, Martin, ed. Encounter with the Text: Form and History in the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. Culley, Robert C., ed. Classical Hebrew Narrative. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1975. ———, ed. Perspectives on Old Testament Narrative. Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1979. Fokkelman, J. P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: A Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. 4 vols. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1981–93. ———. Narrative Art in Genesis: Specimens of Stylistic and Structural Analysis. 1991. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004. Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Structural Analyses in the Hebrew Bible. 2nd ed. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1986–87. Leach, Edmund R. Genesis as Myth and Other Essays. London: Jonathan Cape, 1969. Leach, Edmund R., and D. Alan Aycock. Structuralist Interpretations of Biblical Myth. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. *Patte, Daniel, ed. Genesis 2 and 3: Kaleidoscopic Structural Readings. 1980. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1993.

New Testament Kodjak, Andrej. A Structural Analysis of the Sermon on the Mount. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1986. Moore, Stephen D. Gospel Jesuses and Other Nonhumans: Biblical Criticism Post-­Structuralism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2017. ———. Mark and Luke in Poststructuralist Perspectives: Jesus Begins to Write. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. ———. Poststructuralism and the New Testament: Derrida and Foucault at the Foot of the Cross. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.



Structuralism and Poststructuralism 165

Patte, Daniel. Narrative and Discourse in Structural Exegesis: John 6 and 1 Thessalonians. Chico, CA: Society of Biblical Literature (Scholars Press), 1983. ———. Paul’s Faith and the Power of the Gospel: A Structural Introduction to the Pauline Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016. ———, ed. Semiology and Parables: An Exploration of the Possibilities Offered by Structuralism for Exegesis. Pittsburgh: Pickwick, 1976. *———. Structural Exegesis for New Testament Critics. 1989. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1996. Patte, Daniel, and Aline Patte. Structural Exegesis: From Theory to Practice; Exegesis of Mark 15 and 16; Hermeneutical Implications. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. Seeley, David. Deconstructing the New Testament. Leiden: Brill, 1994. Via, Dan. Kerygma and Comedy in the New Testament: A Structuralist Approach to Hermeneutic. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Chapter Ten

Canonical Criticism The Sacred Text of Synagogue and Church

T

he Bible is the sacred Scripture of the synagogue and church. This means that the writings comprising the Jewish and Christian Scriptures are endowed with a special authority that gives them a uniquely normative role within these communities of faith. Earlier we noted some of the special problems related to interpreting sacred texts. We also observed the dynamic relationship between sacred texts and the religious communities in which they are revered. In one sense, the Scriptures were created by the communities of Israel and the Christian church; but in another sense, those communities were created by their Scriptures. Regardless of which came first, Scripture and community cannot exist apart from each other (see chap. 1). Now in more detail, we consider some of the implications of this symbiotic relationship. The sacred texts—the canon—of a religious community are foundational documents. They play a key role in constituting the religious community and regulating its life and faith. Religious writings acquire such status because their communities of faith believe these texts reveal divine truth in a unique and unrepeatable manner. Such beliefs are reinforced by claims that these writings originated through special inspiration, which gives them revelatory character (2 Tim 3:16–17). This means that these writings are believed to reveal truth about God and the divine will in ways that other religious writings do not. As foundational texts, they embody, at least in embryonic form, the essence of the community’s faith and practice.

166



Canonical Criticism 167 Interpretive Strategies among Communities of Faith

Because a community’s Scriptures are given such privileged status, they are different from all other texts, religious or nonreligious. Communities of faith not only revere their sacred texts: they also read them using certain interpretive strategies. These strategies create several expectations among faithful readers. First, believers read their Scriptures with expectations that differ from those brought to any other text. They read (or listen) to the Bible while assuming that its message will be relevant to their lives. Through the words of Scripture, communities of faith expect to hear the voice of God, either directly or indirectly. If they do not hear God’s actual voice in the words of Scripture, they at least expect to hear biblical writers mediating God’s voice. Through reading, listening to, and studying Scripture, believers anticipate, and often experience, deeply moving encounters with divine truth. Since God is so closely identified with Scripture, they read Scripture as encountering God. Second, the universe of the sacred text (or to use structuralist terminology, the semantic universe of the text) challenges believers to share its world and convictions. A canonical text confronts members of the community with a bold claim: accept the worldview of Scripture. Because of their unique status within believing communities, such texts impose themselves authoritatively upon readers and listeners. Third, canonical texts are read with a degree of receptivity rarely extended to other texts. When believers read their own Scriptures, they already accept the vision of faith found in the text. With each new reading, they interpret the sacred text in light of their prior faith. Since these previous experiences with Scripture inform each reading, interpreters come to the text with a “pre-­understanding.” They have already made certain decisions about what they believe and how they understand Scripture to support those beliefs. Although believers may expect to learn new truths as they read their Scriptures, they usually come to the text while embracing old, cherished truths—firm convictions about what the text means. Because believers read Scripture with certain pre-­ understandings, which have been developed within the context of the community of faith, they tend to ignore or accept differences, inconsistencies, and problems within the text. Out of respect, readers often minimize difficulties within

168

Biblical Exegesis

a sacred text. This may be done to honor their community’s faith perspective. It also preserves their view of the overall cohesion of the canon. Distinctive Features of Canonical Criticism In recent years, some scholars have challenged exegetes to read biblical texts explicitly as canonical Scripture. This approach has been designated in different ways, such as canonical/canon criticism, canonical hermeneutics, canonical exegesis, and canonical interpretation. Regardless of what we call this type of exegesis, it has several distinguishing features. 1. The canonical approach is synchronic (see chap. 9). Since all the biblical writings constitute a single collection, they “stand together” in time. Canonical critics typically distance themselves from diachronic questions that tend to preoccupy historical critics: the earliest or precanonical form of the text or tradition, the original intention of the writer, events and experiences behind the text, or the historical/sociological/psychological context that gave birth to the text. These questions may be given some consideration but are not the decisive factors for reading and understanding the text. Rather than thinking of the different biblical writings in their respective historical settings, and then arranging them along some reconstructed time line, canonical critics tend to think of them as a timeless collection. Instead of interpreting a given biblical book in light of its specific historical setting, canonical critics prefer to see how it relates to other books in the canonical collection. Their interpretive move tends to be horizontal, across the various biblical writings, rather than vertical, delving into the historical circumstances lying beneath the writings. The tension between a canonical reading and the original author’s intent was already an issue for Augustine (354–430). In the Confessions, he wrestles with how the “truth of things” relates to the “intention of the speaker [Moses].” By making this distinction, Augustine acknowledges that it is sometimes difficult to know whether “Moses meant this [interpretation] and wished this to be understood from his account” (12.23–24). In cases where Moses’ presumed intent is unclear, Augustine is inclined to look for the deeper truth—the “truth of things”—that lies hidden within an ambiguous text. Since these truths are derived from other parts of Scripture, Augustine is practicing a form of canonical criticism. He understands God to be speaking through the entire collection of biblical writings. Truth gained from reading one part of Scripture can be related to unclear or problematic texts in other parts of Scripture.



Canonical Criticism 169

2. Closely related to canonical critics’ synchronic view of biblical texts is their interest in the final form of the text. While they may acknowledge that many biblical texts have been written and edited over long periods of time and consist of layers of tradition, their interest lies elsewhere. Instead of looking for literary seams within a text and trying to decide how the various strands of material were edited into a coherent narrative, canonical critics deal with the text they find in their printed Bibles. Their interpretive focus is the “last edition” of a biblical book that was accepted into the canon. As noted earlier, they are especially interested in relating the final literary form of all the biblical writings to each other: to hear them in concert with each other. 3. Canonical criticism also focuses on complete biblical writings rather than individual passages. Like redaction criticism, it opposes interpretive approaches, such as form criticism, that tend to isolate texts from their larger canonical setting. Canonical critics insist that a text should be read as part of the whole Bible, not as an independent, single unit. Each passage is read as part of a biblical book, and the biblical book is seen as part of the larger biblical canon. A single biblical book, no matter how important, has only penultimate authority. The Bible as a whole possesses final canonical authority. Depending on the religious community and its Bible, this principle of relating parts to the whole can take different forms. For Jews, a passage from Isaiah must be read in light of the entire prophetic book, the prophetic writings as a group, and eventually the Torah and the Writings. The canonical horizon within which a particular passage is interpreted looks different in Christian communities. The same passage from Isaiah would also be read in light of the book of Isaiah, the OT Prophets, the Torah, the historical books (Former Prophets), and the Writings; but the canonical horizon would also extend to the NT writings. Thus, for Christians, a passage from the OT read in the church will be heard in light of the NT. Taking seriously the broad canonical horizon within which individual texts are read means that these texts are read and heard along with other biblical texts. The mutual interplay among texts has a cumulative effect that transcends any one text. This does not mean that the believing community should de-­emphasize the plurality of the biblical writings and the diverse theological viewpoints expressed in them. The Christian church mostly opposed efforts to reduce the number of the Gospels from four to one or to combine the four into a single harmonized version. Working

170

Biblical Exegesis

with a defined canonical horizon imposes limits on the interpretation of individual texts. Although a text may echo other biblical texts within the canon, it must eventually be constrained by the theological vision of the larger collection. There may be internal tensions among the biblical writings, but these tensions finally need to be worked out within the boundaries of a given canon, not beyond them. 4. Given their emphasis on the synchronic nature of biblical writings and the resulting interest in the final form of the text, canonical critics especially stress the relationship between the text and its reader(s) or listener(s). For them, the main interpretive focus is not how a reader interprets the text in order to discern the intent of the author. Instead, they are more concerned with how readers interact with a single biblical writing and, by extension, how they process what they learn from all the biblical writings across the canon. By emphasizing the reader-­text relationship, canonical critics are trying to be true to how Scripture has actually functioned within the communities of Israel and the Christian church. More important, they want to recover what has been lost when interpreters focus too narrowly on what texts meant in their original setting. Over time, what has persisted is the relationship between sacred text and believing community. Communities of faith, in trying to make sense of their lives in many different times and settings, have read and interpreted Scripture as a whole—as a unified, coherent collection of writings. Rather than focusing narrowly on a single book or even one passage, interpreters have expected divine truth to be mediated to them through the different parts of Scripture. Seeing the collection of biblical writings as a chorus of voices, canonical critics are far more interested in hearing the entire chorus perform than just a soloist or even several soloists. Canonical criticism is just that: reading and interpreting the entire biblical canon critically for the life of faith. 5. Canonical criticism is overtly theological in its approach. In terms of our earlier diagrams (see chap. 1), canonical critics interpret the Bible as a vehicle for understanding the will of God. Since the Bible is seen as a mimetic reflection of reality, ascertaining the message of all the biblical writings enables readers to see God’s true purpose for humanity: the divine reality. The Bible must be interpreted as Scripture. For Jews, it is the synagogue’s Scripture; for Christians, it is the church’s Scripture. In both cases, canonical critics are primarily interested in what the text means for the canonizing community: the community of faith whose



Canonical Criticism 171

predecessors produced the canon, the community called into existence by the canon and seeking to live by the canon. Construing the relationship between text and community in this way inevitably places a higher premium on what the text now means rather than on what it once meant. Factors Affecting the Practice of Canonical Criticism Different Biblical Canons A canonical reading of a text will vary depending upon which believing community is doing the reading and which canon is being read. Jewish, Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant scriptural canons differ considerably from one another. Jewish Bibles do not include NT writings. Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian Bibles include, along with the Jewish writings from the Hebrew Bible, some so-­called apocryphal/deuterocanonical writings. For the most part, Protestant Christian churches operate with similar OT and NT canons. Not only does the list of canonical writings differ within these major religious traditions, but also the actual content of individual books such as Esther and Daniel sometimes differs from one canon to another. Since there are multiple canons within different religious traditions, canonical criticism will take different forms within each tradition. Roman Catholics, for example, allow a full canonical voice to what Protestants regard as “apocryphal writings,” such as 1–2 Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon, alongside the writings accepted by both Jews and Christians, such as the Pentateuch. Different Faith Perspectives Also affecting the style of canonical criticism is the faith perspective within which canonical texts are read. This varies considerably, not only among the major religious groups themselves, but also among groups or denominations within the same religious tradition. Christians read the OT with different expectations and theological pre-­understanding than Jewish readers. Even with Judaism and Christianity respectively, there is a broad spectrum of belief, ranging from fundamentalist to liberal. Not all Jews read their Bibles the same way; nor do all Christians interpret their Scriptures uniformly. Since Jews and Christians operate within different symbolic worlds, their reading conventions differ considerably.

172

Biblical Exegesis Different Canonical Arrangements

Canonical criticism is also affected by the different ordering of books in the Jewish Bible and the Christian OT. How the biblical writings are arranged also reflects certain theological convictions and pre-­understandings. The books in the Jewish Bible are ordered into three divisions—Torah, Prophets, and Writings. Within these three broad divisions are included discrete works: Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy Nevi’im (Prophets): Joshua, Judges, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi) Kethuvim (Writings): Psalms, Proverbs, Job, the Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, 1–2 Chronicles

In the Jewish tradition, priority is given to the Torah. The medieval Jewish philosopher Maimonides (1135–1204) describes these divisions as three concentric circles, with the Torah in the center and the other two divisions as illustrative commentary arranged in descending order of authority. This structure and its underlying assumptions indicate that the books in the second and third divisions are to be read while looking backward. The Prophets and the Writings are read in the shadow of the Torah. Although the contents of the Christian canon differ within the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant traditions, the overall arrangement of the Protestant OT canon illustrates the different ordering of individual writings: Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy) History (Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1–2 Samuel, 1–2 Kings, 1–2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther) Poetry or Writings (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon) Prophets (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)



Canonical Criticism 173

The decision to make the Prophets the last section of the OT in the Christian Bible is theologically significant. Since these writings contained predictions of the future, Christian readers naturally looked beyond the OT to see how these promises were fulfilled in the NT. Because this canonical arrangement arose in close connection with the NT canon, readers were encouraged to read everything in the OT with a forward-­ looking rather than a backward-­looking orientation. Although Jews read the Prophets and the Writings while looking back to the Torah, Christians read what they call the OT while looking forward to the NT. Theological pre-­understanding not only determined canonical arrangement but also shaped how the respective canonical collections were read and interpreted. The Shift from Historical Setting to Canonical Setting Deciding which writings constituted the Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture took place over several centuries. For the Jewish Scriptures, this process began around the sixth century BCE and was not finalized until about the second century CE. Within Christianity, two consequential decisions were made: (1) the adoption of the Greek OT (Septuagint) as the Christian OT, and (2) the selection of twenty-­seven writings comprising the NT. Broadly speaking, the process of deciding on this two-­part Christian canon occurred during the second, third, and fourth centuries CE. When Jews and Christians selected certain writings for their respective canons, they wanted these writings to be accessible to a wider audience through succeeding generations. Making these writings part of a canonical collection also meant that they were detached from their historical settings and the communities of faith in which they were originally composed. Texts once rooted in specific communities now became available to the universal believing community. As a writing moved from a specific historical context to its canonical context, this affected how it was read and interpreted. Rather than being treated as a single writing or even as part of a small group of writings, such as the Prophets or Psalms, it was now read as part of an entire canonical collection. In canonizing these writings, the believing communities declared them to be accessible to readers beyond their original setting and permanently relevant for all readers. This shift in status was significant for interpretation. Through these decisions, both synagogue and church declared that the historically

174

Biblical Exegesis

conditioned meaning of the Scriptures within their original context was no longer their only meaning, or even the most important meaning. Prophetic preaching in the OT was originally addressed to specific historical situations; because the situations were known, explanatory details were not required. When this prophetic material became part of a later literary document and the memory of the original rhetorical situation had faded, the content of such speeches acquired a more general character. Isaiah’s speeches in Isaiah 1:2–20 and 2:6–22 were probably delivered in response to the devastating earthquake that had occurred recently under Uzziah in the eighth century BCE (Amos 1:1–2; Zech 14:5). Yet as we now have it, this material provides no clues that point unequivocally to such a setting. These two speeches, now severed from their original setting, have a more general cast. In their new canonical setting, readers more easily interpret them as promises relating to an open future. In the canonical process, these speeches were separated from their original historical setting. Even before being incorporated into the OT canon, however, these speeches had already undergone editorial changes that made them more open-­ended in their orientation and less directly connected with their original historical setting. The modern reader now encounters this prophetic material in its canonical form, without specific clues to its original historical setting. This same shift in orientation of biblical material can be seen in the OT psalms. Most or perhaps all the psalms were originally composed for use in services of worship. Over time, individual psalms were edited. Eventually, these edited psalms were collected as a group, which became the book of Psalms. The editorial and canonical process that shaped the Psalter produced a book of compositions whose original association with Israel’s worship is now obscured. Some Examples of Canonical Criticism Old Testament The OT book of Isaiah provides one of the clearest illustrations of the impact of canonical reading. Historical criticism has demonstrated, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that large portions of Isaiah, at least chapters 40–55, come from the sixth century BCE. Second Isaiah, as this material is called, has been attached to a collection of prophetic oracles attributed to the prophet Isaiah, who lived during the reigns of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah in the eight century BCE (Isa 1:1).



Canonical Criticism 175

Third Isaiah—chapters 56–66, about which there is less certainty—has undergone a similar change. In the editorial process that produced the canonical book of Isaiah, chapters 40–55 were detached from the events of the sixth century BCE. The canonical material no longer has explicit associations with this historical period. (References to Cyrus, e.g., Isa 45:1, do not require chaps. 40–55 to be read with reference to the sixth century BCE.) When these chapters were added to the earlier section of Isaiah (chaps. 1–39), they were now associated with the prophet Isaiah and the eighth century BCE. This shift gave chapters 40–55 a future-­oriented perspective. In their new setting, these chapters also acquired a more redemptive character. A new interpretive horizon was also created: readers understood Isaiah’s prophetic preaching as the prediction of future events. In the second century BCE, this reorientation is reflected in the Jewish writing of Sirach: In Isaiah’s days the sun went backward, And he prolonged the life of the king [Hezekiah]. By his dauntless spirit he [Isaiah] saw the future, and comforted the mourners in Zion. He revealed what was to occur to the end of time, and the hidden things before they happened. (Sir 48:23–25)

As we already noted on the editorial process, the historically specific oracles of Isaiah assumed a generalized tone. Isaiah 9:2–7 and 11:1–9 once spoke about a specific contemporary ruler on the throne of David (in this case probably King Ahaz). In their more general form, such passages lent themselves to an idealistic, messianic interpretation. In their edited canonical form, the prophet did not appear to be speaking to his contemporaries; instead, he appeared to be looking forward to one who would come. As part of a Christian canon, these texts from Isaiah naturally resonated with the early church’s claims about Jesus. Canonical exegesis must take into consideration not only the final form of the text but also how these “final editions” function as part of canonical Scripture. There is no First, Second, and Third Isaiah in Scripture, only the book of Isaiah. Christian readers could hardly think of Yahweh’s chosen leader in Isaiah solely in terms of Isaiah 9:2–7 and 11:1–9; they inevitably connected these passages with later parts of the same writing, such as with the suffering servant in Isaiah 52:13–53:12. Historical critics

176

Biblical Exegesis

would argue that these two sets of texts derive from different contexts and originally referred to different figures (although this is disputed), because these texts are now part of one biblical book, the book of Isaiah; yet Christian readers naturally read them in light of each other. The common canonical setting of these originally diverse texts invites Christian readers to associate them with each other. The book of Ecclesiastes provides another example. Its complexity invites different interpretations. Historical critics read Ecclesiastes one way, canonical critics another. Some scholars argue that the concluding paragraph (12:13–14) is a late editorial addition to the book. Most of the book adopts a rather pessimistic view of life. Some historical critics think the original book was completely skeptical in outlook. The final paragraph in the current canonical form of the book suggests that one should not give in to doubt and unbelief. Because of its location at the end of the book, this paragraph mutes the preceding skeptical advice. The final canonical form of the text has overridden the pervasive skepticism of the earlier form of the text. Whoever interprets the book of Ecclesiastes must explain the tension between the optimistic outlook expressed in Ecclesiastes 12:13–14 and the generally pessimistic outlook of the rest of the book. Rather than explaining the final paragraph as a later editorial redaction, added by someone who wanted to rescue the book by making it end on an upbeat note, canonical critics would take the final form of the text as it now stands, develop an interpretation that relates the final paragraph to the whole work, and then read the whole work in light of its current conclusion. Their interpretation would also take into account relevant passages from other biblical books. It would be canonical in the fullest sense: an interpretation relating the part to the whole. In developing a comprehensive interpretation of the book of Ecclesiastes, canonical critics would also encounter other problems. Ecclesiastes offers no hope of immortality or resurrection of the dead. Instead, 3:19 declares that humans suffer the same fate as animals: both die without hope. Canonical critics working with a Roman Catholic or Orthodox OT canon would have to relate this rather pessimistic outlook with other biblical writings, such as the Wisdom of Solomon, which clearly affirms immortality and rewards after death (3:1–9). The interpretive problem is compounded further by the NT writings, which consistently uphold belief in the resurrection. Obligated to relate any single text to the entire Bible, canonical critics cannot limit their interpretation to the book of Ecclesiastes or even just to the OT. Eventually they discover that the



Canonical Criticism 177

pessimistic outlook, which typifies most of the book of Ecclesiastes, is a minority voice within the larger canonical chorus of voices. New Testament So far, we have illustrated canonical criticism primarily with reference to the OT, but it also has implications for NT interpretation. We have already noted that canonical critics, working with a Christian perspective, must take into account how interpretations of OT writings are influenced by the NT. But even among the NT writings themselves, canonical criticism can offer new interpretive perspectives. Here we can mention a few implications for the NT writings. 1. Canonical critics tend to interpret the teachings of Jesus within their canonical context, rather than in some historically reconstructed setting within the life of Jesus. Although form critics try to trace a saying of Jesus found in one of the Gospels to its original setting within the life of Jesus, canonical critics focus on its current canonical setting: its location within a specific Gospel and how the saying relates to other teachings of Jesus in the four Gospels. By approaching the Gospels this way, canonical critics challenge many well-­established assumptions of form criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism. Much modern interpretation of the teachings of Jesus assumes that his words must be separated from their present literary or canonical contexts and then be related to the social, political, and religious circumstances of the historical Jesus. Canonical critics insist that such hypothetical reconstructions are of limited value. They are beneficial only if they contribute to an understanding of the present form of the text. 2. The status of biblical writings before they were recognized as canonical is of little interest to canonical critics. Rather than being interested in earlier forms of the four Gospels or even in the reconstructed document Q, the hypothetical sayings source used by Matthew and Luke, canonical critics focus on the final form of the four Gospels, the texts as we now have them. They also take seriously the current location of these writings within the NT canon. While NT scholars commonly link the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts because of their common authorship, and read Luke–Acts as a single, two-­volume work, canonical critics insist that this not only removes Luke from its position as one of the Synoptic Gospels, but also alters the way the book of Acts serves as a bridge connecting the four Gospels with the Pauline Letters.

178

Biblical Exegesis

3. The chronological order in which biblical books originated is not decisive for exegesis. Most NT scholars assume that 1 Thessalonians was the first letter Paul wrote, or at least one of his earliest letters. And yet, in the NT canon, Romans comes first in the collection of Pauline writings. With this decision, the early church predisposed the reader to interpret Paul’s other writings in light of the Letter to the Romans. The canonical arrangement of the Pauline Letters separated them from their original historical settings. For canonical critics, it is more important that thirteen letters ascribed to Paul constitute the Pauline corpus and, for this reason, must be read in light of each other. How the letters relate to each other, and how individual Pauline passages relate to the letter in which they occur as well as to other Pauline letters—these are questions that preoccupy canonical critics. They are less interested in arranging the Pauline letters in their probable chronological sequence and interpreting them accordingly—less interested than in seeing how they reflect a common theological vision. Canonical critics are even less interested in ascertaining Paul’s original intention or the circumstances in which the letters were composed. Instead, they focus on the Pauline texts in their final form and how these writings bear theological witness to the gospel. As we noted in looking at OT texts, canonical critics privilege how the NT writings are heard by the community of faith in their present context. Finding the Right Balance Many of the perspectives of canonical criticism—such as its focus on the final form of the text, its concern with whole writings instead of individual passages, and its emphasis on the theological message of the biblical writings—were also present in earlier forms of biblical criticism. There are some clear similarities with redaction criticism and structuralist criticism. Some scholars have observed that canonical criticism reverts to precritical methods of biblical interpretation, which characterized the earlier patristic and medieval periods. To the extent that canonical criticism is trying to recapture the patristic and medieval emphasis on the message of the Bible as a whole, and how communities of faith relate to Scripture in settings of worship, devotion, and study—to that extent it is trying to recover something that was lost during the rise and development of modern biblical criticism: reading Scripture, expecting to hear and experience God’s truth for our lives. Most canonical critics have been trained in traditional methods of historical criticism. They are well aware of the historical complexities



Canonical Criticism 179

of the origin and growth of the OT and NT. But they are also critical of the ways in which various methods of biblical criticism, especially in the twentieth century, have been preoccupied with the “history behind the text” rather than with the “message of the text.” Historical criticism tended to “deconstruct” the biblical canon—analyzing each writing historically, breaking up the canonical writings into smaller literary units, and analyzing isolated passages; canonical criticism has tried to reverse this process. Freely admitting that individual writings, or parts of those writings, originated in earlier settings and were then collected and edited into their present biblical form, canonical critics want to move beyond questions relating to the prehistory of the text. They are more concerned with the theological message(s) that resonate within the OT and NT canons as a whole. In this sense, canonical criticism is trying to correct some of the mistakes of earlier methods of biblical exegesis. Bibliography The Development of the Biblical Canons Aland, Kurt. The Problem of the New Testament Canon. London: Mowbray, 1962. Auwers, Jean-­Marie, and Henk J. de Jonge, eds. The Biblical Canons. Leuven: Leuven University Press / Peeters, 2003. Barton, John. Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in Early Christianity. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997. ———. Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient Prophecy in Israel after the Exile. 1986. 2nd ed. London: Darton, Longman & Todd; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. ———. People of the Book? The Authority of the Bible in Christianity. 1988. 3rd ed. London: SPCK, 2011. Beckwith, Roger T. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism. London: SPCK; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985. Bruce, Frederick F. The Canon of Scripture. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity; Glasgow: Chapter House, 1988. Ellis, E. Earle. The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in the Light of Modern Research. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1991; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2019; online, 2003, 2019. Farmer, William R., Denis M. Farkasfalvy, and Harold W. Attridge. The Formation of the New Testament Canon: An Ecumenical Approach. New York: Paulist, 1983. Evans, Christopher F. Is “Holy Scripture” Christian? and Other Questions. London: SCM, 1971. Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1995. ———. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Gnuse, Robert K. The Authority of the Bible: Theories of Inspiration, Revelation, and the Canon of Scripture. New York: Paulist, 1985.

180

Biblical Exegesis

Grant, Robert M. The Formation of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Hahneman, Geoffrey M. The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Helmer, Christine, and Christof Landmesser, eds. One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological, and Philosophical Perspectives. 2004. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2008. Hengel, Martin. The Four Gospels and the One Gospel of Jesus Christ: An Investigation of the Collection and Origin of the Canonical Gospels. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity; London: SCM, 2000. Hengel, Martin, Roland Deines, Robert Hanhart, and Mark E. Biddle. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture: Its Prehistory and the Problem of Its Canon. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002. Leiman, Shnayer Z. The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence. 1976. 2nd ed. New Haven, CT: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1991. *McDonald, Lee M. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011; online, 2013. ———. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. 1988. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. *McDonald, Lee M., and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019. Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. 1987. New York: Oxford University Press; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Miller, John W. The Origins of the Bible: Rethinking Canon History. New York: Paulist, 1994. *Sundberg, Albert C., Jr. The Old Testament of the Early Church. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964; New York: Kraus, 1969. Trobisch, David. The First Edition of the New Testament. 2000. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2012. *Von Campenhausen, Hans F. The Formation of the Christian Bible. London: A&C Black; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972; Mifflintown, PA: Sigler, 1997.

Canonical Criticism *Barr, James. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983. *Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study. Rev. and enl. ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox; London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1996. Brett, Mark G. Biblical Criticism in Crisis? The Impact of the Canonical Approach on Old Testament Studies. 1991. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008; online, 2011. Brown, Raymond E. The Critical Meaning of the Bible. New York: Paulist; London: Chapman, 1981. Brueggemann, Walter, and Amy Erickson. The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education. 1982. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 2015. *Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. 1979. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. *———. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction. London: SCM, 1984; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985; Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994.



Canonical Criticism 181

Coats, George W., and Burke O. Long, eds. Canon and Authority: Essays In Old Testament Religion and Theology. 1973. Philadelphia, Fortress, 1977. Conrad, Edgar W. Reading the Latter Prophets: Toward a New Canonical Criticism. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2003; Sheffield: Continuum, 2004. Keegan, Terence J. Interpreting the Bible: A Popular Introduction to Biblical Hermeneutics. New York: Paulist, 1985. Noble, Paul R. The Canonical Approach: A Critical Reconstruction of the Hermeneutics of Brevard S. Childs. Leiden and New York: Brill, 1995. O’Neal, G. Michael. Interpreting Habakkuk as Scripture: An Application of the Canonical Approach of Brevard S. Childs. 1998. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Roth, Wolfgang. Isaiah. Atlanta: John Knox, 1988. Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2000. *———. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999. ———. Torah and Canon. 1972. 2nd ed. Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2005. Scalise, Charles J. From Scripture to Theology: A Canonical Journey into Hermeneutics. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1996. ———. Hermeneutics as Theological Prolegomena: A Canonical Approach. Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1994. Seitz, Christopher R., and Kathryn Greene-­McCreight, eds. Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Stuhlmacher, Peter, and Roy A. Harrisville. Historical Criticism and Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutics of Consent. 1977. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Wall, Robert W., and Eugene E. Lemcio, eds. The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992.

Chapter Eleven

Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy

O

ver the last fifty to seventy-­five years, biblical interpretation has undergone some significant changes. Many of these exegetical approaches derive from highly theoretical and often hotly contested assumptions. Sometimes they employ complex and seemingly arcane ways of reading the Bible. It is important for beginning exegetes to be aware of these changes and to have some sense of the larger interpretive framework within which they have occurred. Recent Changes and Cultural Shifts These changes in outlook and ways of thinking have happened within the context of some major social, scientific, and political changes that have affected the ways in which each of us as individuals, or the groups to which we belong, see ourselves. Advances in various fields of science have brought about some dramatic changes in the way we think about the world. Space exploration and discoveries related to astronomy and the origin of the universe now shape our understanding of such basic concepts as time and space. Genetics research has transformed how we think about the human being—and being human. Technological changes brought about by the invention and use of computers in their many forms, along with the rise and development of the internet and other forms of electronic communication, have fundamentally altered how we access, transmit, and use information. The implications of these have been so far-­reaching that some now speak of our time as the information age. As we have already noted in earlier chapters, these changes have certainly informed how we understand the seemingly simple concept of 182



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 183

“text.” While many of us still read and interpret texts printed on paper or on pages that are bound together and form books, others mainly read texts in some electronic form. How we conduct research or seek information about biblical texts has also changed, now that many resources and study tools are available electronically or online. Interpreters have also been challenged to think about texts in other ways—to see people and communities as “texts” that need to be read and interpreted. The combined effects of these changes have given new meaning to the terms “global” and “globalism”: now we think about the global economy or global politics, or more ominously of global warfare. Regardless of what we mean by these expressions, increasing global awareness has meant that voices and perspectives about religion, theology, and the Bible that were at one time muffled or even unheard, have now been heard anew and in different ways. This is especially true in the case of people and groups of people who live in contexts in which they experience political and other forms of oppression. Global sensibilities have also increased awareness of human rights and the ways in which such rights are challenged or even denied; also, we have more awareness of political structures in which the equality of all human beings and their inherent rights can come to expression. The rise of terrorism in its many forms, and efforts to combat global terrorism, have prompted declarations of war on terror in different parts of the world. These ongoing wars have given renewed visibility to the horrors of human conflicts and raised awareness of how modern nations have imposed their imperialist visions on other nations through colonization and other forms of political domination. Within such contexts in which one group of people is controlled or oppressed by another group of people, whether the form of control is political, military, or economic domination, the desire to be free has remained irrepressible. This has meant that the theme of liberation has shaped several forms of discourse, thereby giving rise to multiple forms of liberation theology: concern for liberating the poor from economic oppression, the underrepresented from political oppression, women from male domination, ethnic minorities from other ethnic groups that represent majority populations, and those who understand their sexuality as challenged or denied by other dominant views of sexual identity. From these multifaceted debates have emerged approaches variously described as liberationist, colonialist and postcolonialist, feminist and postfeminist, sexualist and homoeroticist, among others. Along with these current social, political, and cultural changes have come conversations and debates among scholars and other intellectuals

184

Biblical Exegesis

from many different fields, including history, philosophy, literature, and various forms of cultural studies in which interpretation in its many forms has been analyzed. While these efforts are often disparate and differentiated, many of them have been conducted under the rubric of “critical theory,” or sometimes simply called “theory,” terms that can mean different things to different people. But generally, what is being debated is the question of meaning—how meaning is expressed in written texts and oral communication, how meaning relates to human consciousness and our use of language, and how all of these function within the larger culture. Participants in these debates also explore whether meaning resides within a text or is something that occurs when readers interpret texts. Discussions also focus on the rules for determining what a text means or can mean. Of special concern is whether (and how) we can differentiate between levels of meaning, or between interpretations of a text’s meaning that are good or bad, true or false, persuasive or unpersuasive. These conversations and debates among academics and other intellectuals have often centered on certain textual theories about how texts can best be interpreted. In some cases, interpreters have proposed interpretive theories that seek to find themes of coherence or unifying principles expressed in a text. In other cases, interpreters have despaired of finding such principles of coherence, proposing instead that texts are characterized by puzzling features, or thematic dissonance in which contradictions or tensions recur. Although some interpreters emphasize the importance of formal features or structures of a text and how these relate to what are perceived as fairly fixed literary genres, others think such formalist approaches represent the mindset of the interpreter rather than inherent features of the text itself. Throughout these conversations, there is often a recurring interest in how a text expresses or depicts what is true. And true in what sense? In the way in which it portrays the so-­called real world, thus in a referential sense—how it refers to some form of external reality? Some have called for a more nuanced understanding between the world depicted in a text and how it relates to some other world outside the text. Others have questioned the sharp distinction often made between fiction and nonfiction, or between fictional and historical construals of the past. Are they really that different? And if so, how? The challenge facing beginning exegetes is how to make sense of the interpretive landscape in which we all now operate. Where should we position ourselves within this broader picture? How do we negotiate between the sometimes dizzying array of interpretive approaches that we find within scholarly literature at our disposal?



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 185

In the interest of simplification and in an effort to establish some reliable points of orientation for beginners, we propose a way of mapping the terrain that is organized around two reference points: Identity and Advocacy. Both terms have figured prominently in biblical interpretation over the past several decades. These terms are useful because they are interpretive categories that arise out of the debates about how best to interpret biblical texts. They are specific enough to provide some point of reference, but they are also general enough to encompass several different approaches. Rather than being seen as separate and mutually exclusive categories, Identity and Advocacy can be seen as complementary. Interpretive approaches closely related to the identity of the reader quite naturally give way to advocacy. Once certain interpretive issues surface, the interpreter can rightfully advocate for strategies of reading that make it possible to deal with a biblical text, or to continue to take it seriously even if its clear meaning is hard to assimilate within the reader’s interpretive world. Other ways of interpreting texts nowadays can rightly be classified as Advocacy readings, even though the interpretive issue is not primarily one that relates to some aspect of the interpreter’s identity. In this discussion, Identity and Advocacy serve as guideposts to help beginning exegetes find their way through the difficult and often complex terrain of biblical interpretation. The Abrams Communication Diagram In our earlier discussion of the process of textual communication, we displayed the diagram popularized by M. H. Abrams (see chap. 1). In this model, an author or editor conveys a message through a written text to a reader or audience. In some sense, the text reflects the “world” or “universe” shared by the author and reader. At earlier stages of biblical criticism, interpreters concentrated on the “universe” to which the text referred, the world of ancient Israel and the later world of early Christianity. Historical and social dimensions of those worlds were extensively researched. Scholars also learned to speak of the “symbolic world”—the images and symbols that were operative in expressing the visions and values of those who embraced that world. In both cases, the biblical text was seen as a collection of writings that referred to the Jewish and Christian worlds. Great attention was also given to those who produced those texts: the presumed authors or, as later scholars recognized, the community of editors who wrote those texts and were responsible for preserving them.

186

Biblical Exegesis

In the case of the OT, the priestly community was seen as producing much of the OT. But other authors were also identified and visualized in different ways. In the NT, the evangelists, either named or unnamed, were seen to be the authors of the Gospels, while other members of the Jesus movement, most notably Paul, were acknowledged as producing the letters included in the NT. The book of Revelation was attributed to the prophet John, sometimes equated with the author of the Fourth Gospel, at others times seen as a different author. As was the case with the “world” or “universe” of the biblical text, the authors/editors received an enormous amount of attention. Efforts were made to identify these authors. In some cases, especially with the Pauline Letters, scholars confidently reconstructed the life and context of the “apostle to the Gentiles,” to whom they are attributed. In the case of the General Epistles, the authors were understood as important figures in the early Christian movement—the apostles Peter and John, and James and Jude the brothers of Jesus. Just as the “universe/world” and “author/editor” received attention, so did the text itself, especially its origin but also its transmission and preservation. Scholars constructed an elaborate history of the text, tracing its movement through time. They took into account translations into other languages besides Hebrew and Greek, the copying of manuscripts, and the biblical quotations by early patristic authors. This “history of the text” later gave way to strategies of reading in which the “world of the text” could be examined. Narrative criticism focused on the ways in which narrative texts, most notably the canonical Gospels, portrayed a narrative world. Using this approach, scholars examined how the characters in the Gospels participated in their narrative worlds, and how their movements and actions were depicted by using characterization and plot. It was only a matter of time until interpreters turned their attention to the fourth point of the Abrams model: the reader or the audience to whom the text was directed. Efforts were made to determine the actual original audience. In some cases, especially in the NT letters, this was fairly clear. Paul’s letters typically identify their intended audience—the church at Rome, Corinth, Thessalonica, and so on. Similarly, individuals such as Philemon, Titus, and Timothy are named in the opening greetings as the intended readers. The Gospels, by contrast, are not as explicit in identifying their audience. Some envisioned specific communities of readers such as the Matthean, Markan, Lukan, and Johannine church; others saw the Gospels as addressed to the church in general, the universal church.



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 187

It has long been recognized that the biblical writings have two audiences: readers to whom the writings were initially addressed, but also readers in later generations who regarded them as authoritative for their respective communities. Sometimes these readers are identified as “implied readers” as a way of indicating that the specific identity of the readers may not be identifiable—at least, not easily discerned. In one sense, the recent period of biblical interpretation could be called the age of the reader. Previous periods focused heavily on the world/universe, author/editor, and the text; recent trends of interpretation have given great attention to the reader, especially the role of the reader in construing the meaning of the text. For a long time, the biblical text was often read as though meaning is embedded in the text, and the reader’s responsibility is to extract the meaning hidden or embedded within the text. Meaning was understood as something encoded in the text, and the reader’s responsibility is to “dig out” that meaning, to excavate the meaning, as it were. Meaning is something “in there” that the interpreter has to bring “out here” into the time and space of the modern reader. Some biblical interpreters, intrigued by the reader’s creative role, participated in what came to be called reader-­response criticism. In this approach, the reader is seen as an active participant in meaning-making, not simply as a passive recipient on whom the meaning somehow registers. Here the focus is on the imaginary space between the text and the reader, on what occurs within that space. In one sense, the text can be seen as inert, as something simply sitting there, waiting to be interpreted. But in another sense, the text is more than that. It is a written code within which signs and symbols function, all of which have their own inherent power to communicate with potential readers or reading communities. In a similar manner, readers are equipped with their own understanding of language, its use of signs and symbols, and its semantic possibilities, much of which is acquired through our participation in a specific culture with its distinctive forms of meaning-­making. Readers bring all this to the interpretive act of trying to make sense of a text. Through the connections between (1) the text and its world of signifiers, signs, and symbols, and (2) the interpretive capacities of readers, meaning-­making occurs: structures of explanation and interpretation are developed. Seen this way, the act of interpretation is one in which the reader is the prime, active agent who plays the decisive role in determining what a text means. According to the proponents of New Criticism, after a written text is completed by an author, it acquires a life of its own. The autonomy of the text is central. A text exists in its own right as a literary artifact.

188

Biblical Exegesis

The interpreter’s task is to read and interpret the text, not to use the text as a way of ascertaining the author’s intention. But in contrast to this approach, reader-­response criticism emphasizes the autonomy of the reader, who exercises authority and independence in ascertaining what a text means. In this way of construing the act of interpretation, the reader is the one who exercises active agency. The more this way of interpreting texts developed, the autonomy of the reader gave way to what might be called the imperial reader: the reader decides on the parameters of meaning, even dictating what will or will not, or what can and cannot, be brought into the space within which interpretation occurs. This represents a decisive shift of emphasis, one in which the reader and the identity of the reader are in the forefront. Identity: Gender, Sexuality, Ethnicity, Interpretive Strategies Interest in identity formation has become a major line of investigation within biblical scholarship. One influential school of thought argues that identity is socially constructed. Rather than being determined physically—or genetically, as in the case of individual human beings—identity can be seen as a cluster of influential factors that combine to establish identity in various forms. These may include gender, sexual, or ethnic identity, or some other type of identity. Others argue that this oversimplifies how identity originates and develops. Most agree that identity has two aspects. One aspect relates to our personal agency in interpreting our identity and ways in which we project that to society; the other aspect is how our identity is perceived by society and how we react to those perceptions. These two dimensions are always in dramatic tension with each other. Regardless of how we understand the dynamics of identity formation, it continues to be a major interest of many biblical interpreters. A lot of emphasis has also been given to the way in which our interpretive strategy is influenced by the social context in which we operate. This is often referred to as our social location. The circumstances in which we were born and reared, and within which our intellectual development has occurred, shape the ways in which we approach a text. We have learned to take these into account in whatever interpretations we develop. At one time, biblical scholars spoke of our “pre-­understanding” of a text and how this shapes the act of interpretation. Pre-­understanding can include several things, such as philosophical assumptions, social or scientific outlook, or even religious beliefs shaped by our family background. But it can also include the way we are typically shaped by specific theological traditions,



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 189

such as Reformed, Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, or Free Church. In each of these traditions, the interpretation of biblical passages exercises enormous influence on us as interpreters, even at a subconscious level. We have learned to be aware of these theological pre-­understandings as we approach any biblical text and to be open to the possibility that our cherished interpretations of texts can give way to new ways of understanding them. As the role of the reader received more emphasis, special challenges emerged when the reader’s own identity clashed with the biblical text. This could occur in different ways. Sometimes certain biblical passages in both the OT and NT spoke against, or even explicitly condemned, the reader’s own perceived or self-­constructed identity. This is especially the case when the reader self-­identifies as gay or lesbian. In other cases, readers found themselves standing against the overall thrust of the biblical witness. As readers began to acknowledge the predominantly patriarchal culture of ancient Israel and the early church, and the ways in which this construal of human relationships dominates the biblical story, female readers increasingly felt compelled to challenge “the biblical view of the world.” Interpretive challenges relating to the identity of readers could develop in different ways; three of the most important ways relate to (1) gender, (2) sexuality, and (3) ethnicity. Gender In this discussion, gender refers to whether the reader self-­identifies as male, female, or nonbinary. Although the tension between the reader’s identity and how it relates to many biblical passages and the biblical world more broadly is felt most sharply among female interpreters, it is often equally problematic for male interpreters. It is not as though female interpreters alone sense the urgency of developing strategies of reading for dealing with these tensions. Yet the heart of the matter is that the biblical story, both OT and NT, assumes the existence of patriarchal societies in which male figures occupy the primary roles of influence in the public sphere. Women had prominent, even defining, roles in the domestic sphere, especially in training and educating children and managing the household economy. Even so, the Bible is mainly androcentric, or man-­centered, not only in the world that it describes but also in the one that it assumes. Although feminist criticism can trace its roots to the work of Elizabeth Cady Stanton in the nineteenth century, it achieved special prominence

190

Biblical Exegesis

as an interpretive approach that arose in the 1960s in connection with the feminist movement globally. In its mid-­twentieth-­century version, feminist criticism originated as an effort to confront the difficulties posed by this sharp tension between the pervasively patriarchal world of the Bible and the ways in which that world challenged, even denied, the liberal democratic understanding of the full equality of women within human society. Through several waves of feminist criticism, different interpretive strategies have been developed and refined. Such projects as the Women’s Bible Commentary have been produced to provide alternative ways of reading the biblical texts. These scholarly efforts not only name the interpretive issues women face when reading certain stories, but also offer new insights and proposals for dealing with these difficult texts. Sexuality While sexuality and gender are inseparable in certain ways, here they are differentiated in order to call attention to the interpretive issues related specifically to homosexuality or to the broad range of issues encompassed in the acronym LGBTQIA+ (see glossary). Here the interpretive issues differ from those relating to gender, in which interpreters are dealing with vast social structures: patriarchal societies understood in the broadest sense. In this case, readers who self-­identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual are confronting specific biblical texts and in some sense a biblical worldview antithetical to their own sense of identity. Depending on the passage, whether from the OT or NT, and depending on the context in which a specific passage occurs, the Bible sometimes critiques or explicitly condemns homosexual identity and behaviors. We have seen shifts in the ways in which sexuality is viewed within different societies in the modern world. There have also been transformative changes in social legislation relating to LGBTQIA+ rights and other issues related to same-­sex marriage. In light of these changes, communities who embrace the Bible as their sacred text and who are committed to shape their lives by its teachings have had to examine these controversial texts and come to terms with the implications of these interpretations for their life and faith. Major Protestant denominations in the United States have wrestled with these issues for decades, with some of them reaching working compromises and others failing to do so. Earlier Christian controversies often dealt with theological issues such as Christology, or with other aspects of Christian belief relating to the Holy Spirit and the Trinity. The issues of gender and sexuality



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 191

relate primarily to anthropology: how human beings should be understood within the context of biblical theology. The underlying questions are posed: What does it mean to be human? How do our ways of being human relate to our understanding of God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the church? In addressing the range of issues relating to homosexuality, biblical scholars and other theologians have reexamined the problematic passages in both the OT and NT, along with the broader question of how homosexuality and homosexual relations were understood in both the ancient Near East and the Greco-­Roman world. An enormous amount of fresh, well-­researched scholarship has been produced on virtually every aspect of this question, including scholarly articles and monographs in which the relevant biblical passages have been examined and reexamined. Various strategies have been employed, one of which is to minimize the critique of homosexuality, such as Paul’s remarks in Romans 1–3 or in his other letters (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9–10). These can take the form of limiting Paul’s condemnation to certain types of homosexual activity such as pederasty, or insisting that Paul does not condemn homosexuality in principle but only excessive or self-­destructive forms of promiscuous homosexuality. Others insist that it is better to acknowledge the sharpness and severity of the biblical critique, but to contextualize it within its ancient setting; and then, having done so, develop alternative strategies that make sense in a twenty-­first-­century setting. Ethnicity Ethnicity can be understood in different ways, either geographically, regionally, or more broadly in terms of cultural traditions based on skin color or national identity. Typically, ethnic designations or categories include such designations as African or African American, Asian or Asian American, Latino/Latina A ­ merican, Native American, Caucasian or Caucasian American, and European. An even further deline­at­ ion occurs when categories of color are introduced—White, Black, Brown, or “persons of color”; or especially when these are combined with geographical or national categories: Black American, White American, and so on. Yet another level of identity differentiation results when gender and ethnic categories are combined: Womanist for Black female experience and Mujerista for the experience of Latina women. Over the past few decades, traditions of biblical interpretation have been developed with special emphasis given to the ethnic identity of the

192

Biblical Exegesis

reader, however this might be understood. African or African American biblical scholarship, sometimes described as Black scholarship, has developed around biblical texts and traditions that have been influential in shaping perceptions about race and ethnicity. Understandably, the focus of much of this scholarship has been slavery and the ways in which the Bible treats slavery. It is well known that slavery as a way of life, even as a social institution, is well documented through the OT and NT. The OT often refers to slaves and the treatment of slaves, and to prominent figures such as Abraham, along with a host of other prominent figures within Israel, as having slaves in their households. These references document the widespread practice of slavery in the ancient Near East. Similarly, in the NT the Gospels and Acts regularly report stories in which slaves appear as characters. The Pauline Letters also treat slavery as a part of Greco-­Roman society. In the household codes of Ephesians, Colossians, and 1 Peter, the responsibilities of slaves to their masters are outlined with a sense of normal social obligation. While the Letter to Philemon displays an enlightened view in which Paul urges his brother Philemon to treat his runaway slave Onesimus as a “more than a slave, but as a brother,” this is a small glimmer of hope. Occasionally the NT offers critical glimpses of slavery (Rev 18:13) or envisions alternative ways of envisioning human relationships (Gal 3:28). But nowhere does it offer an extended critique of slavery as a social institution, nor does it treat slavery as anything other than an ordinary part of Greco-­Roman life. The horrors of slavery in the later medieval and early modern world are amply documented, as is the history of slavery within the United States. Given the biblical views about slavery, it is easy to see why pro-­slavery advocates in the United States during the nineteenth century could support their views with biblical teachings; and also why anti-­slavery advocates and abolitionists used “moral intuition” to overcome biblical literalism. As with other cases, readers of the Bible could not help seeing what it reported about slavery, but eventually they came to see that a view of humanity in which such gross inequalities existed and that resulted in such palpable forms of evil had to be resisted rather than be accepted as biblical. Although not often included in discussions about the ethnicity of the reader, biblical passages relating to Jews and to Judaism more broadly can also be mentioned here. The experience of the Holocaust, because of its sheer enormity and unprecedented horror, marks a turning point. Post-­ Holocaust readings of the Bible have made all of us more sensitive to the ways in which Jews are portrayed in the New Testament. Increasingly



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 193

well known is the sad history of biblical interpreters, who identified themselves as Christian, conspiring with members of the Third Reich and propagating views of human existence that promoted Aryan supremacy while denigrating Jewish identity. Such claims were supported by biblical exegesis that seized on such passages as Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us [Jews] and on our children,” or John 8:44, “You [Jews] are from your father, the devil.” Besides individual passages that have been employed in Christian, anti-­Semitic polemic, a number of interpretive issues relate to how Judaism and Christianity are related to each other. Some read Luke–Acts as portraying the Jesus movement, and thus early Christianity, as superseding and thus replacing Judaism. This is then read as the plotline in which the God of Israel carries out the divine purpose in succeeding centuries. While this view of Luke–Acts is disputed, it points to a larger set of issues that require careful exegesis in order to determine how the early Christian movement related to its Jewish heritage. Interpretive Strategies While each of these categories of identity confronts a slightly different set of exegetical issues, they have developed reading strategies that have some common features. These include (1) retrieval or rediscovery; (2) expanded historical analysis; and (3) contrarian readings. 1. Retrieval. In this interpretive strategy, biblical interpreters have gone back into the biblical story in order to discover characters, events, or themes that relate directly to their own perceived sense of identity but that have either been overlooked, ignored, or suppressed by earlier readers. Feminist interpreters have surfaced numerous passages in the OT in which YHWH is referred to with names or metaphorical descriptors that are identifiably, or arguably, feminine. One of the most notable is Deuteronomy 32:18, in which a line from the well-­known Song of Moses uses the imagery of childbirth to chastise Israel for being disobedient in its pursuit of false gods: “You were unmindful of the Rock that bore you; / you forgot the God who gave you birth.” Other passages covering a broad spectrum have been adduced to challenge the notion that the OT depicts the God of Israel as exclusively masculine (see Num 11:12; Isa 42:14; 45:9–10; 46:3–4; 49:15; 66:9, 13; Job 10:10–11; 38:28–29; 39:1; Pss 22:9–10; 71:6; 131:2; Hos 11:1–4). Paul’s use of “labor pains” as a metaphor to describe the anguish he experiences for his churches (Gal 4:19–20) reflects the widespread use of this imagery in early Jewish

194

Biblical Exegesis

apocalyptic to characterize the suffering that comes with societal transformation (1 Enoch 62:4; 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 56:6; cf. Mark 13:8; Rev 12:2; similarly, Rom 8:22–23). Other forms of retrieval include exploring the roles of female characters in both the OT and NT and reinterpreting their significance in the biblical story. Alternative interpretations of the creation story have wrestled with the negative image of Eve as the most blameworthy participant in “the fall,” and the way this unflattering portrait of the first woman was perpetuated by Paul (2 Cor 11:3; cf. 1 Tim 2:13–14). Other interpretive efforts have resulted in renewed appreciation for the roles played by wives of the patriarchs in the Genesis narrative, along with other notable females such as Deborah the prophetess (Judg 4:4), one of the judges who led Israel. The famous “Song of Deborah” extols God’s power and triumph over Israel’s enemies (Judg 5) and praises her as “a mother in Israel” (5:7). Renewed emphasis has also been given to other female leaders, such as Esther and Judith. Given the prominence of Mary, the mother of Jesus, it is understandable why interpretive traditions venerating the “Holy Virgin, the Mother of God,” would originate quite early and continue to develop through the centuries. Feminist sensibilities have also resulted in reappraisal of other women mentioned in the NT. One of the most notable is the Samaritan woman (John 4), whose conversation with Jesus has usually been interpreted to mean that her moral character was blemished. But fresh appraisals of the story have developed alternative explanations suggesting that earlier lines of interpretation reflected male bias and that the story can be read in another, more positive way. Similar interpretive efforts have succeeded in showing that Junia, who is mentioned by Paul in Romans 16:7 as the wife of Andronicus, should be seen as someone who was a prominent apostle, not simply as someone who was prominent among the apostles. Strategies of retrieval have also been employed with respect to sexuality and ethnicity. In spite of the negative assessments of homosexuality in the OT and NT, some have pointed to the biblical portrayal of the close friendship of David and Jonathan as a possible counter example (1 Sam 18:1–3; 2 Sam 1:26). By including the conversion of the Ethiopian eunuch in his account of the early church (Acts 8:26–40), Luke gives a Black man a prominent role in the early Christian mission. The mention of “Egypt and the parts of Libya belonging to Cyrene” in the table of nations in Acts 2 includes the continent of Africa in the inaugural event of Christianity. The early spread of Christianity into Egypt and further into Africa has



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 195

prompted numerous efforts to reappraise the meaning and significance of African Christianity, not only at the earliest stages of the Jesus movement but also in its historical development through the centuries. 2. Expanded historical analysis. Research in each of the three areas of identity has yielded fresh perspectives for biblical interpretation. One of the earliest initiatives relates to the role of women in ancient Jewish synagogues. It was well known that synagogue inscriptions often included the names of women among the benefactors and that they were given titles, such as “mother of the synagogue.” In the earlier stages of scholarship relating to these inscriptions, it was assumed that these were honorific titles rather than titles that suggested more active roles in synagogue life. But reexamination of this evidence showed that the titles could be interpreted to mean that women actively participated in leadership roles. Similar studies also expanded our knowledge of women’s roles in early Christianity both as they related to Jesus himself and to Paul, along with other male leaders. Reexamination of homosexuality in the Greco-­Roman world, and of sexuality more broadly, has produced numerous monographs that offer encyclopedic treatment of sexual roles and sexual activity in the ancient world. These studies helped provide a broader canvas against which to understand attitudes toward homosexuality and to see the multidimensional character of this aspect of human activity. Distinctions between homosexuality as a way of being human, as opposed to promiscuous homosexual activity as a destructive practice, provided biblical exegetes a broader range of interpretive categories for examining passages relating to homosexuality. One of the major avenues of research relating to ethnicity focused on slavery, a topic that had already attracted the attention of classical scholars and historians of ancient Greece and Rome. Further research provided more comprehensive coverage of the ancient literary references, along with evidence from inscriptions and papyri. These efforts provided a broad framework within which to interpret the frequent references to slavery within both the OT and NT. They also explained why slavery was portrayed as a social fact of life in ancient Israel and ancient Greece and Rome. Some scholars distinguish between slave societies, such as classical Athens and republican and imperial Rome, and other societies in which slavery was widespread but did not function as a part of the economic and political structures in the same way. Especially helpful in evaluating biblical passages involving slavery as they relate to modern experiences of slavery is the role of skin color, which is not a decisive determinant of

196

Biblical Exegesis

slavery in ancient society but is the crucial determinant in the modern period. 3. Contrarian readings. One of the major strategies emerging within the interpretive efforts related to these three categories of identity is “reading against the grain.” This is especially the case when a biblical passage, or a group of passages from the same biblical author such as Paul, directly oppose the identity of the interpreter or community of interpretation. In the case of gender, not only the overall patriarchal or androcentric framework has to be challenged but also specific passages in which women are portrayed negatively. These include characterizations of women as weak or indecisive (2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:13–14; 1 Pet 3:7), as morally culpable in some sense (John 4), or as needing to be controlled (1 Cor 14:33–35; 1 Tim 2:11–12) by placing them within a hierarchical structure in which their full identity or equality is denied or suppressed (1 Cor 11:2–16). In these cases, interpreters find themselves “reading against the grain”: understanding the literal sense of the text but opposing it on moral and humane grounds. The same is true with texts relating to homosexuality, when interpreters, after extensive research and exegetical analysis, conclude that a biblical passage understood in its plain, literal sense opposes or explicitly condemns homosexual identity and behavior. In these cases, they develop strategies of interpretation in which they find ways to reject the implications of what is expressed in the passage. In the nineteenth-­century debates about slavery in the United States, while pro-­ slavery advocates appropriated the Bible to support their beliefs that slavery is a divinely approved institution, anti-­slavery advocates could only deal with these difficult texts by developing contrarian readings. While recognizing that both the OT and NT accept slavery as a given aspect of social organization and fail to offer any incisive, sustained critique of slavery as an institution, abolitionists found themselves defiantly opposing its overall message. Such reading strategies have been designated in different ways. Some see them as protest readings, in which interpreters are protesting against the plain meaning of the biblical text. Certain forms of ideological criticism have enabled readers to analyze the overall ideology of a text, or the ideological framework within which a text has been composed, and to read a text while asking, “Who benefits from the way this text construes the world?” This way of reading has also been referred to as operating with a “hermeneutic of suspicion,” wherein the reader interprets a text suspiciously, skeptical of how a text imposes certain demands on the reader.



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 197 Advocacy: Liberation Theology, Postcolonialism

Advocacy readings can derive from identity-driven exegesis. Feminist readers advocate interpretive strategies that critique patriarchal, androcentric texts, while also developing fresh, new readings that advocate the full equality of all people. Similarly, LGBTQIA+ readers can advocate for ways of reading the biblical text that acknowledge the legitimacy of their perspectives and values. Advocacy readings can also occur independently of interpretive issues related to the reader’s identity. This occurs when interpreters appropriate biblical perspectives, themes, or motifs in order to address certain social, political, or religious issues such as poverty or climate change. Some prominent examples of advocacy readings include liberation theology and postcolonialism. Liberation Theology Beginning in the 1950s, and especially in Latin America, a movement arose that called attention to people throughout the world who are economically poor, politically disenfranchised, and culturally deprived. Their marginal status is both real and metaphorical: many of them live on the margins of society, in refugee camps, huts, or run-­down neighborhoods at some distance from thriving urban centers; they are also marginalized in the sense that they are peripheral in the thinking of the rest of the world, especially in the minds of rich, educated elites. This movement, which came to be known as “liberation theology,” was influenced by Vatican II, Marxist analysis, and a greater recognition of the general living conditions prevailing in the so-­called third world. This concern for the poor and oppressed was acknowledged by the church and caught the attention of some biblical scholars. Small “base communities” provided the context in which the movement gained momentum. In 1968, the second Latin American Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Medellín, Colombia, provided an even greater platform for publicizing liberationist thinking by endorsing forms of theology that give “a preferential option for the poor.” Proponents argued strenuously that biblical exegesis cannot ignore those who live on the margins. Nor can it be neutral toward the poor but must side with them in their struggle against oppression in every form. Liberation theologians have made extensive use of the Bible in their calls for the transformation of society. Biblical texts and themes have

198

Biblical Exegesis

been appropriated in their efforts to make the Bible relevant to the needs of the poor and disadvantaged. Especially prominent in liberationist exegesis is the use of the exodus story, in which slavery, oppression, and freedom are reported as living realities within the life of Israel (Exod 6:1–9). Equally important are the mandates to care for the poor that figure prominently in Torah legislation (Exod 22:25; 23:6, 11; Lev 19:10; 23:22; Deut 24:12, 14–15); so are the numerous prophetic voices that condemn the wealthy for their neglect or exploitation of the poor (Isa 3:14–15; 10:2; Ezek 16:49; Amos 5:11; 8:4, 6). Another rich resource for liberation exegetes are the numerous stories in the Gospels that show Jesus embracing the poor. One of the most notable is Luke’s account of Jesus’ inaugural sermon at Nazareth, in which he draws on Isaiah 61:1–2 to formulate his programmatic mission statement, proposing “to bring good news to the poor” (Luke 4:16–30). True to form, “Blessed are the poor” heads the list of the Beatitudes in Luke’s account of Jesus’ Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:20). Other strata of the NT offered similar possibilities. Organizing a collection for the poor members of the Jerusalem church became a critically important project within the Pauline mission (Rom 15:26; 1 Cor 16:3; 2 Cor 8–9; Gal 2:10; cf. Acts 11:29–30). An overriding concern for the poor typifies the Letter of James (2:2–6; 5:1–6). Liberation theology has been influential in challenging the traditional theological paradigm. As an alternative, it has emphasized contextual theology in which theological proposals and formulations are shaped by social and political contexts rather than being derived from some theoretically conceived, conceptual framework. Such calls have altered the way in which theology as a system of belief or as a way of life is understood. Because the theme of liberation has broad appeal and can be appropriated in other contexts in which people are experiencing oppression or domination, liberation theology in its multiple forms has also been appropriated by the identity groups discussed earlier, such as feminist, LGBTQIA+, and ethnicity theologians. Liberation exegesis has become a staple of biblical interpretation not only in Latin American countries but also throughout the rest of the world. South Korea in the 1970s provided a generative context in which liberation theology acquired a distinct cultural form. Minjung theology, a title derived by combining min (people) and jung (mass), emerged as a theological movement that took account of the centuries of Korean suffering under Chinese and Japanese domination and that continued in later wars and periods of political strife. Calls for social justice, protection



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 199

of human rights, and political structures that fostered democratic rule characterized this form of indigenous theology. Liberation themes and strategies also inform Dalit theology, which emerged in India in the 1980s as a way of breaking through the caste system and other social structures that limited religious belief and expression. Postcolonialism Since the 1980s, scholarly interest has developed in a cluster of interpretive issues related to the political phenomenon of colonization. Many see Edward Said’s book Orientalism (1979) as the primary catalyst. Beginning in the mid-­sixteenth century, several European countries began expanding their political influence by exploring other parts of the world. Operating with what came to be known as the Doctrine of Discovery, through which the Roman Catholic Church authorized countries under its influence to explore other regions of the world in order to discover “uncivilized peoples” and “civilize” them, European explorers gained control of vast territories in the Americas, Africa, and Asia. Thus began the age of colonization, which lasted until the mid-­twentieth century, when the effects of two world wars transformed global political alliances and their geographical boundaries. European empires gradually released control of their colonies, with British control of India ending in 1947, when India and Pakistan were established as independent states. Although colonization ended formally, the effect of years, even centuries, of colonial rule continued. Even so, we are now said to live in a postcolonial era, and the formal study of the multifaceted phenomenon of colonization—its causes, its multiple forms, its residual effects—is referred to as postcolonialism. Closely allied with postcolonialism is the field of empire studies. This nomenclature makes sense because the period of colonization saw the rise and expansion of empires such as the British Empire, along with other forms of imperial rule in Russia, Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Some scholars speak of the “politics of imperialism” that characterized nineteenth-­century Europe. Although colonization and imperial expansion radiated from different regions including Asia (China, Japan) and Europe, postcolonialism has focused especially on how European theological scholarship and biblical studies were shaped by the forces of colonization. Of special concern is how European scholars conducted research and wrote about peoples and customs in colonized countries. The power dynamic at work in such

200

Biblical Exegesis

research is of special interest to postcolonialism, which sees the need to expose the viewpoints and attitudes of the powerful and to recover those of the colonized. It is easy to see why such forms of analysis are often criticized for having a Marxist bent. Class struggle becomes one of the primary lenses through which scholarly writings, along with the Bible, are interpreted. Postcolonialist scholars are often sharply critical, and even dismissive, of European scholarship as it developed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and continued into the twentieth and twenty-­first centuries. This Eurocentric tradition of scholarship is usually criticized for its Enlightenment roots and the corollary conviction that interpreters should seek to be rational and objective in their approach and in their exegetical analysis. Accordingly, postcolonialist critics expend a lot of effort to deconstruct or dismantle European scholarship in order to expose the power structures that informed and shaped it. They also try to rediscover the voices of the marginalized, those who have been colonized and subjugated by what is characterized as imperial scholarship. One of the benefits of postcolonialist scholarship is the recognition that much of the Bible was written within a context shaped by imperial rule, whether it was the Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, or Romans. Much of the OT literature was written during periods of exile and illustrates how those who had been defeated responded to foreign rule. Since the NT writings were composed in contexts that existed under imperial Rome, they are also seen as valuable sources for seeing how the concepts of empire and imperialism should be taken into account in the biblical exegesis of these texts. Some have argued that empire sensibilities and empire studies should be at the center of NT biblical criticism. As it applies to biblical exegesis, postcolonialism insists on analyzing passages in terms of the power dynamics they display. The text may be a story from the Gospels, or even a paraenetic or polemical text from one of the NT letters. The main interest is in seeing who possesses power and who does not, or in recognizing how a passage reflects the author’s position of power vis-­à-­vis the reader. This means that postcolonialist exegesis often has a sharp political thrust: it is interested in exposing the politics of power reflected in the text. Postcolonialism belongs squarely within the category of advocacy interpretation. Reading strategies within postcolonialist scholarship may result from tensions created by the message of a text and the reader’s identity. If readers self-­identify as being among the colonized, or are living and working within a context still defined and shaped by colonial



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 201

rule, they might chafe at the OT accounts of the conquest of the land of Canaan in Joshua and Judges, stories in which the Canaanites and other inhabitants of the land are defeated or even annihilated. But postcolonialist scholars are usually inviting readers to read the Bible with a “postcolonial optic” in order to see how this perspective, informed by awareness of the entire historical process of colonization, can illuminate certain features of the text that might otherwise be overlooked. The overall goal is to see how the Bible, when read through this interpretive lens, can challenge all efforts to colonize, dominate, and subjugate other people. In this respect, postcolonialism has strong affinities with liberation theology. The Broader Context: Postmodernism In the mid-­twentieth century, sometime around 1960, a shift in thinking began to emerge, especially among intellectuals and academicians working in a number of fields in which the reading and interpretation of texts are a central component. These included literary and cultural studies, philosophy, history, and the social sciences more broadly, although the changes were also reflected in the fields of art, architecture, music, and drama. Typically the shift is characterized as a move away from modernism, a period that extended from roughly 1900 until the mid-­twentieth century. Modernism is usually associated with highly rational forms of thinking, in which firmly fixed beliefs and assumptions—foundationalism—are fixed points of reference. Also prominent are linear forms of thinking, especially as they relate to history and historical investigation, which means that developmental schemes of interpretation are often associated with modernism. Explanations may have an evolutionary character, moving from simple to more complex forms, and often linked with notions of linear progress. The period after modernism, called postmodernism, is said to reflect a different set of sensibilities, emphases, overall themes, and interpretive approaches. One of the most defining ideas is radical diversity, which is linked with the awareness of plurality, or perhaps more accurately, pluralities. These may include pluralities of perspective, methodological approach, assumptions, beliefs, cultures, and interpretations. The specific experiences of individuals, or particularities pure and simple, also acquire central importance. The cumulative effect of these changes is said to reflect a shift from objectivity to subjectivity, from firm to tentative, from the general to the specific, from the single to the plural. The

202

Biblical Exegesis

overall mood of postmodernism, rather than being “out of many, one,” might be described as “out of one, many.” As already noted, these changes were debated and promoted by scholars in many different fields, which explains why postmodernism has such an interdisciplinary character. While the debates crossed disciplinary boundaries, the discussions often centered on amorphous fields such as cultural studies or were linked with critical theory. Regardless of the specific academic field or the area of intellectual thought in which these discussions occurred, participants analyzed and reexamined all aspects of the Abrams diagram—author, text, universe, and reader (see chap. 1 above). Also operative within these discussions are different versions of ideological criticism. Notions of power are usually a major interpretive focus. Readers seek to identify the power dynamic at work within a particular composition. They ask: “What are the hidden dynamics at work within the text? Whom does the text favor? Whom does it exclude from view?” Rather than looking for unifying themes within a text or trying to find aspects of coherence, readers look instead for points of dissonance, for tensions within the text, for ways of exposing hidden assumptions. This overall approach—in which the reader, perhaps we should say “the imperial reader,” decides which questions should be put to the text and what answers the text can yield—is rightly referred to as a “hermeneutic of suspicion.” The reader is suspicious of the text and the author who produced it rather than giving either the benefit of the doubt as an initial interpretive assumption. Instead of being sympathetic with a text, the reader stands over against it. Rather than seeing a direct cause-­effect relationship between (1) what we have called Identity readings and Advocacy readings and (2) the broader cultural phenomenon of postmodernism, it is better to think of postmodernism as the larger, loosely organized and often diffuse, intellectual framework within which these readings take place. Specific strategies of reading texts may reflect postmodern sensibilities, but the interpreter may not be operating self-­consciously as a postmodernist. Whether we think of postmodernism as a mood, perhaps as an ethos, or as a well-­defined and coherent intellectual position informed by certain discernible convictions, its influence in the last seventy-­five years can scarcely be denied. It is worth asking whether postmodernism as a broad cultural phenomenon, or even as a major interpretive approach to texts, has significantly influenced biblical criticism. For those involved in debates about critical theory in its many forms, the stakes are obviously high, and the



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 203

hermeneutical implications are consequential. But many biblical critics are highly skeptical and sometimes even dismissive of postmodernism, accusing its advocates of promising much and delivering little. If we look at the body of scholarship that has been produced by biblical critics over the last fifty to seventy-­five years, the vast majority of it still reflects the basic assumptions and outlook, along with the interpretive methods, of historical criticism. In order to understand what one finds in most biblical commentaries and related reference works, the beginning exegete needs to know the basic principles of the historical-­critical method of interpreting the Bible. Yet it is also important to be familiar with the larger network of conversations that have occurred, and are still occurring, in order to offer alternative approaches to reading and interpreting biblical texts. Bibliography General Adam, A. K. M. Faithful Interpretation: Reading the Bible in a Postmodern World. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. ———. Handbook of Postmodern Biblical Interpretation. St. Louis: Chalice, 2000. ———. Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible: A Reader. St. Louis: Chalice, 2001. *———. What Is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. The Empire Writes Back: Theory and Practice in Post-­Colonial Literatures. London: Routledge, 1989. Bailey, Randall C., Tat-­siong Benny Liew, and Fernando F. Segovia, eds. They Were All Together in One Place? Toward Minority Biblical Criticism. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009. Boyarin, Daniel. A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Buell, Denise Kimber. Why This New Race: Ethnic Reasoning in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. Castelli, Elizabeth A., Stephen D. Moore, Gary A. Phillips, and Regina M. Schwartz, eds. The Postmodern Bible: Bible and Culture Collective. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995. Clines, David J. A. Interested Parties: The Ideology of Writers and Readers of the Hebrew Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Collins, John J. The Bible after Babel: Historical Criticism in a Postmodern Age. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. Donaldson, Terence L. Gentile Christian Identity from Cornelius to Constantine: The Nations, the Parting of the Ways, and Roman Imperial Ideology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2020. Fredriksen, Paula, and Adele Reinhartz, eds. Jesus, Judaism, and Christian Anti-­Judaism: Reading the New Testament after the Holocaust. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2002. Hayes, John H., ed. Methods of Biblical Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004. Levison, John R., and Priscilla Pope-­Levison. Return to Babel: Global Perspectives on the Bible. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999.

204

Biblical Exegesis

Lieu, Judith. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-­Roman World. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. *Lyotard, Jean-­François. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Translated by G. Bennington and B. Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1984. McKnight, Edgar V. Postmodern Use of the Bible: The Emergence of Reader-­Oriented Criticism. Nashville: Abingdon, 1988. Nicolet-­Anderson, Valérie. Constructing the Self: Thinking with Paul and Michel Foucault. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012. Perdue, Leo G. Reconstructing Old Testament Theology: After the Collapse of History. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005. Rogerson, J. W. According to the Scriptures? The Challenge of Using the Bible in Social, Moral, and Political Questions. London: Equinox, 2006. Scholz, Susanne, ed. Biblical Studies Alternatively: An Introductory Reader. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003. Segovia, Fernando F., and Mary Ann Tolbert, eds. Reading from This Place. Vol. 1, Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in the United States. Vol. 2, Social Location and Biblical Interpretation in Global Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.

Liberation Theologies *Boff, Leonardo, and Clodovis Boff. Introducing Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1987. Brown, Robert McAfee. Gustavo Gutiérrez: An Introduction to Liberation Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1990. Croatto, J. Severino. Exodus: A Hermeneutic of Freedom. 1978. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1981. Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973. ———. We Drink from Our Own Wells: The Spiritual Journey of a People. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984. Míguez Bonino, José. Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975. ———, ed. Faces of Jesus: Latin American Christologies. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984. Tombs, David. Latin American Liberation Theology. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Van Iersel, Bas, and Anton Weiler, eds. Exodus: A Lasting Paradigm. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987.

Feminist Criticism Bach, Alice, ed. Women in the Hebrew Bible: A Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1999. Bauckham, Richard. Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. Bird, Phyllis A. Missing Persons and Mistaken Identities: Women and Gender in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1997. ———, ed. Reading the Bible as Women: Perspectives from Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Semeia 78. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Boer, Roland, and Jorunn Økland, eds. Marxist Feminist Criticism of the Bible. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2008.



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 205

Brenner, Athalya, ed. A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible: Approaches, Methods and Strategies. London and New York: Routledge, 2001. Brooten, Bernadette J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex.” New York: Routledge, 1993. ———. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 1990. Cannon, Katie. Katie’s Canon: Womanism and the Soul of the Black Community. New York: Continuum, 1995. Choi, Hee An, and Katheryn P. Darr, eds. Engaging the Bible: Critical Readings from Contemporary Women. Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 2006. Clifford, Anne M. Introducing Feminist Theology. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001. Day, Linda, and Carolyn Pressler, eds. Engaging the Bible in a Gendered World: An Introduction to Feminist Biblical Interpretation in Honor of Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Day, Peggy L., ed. Gender and Difference in Ancient Israel. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989. Frankel, Ellen. The Five Books of Miriam: A Woman’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: G. P. Putnam, 1996. Frymer-­Kensky, Tikva. Reading the Women of the Bible: A New Interpretation of Their Stories. New York: Schocken Books, 2002. Gafney, Wilda C. Womanist Midrash: A Reintroduction to the Women of the Torah and the Throne. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2017. Grant, Jacquelyn. White Women’s Christ and Black Women’s Jesus: Feminist Christology and Womanist Response. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Hylen, Susan. Women in the New Testament World. New York: Oxford University, 2019. Kraemer, Ross Shepherd, ed. Women’s Religion in the Greco-­Roman World: A Source Book. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. Kwok, Pui-­lan. Introducing Asian Feminist Theology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. *Lapsley, Jacqueline E. Whispering the Word: Hearing Women’s Stories in the Old Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Levine, Amy-­Jill, with Marianne Blickenstaff, eds. A Feminist Companion to [the New Testament]. Multivolume series. Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 2003–. Miller, Patricia Cox. Women in Early Christianity: Translations from Greek Texts. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2005. *Newsom, Carol A., Sharon H. Ringe, and Jacqueline E. Lapsley, eds. The Women’s Bible Commentary. 3rd ed., 20th anniversary ed., revised and updated. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2012. Pardes, Ilana. Countertraditions in the Bible: A Feminist Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. Pippin, Tina. Death and Desire: The Rhetoric of Gender in the Apocalypse of John. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1992. Plaskow, Judith. Standing Again at Sinai: Judaism from a Feminist Perspective. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Russell, Letty, ed. Feminist Interpretation of the Bible. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985. Sakenfeld, Katharine Doob. Just Wives? Stories of Power and Survival in the Old Testament and Today. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003.

206

Biblical Exegesis

Schroeder, Joy A., and Marion Ann Taylor. Voices Long Silenced: Women Biblical Interpreters through the Centuries. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2022. Schüssler Fiorenza, Elisabeth. Bread Not Stone: The Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Rev. ed. Boston: Beacon, 1995. ———, ed. Feminist Biblical Studies in the Twentieth Century. The Bible and Women 9. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. ———, ed. Searching the Scriptures: A Feminist Commentary. 2 vols. New York: Crossroad, 1993–94. *———. Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2001. Taylor, Marion Ann, and Agnes Choi, eds. Handbook of Women Biblical Interpreters: A Historical and Bibliographical Guide. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2012. Taylor, Marion Ann, and Heather E. Weit, eds. Let Her Speak for Herself: Nineteenth-­Century Women Writing on Women in Genesis. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006. Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978. *———. Texts of Terror: Literary-­Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. Weems, Renita J. Just a Sister Away: A Womanist Vision of Women’s Relationships in the Bible. San Diego: LuraMedia, 1988.

African and African American Approaches Adeyemo, Tokunboh. African Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006. Blount, Brian K. Can I Get a Witness? Reading Revelation through African American Culture. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Blount, Brian K., Cain Felder, Clarice Martin, and Emerson Powery, eds. True to Our Native Land: An African American New Testament Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007. Brown, Michael J. Blackening of the Bible: The Aims of African American Scholarship. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2004. Byron, Gay L. Symbolic Blackness and Ethnic Difference in Early Christian Literature. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. Cleage, Albert B. The Black Messiah. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1968. Dube, Musa W., ed. Other Ways of Reading: African Women and the Bible. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Felder, Cain Hope. Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narrative. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. ———, ed. Stony the Road We Trod: African American Biblical Interpretation. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991. ———. Troubling Biblical Waters: Race, Class, and Family. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1989. Harrill, J. Albert. Slaves in the New Testament: Literary, Social, and Moral Dimensions. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006. Kelley, Shawn. Racializing Jesus: Race, Ideology, and the Formation of Modern Biblical Scholarship. New York: Routledge, 2002. Mosala, Itumeleng J. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989. Oduyoye, Mercy Amba. Hearing and Knowing: Theological Reflections on Christianity in Africa. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1986.



Exegesis: Identity and Advocacy 207

———. Introducing African Women’s Theology. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Ukpong, Justin S. African Interpretations of the Bible. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2006. West, Gerald O., and Musa W. Dube, eds. The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2000. *Wimbush, Vincent L. ed. African Americans and the Bible: Sacred Text and Social Textures. New York: Continuum, 2000. ———. The Bible and African Americans: A Brief History. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003. ———. Black Flesh Matters: Essays on Runagate Interpretation. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2022.

Postcolonial Interpretation Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. 1994. New York: Routledge, 2004. Boer, Roland. Last Stop before Antarctica: The Bible and Postcolonialism in Australia. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2001. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Provincializing Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. Choi, Jin Young. Postcolonial Embodiment of Discipleship: An Asian and Asian-­American Feminist Reading of the Gospel of Mark. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015. Dube, Musa W., Andrew Mbuvi, and Dora Mbuwayesango, eds. Postcolonial Perspectives in African Biblical Interpretations. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012. Dube, Musa W., and Jeffrey Lloyd Staley, eds. John and Postcolonialism: Travel, Space, and Power. The Bible and Postcolonialism 7. London: Sheffield Academic, 2002. Fabella, Virginia, and Rasiah S. Sugirtharajah. Dictionary of Third World Theologies. Mary­ knoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. Horsley, Richard A. In the Shadow of Empire: Reclaiming the Bible as a History of Faithful Response. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2008. Kwok, Pui-­lan. Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology. Louisville, KY, and London: Westminster John Knox, 2005. *———. Postcolonial Politics and Theology: Unraveling Empire for a Global World. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2021. Lazarus, Neil. The Postmodern Unconscious. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Moore, Stephen D. Empire and Apocalypse: Postcolonialism and the New Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2006. Moore, Stephen D., and Fernando Segovia, eds. Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: Interdisciplinary Intersections. London and New York: T&T Clark International, 2005. Nandy, Ashis. The Intimate Enemy: Loss and Recovery of Self under Colonialism. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1983. Poddar, Prem, Rajeev S. Patke, and Lars Jensen, eds. A Historical Companion to Postcolonial Literatures: Continental Europe and Its Empires. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2008. Runesson, Anna. Exegesis in the Making: Postcolonialism and New Testament Studies. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Said, Edward W. Orientalism. 1978. New York: Vintage Books, 2003. Schwartz, Seth. Imperialism and Jewish Society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

208

Biblical Exegesis

Segovia, Fernando F. Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2000. ———. Interpreting beyond Borders. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 2000. Segovia, Fernando F., and R. S. Sugirtharajah. A Postcolonial Commentary on the New Testament Writings. London: T&T Clark, 2007. Stanley, Christopher D., ed. The Colonized Apostle: Paul through Postcolonial Eyes. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2011. *Sugirtharajah, Rasiah S., ed. The Postcolonial Bible Reader. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006. ———. Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2002. ———. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1991. Trible, Phyllis, and Letty M. Russell, eds. Hagar, Sarah, and Their Children: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Perspectives. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Young, Robert. Colonial Desire: Hybridity in Theory, Culture, and Race. New York: Routledge, 1995.

LGBTQIA+ Interpretation Brooten, Bernadette J. Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996. Guest, Deryn. When Deborah Met Jael: Lesbian Biblical Hermeneutics. London: SCM, 2005. Guest, Deryn, Robert Goss, Mona West, and Thomas Bohache, eds. The Queer Bible Commentary. London: SCM, 2006. Loader, William. Making Sense of Sex: Attitudes towards Sexuality in Early Jewish and Christian Literature. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2013. *———. Sex, Then and Now: Sexualities and the Bible. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2022. ———. Sexuality and Gender: Collected Essays. WUNT 458. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2021. ———. Sexuality in the New Testament. London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2010. Martin, Dale B. Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2006. Moore, Stephen D. God’s Beauty Parlor: And Other Queer Spaces in and around the Bible. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2001. ———. God’s Gym: Divine Male Bodies of the Bible. New York: Routledge, 1996. Moxnes, Halvor. Putting Jesus in His Place: A Radical Vision of Household and Kingdom. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2003. Nissinen, Martti. Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: A Historical Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Stone, Ken. Practicing Safer Texts: Food, Sex and Bible in Queer Perspective. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004. ———, ed. Queer Commentary and the Hebrew Bible. London: Sheffield Academic; Cleveland: Pilgrim, 2001.

Chapter Twelve

Integrating Exegetical Procedures

T

he goal of exegesis is to arrive at an informed understanding of a text. All the exegetical procedures and types of criticism discussed in the preceding chapters contribute toward this aim. At this point, the beginning exegete may feel overwhelmed by the many different approaches to exegesis and their complexities. One might ask, “Is all this necessary merely to understand a text? How is it possible to use and integrate all these procedures?” Before discussing some of the more practical aspects of exegesis, we offer several suggestions. Some Preliminary Observations 1. The task of biblical exegesis is closely related to other aspects of theological education. Many theological courses require students to read and analyze texts, whether primary or secondary. For this reason, theological students or those taking courses in college and university religion departments have many opportunities to practice exegesis other than in courses related to the Bible. Whenever we encounter a text in any of our courses and ask such questions as “How should I read this text? What does it mean? Why is it said this way? How can I express what this text says in my own words?” we are doing exegesis. We should remember that most theological work is exegetical in orientation. As we develop exegetical skills in other areas—such as church history, systematic theology, ethics, sociology of religion, and practical theology—we should use this learning in our Bible courses. It also works in reverse. What we learn as a biblical exegete is transferable to other theological courses and settings. 209

210

Biblical Exegesis

The same principle applies in nontheological settings. If we are learning exegesis in a course in a college or university department of religion or religious studies, we develop interpretive skills that can also be employed in other courses. Similarly, what we learn in history and literature courses, or in any course that requires us to read and interpret written texts, can benefit us in undergraduate courses that introduce students to early Jewish and Christian literature. 2. Practically all biblical studies, even if they are not designated as “exegetical,” are relevant to the task of exegesis. Introductory and other courses on the Bible explore the nature and content of biblical documents, the history and religion of Israel and the early church, and the culture and background of biblical texts. Many of these areas of study provide valuable information and insights needed in exegetical work. As we become more informed about the Bible, we become better exegetes. Connections between what we learn in more general, thematic courses about the Bible and exegesis courses may not always be obvious. We may need to make these connections ourselves. Integrating our biblical learning requires conscious—and consistent—effort. 3. Not every exegetical procedure we have discussed is relevant to every text. Some texts present no significant text-­critical problems. Although there are thousands of textual variants within the manuscript tradition of the NT, relatively few of them will significantly affect our understanding of a passage. As we study a biblical passage, some exegetical approaches are more significant than others. Seldom will we use every method of biblical criticism in analyzing a single passage. 4. Exegesis frequently occurs unconsciously. As we have noted, many exegetical approaches are based on common sense. They may have technical names and use complex methods, but they usually operate with a simple logic. Even if certain methods seem abstract and complicated, the scholars who developed them were often trying to answer basic questions. As we employ these methods, often the challenge is to follow our own intuition and exercise good judgment in framing interpretive questions and formulating answers to those questions. In practice, this means that when we read a biblical passage and try to make sense of it, we may be doing grammatical analysis or engaged in canonical criticism without even realizing it. Our task is not so much applying each type of criticism we have discussed to a biblical passage but rather letting the passage dictate the kinds of interpretive methods we need to use. Doing exegesis is less about applying methods and more



Integrating Exegetical Procedures 211

about seeking meaning. As we engage in the latter, we will become more proficient in doing the former. The search for meaning can be an important catalyst for finding the right method. 5. We are indebted to our predecessors. It is important to remember that, while many of the types of biblical criticism we have discussed were developed in the last two or three centuries and acquired technical terminology of relatively recent vintage, most of them have earlier precedents. Throughout our discussion, we have tried to illustrate how biblical interpreters in earlier periods anticipated modern interpretive methods. In some cases, such as textual criticism, our modern methods actually originated in the early centuries of the Common Era. Remembering these connections with earlier exegetes will help us see that many of the questions we ask as modern readers have occurred to Bible readers throughout the centuries in many different historical and cultural settings. 6. We should not use the different types of biblical criticism as though we were cooking from a recipe. We will not necessarily employ them in the order in which they are discussed in this book. Although we have tried to introduce them in a logical fashion and to show how certain methods led to the development of other methods, we do not think of them as steps we should take along a preset path. For the beginning exegete, it might make sense to apply each type of criticism to a passage in the order in which we have introduced them. Asking whether a passage contains textual variants that significantly affect the interpretation is a natural first step. Doing text-­critical analysis is the place to begin. Then moving to methods of analysis discussed in the following chapters, such as historical criticism, grammatical criticism, and so on, is also a logical approach. In practice, it usually works differently. We may begin by reading a biblical text several times, trying to follow its logic, establish its historical frame of reference, place it within its larger literary context, and identify its form or genre. While doing these things, we may discover an important textual variant that requires us to employ textual criticism. Or, as we try to understand a passage, we may begin to notice its composite literary character. This, in turn, might prompt us to ask whether different strands of earlier tradition have come together. If so, we would then employ tradition criticism. As a general rule, we should allow the passage to dictate which methods we use and the order in which we use them, rather than applying them in some mechanical, stair-­step fashion. We will often find that the

212

Biblical Exegesis

various types of criticism are interrelated. Text-­critical conclusions, for example, may depend upon what we have decided about form-­critical questions. Whether a particular textual variant is more original may depend on decisions that relate to the literary form of the passage. Sometimes text-­critical conclusions are closely related to how we analyze a passage grammatically. Getting Started We have emphasized the importance of letting the questions and exegetical issues arise from the text itself. But how is this done? A way to start is by reading and rereading the passage in its context several times. It often helps to read the passage in several different modern translations or versions. As we reread the passage, we can formulate our own questions. They might be questions that we bring to the text, but also questions that arise from our fresh reading of the text. If the same questions or the same types of questions keep surfacing, it can help to make a list of them and classify them into appropriate categories. If certain words or phrases remain obscure and their meaning does not register with us in subsequent readings, we can make them part of our interpretive agenda. We might list the ones that require specialized word study. If all the words and phrases themselves are clear, but they are still puzzling, we may find that the syntax of the sentence—how the words and phrases are arranged in relation to each other—needs to be untangled. Such questions move us into some type of grammatical analysis. After reading a passage several times, we may notice a significant variation of wording, which is referred to in a footnote. If the note refers to “other ancient authorities” who report a different wording, we need to do text-­critical analysis. When we encourage beginning exegetes to let the text itself set the interpretive agenda, we are not suggesting that the reader can approach a text with a mind that is a blank tablet. Every time we read a text, we bring to that experience what we already know—our life experiences, our general outlook, our individual concerns, and our biases and prejudices. When scholars observe that each of us approaches a biblical text with a certain pre-­understanding, this is what they mean. Another way of putting it is that each of us reads biblical texts within our given social location. A peasant farmer and a corporate lawyer read the Bible while asking different questions. In each case, where the reader is located socially and culturally shapes the questions that are raised by a biblical text.



Integrating Exegetical Procedures 213

Rather than assuming that we can read texts with complete objectivity, without any underlying presuppositions, we should recognize that each of us has a particular social location that should be taken into account in our interpretation. Our interpretation will be more convincing if we admit that we have presuppositions, identify them, understand how we have developed them, and then allow for them as we interpret a passage. We should not simply read our own interpretation into a passage. This happens when we come to a text, convinced that we already know what it means—or should mean—and then superimpose that meaning upon the text. Even so, in trying to make sense of the text, we can use the understanding we bring to a text. But we should be open to the possibility that our initial understanding of a text can be broadened, deepened, or even altered with each new reading of a text. The Autonomy of the Text Letting a text speak for itself implies that it is autonomous. Once a text has been written (or edited), reached its final form, and included in a canonical collection, it has a life of its own. No longer is it attached to its original author. Like a newborn child, it is now a separate being. Respecting the autonomy of a text requires us to stand back, as it were, and give it space. Frequently, as interpreters, we crowd the text, even insinuate ourselves into the text. We are sometimes too eager to speak to the text rather than listen to it. Interpretations that result from reading a text this way tend to privilege the reader’s voice rather than the voice of the text. But if we respect the autonomy of a text by allowing it to speak for itself, we will find that it will provide us with a full interpretive agenda. When we encourage readers to respect the autonomy of the text, to listen first and speak later, we do not exclude the possibility of coming to a text with our own agenda. Perhaps we are trying to reconstruct the history of a particular period of biblical history. We may identify the biblical passages that relate to our investigation. Our task may be to determine how these texts can be used as reliable evidence for historical reconstruction. With a clearly defined interpretive goal, we can come to these texts with some already formulated questions. We can bring these questions to the text and still respect its autonomy. This means refusing to make these texts conform to our previous expectations. We can listen to what the text says, evaluate it by using widely accepted exegetical tools and methods, and draw our conclusions accordingly.

214

Biblical Exegesis Exegesis: Primary Research or Secondary Reporting?

Throughout our discussion, we have emphasized the importance of readers engaging biblical texts directly. By this we mean trying to listen to a text first rather than letting its meaning be mediated to us through secondary treatments, such as biblical commentaries or scholarly articles. For this reason, we have discussed primary research tools, such as dictionaries, concordances, encyclopedias, and other resources that scholars themselves use in writing commentaries or scholarly books and articles. We have taken this approach because we think exegesis is too often seen (and taught) as research that is drawn from secondary sources. Consulting such resources can be informative at many levels, but we do not think exegesis is an exercise in which we mainly consult different commentaries, sift through their interpretations, and from these develop our own interpretation of a passage. Doing exegesis this way may appear to be scholarly, even erudite, but it produces only a mosaic of commentaries. It also means that we engage the text through the commentaries, thus indirectly. We prefer that beginning exegetes engage the biblical text directly. Before consulting any other resources, read the text, wrestle with it, and formulate questions out of this engagement with the text. Let the text, rather than commentaries, set the interpretive agenda. To use a crude example, if exegesis is primarily cutting and pasting quotations together from commentaries and other secondary treatments, the exegete is like an artist who paints a picture by cutting up other artists’ pictures and pasting them together. Exclusive dependence on commentaries can result in derivative rather than original interpretations. Granting such dominance to biblical commentators also produces a kind of exegetical tyranny in which the beginning interpreter assumes that the commentators’ questions are not only the right questions to be asked of a text, but also the most important ones, or even the only ones. Beginning exegetes often consult commentaries and other secondary treatments because they are reluctant to ask their own questions of a text. A beginner’s questions may turn out to be ill-­formulated, even naïve, but they are the questions a beginner must ask. As we gain experience in doing exegesis, our questions become more refined and our confidence to ask good questions increases. We encourage beginning exegetes not to be intimidated by the erudition of biblical commentaries and scholars. Respect them? Yes, but do not allow them to set the interpretive agenda completely. We are better off reading the text for ourselves and formulating our own questions. Once we have developed our own sense of the



Integrating Exegetical Procedures 215

major interpretive issues from our own reading of the text, we can then consult commentaries and other secondary resources. We do not minimize the work of biblical commentators and the members of scholarly guilds. After all, we have written commentaries and belong to those guilds. We believe biblical scholars render a valuable service to those who read, study, and interpret texts, both beginners and experienced interpreters. But we want to encourage beginning exegetes to use their own imaginations and develop a sense of independence in their interpretive work. For the purpose of learning to do exegesis, commentaries and other secondary sources can be helpful in the early stages, mainly by providing general orientation to a passage. But they should not be used exclusively. They are valuable at later stages of the investigation by providing controls on our work. Once we have read a text initially, formulated our interpretive questions, and developed our own hunches about which issues must be addressed, we can consult commentaries to test our perceptions against those of more experienced biblical interpreters. Deciding which commentaries to consult is also important. Lists of commentaries on individual books are usually found in the standard OT and NT introductions. Evaluations of individual commentaries and commentary series can also be found in standard biblical bibliographies (see the bibliography in chap. 1). Writing an Exegesis Paper In many college and university Bible courses as well as courses in postbaccalaureate theological schools and seminaries, one of the standard assignments is writing an exegesis paper. The paper may be a short, focused study of a text, a paper five or six pages in length; or it may be a major research paper twenty-­five or thirty pages long. Typically, these papers are written according to the accepted conventions for writing research papers in colleges and universities. Whether the papers are written using The Society of Biblical Literature Handbook of Style (2nd ed.), The Chicago Manual of Style (17th ed.), the Modern Language Association Handbook (9th ed.), or some other style handbook usually depends on the professor’s preference. Here we are not concerned with the style in which the paper is written; we are more interested in the compositional strategy used in writing the paper. As we have already noted, we view exegesis as more than the compilation of statements and opinions of several commentators. Exegesis is also more than a report of our research. Beginning exegetes sometimes

216

Biblical Exegesis

assume—incorrectly—that an exegesis paper consists of systematically organizing all the research they have conducted. Some of this occurs, to be sure, but exegesis is more than this. Rather than collecting and organizing all the data we have uncovered, we should try to develop a coherent interpretation of the passage based upon a careful review of what we have learned in our research. Exegesis is not so much a report of our research as it is an informed, competent reading of a passage based on our research. The difference between a research report and a coherent interpretation is important. The latter requires us to deploy the information we have gathered rather than just report it. We also need to decide on a strategy for presenting our interpretation: How should we introduce our interpretation? For what point(s) do we want to argue? How should we arrange our arguments? How should we conclude the interpretation? In writing up the results of our exegesis, we should remember that our research informs rather than constitutes our interpretation. It is also important to distinguish between information and understanding. Papers written by beginning exegetes may contain a lot of historical, lexicographical, and grammatical information, along with biblical references. These papers can be packed full of information, but this does not necessarily mean that they reflect a deep understanding of the interpretive issues in the passage. The real challenge is to organize the detailed research we have accumulated into a coherent, interesting interpretation of the passage. The paper should argue for a specific point of view—a thesis that embodies our interpretation of the passage. An exegesis paper may be filled with correct information yet fail to illuminate the passage. We also need to decide how to organize the exegesis paper. The simplest, most straightforward strategy is to write an introduction, treat the passage in a verse-­by-­verse manner, and write a conclusion. This organizational scheme is found in many commentaries. Some biblical passages lend themselves to this kind of treatment, but others do not. In some cases, a thematic arrangement might be preferable. The most important consideration is whether the paper is organized in a way that allows the exegete to do justice to the crucial interpretive issues in the passage. The main question here is whether our organizational framework is pliable enough to unfold a well-­organized, convincing interpretation of the passage. Here again, we should take our cue from the text itself. Some texts unfold an argument in a sequential, step-­by-­step fashion. In these cases, the paper might be structured so that it traces the steps in the argument



Integrating Exegetical Procedures 217

and discusses them one by one. Or a passage may fit into a well-­defined genre, such as a prophetic oracle or a parable. Here the challenge is to use an organizational structure in the paper that does justice to that genre. Parables, for example, often reflect certain plots or highlight certain types of persons (villain, hero/heroine, et al.). In this case, the paper may be organized by using these literary structures rather than a verse-­by-­ verse outline. Narrative texts may require a structure uniquely suitable to them. With some texts, the paper can be organized around certain themes that are prominent within the passage. The general rule is that the structure of the paper should fit the structure of the passage. Some Practical Suggestions So far we have discussed the practical steps of doing an exegesis only incidentally. We now summarize our main suggestions. 1. Allow the text to set the agenda. Let the questions arise from dialogue with the text itself. As we read and reread a biblical passage, preferably in the original but in at least more than one translation, we should formulate questions appropriate to the text. But they should also be our own questions: what we as interpreters find problematic, intriguing, or challenging about the text. As we formulate these questions, we can begin to sift through them and decide which ones should be addressed first. 2. Let the questions point to the appropriate methodology, exegetical technique, or type of criticism. For this to occur, it is necessary to have a basic understanding of how biblical texts have originated and developed over time. The interpreter should be generally aware of the different dimensions of biblical texts, or the different perspectives from which previous interpreters have viewed them: historical, literary, social, canonical, and so on. Given this broader understanding of the Bible, we are in a position to decide which forms of criticism are suitable for addressing each dimension. For example, if the text contains references to historical persons, places, or events that are unfamiliar, the interpreter should instinctively know to employ historical criticism. 3. Use the tools appropriate to a given exegetical technique. As we have seen, certain types of biblical criticism make use of certain reference tools. In some cases, special reference works have been developed in connection with certain exegetical techniques. The synopsis, which displays the Gospels in parallel columns, was developed by scholars engaged in literary and source criticism. It is now an indispensable tool for form criticism, tradition criticism, and redaction criticism. A critical edition of the

218

Biblical Exegesis

Bible, which supplies information about variant readings, is essential for addressing text-­critical questions. Beginning exegetes must know what tools are available, what information they can supply, and how they should be used in relationship with each other. Such knowledge is best gained through firsthand experience in using them. 4. Once the exegete has formulated some basic questions and developed some tentative answers, it is then possible to do a preliminary synthesis of these findings. As we raise questions from different perspectives, we discover that different lines of questioning are interrelated. Literary questions about the formal arrangement of a text may be related to historical questions about the circumstances in which it originated. Theological questions about how the text relates to certain doctrines or religious issues can sometimes be answered only in connection with literary and historical questions. As we see different connections in our questions, we will employ different exegetical techniques or types of criticism. This, in turn, often enables us to refine our questions or pose new and even more sophisticated questions. The interpretive cycle is repeated. With these freshly formulated questions, we can read the text again, discover other dimensions that have not been seen before, and employ the appropriate exegetical techniques or types of biblical criticism, trying all the while to sharpen our understanding of the passage. And so it goes. 5. Set a time to conclude the analysis. The term “analysis” derives from a Greek word, analyō, which literally means to “break up.” Analysis is an intellectual process in which we break something up (or break it down) into its component parts: we take it apart or disassemble it. These initial stages of exegesis are analytical in this sense. We read a passage and examine its language and grammatical structure, trying to figure out how it was put together. We look at its component parts, such as the different sections of a passage or its prominent themes. We try to isolate these different parts but also to relate them to each other. Sometimes we discover that using one exegetical procedure will lead to another. But we may also find that we must use separate techniques, which have no clear connection with each other. Either way, we try to make sure that we have identified the parts of a passage that are important for developing an informed interpretation of it. We may spend a lot of time pursuing questions that prove to be irrelevant or unimportant. But this is the nature of exegetical research. As we try to understand a passage, we usually find that some things about the passage are central,



Integrating Exegetical Procedures 219

others are peripheral. Exegesis helps us sort through these questions in order to determine which ones really need to be addressed. Exegesis papers of beginning theological students often resemble a potpourri of miscellaneous facts and observations. This usually occurs because the passage is poorly analyzed or because the student does not allow enough time to synthesize the results of the exegetical investigation. To remedy this, we suggest setting a definite time to conclude the analysis stage. This is sometimes difficult because analysis can go on forever. Exegesis can be so engaging that we find there is literally no limit to how far we can investigate a passage. But, eventually, analysis must end. We can conclude the analysis by establishing appropriate time limitations and learning to focus on important questions. 6. Synthesize the findings into a coherent interpretation of the passage. The term “synthesis” derives from a Greek word, syntithēmi, which literally means “to bring together.” This is the stage of exegesis in which we try to bring together what we have learned. It is the most difficult stage of an exegesis, primarily because it requires some hard decisions. In the analysis stage, we generally uncover a lot of information—far more than we can incorporate into an exegesis paper. We may have discovered many interesting things about the passage. At some point, we need to conclude our analysis, survey what we have found, assess the relative importance of what we have learned, and then decide how all this information can be put together into an illuminating, coherent interpretation of the passage. Deciding how to organize our information is what ancient rhetoricians referred to as “arrangement.” It often happens that the sequence in which we gathered the information—the process of exegesis—differs from the sequence in which we present the information in a formal paper. We may decide that something we discovered last should come first in the paper; or that what we first learned about the passage should form the conclusion. The order in which we conduct our exegetical research may not correspond to the order in which we arrange our exegetical findings. Synthesis requires us to weigh each part of our exegetical investigation in light of other parts. During analysis, we may have spent a lot of time answering certain questions; but in formulating our interpretation, we may find that we can compress a lot of this information into a short space. Or, the reverse may be true. We may have spent a relatively small amount of time researching a particular issue, but decide to devote several paragraphs to it in the exegesis itself. These are judgment calls that we must make as exegetes. Deciding how much space to devote to different issues

220

Biblical Exegesis

is often a matter of balance and emphasis. Usually we will have developed enough familiarity with a passage to know which aspects of a passage need full elaboration and those that require shorter treatment. 7. Allow ample time for synthesis. Beginning students often fail to allow enough time to put the pieces back together. This likely results from poor planning or postponing synthesis to the last moment. It is advisable to allow a sufficient amount of time between concluding the analysis and developing a synthesis of our research. We find that certain things tend to jell during this interim. With some time, we gather a better sense of what is important and what is not. From Observation to Interpretation As we have emphasized throughout our discussion, exegesis is a systematic process through which we reach an informed interpretation of a passage of Scripture. We think it should be a process in which readers directly engage the biblical text. First, we read the text for ourselves and let it speak to us on its own terms. Next, we develop our questions out of the text and use appropriate exegetical techniques to answer them. While we gather information and seek to understand the text, we try to formulate our own interpretation of the text. As we move from analysis to synthesis, we decide on a strategy for presenting our interpretation. We include insights and information from our research that inform and advance our interpretation. Our paper argues for a point of view rather than merely reporting on our research. We try to convince the reader of our point of view. Then we write a concluding paragraph or section, summarizing our interpretation and its theological significance. As we develop our interpretation, we must make some choices. Some will be rather obvious, others not so obvious. Through it all, we should use our imagination. Exegesis, after all, is an exercise in seeing. We read the text in order to see it; or we listen to a text in order to hear its message. Either way, we try to convey what we have seen and heard in a convincing, imaginative interpretation. Somewhere in the exegetical process, we may even experience artistic creativity: see things that other interpreters have not seen, hear things they have not heard, and experience new meanings that change us.

Chapter Thirteen

Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis

T

he Bible is read and interpreted in many different contexts in contemporary culture. These may include more formal synagogue and church settings, in which the Bible is read as a part of worship or catechetical instruction. But there are private settings in which individuals read the Bible as one of the classical writings every educated person should know. Another popular context is provided by college and university courses in which the Bible is the central focus or in which it is read as one of the classic religious texts studied within the broader context of world literature. In these academic settings, the Bible is recognized as a writing from classical antiquity that has exercised enormous influence throughout history. Although the exact content of the Bible differs in Judaism and various Christian churches, it is a sacred text for both Jews and Christians. Since the Bible occupies a place of unique authority in both religious traditions, it plays a normative role in shaping their life and faith. The Bible exercises this normative role in different ways, depending on the context in which it is used. Even with this variety of functions, the Bible’s use within religious communities differs from the way in which it is read by the general public or studied in a comparative literature course in college. Exegesis is employed in all these settings in which the Bible is read and studied. Whether the setting is public or private, secular or religious, formal or informal, Bible readers engage in exegesis. It may be practiced in different ways, but serious readers of the Bible in each setting generally share a common purpose: they want to acquire an informed understanding of the biblical text. While we recognize the Bible’s popularity within the broader culture, our special interest is how it is currently used within the two religious 221

222

Biblical Exegesis

traditions of Judaism and Christianity. Among the many ways the Bible functions for these communities, four are especially prominent: (1) one of its most important uses is as a source for reconstructing the early history of Judaism and Christianity; (2) it is a foundational document used to formulate theological beliefs; (3) it has a central role in their public worship, in which it is read and proclaimed as sacred Scripture; (4) it serves as a source of inspiration and guidance for living a meaningful, moral life. Historical and Archaeological Reconstruction One of the results of post-­Enlightenment investigations of Scripture is the change in perspective toward biblical texts and how they should be used for historical reconstruction. Prior to the Enlightenment, the story of Israel and the early church as reported in the Bible was thought to be “the way it happened.” Readers of the Bible generally assumed that the actual course of historical events roughly corresponded to the biblical narrative—the story line of the text. This equation of biblical history with actual history was modified for several reasons. The rise of modern science posed a serious challenge to biblical chronology. Biblical chronology, understood literally, suggested that the earth was 6,000 years old. Geological studies of fossils and dinosaur bones revealed a much older earth. As biblical scholars examined the Pentateuch and the historical books of the Bible, they found not one but several stories of Israel embedded within the text. Analysis of the biblical writings revealed multiple sources within the Pentateuch, each reflecting a somewhat different theological viewpoint. Some scholars saw that the early biblical narratives should be read as theologically constructed stories rather than as literal history. They were religious writings rather than straightforward, descriptive history. Similar changes occurred in how the NT was read. For centuries it had been assumed, more or less uncritically, that the story of the life of Jesus and the early church as unfolded in the four Gospels and the book of Acts was “the way it happened.” The NT biblical story, it was thought, reported the actual course of events. From the eighteenth century forward, differences among the four Gospels received closer attention. It became more difficult to harmonize the Fourth Gospel with the Synoptic accounts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It also became clear that Acts is a highly selective account of the origin and growth of the early church. Scholars began to see the pervasive theological tendencies of these NT



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 223

narratives. They could no longer be read as simple, straightforward historical accounts, as they once were. One of the lasting legacies of the Enlightenment was the emergence of history as a major category of thought. Ancient writings that reported historical events had to be read critically rather than naïvely. Critical history emerged as a new discipline, with its own perspectives and methodologies. Like other scholars who studied ancient history, biblical scholars now read their ancient sources differently. They became more attuned to the historical dimensions of the Bible: it originated in certain historical settings and developed over time. They saw that the Bible not only reports history, but that it also has a history. Historical study of the Bible also underscored the distance—chronologically and culturally—between its ancient setting and modern readers. Readers became more aware of the differences between their worldview and that of the biblical writers. Scholars increasingly saw the Bible as an anthology of ancient writings that should be subjected to scrutiny, just as other ancient sources were. Today, historians of Israelite and early church history, like their secular counterparts, view the Bible as an indispensable source for reconstructing history. Unlike their earlier counterparts, especially those before the Enlightenment, they adopt a more critical stance toward the biblical sources. Rather than reading the biblical narratives as straightforward, factual reporting, biblical scholars now acknowledge their heavy theological emphases. They are also more aware of the many different historical contexts in which the biblical writings originated and developed. Rather than taking biblical texts relating to historical persons and events at face value, biblical scholars now submit such texts to critical scrutiny. They look for theological motives that account for what they find in the texts. Rather than harmonizing differences among the historical narratives of the Bible, biblical scholars now evaluate them critically as they reconstruct their critical histories. Another shift in perspective relates to the role of divine intervention within history, especially reports of miraculous occurrences that might have altered the course of events. The rationalistic outlook that characterized Enlightenment thought caused scholars to be more skeptical about divine revelation and supernatural explanations of events. This represents a radical break with the outlook of the biblical writings, which speak of divine involvement in historical events. Modern biblical historians acknowledge this explicit theological perspective within the Bible, but see it as a reflection of the faith and theology of the early Israelite and Christian communities rather than a datum of history itself.

224

Biblical Exegesis

Historians today realize they are not writing a definitive history—“the history”—and narrating once and for all how things actually happened. As children of their age, they acknowledge their own biases, limited knowledge, and ideological perspectives. They view history as a reconstruction of the past based on our knowledge and experience of the present—often informed by a lot of intuition. Just as historians no longer write the history of Israel and the early church by retelling the biblical story, neither are they any longer bound exclusively to the evidence of the Bible. In recent years, archaeological evidence has become increasingly important for biblical historians. Beginning in the nineteenth century, archaeological excavation of sites around the Mediterranean Sea got under way and has continued, although periodically interrupted by wars. These efforts have yielded an abundance of evidence related to biblical history. Some of these discoveries are written sources—inscriptions and other texts—but most are nonwritten artifacts. Texts can usually be dated on the basis of the material on which they were written and other matters related to their content, such as the language used, style of writing, and references to historical persons and events. Other artifacts—pottery, remains of buildings, skeletons, and jewelry—provide valuable information about styles of life, levels of culture, means of livelihood, and types of habitation. All the unwritten archaeological evidence comes out of the ground uninterpreted. Archaeologists and historians must interpret the data, generally in light of other evidence and especially the written sources, including the Bible. Contrary to much popular opinion, the purpose of archaeology is neither to prove nor to disprove the Bible. By its nature, archaeology is a neutral discipline. While archaeology can illumine the actual course of Israelite and early Christian history, it can neither validate nor invalidate the theological claims of the biblical record. To reconstruct the history of ancient Israel and the early church, it is now necessary to correlate what is reported in the Bible with written and nonwritten archaeological evidence. All who undertake such historical reconstructions must remember several things. 1. Exegesis of all written material is required. The historian must answer such questions as these: To what genre of literature does the text belong? What type of historical information can we expect to gain from such a genre? To what source or sources does the text belong? What theological tendencies may have influenced what is reported in the text? From what historical period does the text come? How might this context have influenced the text? What cultural and sociological knowledge might be



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 225

gained from the text? If the text does not provide explicit historical evidence, does it provide any implicit evidence that is useful for historical reconstruction? 2. All texts relevant to a particular event or time period must be considered. The same episode is often reported in separate accounts. This is the case with many narratives such as those about the conquest of Canaan (Josh 1–12; cf. Judg 1) and some events in the reign of Jehoshaphat (1 Kgs 22:48–49; cf. 2 Chr 20:35–37). Exegetes must compare the similarities and differences in these parallel accounts and evaluate their historical probability. 3. Relevant nonbiblical written material should be taken into consideration. This too must be submitted to exegesis, using the same procedures that apply to biblical writings. Since most surviving inscriptions are royal inscriptions, they are often filled with propaganda that puts a spin on events in order to praise the monarchy and exaggerate royal achievements. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III reigned from 858 BCE until 824 BCE; in a number of inscriptions, he reports how he fought a coalition of twelve kings at Qarqar in northern Syria in 853 BCE. In all of these, he claims to have completely annihilated the coalition, which included King Ahab of Israel. At best, he seems only to have fought his opponents to a standstill. His inscriptions note that he had to fight the same group several times during the next decade. Interestingly, no reference appears to any of these battles in the Hebrew Bible, even though Ahab’s forces were extremely large at Qarqar. 4. Nonwritten archaeological material relevant to the discussion should be incorporated. It might be necessary to report the absence of such data. These nonwritten materials can supplement the written archaeological evidence and the biblical texts. If, for example, we are working on 1 Kings 9:15–22, which lists the forced labor that King Solomon conscripted to build the temple, along with the cities of Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, among others, archaeological material from those cities would be relevant. In some cases, archaeological evidence raises questions about the historical reliability of a biblical report. For example, Joshua 7:1–8:29 reports on the Israelite capture of a large, fortified city at Ai. Excavations at the site of ancient Ai (et-­Tell in modern Palestine) have shown that the site was unoccupied from about 2000 BCE to 1150 BCE and that after reoccupation, it was actually a small village, not a major city. Here the archaeological evidence requires us to reassess how we can use the biblical account. We see that reconstructing an event in biblical history requires correlating different kinds of evidence: biblical and nonbiblical literary

226

Biblical Exegesis

evidence and nonliterary archaeological evidence. Each type of evidence must be evaluated on its own merits. Exegesis plays a vital role in these evaluations, especially of the written materials. Such exegesis lies at the heart of all historical reconstruction. Although many nonbiblical sources figure into reconstructing biblical history, the Bible remains a primary source. Sometimes it is the only source that reports an event. In every case, exegesis is indispensable for sound historical reconstruction. Doing Theology The task of theology, as a specialized discipline, is to articulate the faith of the synagogue and the church for each new generation of believers. Professional theologians, both academic and ministerial, do this on a sustained, regular basis, but they are not the only ones who engage in theological reflection. Nonprofessional or lay theologians also do so. All who make a conscious, concerted effort to reflect on their faith and give organized shape to these reflections are doing theology in a certain sense. While the work of professional theologians—usually professors working in academic settings—has much in common with the theological reflections of ministers, rabbis, teachers, and laypersons, they have a unique calling. Since they do theology full-­time, they are responsible for formulating fresh theological visions for their generation. In their constructive theological work, they seek to relate faith to every aspect of life. This requires them to draw on many fields of knowledge as they develop their theological systems. As theologians reflect upon the multiple dimensions of faith and the various settings in which it is experienced, they work at both theoretical and practical levels. Much of their work involves abstract thinking— intellectual work—in which they construct systems of thought. Within theological studies, this is the field of systematic theology, sometimes referred to as constructive theology. Typically, systematic theologians construct their systems while using well-­established topics, or loci (from the Latin locus, meaning “place,” or “topic”). These include such topics as the doctrine of God (theology in its narrow sense), human nature (anthropology), doctrines of salvation (soteriology), doctrines of Christ (Christology), doctrines of the Holy Spirit (pneumatology), and views of the end time (eschatology). There is also a practical dimension in the work of systematic theologians. Even those who focus on theoretical questions and spend their time developing systems of thought are usually interested in the practical



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 227

implications of their constructive work. They may be interested in the problem of evil, but they are often passionately concerned about the forms evil takes in modern life. Their theological writing and teaching typically seek to address concrete manifestations of evil in the world— and possibly mitigate them. Working from a bifocal perspective, theoretical and practical, theologians attend to the cognitive and experiential dimensions of faith. They construct ways of thinking and talking about God’s presence and activity within the world; yet they also take into account the “lived lives” of believing communities. Theologians seek not only to inform communities of faith; their work is also informed by those same communities. The work of theologians is bifocal in another respect: they deal with both the present and the past. Their aim may be to articulate the faith for their own time, but they draw on the work of previous theologians. Since theology has been a central element in Jewish and Christian history, modern theologians look to earlier formulations for guidance and inspiration. How earlier theologians—such as Augustine, Maimonides, or Thomas Aquinas—developed their systems of thought is the special provenance of historical theologians. Their field of study is the history of doctrine or the history of Jewish and Christian thought. Whether theologians focus on the present or past, the interpretation of Scripture figures prominently in their work. As we noted earlier, the Bible is a foundational document in both Judaism and Christianity. In each tradition, many other writings have been produced that relate to the Bible. They may contain stories and traditions about the Bible; or they may contain teachings that explain how the Bible should be interpreted and lived out. Many of these writings play an influential role within Jewish and Christian communities. And yet the Bible remains the core text around which these other interpretations and writings have been developed. Because of its unique role as an inspired text, the Bible possesses an authority within the community that exceeds that of other influential writings. Because of the central role the Bible plays in Judaism and Christianity, it cannot be ignored by theologians. Usually the biblical witnesses, such as the OT Prophets or the NT Gospels or Letters, are given primacy as theologians construct their theological systems. This occurs partly because they are the earliest witnesses to the faith of Jews and Christians, yet also because of the normative role they have played in shaping basic beliefs and behaviors. This close relationship between the Bible and theology makes exegesis indispensable to the work of theologians. As they do their theological

228

Biblical Exegesis

work, they draw on the scholarship of biblical exegetes. Since the fields of theological studies and biblical studies are themselves academic specialties within the broader field of theological and religious studies, theologians must rely on the work of biblical specialists. Because the Bible has figured so centrally in theology through the centuries, modern theologians must also themselves become exegetes. Many of them have received specialized training in biblical languages, exegesis, history, and theology, although they are not themselves biblical specialists. When theologians appropriate material from the Bible in constructing their systems, they too employ the exegetical methods we have discussed. In an earlier period, theologians often used the Bible as a source for proof texts. They might adduce biblical passages relating to one of the theological loci, such as God, Christ, or the Holy Spirit. If they could cite all the biblical texts supporting a particular theological view, they could incorporate “the biblical view of x” into their theological discussion. Some contemporary theologians still do this, but most academically trained theologians now understand the shifts in perspective toward the Bible that have occurred over the last two or three centuries. It is usually evident whether they have taken into account the results of historical-­ critical study of the Bible. If they draw on the OT book of Isaiah, for example, they are well aware of the differences between Isaiah 1–39 and 40–55 and 56–66, recognizing the critical issues related to the interpretation of this material. Similarly, for the NT, they well understand the interpretive issues related to how the four Gospels witness to the historical figure Jesus, both his life and teachings. Because modern theologians typically include Scripture as a central part of their work, beginning exegetes can benefit from reading them. While we may be doing an exegesis of a biblical passage for a seminary course in Bible, we may discover rich, illuminating discussions of our passage in the books and scholarly articles of systematic or historical theologians. Along with biblical commentaries, systematic theologies can become a valuable resource for exegetes. Since seminary students usually do exegesis in Bible courses while also enrolled in courses in systematic or historical theology, there are numerous opportunities for making connections between these different theological disciplines. It is vitally important to integrate what we learn in theology courses with our biblical exegesis. Discussions of different Christologies through the ages can enrich our understanding of important Christological texts, such as Philippians 2:5–11 or 2 Corinthians



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 229

5:17. In theology courses dealing with modern environmental issues and our responsibility toward the care of the earth, we can consider how Genesis 1–3 can be used in formulating a meaningful doctrine of creation for contemporary believers. Making connections between our exegetical work and the broader field of theology is a useful reminder that biblical exegesis is more than the study of (ancient) biblical texts. It also relates to other fields of theological studies in which scholars and students are trying to discern how Scripture should inform the way we think about the world and also how we inhabit it. Preaching The Bible plays a central role in the preaching for both Jewish synagogues and Christian churches. For this reason, preachers must learn to do exegesis. Books on homiletics (the study of preaching) frequently distinguish between exegesis and proclamation. This is a vital distinction, calling attention to important differences between these activities. As we have seen in our earlier discussion, the terms “exegesis,” “interpretation,” or even “hermeneutics” are often used interchangeably; yet they usually describe a fairly well-­defined set of activities. This volume has presented different exegetical methods or types of biblical criticism. It has also distinguished between doing exegetical research—compiling information about a passage from multiple resources—and developing an informed interpretation of a passage of Scripture. By the latter we mean more than rehearsing the information we have uncovered about a passage. Interpretation is a different intellectual exercise. It requires us, at the most basic level, to ask, “What does this text mean? How can I talk about it meaningfully to other people? How can I convey the theological message of such important passages as Genesis 1–2?” In biblical commentaries, we often find scholars honoring this distinction by using such headings as “Exegesis” or “Exegetical Analysis” for the data and information they accumulate about a text. In a separate section, often called “Theological Reflection,” biblical commentators will unfold their interpretation of the passage, or at least spell out some of the theological implications of their exegetical work. The move from exegesis to proclamation represents another distinct intellectual move. Preparing a sermon is different from preparing an

230

Biblical Exegesis

exegesis. Sermon preparation often involves biblical exegesis, although it may not entail a full-­fledged exegesis paper like one written for a seminary course. One of the basic differences between doing exegesis and preparing a sermon relates to audience. In exegetical work, sometimes the main audience is the exegete. We may do an exegesis of a passage in order to develop a fuller understanding of it for our own personal benefit. Even when we write an exegesis paper for a college or seminary course, it is often written for our own benefit rather than that of the professor. In one sense, the intended audience is the professor, but as a rule the exegesis does not significantly broaden the professor’s knowledge of the text. The exegete is the one who benefits. We write the exegesis paper for ourselves—to deepen our own understanding of the passage. A sermon, by contrast, has a different audience: the preacher’s synagogue or church. Preachers may prepare sermons in their private study; they may even do exegesis to deepen their understanding of a passage of Scripture. But they do so while knowing that within a few days they will deliver it to the community of believers they serve. Even if the sermon is recorded and broadcast to a wider audience, or circulated in printed form, it is initially meant for a specific audience on a given occasion. This liturgical context—the synagogue or church service, with its distinctive features, such as readings, hymns, prayers, announcements, and other celebrations—is the primary “setting in life” for a sermon. Within this context, the preacher is speaking to others. The sermon may be based on a lectionary text read just before the sermon, or earlier in the service. And yet the sermon is more than reading the lectionary text. It is even more than an expanded paraphrase of a biblical text. The preacher’s unique role is to proclaim the text, or rather to proclaim the good news to which the text bears witness. Presenting a sermon is different from standing in the pulpit and reading an exegesis paper, even a stimulating paper. Preaching from a biblical text requires the preacher to make exegetical moves, perhaps to move in and out of the text as the sermon unfolds. Still, preaching is a unique act of communication in which someone who has studied, wrestled with, and prayed over a biblical text presents a message from the text to a group of listeners. The audience usually consists of people whom the preacher knows well or with whom the preacher has some long-­standing formal relationship. As we have emphasized, biblical texts yield different levels of meaning. Most of them are so rich that no one can presume to have grasped the meaning of the text. But in preparing a sermon on a text, the preacher can



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 231

do exegesis in order to develop an informed interpretation of the text. This interpretation can have a single, sharp profile. Perhaps it is one strand of the text developed into a full interpretation. Interpretation can take many different forms. The sermon may even draw on the interpretation the preacher has developed in preparing an exegesis on the text. But the sermon still represents a different genre: it may be based on exegesis, but it is not exegesis pure and simple. It is proclamation, an interpretive act in which the preacher speaks the Word of God mediated through the text. It is not only the envisioned audience that distinguishes preaching from exegesis. It is what the audience represents: people who live in the world, connected with their families, employers and employees, constituents, clients, customers, friends, competitors and adversaries at many levels and in many ways. They live in many different contexts: home, school, work, gym, athletic fields, community associations, to name just a few. They experience the world they know in many different ways: through computers, the internet, research, sales deals, classrooms, counseling settings, and many others. And yet they leave all these contexts behind when they come to worship. Or rather, they bring all these contexts with them. They are connected with a vast, complex network of worlds, and the preacher’s unique obligation is to connect the biblical text and its message with the hearers and the worlds in which they live. This is often described as making the text relevant to the parishioner. This implies that the believer comes to worship while knowing that at some point the Bible will be read and proclaimed. The believer will listen to these words—and listen for the Word of God coming through those words. But more than this, the believer will expect the preacher to talk about these words from the biblical text—to explain them, make sense of them, proclaim them. Preachers use illustrations as a way to connect the message of the text with people’s lives. Sometimes these stories are entertaining and clear. At other times they are muddled and uninteresting. But preachers know that they must do more than talk about the past, as interesting as that might be. Even the biblical past, for all its intriguing features, remains remote for many modern believers. The preacher and those who are gathered for worship live in the present. They may love the past, even prefer to live there. But their lives are anchored in the present. And the preacher’s weekly challenge is to expound the Bible in a way that helps modern believers live meaningful lives. One way of relating exegesis to preaching is to recall that biblical texts have tended to function in three ways: constitutively, prophetically, and didactically. These three functions may be related to the three basic forms

232

Biblical Exegesis

of ministry: priest, prophet, and sage (or teacher). This division may be somewhat artificial and is offered merely as a lens through which to view the ways a text can be used in ministry. Just as the various functions of ministry overlap and are frequently embodied in the same person, so also a single text can function in different ways, depending on how it is used in its context. To speak of a constitutive or priestly function of a text refers to how it is used to support, enhance, and celebrate life. This function deals with human existence by reenacting past experiences and traditions, engaging in ritualized sacred practices, and negotiating the routine demands of life. Such actions often take the form of festivals and rituals that orient people to their past, anchor them in their present, and offer them a meaningful future. Ancient revered texts are read to remind people of the charters of their faith and to recall the many faithful women and men who have preceded them in their journey of faith. The people of God hear words of salvation and hope, along with words of judgment and warning. Through all these words, their identity is reinforced even as they face new realities. In these events, traditions and rituals play a vital role. They establish and reestablish the daily, weekly, monthly, and annual rhythms that form the contours of the community’s existence. The prophetic function challenges the present, its commitments, and its orientation. It also calls for new and sometimes radical revision of the present. The prophetic perspective views the present critically. It invites people to consider new viewpoints and different orientations. Sometimes these new visions challenge a people’s identity, threaten its self-­understanding, and question its customary behavior. The prophetic voice may issue its challenge by drawing upon earlier traditions and views of the past. It may also sketch a new vision of the future. This voice may pronounce a word of judgment, or it may offer words of hope. It may announce death or life. Prophets evaluate present conditions, asking how they can be better. The prophetic voice seeks not to constitute but to reconstitute. The didactic or advisory function—the function of the sage or the wise person—has as its goal the offering of instruction, wisdom, or insight. It has no overt desire to confirm the present and its conditions or to reform and reconstitute it. The voice of the sage draws on general human experience. It seeks to illuminate rather than create new conditions. Such illumination may be catalytic by opening up new perspectives that can lead to reconstitution. This function tends to be reflective, even introspective. It looks inward rather than backward or forward. The wise voice trades



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 233

on insight rather than dramatic new revelation or traditional beliefs. It probes the human condition more deeply, convinced that deeper and more reflective lives are more meaningful. Personal Appropriation Just as the Bible belongs to historians, theologians, and preachers, so does it belong to all who read it for moral guidance, spiritual edification, or sheer pleasure. The person who reads the Bible for these purposes may not be motivated by professional interests, but this does not mean that exegesis is any less necessary. If exegesis is the systematic process through which we come to an informed understanding of a biblical text, it becomes as essential for the nonprofessional as it is for the professional reader. Even the professional who reads the Bible for personal appropriation does not stop doing exegesis. Rather than viewing the work of biblical scholars and other professional theologians and historians as preliminary work to be laid aside when reading the Bible for personal profit, it is better to see the everyday reader as part of a larger circle of interested readers and interpreters who share a common goal. Those who devote themselves to full-­time study of the Bible usually do so to benefit those who cannot. Even if the work of scholars sometimes challenges cherished assumptions about the Bible, it cannot be easily ignored. Scholarly work becomes part of a public conversation in which communities of faith themselves participate. When we read the Bible for moral and spiritual guidance, we assume the position of a first-­time hearer. We relate to the text much as the original hearers to whom the writings were first addressed. Since we are separated from the original events by many centuries, we cannot avoid the third-­party perspective discussed earlier. As later readers, we overhear rather than hear directly. It is not as though we impose ourselves into an earlier conversation; Israel and the church canonized these writings because of their capacity to transcend the settings they originally addressed and to speak to future generations of believers. What distinguishes those who read the Bible for moral and spiritual guidance from those who read it in the service of history, theology, or preaching is the immediate relationship between text and reader. Rather than reading the Bible for some other purpose, we are reading it for our direct benefit. This does not mean that we should read the Bible any less rigorously, certainly not any less critically. Even when we read the Bible for personal benefit, there is no reason to suspend our critical judgment. We should

234

Biblical Exegesis

still interrogate the text and do so rigorously. The questions we bring to such a reading may differ greatly from those the historian brings to the text. Our questions are not any less pressing or important. We should remember that many of the types of biblical criticism we have discussed were developed because of the high personal investment scholars had in these texts. They too were often reading the Bible for moral and spiritual guidance. Critical methods were developed to make these texts more, not less, understandable. Someone has suggested that when we read the Bible for spiritual guidance, we read it sympathetically. By this we mean that we align ourselves with the biblical authors and their theological visions. We stand with them, as it were, and look out on the world as they saw it. By adopting their vantage point, we “look along with” rather than “look at” the text. The former phrase suggests that we stand inside the text, within the tradition, as it were, adopting the perspective of the text, at least provisionally. On later reflection, we may embrace the viewpoint of the text or reject it. But we are willing, at least initially, to place ourselves within the text, listen to its voice, and be open to its message. “Looking at” the text suggests the picture of someone standing outside the text and “looking in.” This is not necessarily a negative stance, nor even a detached, disinterested relationship to the text. But it is a different perspective. In one sense, critical historians adopt this stance. They are viewing the biblical text as any other ancient writing or archaeological artifact. Knowing that ancient writings reflected ideological tendencies and were rarely, if ever, neutral in their outlook, historians operate with a hermeneutic of suspicion. Even critical historians can “look along with” the text, especially if they align themselves confessionally with the communities of faith that produced them. To do so does not mean that they must embrace the point of view expressed in the text, but they may still be generally supportive of its overall intention. Theologians may read the Bible to construct new systems of thought and address ever-­changing situations. Like historians, they too read the Bible critically. In one sense, they use it for some other purpose. But scholars now recognize that the Bible makes theological claims from start to finish. It sketches theological visions in many different situations. Even if these are archaic in many respects and may not address modern readers directly, theologians can still “look along with” the biblical text as sympathetic readers. They may find aspects of the biblical vision, such as its prescientific outlook or its patriarchal view of the world, highly problematic. Scholars have developed different strategies for dealing with these



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 235

features of the Bible. Some strategies reject such views outright; others find ways of mitigating them; still others find ways of embracing them without significantly changing them. We soon discover that we can adopt many different stances toward the Bible, and they may not be mutually exclusive. It is possible for a literary critic to read Shakespeare’s writings through a scholarly lens, subjecting them to all kinds of literary and source criticism. The same critic can still read Shakespeare for pleasure and enjoy seeing his plays performed. Scholars also read the Bible critically, recognizing the different ways it can be used, yet also experience intellectual stimulation and moral edification. Reading the Bible for personal appropriation should not be conceived in a narrowly individualist sense. The Bible may belong to Jews and Christians, but it also belongs to the larger culture. So pervasive has been the Bible’s influence, especially in Western culture, that it has become a cultural icon. Artistic appropriations of the Bible underscore this point. The arts, broadly speaking—visual, musical, dramatic, and literary arts—have been profoundly shaped by the Bible. When the Bible is appropriated through artistic creativity, we can see exegesis at work. Artistic works as different as Handel’s Messiah or MacLeish’s J.B. reflect exegetical strategies for reading the Bible. This is also true in popular culture, especially when the Bible is portrayed in film, drama, and popular music. Biblical stories have provided Hollywood a rich source of narratives for producing movies. Every Bible-­based movie is based on exegesis. It may be poor exegesis, but it nevertheless is exegesis. These interpretations may be presented in modes different from historical reconstruction, theological appropriation, and sermons, but the difference is one of form rather than essence. As exegetes, we can often learn much from these artistic appropriations of the Bible and biblical themes. The beginning exegete should be alert to the many ways the Bible is used in modern culture. We might ask whether a particular movie based on a biblical person or theme is historical reconstruction or artistic appropriation, or even theological reconstruction and biblical proclamation. It is probably some of each. This should not surprise us. We have seen that even the historian who deals with the biblical texts at certain junctures must also deal with literary, theological, homiletical, moral, and artistic dimensions of the texts. Modern readers of the Bible often find themselves sensitive to the many dimensions of the biblical text. The beginning exegete who wishes to read the Bible with an informed understanding can do no less.

236

Biblical Exegesis Bibliography

Exegesis and Historical-­Archaeological Reconstruction Abraham, William J. Divine Revelation and the Limits of Historical Criticism. 1982. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Bartholomew, Craig G. “Behind” the Text: History and Biblical Interpretation. Carlisle, UK: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003; online, 2011. Brettler, Marc Zvi. The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. 1995. London and New York: Routledge, 1998; online, 2003. Davies, Philip R. In Search of “Ancient Israel”: A Study in Biblical Origins. 1992. 2nd ed. London and New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015. Davis, Thomas W. Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004. *Dever, William G. Archaeology and Biblical Studies: Retrospects and Prospects. Evanston, IL: Seabury-­Western, 1974. ———. What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It? What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001. ———. Who Were the Early Israelites, and Where Did They Come From? 2003. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006. Evans, Craig. Jesus and the Ossuaries: What Jewish Burial Practices Reveal about the Beginning of Christianity. 2003. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2020. Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil A. Silberman. David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition. New York: Free Press, 2006; London: Simon & Schuster, 2007. Grabbe, Lester L., ed. Can a “History of Israel” Be Written? Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1997; London: T&T Clark, 2004. Greenspoon, Leonard J., M. Dennis Hamm, and Bryan F. LeBeau. The Historical Jesus through Catholic and Jewish Eyes. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000. Harvey, Van A. The Historian and the Believer: The Morality of Historical Knowledge and Christian Belief. 1966. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996. Hendel, Ronald S. Remembering Abraham: Culture, Memory, and History in the Hebrew Bible. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005. Hoffmeier, James K., and Alan R. Millard, eds. The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004. Jeremias, Joachim. The Problem of the Historical Jesus. 1964. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Johnson, Luke T. The Real Jesus: The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth of the Traditional Gospels. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1996. Kitchen, Kenneth A. The Bible in Its World: The Bible and Archaeology Today. 1977. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2002. Lapp, Paul W. Biblical Archaeology and History. New York: World, 1969. Laughlin, John C. H. Archaeology and the Bible. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Lemche, Niels P. The Israelites in History and Tradition. London: SPCK; Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1998. Long, V. Philips, Gordon J. Wenham, and David W. Baker. Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of “Biblical Israel.” Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 237

McArthur, Harvey K. In Search of the Historical Jesus. New York: Scribner, 1969; London: SPCK, 1970. ———. The Quest through the Centuries: The Search for the Historical Jesus. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966. *Miller, J. Maxwell. The Old Testament and the Historian. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1976. Moore, Megan B. Philosophy and Practice in Writing a History of Ancient Israel. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2006. Richardson, Peter. Building Jewish in the Roman East. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2004. Schweitzer, Albert, and John Bowden. The Quest of the Historical Jesus: First Complete Edition. 1906; 2nd ed., 1913. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001. Vermès, Géza. Jesus in His Jewish Context. Minneapolis: Fortress; London: SCM, 2003. Wenthe, Dean O., Paul L. Schrieber, and Lee A. Maxwell, eds. Hear the Word of Yahweh: Essays on Scripture and Archaeology in Honor of Horace D. Hummel. St. Louis: Concordia, 2002.

Exegesis and Doing Theology Achtemeier, Paul J. An Introduction to the New Hermeneutic. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1969. *Adam, A. K. M., Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Francis Watson, eds. Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006. Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. Vol. I/1, The Doctrine of the Word of God. Pages 98–212. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; New York: Scribner, 1936. Bartlett, David L. The Shape of Scriptural Authority. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983. Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology in Crisis. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1970. Curran, Charles E., and Richard A. McCormick. The Use of Scripture in Moral Theology. New York: Paulist, 1984. Dauphinais, Michael, and Matthew Levering. Holy People, Holy Land: A Theological Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005. Donfried, Karl P. Who Owns the Bible? Toward the Recovery of a Christian Hermeneutic. New York: Crossroad; Herder & Herder, 2006. *Fowl, Stephen E. Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation. Malden, MA, and Oxford: Blackwell, 1998; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2008. Frei, Hans W. Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. Hanson, Paul D. The Diversity of Scripture: A Theological Interpretation. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Johnston, Robert K., ed. The Use of the Bible in Theology: Evangelical Options. 1985. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1997. *Kelsey, David H. Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in Modern Theology. 1975. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1999. Mahoney, Edward J., ed. Scripture as the Soul of Theology. 2000. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2005. Marshall, I. Howard, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter, eds. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; Milton Keynes, UK: Paternoster, 2004.

238

Biblical Exegesis

McKim, Donald K., ed. A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation. 1986. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999. ———. What Christians Believe about the Bible. Nashville: Nelson, 1985. Nineham, Dennis E. The Use and Abuse of the Bible: A Study of the Bible in an Age of Rapid Cultural Change. London: SPCK, 1976. O’Collins, Gerald, and Daniel Kendall. The Bible for Theology: Ten Principles for the Theological Use of Scripture. New York: Paulist, 1997. Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1995. Pleins, J. David. The Social Visions of the Hebrew Bible: A Theological Introduction. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Smart, James D. The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979. Wainwright, Arthur W. Beyond Biblical Criticism: Encountering Jesus in Scripture. Atlanta: John Knox; London: SPCK, 1982. *Watson, Francis. Text, Church, and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994. ———. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997. Wenham, Gordon J. Story as Torah: Reading Old Testament Narrative Ethically. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004. Whybray, R. Norman. The Good Life in the Old Testament. London: T&T Clark, 2002.

Exegesis and Preaching Achtemeier, Elizabeth R. The Old Testament and the Proclamation of the Gospel. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1973. ———. Preaching Hard Texts of the Old Testament. 1998. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008. Barclay, William. Communicating the Gospel. 1968. Edinburgh: St. Andrews Press, 1978. *Barrett, Charles K. Biblical Preaching and Biblical Scholarship. London: Epworth, 1957. Repr. as Biblical Problems and Biblical Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1964. *Best, Ernest. From Text to Sermon: Responsible Use of the New Testament in Preaching. 1978. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988. Cox, James W. A Guide to Biblical Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976. Craddock, Fred B. As One without Authority. Rev. and with new sermons. St. Louis: Chalice, 2001. ———. Overhearing the Gospel. Rev. and exp. ed. St. Louis: Chalice, 2002. ———. Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 1985. Davis, Ellen F. Wondrous Depth: Preaching the Old Testament. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Davison, Lisa Wilson. Preaching the Women of the Bible. St. Louis: Chalice, 2006. Fuller, Reginald H. The Use of the Bible in Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress; London: Bible Reading Fellowship, 1981. Gowan, Donald E. Reclaiming the Old Testament for the Christian Pulpit. Atlanta: John Knox, 1980; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1981. Greidanus, Sidney. Preaching Christ from the Old Testament: A Contemporary Hermeneutical Method. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. Kaiser, Walter C. Preaching and Teaching from the Old Testament: A Guide for the Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.



Employing the Fruits of Biblical Exegesis 239

Keck, Leander E. The Bible in the Pulpit: The Renewal of Biblical Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 1978. ———. Taking the Bible Seriously: An Invitation to Think Theologically. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. Klein, George L. Reclaiming the Prophetic Mantle: Preaching the Old Testament Faithfully. Nashville: Broadman, 1992; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998. Kysar, Robert. Preaching John. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002. Kysar, Robert, and Joseph M. Webb. Preaching to Postmoderns: New Perspectives for Proclaiming the Message. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006. Long, Thomas G. Preaching and the Literary Forms of the Bible. 1989. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1996. *———. The Witness of Preaching. 2nd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005. Long, Thomas G., and Edward Farley, eds. Preaching as a Theological Task: World, Gospel, Scripture; In Honor of David Buttrick. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1996. McKim, Donald. The Bible in Theology and Preaching: A Theological Guide for Preaching. 1994. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1999. Murphy, Roland E., ed. Theology, Exegesis, and Proclamation. New York: Herder & Herder; London: Burns & Oates, 1971. O’Day, Gail R. The Word Disclosed: Preaching the Gospel of John. Rev. and exp. ed. St. Louis: Chalice, 2002. Sanders, James A. God Has a Story Too: Sermons in Context. 1979. Philadelphia: Fortress; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998. Smart, James D. The Strange Silence of the Bible in the Church: A Study in Hermeneutics. Philadelphia: Westminster; London: SCM, 1970. Smith, D. Moody. Interpreting the Gospels for Preaching. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Thiselton, Anthony C. The Two Horizons: New Testament Hermeneutics and Philosophical Description. Exeter, UK: Paternoster; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980. *Thompson, James W. Preaching Like Paul: Homiletical Wisdom for Today. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2001. Thompson, William D. Preaching Biblically: Exegesis and Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon, 1981. Williams, Michael E., et al., eds. The Storyteller’s Companion to the Bible. 13 vols. Nashville: Abingdon, 1991–99. Wilson, Paul Scott. God Sense: Reading the Bible for Preaching. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001.

Exegesis and Personal Appropriation Barr, James. The Bible in the Modern World. 1977. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1993. *Brueggemann, Walter. The Creative Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Capps, Donald. Biblical Approaches to Pastoral Counseling. 1981. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2003. Chancey, Mark A., Carol Meyers, and Eric M. Meyers. The Bible in the Public Square: Its Enduring Influence in American Life. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2014. Davidson, Robert. The Bible in Religious Education. Edinburgh: Handsel, 1979. Davis, Ellen, and Richard B. Hays, eds. The Art of Reading Scripture. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

240

Biblical Exegesis

Fee, Gordon D., and Douglas K. Stuart. How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1982. Gottwald, Norman K., and Richard A. Horsley, eds. The Bible and Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics. Rev. ed. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books; London: SPCK, 1993. Gustafson, James M. Christ and the Moral Life. 1968. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979. Hays, Richard B. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, New Creation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996. Holmer, Paul L. The Grammar of Faith. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. Lewis, C. S. Reflections on the Psalms. 1958. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1986; Harper One, 2017. Muddiman, John. The Bible: Fountain and Well of Truth. Oxford: Blackwell, 1983. Rogerson, John W., and M. Daniel Carroll R. Theory and Practice in Old Testament Ethics. London and New York: T&T Clark, 2004. Rogerson, John W., Margaret Davies, and M. Daniel Carroll R., eds. The Bible in Ethics: The Second Sheffield Colloquium. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995. Rogerson, John W., Christopher Rowland, and Barnabas Lindars, eds. The Study and Use of the Bible. Basingstoke, UK: Pickering; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988. Roncace, Mark, and Patrick Gray, eds. Teaching the Bible: Practical Strategies for Classroom Instruction. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005. *Wink, Walter. The Bible in Human Transformation: Toward a New Paradigm for Biblical Study. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973. ———. Transforming Bible Study: A Leader’s Guide. 2nd ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2009.

Chapter Fourteen

Exegesis: The Art of Seeing

W

e all understand the difference between “looking” and “seeing.” To look at something is to register its existence. We might even be encouraged to look at it closely, to inspect it. But this more focused, intentional looking moves us closer to seeing. Someone may ask us, “What are you looking at?” But if they ask us what we see, they usually expect more than a description of some object or scene we are viewing. Looking focuses on the superficial; seeing probes more deeply. Such a distinction is implied in Jesus’ use of Isaiah 6:9–10, when he distinguishes between “looking” and “not perceiving,” “listening” but not “understanding” (Mark 4:12; cf. John 12:40; Acts 28:26–27; cf. Rom 11:1–10). Sports aficionados understand this distinction. Some sports fans attend games mainly to have fun. It gives them a chance to get out, to be with their friends and family, and to be part of a grand, colorful event. Some fans have little or no understanding of the game they are watching, while others may have some elementary knowledge. They may even have played the game as youngsters and learned some of the basic rules and strategies. But some fans have detailed knowledge of the game. They know the rules of the game and understand the finer points of the rule book. They also know how the game is played, which includes familiarity with the strategies used by the coaches, managers, and players. They are also aware of the complicated set of signs and symbols used to give directions, call plays, and communicate among the players and coaches. Sometimes those who possess this inside knowledge are former players who learned the game through their own experience. But not always. Often those who have never played the game have acquired advanced knowledge from their own intensive study and from simply watching the 241

242

Biblical Exegesis

game. Some fans know the game at this higher and more advanced level: they see more than ordinary, less informed fans see. Regardless of their level of expertise, fans can still enjoy the game in their own way, even if they see what is going on in different ways. Similar distinctions exist in other areas of life as well. When viewing a painting or some other work of art, we all recognize the difference between what an informed, experienced viewer can see, and what an inexperienced novice can see. An art critic sees things in a painting that an ordinary observer does not see. Another artist can see things that an art critic cannot see. A museum curator who decides to include the painting in an exhibit operates with yet another level of perception. As it turns out, we can distinguish not only between looking and seeing, but also between different ways of seeing. What we see depends a lot on what we know. We all recognize that the more we know, the more we see. We might even say that what we see is mediated, even determined, by what we know. This is especially true of specialized knowledge. A textual critic notices variations in wording— textual variants—and understands their significance in a way that a nonspecialist does not. Someone trained in the history and transmission of manuscripts can see the significance of textual variants for interpreting the text. Similarly, form critics are especially attuned to the formal or structural features of a text—its genre—and how this knowledge of literary forms and their origin and transmission can enable them to see certain things in a text that other critics cannot see as well. The same can be said for the other types of criticism, such as redaction criticism, canonical criticism, and literary criticism. The experienced commentator is trained to see these various dimensions of a text and is expected to incorporate this knowledge into the exposition of the passage. Part of the commentator’s skill is learning how to balance these different perspectives based on how crucial a role each one plays in understanding a text. Learning to See as a Beginner While we have explored some of the major aspects of biblical criticism, our main focus is the beginning exegete—someone who is being introduced to biblical interpretation for the first time. Our goal is to help readers at this level learn to see what is in the text and, once they have acquired an informed understanding of it, to develop their own interpretation of the text.



Exegesis: The Art of Seeing 243

We encourage beginning students to start by using their own reading skills, reading the text for oneself. At this stage, it is important to bring what we already know, from whatever perspective we represent, to the reading of the text. In some cases, our prior knowledge may not seem to be directly relevant. This is especially true if our background is in some technical, scientific field; yet even in these cases, professionals in such fields have learned to read in ways that are appropriate to their disciplines. More generally, when we read a text, even one that is new or unfamiliar to us, we bring our own knowledge and life experiences to that reading. It is important to be self-­aware and realize the interpretive tendencies and biases that we bring to our reading of a text. But rather than trying to shut them out completely, or even eliminate them, it is just as important to let them inform our reading of a text. The main point is to let the full flow of what we have earlier seen inform our reading of the text. At this initial stage of interpretation, the beginning reader has several options. To begin, we can consult biblical commentaries or other writings in which the passage has been discussed. The possibilities here are almost limitless, with exegetical treatments of the text ranging from ­simple, elementary discussions to highly complex, technical investigations. Although such reading is valuable in orienting the beginning exegete to some of the main interpretive issues, we also think it is important to read the text for oneself. Preferably this should be done in the original language—Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek—but also in translation, even in several different translations. Language (Semantics) and Literary Genre At this stage of reading for oneself, we can distinguish two different interpretive moves or literary sensibilities: attention to semantics and literary genre. By semantics, we mean the language of the text understood in a simple, straightforward way—the meaning of certain words or phrases, and how these are combined into clauses, sentences, and paragraphs to form discrete literary units of meaning. The technical term is pericope—a section of text, usually displayed in print as a paragraph or series of paragraphs. Even in our initial reading of a text, we can usually identify words or phrases that are significant and invite us to understand them better: covenant, righteousness, kingdom of God/heaven, and others. Under semantics, we include what is sometimes distinguished by different technical terms such as grammar, syntax, philology, and even lexicography. In

244

Biblical Exegesis

some cases, the language of the text refers to the names of persons, places, customs, or events that may be unfamiliar—Melchizedek, Nebuchadnezzar, Herod Agrippa, Quirinius, Moab, Sinai, Passover, Pentecost. Typically these are explained in the annotations of study Bibles, and they are treated more extensively in Bible dictionaries or encyclopedias. While reading through the text in order to understand its language at a basic level, we can also sense how the language works. If the language is straightforward and descriptive, we read it one way. But if it is metaphorical or poetic, we read it differently. We can also notice if the passage exhibits a clearly defined structure—if there are repetitions of words or phrases around which the passage is organized. Such literary markers often help us see that the passage belongs to a certain literary genre such as a legal text, prophetic saying, proverb, psalm, parable, miracle story, sermon, or apocalypse. The more we read a passage, the more we realize that semantics and genre are interconnected. Identifying the genre helps us see how the language works. The reverse is also true: how the language is used also helps identify the genre. In some cases, this is obvious from the way in which the text is displayed in a modern translation. The Psalter is not only presented as a collection of individual psalms, but each psalm is also printed in strophes to reflect its poetic quality. Similarly, Proverbs is printed as a collection of sayings displayed accordingly. Prophetic writings are displayed as a combination of straight exposition and prophetic sayings. In the NT, narrative prose is displayed in regular paragraphs, with indentations and strophic arrangement used for OT quotations and other discrete literary genres, such as early Christian confessions or hymns, and summaries of preaching. At this level of reading, the language of the text and the literary form in which it is presented inform each other. The language helps identify the form, and knowing the form helps the reader understand how the language is being used and what it means. Literary Contexts Once we get a sense of the language and literary form of the text, the next step is to move out from the text—to read beyond the text and look at the larger literary contexts in which the passage occurs. The immediate literary context is provided by the writing in which the passage occurs. If the writing is divided into clear sections or subdivisions, the first move is to read the passage within the literary context



Exegesis: The Art of Seeing 245

of that section or subsection of the larger writing. If the text is a passage from Genesis, it makes a difference whether it occurs within the primeval history (Gen 1–11) or within the remaining narrative (Gen 12–50), which has a different feel and texture. Whether a passage occurs in a specific section of Isaiah (chaps. 1–39 or 40–55 or 56–66) affects the way in which it will be read and interpreted. If the text is one of the psalms, it makes a difference whether it belongs to one of the types of psalms, including laments, songs of thanksgiving, hymns, and royal psalms. In the NT, whether a passage occurs within an earlier section of one of the Gospels or in the latter part of a Gospel, within the passion narrative, makes a difference. For the NT letters, whether the passage occurs in one of the seven undisputed Pauline Letters or one of the later and disputed letters or in one of the General Epistles is critical for understanding the text. Since Revelation belongs to the genre apocalypse, it must be interpreted accordingly, taking into account its distinctive use of symbolic language. When relating a specific text or pericope to its larger literary unit, the reader should try to see connections between the smaller unit and its larger literary context. These connections may be thematic, verbal, conceptual, or generic. Here, the interpreter is trying to see if specific words, phrases, or concepts that occur in the passage also occur elsewhere, and to determine how these other uses inform one’s understanding of the text being interpreted. To make intelligent connections between the smaller and larger literary units, the interpreter needs to understand how the parts relate to each other and to the entire Bible. Knowing which parts of the Bible are regarded as earlier or later, similar in outlook or literary form, enables the interpreter to know how to relate them to the passage under consideration. This process of relating a specific text to its larger literary context, or to other texts within the Bible, is often referred to as intertextual analysis—the interpretive act of relating a specific text to another specific text (or texts), both of which are seen as belonging to a larger, clearly delineated body of texts. Identifying similarities or differences between texts, or using one text to illuminate another text in some way, acknowledges intertextuality as a theoretical quality or relationship. Typically it assumes that one self-­contained text is being compared with another self-­ contained text, both of which are discrete entities. Intertextual analysis is sometimes referred to as cross-­referencing, since one biblical reference is being linked with another biblical reference, either within the same writing or with other writings. Over time,

246

Biblical Exegesis

readers of the Bible have identified other biblical references that are most pertinent for understanding a passage. Extensive discussion of these cross-­references has occurred in commentaries and other scholarly articles and books; typically they are readily available in the annotations of study Bibles or in the margins of critical editions of the OT and the NT. These cross-­references can relate to a specific passage in different ways. They may identify other passages in the Bible where the same episode is reported, thus to a parallel account of an event or story. Included may be references that mention the same proper name or that use a similar grammatical form. They may refer to passages that present an alternative view of a particular issue, or that even report a contradictory point of view. The beginning exegete should assume that this set of cross-­references— which can be found in annotated Bibles, commentaries, or other scholarly discussions of the passage—requires special attention. Typically, they represent the consensus of scholarly opinion identifying which intertextual references need to be taken into account in developing an informed interpretation. Relating these well-­documented cross-­references to a specific passage requires the interpreter to see the connections, and why they make a difference for interpretation. But in sorting through these other texts, the beginning interpreter can look for other connections and even see things that experienced commentators have not seen, or that they have not seen in the same way. Relating a passage to its broader literary context also extends beyond the biblical writings to include nonbiblical writings variously described as apocryphal, pseudepigraphical, or deuterocanonical. Such texts are valuable because they are often roughly contemporary with the text being interpreted, and for this reason they can illuminate the biblical text. Other Jewish writings—such as the collection of texts from Qumran (the Dead Sea Scrolls), or by individual authors such as Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE) or Flavius Josephus (ca. 37–100 CE)—often contain valuable information that relates to the Bible. Many of these connections have been identified and studied extensively by biblical scholars, and they are usually found in biblical commentaries. Besides roughly contemporary texts from the Jewish milieu, pagan texts from the ancient Near East or written by Greek and Roman authors, along with other literary and nonliterary evidence including inscriptions and papyri, can also illuminate one’s exegesis. Over the centuries, scholars have scoured this vast collection of writings to find texts that relate directly to the Bible. In some cases, they have looked for similar genres,



Exegesis: The Art of Seeing 247

such as legal, prophetic, or wisdom texts. They have also found similar grammatical constructions or uses of terms and phrases that illuminate similar uses in the Bible. Exploring this vast and seemingly endless network of literary connections, both within the Bible itself and within the ancient library of texts, enables the interpreter to see connections at many levels. This enables us to chart the connections or even develop a taxonomy of connections. We can see the way in which a particular literary motif such as “covenant,” “testament,” or “kingdom” is used by ancient authors across a wide range of social and historical contexts. Getting a sense of this larger semantic field enables us to read a particular passage in context, or more accurately, within several literary contexts that might be viewed as a series of concentric circles. One reads a passage within its immediate context, within a subsection of the writing, or within the writing as a whole; then within a larger group of writings, such as the Psalms or Prophets, or within the Gospels or NT letters; and even further within the body of nonbiblical texts from the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world. Exploring this labyrinth of texts may be prompted by reading a single text, but the semantic journey is made in order to return to the original text. Having read and analyzed these other texts and having looked for and maybe even seen thematic and literary connections, the interpreter now tries to incorporate them into one’s own explanation of the text. Reading a text prompts one to look at other relevant texts, to see how they are connected, and then to bring these insights to bear on one’s own reading, and finally to develop an informed interpretation of the text. History of Interpretation Another angle of vision is provided by looking at the ways in which a text has been read through the centuries. Sometimes this approach is referred to as “reception history,” since the interpretive process can be seen as the history of how the text has been received by readers in other times and places. Although we sometimes think of reception history as the ways in which the biblical text as a unified, organic whole has been read by later readers who lived after the Scriptures were completed, we can already see this process at work within the Bible itself. In the OT, the books of 1–2 Chronicles can easily be seen as the rewriting, and thus the reinterpretation, of 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings. In the NT, most scholars see the Gospels of Matthew and Luke as rereadings, and thus reinterpretations,

248

Biblical Exegesis

of the earlier Gospel of Mark. Because of the close similarities between the Letters of Colossians and Ephesians, some read the latter as a recasting of the former; similarly, the Letter of 2 Peter is often read as a second edition of the Letter of Jude. The writings of Philo of Alexandria and Josephus illustrate how the OT was read by these Jewish authors. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide ample evidence of how the OT was read by the sectarian Qumran community, which existed in Palestine from about 150 BCE to about 68 CE. The writings of the church fathers, the patristic texts, yield voluminous testimony to how both Testaments were read and understood by Christian writers throughout the Roman Empire. As we saw earlier, when reviewing biblical interpretation in different historical periods, certain ways of reading Scripture tended to develop. These traditions of interpretation even became fairly well standardized, so that rules or principles of interpretation were formulated. This history of interpretation enables us to see how these texts were read and what they meant to Christian readers at different historical periods and in various geographical locations. Researchers have extensively examined how readings of Scripture at different time periods and in different settings reflect interpretive strategies that were known in earlier classical Greek and Roman writers, but that also acquired distinctive Jewish and Christian nuances. From this extensive body of writings, we learn that the meaning of a text was often hotly disputed. In a church controversy, a single biblical text could be quoted on both sides of the debate, with each group insisting that it be understood their way. We can also see that the meaning of texts, or how they were read and understood, could change over time. At one period, readers would look for the deeper meaning of a text by first identifying the literal meaning or the plain sense, but then, by using allegorical interpretation, they would try to ascertain the higher (or deeper) meaning of the text. By analyzing how biblical texts have been read and interpreted over time, exegetes can see the connections earlier readers have made between a specific text and other biblical and nonbiblical texts. They can also see the interpretive strategies that readers used to make sense of a text. Sometimes, in retrospect, these strategies may appear quaint and arbitrary, even strange and nonsensical, but we can benefit by trying to ascertain the logic that informed such readings. Quite often we have to admire the ingenuity displayed by earlier readers and their creative ability to explain interpretive difficulties or to resolve perceived discrepancies in the text. In evaluating these earlier readings, we can also relate the social



Exegesis: The Art of Seeing 249

locations of readers with the ways they interpret texts. Because of the historical distance between us and them, we can also see, perhaps even more clearly than the earlier readers, how their readings reflected their own attitudes and immediate contexts. But even here, we are exercising the art of seeing. By examining the readings of our predecessors, we can see both the richness and limitations of their interpretations of the text, then take these into account as we try to see what is expressed in a text. Theological and Religious Issues and Claims So far, we have concentrated mainly on textual, or literary, connections between a given text and the library of ancient literary texts. We have stressed the importance of looking for, and seeing, how certain words, phrases, or motifs in a single text can be illuminated by identifying relevant cross-­references and engaging in careful comparative work that sheds light on the text we are interpreting. Once we have grasped some of these basic features of our text, we can adjust our vision in order to see another level of meaning in the text. Since our task is biblical exegesis, and our attention is focused on biblical texts, we can rightly assume that they have some religious or theological significance. If these texts relate to what we normally understand as the religions of ancient Israel and early Christianity, they presumably have some religious meaning. Or, if these texts express more formally the contours of belief that are attested in the OT and NT, we can think of them as implicitly or explicitly theological. Accordingly, we can assume that in any given text, something may be at stake either religiously or theologically. If so, we as readers can be expected to see these dimensions of the text. With this interpretive move, we are trying to see at another level. In analyzing the language and structure of the text, we want to see the theological or religious questions being addressed by the text. Is it a text about fundamental human longings, wants, or desires? Does it touch on questions of freedom, guilt and forgiveness, or salvation? Or are its claims related to the Deity, YHWH in the OT, or the Lord God in the NT? And if so, what is being asserted in the text about God? Is God somehow implicated by what is asserted in the text? In the NT, the text may focus on Jesus of Nazareth and his confessed status as Christ and Lord. If so, what specifically is being asserted about this person who is the central cultic figure of early Christianity? In trying to see what is being said theologically, or religiously, the reader might draw on some of the standard categories of systematic or

250

Biblical Exegesis

constructive theology. Here, we would explore how the passage relates to theology, Christology, pneumatology, anthropology, eschatology, or soteriology. Describing What We Have Seen At one level, exegesis might begin as observation, or as a series of analytical moves in which the reader looks at what is said in the text and tries, at an elementary level, to determine what it means. By working through the semantic dimensions of the text and in the process determining what kind of text, what genre, we are dealing with, we begin to see how the language is functioning in relation to its literary form. As we move from the text itself to its larger literary contexts, we try to see literary connections between it and other texts. Our reading takes on an intertextual dimension as we relate our text to other biblical texts, and by extension, to nonbiblical texts, whether Jewish, Christian, or pagan. But gradually, as we begin to understand what is being said in the text, and how it is being said, we also begin to formulate our own ideas about what the text means; or what it might possibly mean in this new interpretive context that is now created between the interpreter and the text. At this stage of reading, exegesis can produce understanding, which in turn invites interpretation. The reader gradually begins to develop not just an explanation of the text but also an interpretation. Based on what we as readers see, we formulate our own construal of the text’s meaning. As we do so and attempt to put it into words, either in oral or written form, we try to persuade others to see what we have seen. Writing up the results of our exegesis thus becomes an exercise in sharing with others what we see in the text—or how we see a text. As we have described the exegetical process, we have stressed the importance of self-­knowledge. Knowing who we are as interpreters and how our own social location and personal history and identity inform how we read a text, we can acknowledge this and take it into account. But this does not mean that we as readers simply impose ourselves upon the text, or insinuate ourselves into the text. Even with our pre-­understanding and our interpretive assumptions, we can still see the text as something that exists on its own. In whatever form we read the text, whether on a printed page or in some digital form, it still exists independently of us as readers. Yet as we read and analyze the text, both its language and literary form, and as we try to see connections between the text and the larger writing in which it occurs, we may be guided by a distinctive set of questions that



Exegesis: The Art of Seeing 251

we have as readers. But we can proceed in our interpretive analysis with a measure of distance that prevents us from reading the text like a mirror that simply reflects our own image. This requires us to think of the text as being able to speak to us—on its own terms and in its own voice. Some refer to this interpretive move as acknowledging the autonomy of the text. In whatever form we are reading it—in a carefully edited and final form, or in some fragmentary and half-­finished form—we can respect our own role as readers yet at the same time see the text as something outside us rather than simply a projection of ourselves. Even though our seeing may be a function of our own perceptive faculties, and even if the way we see helps shape the reality we see, our seeing does not create that reality. If we do not see the text as existing independently of ourselves as readers, we can easily find that we are simply using the text as a way of interpreting ourselves and our own experience. Thus, another function of seeing is the capacity to recognize when our interpretation of a text is nothing more than an extension of ourselves, or a projection of our own views that we held before reading the text; to use a familiar metaphor, we then are reading a text only to discover that we are seeing our own reflection in the bottom of the well. What Do You See? If we think about exegesis as the art of seeing, this metaphor provides a framework in which to evaluate the interpretive work of others. As we work with commentaries and other exegetical discussions in scholarly journals and monographs, we can ask, “What does this interpreter see?” Even further, “What informs an interpretive vision or strategy?” We can quickly detect if an interpreter primarily sees and analyzes philological and grammatical details in the passage. Another interpreter may include extensive, detailed historical information relating to what is mentioned in the text. Accordingly, we can determine that these exegetes see historical issues as essential items to be discussed. Still other interpreters may have a minimum of philological, grammatical, or historical analysis, instead concentrating on literary features of the text. They may be more interested in the narrative flow of the text, or how a text functions within the larger narrative of the book as a whole. Some readers have special interest in the textual variants listed in the margins or footnotes of their study Bible, which enable them to see the text in light of its history and transmission in the manuscript tradition. Recognizing the plurality of perspectives from which a text may be read and analyzed, we can appreciate commentators who understand

252

Biblical Exegesis

these multiple dimensions of a text and can see how they relate to each other. The ability of a commentator to provide insightful comments and rich, coherent exposition of a passage is often related to the nature and scope of their interests—how broadly they can envision what should figure into meaningful interpretation. We sometimes find that commentators may be immensely erudite in the learning they display, and yet rather clueless when it comes to seeing certain theological and religious issues raised in the text. When this happens, it may be the result of limited vision, the ability to see certain things clearly, but other things, even important things, vaguely or not at all. And then, there are those rare commentators who have an uncanny ability to see things in a text that are genuinely illuminating and that deepen our understanding. The crucial question for exegetes is this: What do we see?

Appendix Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

T

he arrival of information technology over the last few decades has greatly affected how interpreters of the Bible read and experience texts. While many Bible readers still prefer the printed page, others enjoy having the Bible readily accessible in electronic form, whether on their desktop or portable computer or in a compact, handheld electronic device. Electronic databases now enable readers to do sophisticated, speedy searches of bibliographical resources that were unimaginable just a few years ago. The availability of such electronic resources has produced greater efficiencies in time and energy. It is no longer necessary for biblical interpreters to be near libraries in order to have access to technical research tools. Now we look at some of the new possibilities this electronic revolution offers biblical exegetes. We also consider some of the special problems these new technologies pose for biblical interpretation. Given the rapidity of change within electronic media, any introduction, however elementary, becomes outdated quickly. Even so, we think it worthwhile to survey some of the basic options currently available. Our treatment falls into two broad categories: (1) biblical software and (2) use of the internet. Biblical Software No survey of biblical software can be truly comprehensive or up-­to-­date in a publication such as this; that would require a website updated on a continual basis. Indeed, by the time this review has been published, it will be out-­of-­date in some respects. Nevertheless, despite rapid changes in technology, there are some enduring qualities to look for in a biblical software package. 253

254

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

We will mention some important criteria, then apply them to some of the popular software packages now available. We now consider some of the most important questions to ask in choosing software. 1. What Bible versions are available? Many software packages emphasize the large number of Bible versions they contain. A crucial consideration for exegetes is the quality of these Bible translations. Given the widespread use of English, a package should contain the major translations in use by Christian and Jewish readers in the English-­speaking world. These include the NRSV, widely used in mainline Protestant churches; the NIV, because of its prominence in evangelical circles; the ESV, produced by evangelical scholars and based on the RSV; the NABRE, which has been adopted officially by the Roman Catholic Church; and the NJPS Tanakh, published by the Jewish Publication Society as the accepted text for Jewish readers. The KJV (or AV) is still preferred by many Christians born before 1950, yet also by Christians of all ages in many conservative and fundamentalist churches. Using these four or five texts in parallel columns will give exegetes who know only English some idea of the translation choices implicit within the original text. Students who read the original biblical languages will need the latest scholarly editions of the Bible in those languages. For the Hebrew Bible, the main scholarly edition is the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia; for the Greek OT (Septuagint), Alfred Rahlfs and Robert Hanhart’s Septuaginta is the most convenient edition available; for the Greek NT, standard critical editions are the twenty-­eighth edition of Novum Testamentum Graece, originally edited by Eberhard Nestle and Erwin Nestle, and Barbara Aland and Kurt Aland, along with Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, and most recently the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster, under the direction of Holger Strutwolf (= NA 28, published in 2012); and the fifth revised edition of The Greek New Testament, edited by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland and by the editors just mentioned, published by the United Bible Societies (= UBS 5 or GNT 5, published in 2014). Other important biblical texts especially important for the history of biblical interpretation include the Latin Vulgate and its English translation, the Douay Version; the German Bible translated by Martin Luther (or modern German translations); and the Anglican Coverdale Bible. Some software packages contain a multiplicity of English-­language Bibles that are often included primarily because their copyright has expired. This enables the software publisher to reproduce them at little



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 255

or no cost. Many of these English translations are included with little, if any, attention given to how faithfully they render the original languages. This is also true of many of the modern-­language Bibles included in these packages. They may present the Bible as using simple language, but their quality varies greatly. 2. How well does the concordance function work? One of the greatest strengths of a computerized Bible is the ability to search for words or phrases quickly and efficiently. But such computerized searches are not necessarily simple. The most basic search is the “simple string search,” which browses a document for a particular set of characters in a designated order. A search for “sin” will produce all the occurrences of the word “sin.” But it will also yield the occurrences of “sinner,” or “single,” since these terms also contain the three designated letters. If the search is limited to these three letters in this order, it might omit occurrences of “sins.” A “complex string search” consists of “partial strings” (a designated group of letters), which may be separated from each other by several letters or words. This type of search is generally more effective than a simple string search. For example, a complex string search for “forgiv sin,” which allows an interval of two words, should find phrases like “forgive my sin,” “forgive us our sins,” “forgiving sin,” and “forgiveness of sins.” We can immediately see the possibilities offered by a complex string search. When we move from searches in English to those using Hebrew and Greek, we encounter some difficulties. Simple string searches in the original languages are more difficult for several reasons. First is the use of different alphabets. A good search engine should have fonts for the original languages built into the program’s interface. Unicode fonts are preferable because they simplify the transfer of files from one computer to the next. If, for example, we wanted to search for “bereshit,” the first word of the Hebrew Bible, with the appropriate font installed, we could type the Hebrew characters using the “qwerty” keyboard (striking keys assigned to different Hebrew letters and symbols) or click on them on a virtual keyboard on the screen, thus producing ‫בראשית‬. The second problem with simple string searches in the original languages is the amount of information that a single word in the original language contains. This occurs because Hebrew and Greek are highly inflected languages. The form of a word changes depending on how it functions within a sentence. The core of the word—its word stem—can

256

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

acquire prefixes and suffixes that reflect whether it is a singular or plural form, its case (nominative, genitive, accusative, etc.), and other changes that affect its meaning. These changes in the form of a word, depending on how it is used in a sentence, are referred to as its morphology (literally, the “study of forms”). For these reasons, each Hebrew and Greek word in the biblical text is associated with a small packet of information that includes the lexical form of the word (the so-­called root form) and its grammatical characteristics. The technical term for grouping this information together is “morphological tagging.” Because of the complexity of Hebrew and Greek, basic string searches are often insufficient. More powerful search engines allow the user to perform morphological searches. This process makes it possible to find words when they appear in specific grammatical configurations. If we wished, we could search for a single inflected form of a Greek word, for example, every instance of the Greek verb anoigō (meaning “to open”) that occurs in a plural aorist passive form. But if we wanted to know where the verb anoigō occurs, regardless of how it is inflected—its tense, voice, mood, or number—we could also conduct this broad search. For evaluating computerized concordances, the general rule is clear: the more sophisticated the engine, the more you can accomplish. 3. How user-­friendly is the software package? This criterion involves two major topics, “interface” and the learning curve. “Interface” refers to how the screen looks in the program: how much information is displayed at one time, the quality of that information, and how easily new information is displayed. Evaluating the program’s interface is partly a question of aesthetics, how the screen looks; and partly functionality, how it serves individual user preferences. Some programs allow users to customize the interface, thereby responding to each user’s needs. The two most important interface questions are these: (1) How easily can one view the biblical text and change between texts? and (2) Does the screen easily display grammatical and lexical information when working with the original languages? A good interface will allow students who do not know the original languages to find the basic morphological information that will enable them to use more sophisticated original-­language tools. Some of the issues involving interface have now been addressed through the increased use of computers in connection with handheld devices such as smart phones and notepads. These devices, along with the software designed to run them, now make it much easier to move between the various platforms.



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 257

The second consideration is the learning curve. The main question here is obvious: How difficult is it to use the program? Can a first-­time user intuitively understand how to use the software? Or will it require some study to figure out how to accomplish basic tasks? Most software packages have an internal logic to them; they make sense, given the approach of the programmers and certain technical limitations with which they are conceived. But how accessible or obvious is that logic for the ordinary user? Some complex packages include a set of learning tools or videos to help first-­time users learn the logic of the program. The best way to determine the learning curve for using a particular program is through its concordance or search function. This tends to be the most commonly used function and potentially the most difficult. 4. What is the quality of the other resources that accompany the biblical texts? Here are some questions to ask: What other tools and resources are included in the package? How pertinent are they to modern scholarly research? How good are they? In evaluating specific tools, we can ask: What lexical and lexicographical tools are included in the package? What commentaries and dictionaries are bundled in the package? When were they originally published? How current is the scholarship represented in them? What theological tendencies are reflected in the resources? As with biblical versions, more is not always better. Less expensive packages tend to include older resources more readily available because they are free of copyright restrictions. Once a certain amount of time has passed, a text enters the public domain and can be reproduced for sale at little or no cost to the publisher. A publisher must pay a licensing fee in order to reproduce works that are more current and still under copyright. Although some works have enduring value despite their age, the exegete must carefully assess the quality of these resources and exercise discernment in using them. Many of the resources included in these software packages have a heavy doctrinal bias, which must be taken into account by discriminating users. Some Current Software Packages Accordance https://​accordancebible​.com

This package is produced by Oaktree Software and is designed for both Apple and Windows users. It includes a number of public-­domain English Bibles and one modern English translation of the user’s choice. Users are

258

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

also able to purchase and “unlock” additional Bible modules. The developers offer more advanced modules in their Scholar’s Collection. These include Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Nestle-­Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece (NA 28), Liddell-­Scott’s Greek-­English Lexicon, Louw-­Nida’s Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament, and Brown-­Driver-­Briggs’s Hebrew and English Lexicon (with the Bauer-­Danker Greek-­English Lexicon of the New Testament [BDAG] available separately). The Scholar’s Collection also contains modules for the Septuagint (LXX), OT Pseudepigrapha, Philo, and Josephus, among others. Many of these texts are grammatically tagged for quick translation helps. Other available collections include the church fathers, individual Greek manuscripts, a Greek NT apparatus, and the Anchor Bible Dictionary. The interface is more intuitive and less cluttered than other Bible programs. Organized around the search function, the main window consists of a “Search Entry” field and a “Results Display” beneath it. If multiple Bible versions have been installed, they can be displayed side by side, with the number of linked modules limited only by the size of the user’s screen. An “Instant Details” floating window displays lexical information when the mouse passes over a Hebrew or Greek word. Multiple searches and lexicons can be organized through a tabbed interface on the main window. One of Accordance’s main strengths is original language searching. Users can search for exact words, words tagged to dictionary entries, or all words with a common root. Complex searches (called “constructs”) can be entered directly into the search field, through the “Search” menu or by means of an interface that graphically depicts the search parameters. Any search result can also be analyzed statistically via a “Details” button, which offers charts, graphs, tables, and concordance lists. The modular design of Accordance is both a strength and weakness, mainly because major English translations and original language versions are not available in the same collection. The introductory collection is a good starting point, but it is not comprehensive. The library of available modules is extensive, and more are being added regularly. In addition, students and pastors are eligible for a discount. Another strength is the quality and responsiveness of customer support. The company’s website provides a plethora of support options, including a weekly blog, flash demos, and a user forum moderated by experienced users as well as Accordance developers. Accordance also schedules one-­day and two-­day hands-­on workshops in the U.S. and Canada to demonstrate the software’s capabilities.



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 259

Logos https://​www​.logos​.com​/academic

This is also an excellent package that runs on both Windows and Macs. The heart of the package organizes the massive number of resources that either come with the program or are available for separate purchase. Many of these resources are older works—often devotional writings— whose copyright protection has expired. Nevertheless, some of them are primary sources that are valuable in doing exegesis, such as the Amarna letters, a forthcoming electronic edition of the Dead Sea Scrolls in both the original languages and English translation, and the complete works of Philo and Josephus. This is certainly a strong collection of resources, with more becoming available all the time. The biblical portion of the program is also very strong. It contains the major English-­language Bibles and a number of others (except the Douay Version, an English translation of the Vulgate used by Roman Catholics). The original-­language editions include the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the major eclectic Greek texts since Stephanus’s Greek edition (1550). The Latin Vulgate is also included, along with Hebrew and Greek interlinears. The search engine is very strong and conducts complex string searches in English and Latin. Complex morphological searches can be conducted in the original languages. The program does not support cross-­version searches. This search engine requires some study in order to conduct complex searches. The interface is fairly intuitive—following a web-­page paradigm—and may be fully customized. Morphology for original-­language words is available by moving the mouse pointer over the word, although the lexical form of the word and definition are not included in this feature. The latter are available with a right click of the mouse. Overall, this package is a very strong resource. The integration of the electronic book resources is its major advantage over the other packages. It too comes with helpful instructional videos. This software package is available in several different versions. The advanced packages are more expensive than any software reviewed here. Olive Tree Bible Software https://​www​.olivetree​.com

Similar to Accordance and Logos, this Bible software package is another valuable resource for biblical exegesis. The package is configured so that it can be used with various types of devices (iPhone, iPad, Android tablet

260

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

and phone, Mac, and Windows computers). It has several study packs that are based on different English versions of the Bible (NIV, ESV, NKJV). Also available is a wide array of study tools, including study Bibles, commentaries, commentary sets, Bible dictionaries and atlases, Hebrew and Greek tools, concordances, and other resources relating to the biblical world. It also contains a wide selection of resources that relate to spirituality and Christian living, including sermons and devotional materials. Biblesoft http://​www​.biblesoft​.com

This package was developed in the 1980s to provide Bible study software for PC users running MS-DOS. Its PC Study Bible was configured to run on Microsoft Windows. The software package is designed primarily for users whose primary exegetical language is English. Biblesoft’s basic package contains some widely used English Bibles such as the KJV and ASV, along with some translations by individuals such as Goodspeed and Young. It also includes a Hebrew and Greek interlinear text. Searching for Hebrew and Greek terms is most easily accomplished through the antiquated Englishman’s Concordance rather than searching with the original languages themselves. The commentaries bundled with the package are quite old (Abbott, Matthew Henry), as are the Bible dictionaries and other study resources (Easton, Smith, Nave). The concordance feature is a simple string search, which means that searches for more than a single word are difficult. The search feature poses some problems. In our tests, even simple single-­word searches had to be tried under a variety of conditions before they would actually run. The user interface is simplistic and designed to prevent several different actions from occurring at once. This limits the amount of information displayed on the screen at any one time. A variety of additional resources, some at a more advanced level, are available in packages and add-­ons. Overall, this package is suitable for basic reference. Websites and the Internet Valuable resources for biblical interpretation are available on the internet, but users must exercise caution. Resources that have been published in conventional printed form—such as encyclopedias, other general



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 261

reference works, scholarly monographs and journals—can be evaluated by several established criteria, such as the publication date and the reputation of the publisher, and the author(s) or editor(s) under whose name(s) they appear. Similar criteria exist for internet resources, but they are not as well established in every case. If a website has been prepared under the auspices of a well-­known university, the user can generally be confident of its reliability. This is especially the case if the website has been in use for several years, is regularly maintained, and has attached to it the name of someone whose credentials can be checked. This is also true of websites prepared by established scholars, whose reputations have been confirmed through their publications and other peer-­review structures within their universities or scholarly guilds. Just as interpreters must use critical judgment in deciding on the quality and credibility of printed books or articles, even more so is this the case with internet resources. Some special considerations in evaluating websites and internet resources include the following: 1. Reputation of the originator or sponsor of the website. Was it created under the auspices of an established college, university, or research center? What are the scholarly credentials of the person(s) responsible for creating and maintaining the website? 2. Date and scholarly value of the resources to which the website provides access. As in the case of software packages, copyright issues often dictate which materials are chosen as resources for biblical interpretation. A commentary or Bible dictionary may show a recent reprint date, but it may have been published years or even centuries earlier. Translations of ancient writings, such as patristic authors, may be useful for general reference, but these may not be satisfactory for more specialized use. In this case, it may be necessary to acquire from a specialized library more up-­to-­date translations that may not be readily available on the internet. 3. Theological viewpoint. Although some websites provide a wide range of resources reflecting diverse theological points of views, others are more narrowly defined. As with printed books and reference works, it is generally possible to determine whether the overall viewpoint of the website is theologically liberal or conservative, whether it represents the extreme of either perspective or some variation in between. 4. Age and probable duration of the website. Since internet resources are more ephemeral than printed resources, how long the website has been in existence and the likelihood of its continued maintenance become

262

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

important considerations. This may be related to its institutional affiliation, for example, whether it is sponsored and supported by a university or research center. But other considerations may come into play as well. Even here, some poorly conceived and badly maintained websites may have been in existence for a long time, and some very good websites may be only a few years (or months) old. As with most things, track record matters. Selected Websites for Biblical Studies General Bible Odyssey https://​www​.bibleodyssey​.org

A comprehensive website related to biblical studies that is sponsored and maintained by the Society of Biblical Literature, an international scholarly organization established in 1880 and located in the United States. The site includes a variety of resources related to the ancient Near East and the Greco-­Roman world. It is designed to draw on the extensive knowledge and expertise of SBL members and cognate organizations in order to provide users with up-­to-­date scholarly material that can be used in teaching and research. The website reflects SBL’s commitment to diversity at every level, along with an ecumenical vision of the range of voices contributing to the discussion. Given the scope and user-­friendliness of the website, it is a valuable resource for teachers at every level. The Bible Tool http://​www​.crosswire​.org​/study​/index​.jsp

This powerful online tool allows users to view the biblical text in parallel columns in hundreds of versions, including the older English translations (RSV, NASB; not the NRSV or NIV) and some original language versions (the Westcott & Hort Greek New Testament and Rahlf’s Septuagint). Users can click on original language terms for brief definitions and quick concordance (simple) searches. The site also includes several older, and obviously theologically slanted, commentaries. The site is clean and user-­friendly, but it does not include many of the newer, copyrighted translations and resources.



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 263

Biblical Interpretation http://​interp​-­­mss​.com

Great primer on manuscripts, manuscript transmission, and textual criticism; contains many good pictures (including an animated sheet of papyrus constructing itself) and a helpful exercise that illustrates the process of using an English text. Blue Letter Bible http://​www​.blueletterbible​.org

A solid content resource, this site presents the Bible text in several translations. It contains some valuable features such as a biblical concordance. It also contains usable interlinear editions of the OT and the NT, which correlate each Hebrew and Greek word or phrase with a corresponding English translation. Especially helpful is the numbering system for each term, which enables users to get to the relevant entry in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon, encyclopedia (Kittel), or wordbook. Other supporting resources, including some of the commentaries, are dated. Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Pitts Theology Library https://​pitts​.emory​.edu; and https://​libraries​.emory​.edu

Besides the vast resources to which Emory’s Pitts Theology Library at the Candler School of Theology in Atlanta gives users access, several links on the website provide a wide range of carefully selected and topically arranged resources and study tools. Over sixty links are listed under the tab “Research Guides.” One of the most useful for beginning students is “Exegesis,” which connects users with many of the Bible study software packages and websites listed in this Bibliography of Electronic Resources. Some of the Research Guide links include Accordance, Biblical Greek, Biblical Hebrew, Biblical Reception History, Black Perspectives in Theology, Early Christian Apocrypha, English Translations of the Bible, Feminist Theology, Finding Information on Marginalized People, Greco-­Roman Contexts of the New Testament, Interpretation of the New Testament, Interpretation of the Old Testament, Islam, Judaism, LGBTQ: Bible and Theology, Online Resources for Research, Paul the Apostle, Recommended New Testament Commentaries, Recommended Old Testament Commentaries, Religious Studies, Theological Research for Beginners, Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG), and Women in Early Christianity.

264

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

Catholic Resources http://​catholic​-­­resources​.org

The Bible information and links are collected and organized by Felix Just, SJ. Featured parts of the website include the Electronic New Testament Educational Resources (E.N.T.E.R.), a collection of materials for Bible study designed for readers with different levels of training and experience. Other links include the Johannine Literature Web, Biblical and Religious Art and Music, Ancient Rome: Images and Pictures, Impressions of Italy: Cities, Churches, Art, along with several resources related to liturgy. An extensive collection of materials, detailed and thorough, this site could function as a hypertext introductory handbook. New English Translation (NET) Bible Website https://​netbible​.org

While the NET Bible website offers a new translation of the Bible, the feature that makes it noteworthy is inclusion of over 60,000 translators’ notes that accompany the text online. These annotations fall into three categories: (a) Translator Notes (marked with “tn”) discuss issues related to original languages by offering possible alternative translations or discussing difficulties pertaining to specific words; (b) Text-­ Critical Notes (tc) survey the significant alternative readings found in the manu­script traditions and explain in nontechnical terms why the selected reading is preferred; (c) Study Notes (sn) provide additional historical or theological information that proves important for understanding the interpretation of a word or phrase within a broader context. When appropriate, relevant scholarly works are often cited for further study as well. Additionally, the Greek or Hebrew text can be displayed alongside the English translation and are cross-­linked, allowing English readers to begin exploring the original languages in a limited fashion through the English text. Oxford Bibliographies Online https://​www​.oxfordbibliographies​.com

A comprehensive resource managed by an editor in chief, assisted by area editors who are specialists in the field or subfield. Under “Biblical Studies” are links to individual writings and also to topical links such as “Biblical Criticism.”



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 265

Religious Texts http://​www​.religion​-­­online​.org

This website gives the following description: “Religion Online is designed to assist teachers, scholars and general ‘seekers’ who are interested in exploring religious issues. The aim is to develop an extensive library of resources, representing many different points of view, but all written from the perspective of sound scholarship. While the initial orientation has been to seek material written primarily from a Christian perspective, the ultimate aim is to broaden the scope to include material on all the world’s major religions.” The website reports that it has collected nearly 6,000 chapters, monographs, speeches, and articles and made them available online. Among its Old Testament titles are works by Napier, Brueggemann, and Koptak; New Testament items include works by Dibelius, Keck, Jeremias, Perrin, and L. T. Johnson. STEP Bible https://​www​.stepbible​.org

The acronymn STEP refers to Scripture Tools for Every Person. This website was developed primarily for nonspecialists, those who are not theologically trained but who wish to explore the Bible in greater detail. It allows users to look up biblical passages in over 50 English translations and over 300 non-­ English translations. Through easy-­ use design, the STEP Bible enables users to determine the Hebrew or Greek word behind the translation. Because of its simplicity and user-­ friendly design, STEP Bible has become a popular study tool for Bible readers. Textual Criticism http://​jbtc​.org​/​#page​=​home; and http://​rosetta​.reltech​.org​/TC​/TC​.html

This is the link to A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (ISSN 1089-­ 7747), a peer-­ reviewed electronic journal devoted to the study of ancient Jewish and Christian texts. The website describes TC as “an open access journal and online publication of the Society of Biblical Literature that is listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals.” The website contains large numbers of transcriptions and facsimiles(!) of the great Uncials (‫ א‬is represented by Tischendorf’s diplomatic edition; B is Tischendorf’s transcription; D is Tischendorf’s facsimile [often a bit

266

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

dark for viewing, as for Matt 1, Latin]); a transcription collation of f13; and a transcription of sys. Also included are several old modern critical editions—the Cambridge Septuagint (LXX), Field’s Hexapla, von Gall’s Samaritan Pentateuch, 1873 Textus Receptus, von Soden’s NT, Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentum Graece 8th ed., and volume 2 of Westcott and Hort’s Greek NT. Wabash Center https://​www​.wabashcenter​.wabash​.edu​/resources​/current​-­­matters​/scholarship​ -­­on​-­­teaching

This is a collection of electronic resources related to religious study and practice, with a special interest in teaching religion. Topics are grouped by subject matter as well as resource type. One of the most valuable features of this website is the collection of syllabi from courses taught on specific topics. Websites Related to the Old Testament and the Ancient Near East Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran http://​orion​.mscc​.huji​.ac​.il

Sponsored by the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which is part of the Institute for Jewish Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. It is generally considered the best site for the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature https://​etcsl​.orinst​.ox​.ac​.uk​/index​.html

The name says it all. The texts are in transliteration and translation, and bibliographical data are also included. ETANA http://​www​.etana​.org

The most valuable site on the web relating to the ancient Near East (ANE). This site contains classic scholarship on the ANE, including 135 scanned-­in key primary and secondary sources (often in German or



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 267

French). It also contains links to current archaeological sites and includes searchable current secondary literature. Websites Related to the New Testament and Early Christianity Early Christian Writings http://​www​.earlychristianwritings​.com

Both a gateway and a primary source site, this website focuses on the literature produced by early Christians and their opponents from the beginnings to Origen (ca. 185–254 CE). Over 200 texts or authors are listed in provisional chronological order. Clicking on the text or author opens a page for each entry that gives links to online texts and resources and bibliographical information for offline resources. Often a short description of the significance of the entry accompanies it. The “Historical Jesus” section has good summaries of players in the so-­called Third Quest. The site is operated by Peter Kirby but does not list his credentials or affiliations. Early Jewish Writings http://​www​.earlyjewishwritings​.com

Another resource of texts collected by Peter Kirby. Encyclopedia of NT Textual Criticism http://​www​.skypoint​.com​/members​/waltzmn

Extensive in scope; a valuable reference for matters related to textual criticism; not updated since 2007. The Five Gospels Parallels http://​sites​.utoronto​.ca​/religion​/synopsis

This site is edited by John W. Marshall, who gives his institutional location as the Department for the Study of Religion at the University of Toronto. This site presents the Gospels (RSV) in parallel, allowing the user to pull up a passage in one Gospel and see the corresponding parallels. The site allows several permutations, including the four canonical Gospels, the three Synoptic Gospels, the four Gospels

268

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

plus the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospels and Paul. The site needs updating. New Testament Gateway http://​www​.ntgateway​.com; and https://​academic​.logos​.com

This site was originally produced by Mark Goodacre, a NT professor in the Department of Religion at Duke University. The URL now takes the user to the Logos Academic Blog (theLAB). As a gateway, it is a collection of links grouped under a variety of topics bringing together some of the best NT scholarship on the web. Especially interesting is the collection on the Synoptic problem, which reflects Goodacre’s support for the so-­called Farrer hypothesis: Mark was the earliest Gospel, used as a source by Matthew; and Luke used both Mark and Matthew as sources. New Testament Transcripts Prototype (NT Textual Criticism) http://​nttranscripts​.uni​-­­muenster​.de

This is the website for the Institute for New Testament Textual Research at the University of Münster in Westphalia, Germany. It works in collaboration with Scholarly Digital Editions (University of Birmingham, UK) and is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft in Bonn, Germany. As the central organizing agency for collecting digital copies of all manuscripts, papyri, and other literary evidence for preparing critical editions of the Greek New Testament, it provides the basic research foundation for editorial work related to the publication of ongoing editions of the Nestle-­Aland Novum Testamentum Graece (now in its 28th ed.) and the UBS Greek New Testament (now in its 5th ed.). The website also contains scholarly resources relating to the production of the Editio Critica Maior, the encyclopedic critical edition of the NT. With the shift to the Coherence-­Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) of doing NT textual criticism, the Institute serves as a center for scholarly exchange relating to this new theoretical model. Numerous digital resources relating to the CBGM are available on the website. This is the major scholarly resource for all work related to NT textual criticism. Through this website, users can access the manuscripts and other sources, such as papyri related to the origin and transmission of the text of the NT. The website allows a user to work through the Nestle-­Aland Greek text (NA, 28th ed.) verse by verse and explore the



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 269

textual apparatus. For each verse the apparatus is provided (along with a basic definition of the Greek words via Perseus), and the user can click on each manuscript to see a transcription of the Greek text. The site also has detailed information on twenty-­six major Greek manuscripts. Users are required to download (for free) Greek fonts. Paul and Pauline Studies http://​www​.paulonpaul​.org

Introductory site on Paul that uses the letters to sketch a history of his missionary work; it includes cautionary sections on why Acts is not as reliable historically as the letters themselves. The site needs to be updated. The New Perspective on Paul http://​www​.thepaulpage​.com; and https://​academic​.logos​.com

A good scholarly page on the new perspective on Paul (Wright, Dunn, et al.), containing articles and essays reflecting multiple viewpoints, along with bibliography. The URL takes the user to the Logos Academic Blog (theLAB). Synoptic Problem Home Page http://​www​.hypotyposeis​.org​/synoptic​-­­problem

This website by Stephen C. Carlson lists all the major solutions proposed (throughout the history of scholarship) to the Synoptic problem and includes helpful diagrams of each solution. The site also contains links to other sites related to the Synoptic problem. The site needs to be updated. Tyndale House https://​tyndalehouse​.com

Tyndale House is a research library in Cambridge, England, located near the main University library. Established in the 1940s as a resource for fostering Christian scholarship mainly focused on biblical studies, Tyndale House serves as a center in which scholars can live and work. It sponsors lectures on various topics and serves as a meeting place for visiting scholars. The website also gives access to resources related to biblical study, including articles, podcasts, and projects sponsored by Tyndale

270

Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis

House such as the Tyndale Greek New Testament and the STEP Bible (see above). It is an especially useful resource for beginning exegetes. W. Willker Bible-­Links Page http://​www​.willker​.de​/wie​/ww​_tc​.html

Valuable collection of links relating to NT textual criticism; includes a complete list of NT papyri, giving papyrus number, name, contents, location. Rather than using the website address, it is simpler to search for “W. Willker’s Bible Pages.” The site needs to be updated. World of the Bible (Ancient Near East, Greek and Roman Classical World) Ancient World Mapping Center Links http://​awmc​.unc​.edu​/wordpress

Links to major ancient mapping sites on the web. Centre for the Study of Ancient Documents https://​www​.csad​.ox​.ac​.uk

According to the website description, CSAD is located in the Faculty of Classics at the University of Oxford. It is described as “one of the world’s foremost centres for the study of the documentary evidence for the ancient world. It hosts projects of national and international significance in the fields of Greek and Roman epigraphy. CSAD maintains close links with the related disciplines of papyrology, numismatics and prosopography. . . . Since its foundation in 1995, the Centre has been home to research projects devoted to such disparate areas as Hadrian’s Wall, Roman Phrygia, and Ptolemaic Egypt.” Among other things, this website contains links to the Vindolanda tablets and the Oxyrhynchus papyri. Duke Papyrus Archive https://library.duke.edu/papyrus

Offers online images and reference material relating to over 1,400 papyri. Texts are organized by topic, language, and chronology. The site also includes helpful articles on topics related to the study of papyri and links to other papyri-­related items.



Appendix: Using Electronic Technologies in Exegesis 271

Into His Own http://​virtualreligion​.net​/iho

A website on the background and environment from which Jesus and early Christianity came; many translations of primary texts; choice of texts and overall framework reflect outlook of the Jesus Seminar. Jewish Roman World of Jesus http://​www​.religiousstudies​.uncc​.edu​/JDTABOR​/indexb​.html

Scholarly articles and essays on NT backgrounds collected by James D. Tabor, who is professor of Christian origins and ancient Judaism in the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Perseus http://​www​.perseus​.tufts​.edu

The Perseus Digital Library (sometimes called the Perseus Project) is an online collection of books and resources in English, Greek, Latin, and other languages. One of the two main collections on Perseus focuses on Greek and Roman Materials. This collection of materials contains both primary resources from the classical world written in Greek and Latin (often accompanied by English translations) and secondary sources written in English. No special permission or fee is required to use Perseus. For an overview of the Perseus project, see Lisa M. Cerrato, Robert F. Chavez, Perseus Classics Collection: An Overview (https://​www​.perseus​ .tufts​.edu​/hopper​/text​?doc​=​Perseus:​text:​1999​.04​.0053). Perseus is one of the most valuable resources for studying the ancient classical world.

Glossary

Alexandrian school of exegesis. Interpretive approach to Scripture, prominent from the third century onward, heavily influenced by Platonism, which gave priority to the allegorical (deeper, or higher) meaning of Scripture; popularized by Origen and other theologians associated with Alexandria, including Clement and Cyril. allegory, allegorical interpretation. Interpretive process in which a schema of words, phrases, and images in a text refer to something other than what they apparently refer to as their ordinary meaning or plain sense. anachronism. Something in a text that does not fit the purported time of composition. Antiochian school of exegesis. Interpretive approach to Scripture, prominent in Antioch of Syria in the fourth century CE, that acknowledges the legitimacy of allegorical interpretation but gives more weight to the literal meaning, or plain sense, of the biblical text; especially concerned to maintain the organic unity of the Bible; major proponents include Diodore of Tarsus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Nestorius, and John Chrysostom. apocalyptic, apocalypticism, apocalypse. Literally, “unveil,” thus to reveal, as in a dream or vision; specifically a type of writing expressing a form of thinking found in certain OT writings (Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel), other Jewish writings (1–2 Enoch, 4 Ezra), and the NT (Revelation; Matt 24; Mark 13; Luke 21; 2 Thess 2); uses highly symbolic language and images to interpret current events and to sketch an ultimately hopeful future in spite of threats from enemies and other crises. Apocrypha, apocryphal. Literally, “secret” or “hidden,” designating writings whose authenticity or authority is somehow dubious; specifically, writings included in the Septuagint and Vulgate that are not found in Jewish and most Protestant Bibles, such as 1–2 Maccabees and Wisdom of Solomon; early Christian writings not found in the New Testament, such as various apocryphal gospels and acts of the apostles. Aramaic. Northwest Semitic language closely related to Hebrew; usage is documented in Syria from the ninth century BCE, and eventually became the lingua franca in Palestine, replacing Hebrew as the common language; probably Jesus’ primary language (Mark 14:36); during the Hellenistic-­Roman period, Aramaic gave way to Koine Greek in the eastern Mediterranean regions as the main administrative language; some Aramaic dialects developed into separate languages, such as Syriac.

273

274

Glossary

autograph. The presumed original text of an ancient writing from which all later copies derived; no autographs of the biblical writings have survived. binary. Consisting of two parts or elements; in recent discussion, a pair of opposites or mutually exclusive concepts, such as binary opposition. canon, canonical. A delimited collection of writings deemed as normative, authoritative, and thus sacred by a given religious community. chiasm, chiasmus, chiastic. An ancient literary device often used as a principle of literary arrangement: a series of items is listed, then again in reverse order: A, B, C, C′, B′, A′. Chronicler, the. The assumed editor(s) of 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. codex (pl., codices). Ancient manuscript in the form of a book (as opposed to a scroll), probably an early Christian innovation devised to expedite the study of Scripture. colonialism. See postcolonialism. concordance. Alphabetical listing of words used in a given body of writings (the Bible, Shakespeare, etc.), giving a line from the reference in which each word (or phrase) is located; previously available only in book form but now increasingly available in an electronic form capable of simple and complex searches. critical apparatus, Latin apparatus criticus. The notes at the bottoms of pages (or in the margins) of a critical edition, in which the editors of the text display variant readings and the textual witnesses that support those readings. critical edition. An edition of the Hebrew, Greek, or Latin Bible in which an editor or editorial board displays a text that has been carefully compiled according to certain well-­defined principles in order to represent the best or most reliable form of that text; typically includes a critical apparatus, a set of notes at the bottom of the page in which textual witnesses are displayed to assist readers in determining how and why the text printed in the upper half of the page was adopted. critical theory, or simply theory. A cluster of scholarly conversations from multiple disciplines including history, literature, anthropology, and cultural studies that focus mainly on meaning and how it relates to human self-­consciousness, language, the dynamics of power, and both personal and social identity. criticism, critical. Technical term used to describe informed analysis by someone with expert knowledge and training. Dalit theology. A theological movement that emerged in India in the 1980s as a way of breaking through the caste system and other social structures that limited religious belief and expression, aiming to achieve liberation from oppression. Dead Sea Scrolls. A collection of over 900 ancient manuscripts of biblical and nonbiblical texts written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, discovered in twelve caves near the Dead Sea between 1947 and 1956, with some additional discoveries in recent years; especially important for textual studies relating to the Hebrew Bible; see Qumran. deconstruction. Poststructuralist interpretive method pioneered by Jacques Derrida in which the reader analyzes conceptual or thematic tensions (differences or gaps) within a text as a way of showing the elusiveness of clear, stable, or definitive meaning; also interested in the power dynamics within a text in order to expose how the language and linguistic structures within a text create relational perceptions that must be subverted. derash. In Jewish exegesis, the homiletical appropriation of a biblical text. deuterocanonical. From “deutero,” second or secondary, and “canonical,” thus designating writings considered of secondary importance or authority; often used as a synonym



Glossary 275

for “apocryphal”; specifically, writings of the Septuagint not included in the Hebrew Scriptures. diachronic. Literally, “through time,” thus designating how a text or tradition, or even a word or phrase, developed historically from an earlier to a later period; used to designate any approach that emphasizes the importance of historical, sequential development. dittography. A textual error recognized by textual critics in which a scribe mistakenly copies something twice. empire, empire studies. A subfield of postcolonialism that focuses on the theme of empire and its many expressions such as imperial rule in both the ancient and modern world; seeks to appropriate biblical themes in which living under imperial rule, such as during the Babylonian exile or Roman rule in first-­century Palestine, gave expression to visions of resistance, endurance, and hope. Enlightenment, the. Eighteenth-­century philosophical movement in Europe, especially France, characterized by an anti-­authoritarian, skeptical outlook, along with the use of empirical scientific method combined with rational analysis. Eurocentrism. The notion that Europe from the early Reformation forward has dominated intellectual discourse, along with scholarly research and writing through which its influence has reached to all parts of the globe; regarded by postcolonialist interpreters as a negative legacy because of its association with structures of expansion and domination, and accordingly must be combatted by emphasizing the vibrancy of other centers of intellectual thought, such as Africa and Asia. exegesis. The systematic process through which one reaches an informed interpretation of a text. feminist criticism. An interpretive approach that originated in the nineteenth century and re-­emerged in the 1960s, in which the full equality of women is the fundamental operating assumption and guiding perspective used to critique patriarchal and androcentric structures and points of view found in the Bible and other religious texts from antiquity. form criticism. Interpretive approach that focuses on small, individual literary units of a text, seeking to identify their literary genre and the “setting in life” in which they originated; assumes that form, content, context, and meaning are interrelated. formalist, formalism. A theoretical approach that focuses on the literary structure of a text, especially the final form of a text and its outward, seemingly fixed literary character. fourfold meaning. Schematized interpretive approach perfected in the Middle Ages in which readers looked for four levels of meaning within a biblical text: literal (plain sense), allegorical (related to Christian doctrine), moral (or tropological, related to Christian practice) , and anagogical (a spiritual, mystical sense pointing toward eventual union with God). gloss. A marginal or interlinear comment or correction made by a scribe or reader in an ancient manuscript. Gospel harmony. A work in which all four Gospels are woven together to present a unified, harmonized account of the life and death of Jesus; the underlying assumption is that if the pieces are put together properly, a single, coherent, unified account of Jesus can be constructed; an early example is Tatian’s Diatessaron (ca. 150–160 CE). Gospel synopsis. A work in which the Synoptic Gospels usually, but all four Gospels occasionally, are displayed in parallel columns in order to show differences and similarities in wording and problems in sequencing the events; spacing is used to highlight these

276

Glossary

differences, with no attempt to harmonize the accounts; instead, the synopsis enables interpreters to see each account as a distinctive telling of the Jesus story. grammatical criticism. Aspect of exegesis that focuses on interpretive issues relating to grammar and syntax. haplography. Textual or text-­critical error in which a scribe unintentionally omits something found in the text being copied. hermeneutic(s) of suspicion. A mode of interpretation popularized by Paul Ricoeur in which one adopts an attitude of skepticism toward a text by asking about its overall point of view, whom or what the text privileges or discounts, giving little or no benefit of the doubt to the author or editor who composed the text; instead, the interpreter is a contrarian who “reads against the grain,” seeking to expose hidden biases in the text, especially those that value hierarchy and control instead of equality and freedom. Hexapla. Literally, “having six parts,” but referring to the name of Origen’s text-­critical work on the OT (written ca. 231–245 CE) in which he arranged the Bible in six parallel columns consisting of the Hebrew text, the Hebrew text transliterated into Greek letters, and the four Greek versions of Aquila, Symmachus, the Septuagint in a revised text with critical signs, and Theodotion. historical criticism. Interpretive approach that sees the perceived time gap between our understanding of the present and past as the defining category for analyzing texts. history of religions (school) (German, religionsgeschichtliche Schule). School of thought, or an intercultural approach to religious and biblical studies, in which scholars seek to understand the religions, as opposed to the theologies, reflected in ancient religious texts and artifacts, especially as they relate to other forms of religion and religious systems; sometimes used interchangeably with comparative religions or religious studies. implied author, reader. Concept developed within reader-­response criticism acknowledging that the original author or editor and the original reader or audience might be unknown and unidentifiable but that both are implied within any written composition and can be used as meaningful interpretive categories. inclusio. Literary device in which a word, motif, or theme at the beginning of a literary unit is repeated at the end of the unit; a form of literary bracketing. intentional fallacy. Concept developed in New Criticism to indicate the fallacy of trying to interpret a literary text in order to determine the author’s original intention. interlinear. An edition of the Bible (or other work) that displays the text in the original language (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic) on one line and the corresponding (English) translation on an adjacent line, thereby allowing the reader to see how each word or phrase of the original corresponds to its translation equivalent. intertextuality, intertextual. Recognition of some type of formal or thematic connection between a text and other texts within a defined comparative group; one of the most common forms is cross-­referencing biblical texts, a comparative process in which texts from different parts of the Bible are adduced in order to illuminate a single text. J, E, D, P. Abbreviations of the four main literary sources comprising the Pentateuch: J, Yahwist, passages using YHWH (Jahweh, in German) as the divine name; E, Elohist, passages using Elohim as the divine name; D, relating mainly to Deuteronomy; and P, for Priestly sources or texts with special emphasis on the temple and cult.



Glossary 277

Josephus, Flavius (ca. 37–100 CE). Jewish historian whose works include The Jewish War, an account of the First Jewish Revolt against Rome (66–74 CE); Antiquities of the Jews, a twenty-­volume work rehearsing the history of the Jewish people from its ancient origins until the first century CE; Against Apion, a defense of Judaism; Life, an autobiographical work; in spite of some deficiencies, his writings are a major source of information for Second Temple Judaism. lexicography, lexicon, lexical. The field of study relating to the meaning of words, including their origin and etymology, range of usage and corresponding senses, all of which are assembled to form a lexicon (dictionary). LGBTQIA+. Acronym that includes the range of identities related to gender and sexuality: lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, asexual, and others not included. liberation theology. A theological movement originating in the 1950s and 1960s, mainly in Latin America, that gave special attention to the poor and disenfranchised and developed theological visions and programs appropriating the theme of liberation as expressed in the OT story of the exodus and other biblical texts reporting oppression and offering freedom from various forms of domination. literary criticism. A broad category often used in different ways to describe the aspect of interpreting a text that focuses on its wording and patterns of verbal arrangement that relate especially to matters of style. logia. Sayings such as proverbs, pronouncements, even parables, usually used in reference to the teachings of Jesus. LXX. Abbreviation for the Septuagint (see below), prepared by about “seventy” translators. Masoretic Text, Masora, Masorah, Masorete. The Masoretes are the scholars responsible for the tradition (Masorah/Masora) that developed from the sixth to the tenth centuries CE and sought to preserve the best form of the Hebrew Scriptures; their work is preserved in marginal notes relating to the frequency and forms of various words and phrases, the vocalization (pointing) of consonantal forms to show vowels, and the addition of accents and other marks relating to proper reading (cantillation); the Masoretic Text (or MT) is often used as a shorthand way of referring to this widely used form of the Hebrew Bible, as opposed to the Septuagint (Greek OT), the Latin Vulgate, or any other version of the Jewish Scriptures. minjung theology. Korean theological movement that began in the 1970s as a way of addressing the legacy of oppression under Chinese and Japanese domination, focusing on the common people, social justice, the protection of human rights, and political activism to advance this vision. modernism, modernity. Period of history from roughly the mid-­eighteenth century, especially from the mid-­nineteenth century to the mid-­twentieth century, in which the defining sensibility is acute awareness of a time gap between what we see as present and past, and the corollary conviction that the present, or what is modern, is superior to the past; related sensibilities include notions of progress, enlightenment, scientific and technological innovation. New Criticism. Literary approach popularized by John Crowe Ransom, William Wimsatt, Monroe Beardsley, and like-­minded literary critics who see a poetic or prose text, once it is completed, as an autonomous literary artifact that a reader interprets as a text having its own voice, not as a communication act through which the reader tries to discern the intent of the author as expressed in the work.

278

Glossary

paraenesis, paraenetic. Pertaining to exhortation or encouragement, such as a paraenetic letter. PaRDeS, or “paradise.” Acronym for the fourfold meaning of Scripture in Jewish exegesis; formed from the initial letters of peshat (plain meaning), remez (allusion or allegory), derash (homiletical meaning), and sod (mystery, or secret meaning). patristic, patristics. Of or pertaining to the church fathers—Christians who wrote from the end of the first century (mostly after the NT writings) until the end of the eighth century CE; their writings consist of comments or sermons on the biblical text, along with other thematic works and writings in other genres (apologies, chronography, meditations, pastoral instructions, history, liturgies, etc.). pericope (pronounced puh-­RIK-­uh-­pee). A short, well-­defined literary unit, typically a paragraph or two. peshat. In Jewish exegesis, the plain meaning of a text. Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BCE–50 CE). Prolific Greek-­speaking Jewish writer who interpreted the Pentateuch in light of Middle Platonic philosophy, using allegorical interpretation as one of his main exegetical approaches; his commentaries and other thematic essays are important comparative texts for biblical scholars. philology, philological. Subfield of linguistics that has three constitutive components: grammar (relational usage of words and phrases), semantics (word meanings), and pragmatics (rules of usage). postcolonialism, postcolonial, colonialism, colonizers, colonized. An interpretive movement focusing on the period after World War II that saw the dissolution of major European empires and the retrospective awareness of the negative effects of imperial rule and colonialism upon those who had been colonized; in its more radical forms, postcolonialism uses totalizing discourse that sees only two groups, colonizers and colonized, as the binary through which all biblical texts should be interpreted. postmodernism. A cluster of perspectives from the mid-­twentieth century onward that sharply critique modernity and promote an alternative set of sensibilities: subjectivity, ambiguity, diversity, fragmentation, heterogeneity, particularity, and radical individual freedom. poststructuralism. Interpretive approach that is critical of structuralism’s emphasis on underlying and unifying themes, emphasizing instead tensions, differences, gaps, and fissures within texts that provide clues to its meaning and significance. prehistory. The term used to designate the earlier forms in which a text or one of its subunits existed prior to its being incorporated formally into a written composition. pseudepigraphy, pseudepigraphical, pseudepigrapha. Literally, a “false writing,” a literary work written under the name of someone else (thus, pseudonymous), usually a revered figure of the past. Q. From Quelle, “source,” a hypothetical document designating the material common to Matthew and Luke that is absent in Mark; it turns out to be mostly sayings material, and is generally referred to as the sayings source used by Matthew and Luke. Qumran. A site in the land of Israel near the Dead Sea where the Essenes founded a sectarian Jewish community around 150 BCE, which was destroyed by Rome in about 68 CE; the collection of ancient manuscripts discovered at the site from 1947 to 1956, and also more recently, are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls.



Glossary 279

Qur’an, also Quran, Koran. The sacred text of Islam containing (according to traditional Muslim belief) revelations the prophet Muhammad received from the angel Gabriel; it is arranged in 114 chapters (suras in Arabic) of varying length. reader-­response criticism. Interpretive approach in which meaning emerges from the interaction between the text and the reader rather than being seen as something inside the text that provides a clue to the author’s intent. reception history. The reading and appropriation of texts and traditions through successive generations. redaction. An editorial change. redaction criticism. Interpretive approach, especially in Gospels research, that assesses the theological significance of editorial changes made to a previous text or tradition; typically interested in the way these editorial changes occur within a writing as a whole rather than in smaller, individual literary units. remez. In Jewish exegesis, the allegorical or allusive sense of Scripture. rhetorical criticism. An interpretive approach that draws on the categories of ancient Greek and Roman rhetoricians to interpret Scripture; the term “rhetorical” as applied to biblical interpretation can also refer more broadly to the persuasive dimensions of a text. root fallacy. Assuming that a word has an original “root” meaning that inheres in its usage even when the word is used in other senses over time. Samaritan Pentateuch. Also known as the Samaritan Torah, a version of the Pentateuch written in ancient Samaritan script and canonized by the ancient Samaritans, who considered themselves to be the true Israel, and their sanctuary at Mount Gerizim as the true temple; contains numerous differences from the Masoretic Text of the Pentateuch. semantics, semantic. The subfield of semiotics that focuses on the meaning of words, their history and usage; at one time, this area of study focused on how word usage and derivational meaning changed over time but more recently has focused on how words function within larger linguistic and social systems. Septuagint, literally “seventy,” abbreviated LXX. The Greek translation(s) of the Hebrew Bible; the name derives from the Letter of Aristeas (ca. 2nd century BCE), which reports how seventy-­two men appointed by the Jewish high priest in Jerusalem traveled to Alexandria to prepare a Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah; the term eventually came to include the entire Greek OT. Sitz im Leben. German, “setting in life,” an interpretive category popularized by form critics to emphasize the importance of certain social settings (worship, catechesis, preaching, etc.) as the context in which specific literary genres (prayers, confessions, hymns, etc.) were formed. social location. A phrase used to underscore the contextual setting within which authors and editors, along with readers and interpreters, do their work, mainly to call attention to the assumptions and biases that come with one’s specific social, cultural setting. sod. In Jewish exegesis, the mystical or secret meaning of Scripture. source criticism, analysis. Interpretive approach that seeks to identify and analyze the literary and oral sources that might have been utilized in composing a text. structuralism. Interpretive approach that sees a text as autonomous and reflective of universal themes or principles understood as contrasting pairs (binaries), embedded within the text; de-­emphasizes diachronic (historical or temporal) dimensions of the text and

280

Glossary

emphasizes synchronic interpretation, which sees all texts as a part of a single universe of texts that can be compared with each other. superscription. A title ascribing to an ancient writing, usually written at the top or beginning of the document. symbolic world (universe). An interpretive category popularized by Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann to designate the conceptual world of symbols and other linguistic expressions such as images and metaphors that function as the conceptual framework with which an author or speaker works. synchronic. Literally, “with time,” used to designate an interpretive approach to texts that sees a single text as part of a universal library of texts, and in which the interpreter can adduce illuminating parallels from this body of texts without any consideration of how the two texts relate to each other chronologically. Tanakh, Tanak (pronounced tah-­NAK). Acronym for the Jewish Bible formed from the initial letters of the three main sections of the Hebrew Scriptures: Torah (Pentateuch), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Targum, targums, targumim, targumic. Aramaic translations of the Bible, preserved in two main forms: (1) Targum Onkelos (or Onqelos), which reflects the Babylonian context and came to be called the Babylonian Targum, which emphasizes the plain sense of the Hebrew text; and (2) several Palestinian Targums—such as Targum Yerushalmi, also known as Targum Pseudo-­Jonathan—which tend to be paraphrastic and homiletical. text type. A category used by textual critics to include ancient manuscripts or other textual witnesses that appear to be similar in terms of their origin and history, or in the ways they tend to represent a particular textual tradition. textual criticism, text criticism, text critic, text-­critical. Branch of biblical criticism dealing with the history, preservation, and transmission of a text through the centuries; seeks to determine the pattern of connections between textual variations and to assess their significance, especially by determining genetic relationships among them. textual variant. A variation in the wording of a specific text as it occurs in two or more ancient manuscripts; see variant readings. tradition, tradent. Stories and texts from earlier times that are remembered and recalled, often introduced with the language of “receiving” and “transmitting”; tradition refers to the content of what is recalled, and tradent refers to the person who is passing on the tradition. tradition criticism. Interpretive approach that focuses on the origin and development of oral traditions relating to various aspects of a community’s life (worship, proclamation, collective memory, etc.) and, if possible, constructs a “history of tradition” that shows stages of development in the formation of those traditions. transliterate, transliteration. Using the letters of one language to write a text written in another language, such as Origen’s writing the text of the Hebrew Bible while using the letters of the Greek alphabet. two-­Gospel hypothesis. A theory in Gospel studies, associated with the name of J. J. Griesbach, that sees Matthew as the earliest Gospel, but as a source used by Luke; and sees both Matthew and Luke as sources for Mark’s abbreviated account of Jesus; thus in this theory, Matthew and Luke are the two Gospels on which Mark depended. two-source hypothesis. A theory in Gospel studies that sees Mark as the earliest Gospel, which was used as a literary source by Matthew and Luke; besides Mark, the second



Glossary 281

hypothetical source is Q, which consists of sayings material common to Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark; thus Mark and Q are the two sources on which Matthew and Luke depended. variant readings. Variations in the ways in which a word or phrase occurs in a particular text or verse of an ancient manuscript; this does not refer to the different ways in which translators render a word or term in modern translations or versions of the Bible. version. Technical term in biblical criticism referring to the translation of one text into another language, such as King James (Authorized) Version, Revised Standard Version, and others. Vulgate. Latin version (translation) of the Bible mainly done by Jerome in the late fourth century and later adopted as the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church; from Latin vulgatus, “usual” or “common,” thus a commonly accepted text. wordbooks. Study aids and resources that list important terms used in the Bible, giving a description of their Hebrew and Greek counterparts, and how the words were used in various contexts in the ancient world; often tracing the word usage through historical periods.

Index of Scriptural References

Biblical passages discussed in some detail are indicated by italicized page numbers. Old Testament Genesis 1 130 1–2 157–58 1–3 58, 229 1–11 245 1:1 85 3:8 147 3:21 147 4:17–18 12 5:18–24 12 10:5 38 10:20 38 10:31 38 12–50 245 12:10–20 108 21 147 22 159–60 22:1–19 108 25:19–26:43 133 32:22–32 160 46:1–50:14 133 Exodus 1–16 147 6:19 198

11 198 15:22 133 20:8–11 132 22:25 198 23:6 198 23:11 198 Leviticus 19:3 132 19:10 198 23:22 198 Numbers 11:12 193 Deuteronomy 4:12 147 5:12–15 132 8 133 12–26 147 24:12 198 24:14–15 198 26:5–11 133 29:2–6 133 32:8 41 32:18 193 34 16–17, 56, 133

283

Joshua 1–12 225 7:1–8:29 225 24:7 133 Judges 1 225 4:4 194 5 194 5:7 194 1 Samuel 2:1–10 147–48 4:1 41 8–12 147–48 8:1–22 147 9:1–10:16 147 10–1 Kings 2 108 10:17–27 147 10:27 39 11:1–15 147 12:1–25 147 18:1–3 194 2 Samuel 1:26 194 22:1–23:7 148

284

Index of Scriptural References

1 Kings 9:15–22 225 22:48–49 225 1 Chronicles 10–29 108 29:26–30 107 2 Chronicles 20:35–37 225 Ezra 13 80 Job 10:10–11 193 38:28–29 193 39:1 193 Psalms 2 118, 121 3 56 3–7 118 7 56 8:4 80 15 118 18 56, 118 20–21 118 22:1 143 22:9–10 193 24 118 28 118 34 56 45 118 45:2 80 51 56 52 56 54 56 56 56 57 56 59 56 60 56 63 56 71:6 193 72 118 80:17 80 89 118, 134

91 118 101 118 105 133 106 133 109:6 39 109:14 39 110 118 131:2 193 132 118 133 118 142 56 144 118 144:3 80 146:3 80 Ecclesiastes 3:19 12:13–14

176 176–77

Wisdom of Solomon 3:1–9 176 Sirach 48:23–25 175 Isaiah 1–39 17, 175, 228, 245 1:1 174 1:2–20 174 1:39 17 2:6–22 174 3:14–15 198 5:20 102 6:9–10 241 6:10 102 7:4 63 7:14 63 9:2–7 175 10:2 198 11:1–9 175 40–55 133, 174–76, 228, 245 40–66 17 42:14 193 44–45 17 45:1 175

45:9–10 193 46:3–4 193 49:15 193 51:12 80 52:13–53:12 175 56–66 175, 228, 245 56:2 80 61:1–2 198 66:9 193 66:13 193 Jeremiah 2:2–3 133 25:11–12 62 29:10 62 31:31–34 75 49:18 80 49:33 80 50:40 80 51:43 80 Ezekiel 2:1 80 2:6 80 2:8 80 3:1 80 6 80 8 80 16:49 198 20 133 Daniel 7–12 124 7:13 80 8:17 80 9 62 10:16 80 Hosea 2:14–15 133 5:11 41 8:13 133 9:1 41 9:3 133 10:10 41 11:1–4 193 12 133



Index of Scriptural References 285

Amos 1–6 101 1:1 17 1:1–2 174 1:2–6:14 17 5:11 198 6 198 7:1–9 17 7:10–17 17 8:1–3 17 8:4 198 8:4–14 17 8:6 198 9:1–4 17 9:5–15 17 Micah 4:13 38 Zechariah 9:5 103 14:5 174 New Testament Matthew 1:21 63 8–9 101 8:28–34 122 13 101 16:28 75, 79–80 18:12–14 123 23 60 24 273 26:26–29 136 26:28 75 27:25 193 27:45–56 142–43 Mark 1–2 101 2:27 103 4:12 241 5:1 45 5:1–20 45, 121–22 5:1–22 123 13 273

13:8 194 14:22–25 136 14:24 75 14:36 273 15:33–41 142–43 Luke 1:3 15 4:16–30 100, 198 6:20 198 8:26–39 122 10:29–37 21 10:30–35 158–59 11:43 83 14–15 144 15:2 159 15:3–7 123 15:3–8 124 15:11–32 159 16:13 103 20 144 21 273 22 144 22:15–20 136 22:20 75 23:4 144 23:14–15 144 23:20 144 23:22 144 23:41 144 23:44–49 142–43 John 4 194, 196 8:44 193 12:40 241 19:28–30 142 19:30 143 Acts 1:1 15 2 194 2:14–36 135 3:13–14 144 3:17–26 135 8:26–40 194 8:37 38

11:29–30 198 19:9 46 28:26–27 241 Romans 1–3 191 1–8 100 1:17 85 3:22 85 3:26 85 8:22–23 194 8:34 135 9–11 100 10:2 85 11:1–10 241 15:26 198 16:7 194 1 Corinthians 1:4–9 120 4:8 105 6:9–10 120, 191 9:19–23 103, 104 11:2–16 196 11:23–26 120, 135–36 11:25 75 13 84 13:3 46 14:33–35 196 15:1–4 120 15:1–11 133–35 15:3–5 135 15:3–6 135 15:3–8 106 16:3 198 2 Corinthians 5:17 229 5:19 86 8–9 198 11:3 194, 196 15:1–12 134 Galatians 1–2 106 2:10 198 2:16 85

286

Index of Scriptural References

Galatians (continued) 3:28 192 4:19–20 193, 194 5:16–26 120 Ephesians 1–3 105 5:21–6:9 120 Philippians 1:3–11 120 2:5–11 120, 228 Colossians 3:18–4:1 120

1 Timothy 2:11–12 196 2:13–14 194, 196

Jude 14–15 12

2 Timothy 3:16–17 166

Revelation 12 130 12:2 194 18:13 192

Hebrews 8 75

Other References

James 2:2–6 198 5:1–6 198

1 Thessalonians 1:9–10 120, 135

1 Peter 3:1–7 120 3:7 196

2 Thessalonians 2 273

1 John 5:7 38

1 Enoch 27–71 80 62:4 194 1–2 Enoch

273

4 Ezra 273 13 80 2 Apocalypse of Baruch 56:6 194

Index of Subjects and Names

Pages numbers followed by an i indicate an illustration on that page. NT stands for New Testament. OT stands for Old Testament. Detailed dicussion is indicated by italicized page numbers. Abrams, Meyer H., 26, 185 Abrams diagram, 26, 152, 185–88, 202 ad fontes, interpretation type, 23 advisory function, of ministry, 232–33 Advocacy, interpretation, 185, 197–201 ahistoricity, 154–55. See also structuralism Ai (et-Tell), 225 Aland, Barbara, 47, 254 Aland, Kurt, 47, 78, 254 Alexandria, school of exegesis, 21, 273 allegorical interpretation, 20–22, 161, 248, 273, 275, 278–79 analysis stage, 31, 218–20 ancient language study. See languages, ancient Antioch, school of exegesis, 21–22, 273 anti-Semitism, use of NT, 192–93 apocryphal writings, 78, 171, 246, 273, 275. See also languages, ancient Aquinas. See Thomas Aquinas Arabic, 13, 279 Aramaic, 15, 18, 38, 40, 49, 82, 109, 243, 273–74, 276, 280. See also languages, ancient

Aramaic Bible, 49 archaeology, Bible and, 44, 58, 222–26, 234, 267 Aristotle, 12–13, 95–96 Assyrian Empire, 17, 200, 225 atemporality, 154–55 audiences, biblical, 186–88 Augustine of Hippo, 20–21, 168, 227 authorship biblical, and Abrams diagram, 26–27, 152, 185–86, 202 historical criticism and, 55–57 history of the text and, 55–60, 63, 154, 179, 186 multiple/collective, 10–12, 16–17, 60–61, 129, 222 pseudonymous, 60–61, 278 text as independent from, 106–7 theology of author (see redaction criticism) autograph (original manuscript), 12, 40, 274 autonomy of the text, 106, 153, 187–88, 213, 251, 279

287

288

Index of Subjects and Names

Barthes, Roland, 162 Bible archaeology and, 222–26 authorship of (see authorship) historical study of, 223–25 lay readers of, 233–35 translations, 8, 15, 18, 23, 37–42, 44, 47–49, 77, 79, 82, 84–86, 109, 186, 212, 217, 243–44, 254–55, 257–66, 271 See also Bible, functions of Bible, functions of, 221–35 historical reconstruction, 222–26 personal guidance, 233–35 preaching, 229–33 theology, constructive, 226–29 biblical culture, 15–16 biblical exegesis. See exegesis, biblical binary opposition, 153, 156–57, 159–62, 274, 278 canon. See Scripture canonical criticism, 166–81 about, 30, 166–79 factors influencing, 171–73 features of, 168–71 historical setting and, 173–74 NT examples, 177–78 OT examples, 174–77 religious communities and, 167–68 Celsus, 57 characters (narrative element), 108 chiastic structure(s), chiasm (chiasmus), 102–4, 102i, 274 chronology biblical understanding of, 222 canonical criticism and, 178 discrepancies in, 56–57 evaluating textual variants, 47 Chrysostom, John, 22, 273 classic, literary, 13 coherence-based genealogical method (CBGM), 268 colonization, 183, 199, 201 commentaries, biblical authorship, treatment of, 61 citation of nonbiblical parallels, 58–59

computer-based research, 78 critical, 48–49, 86 cross-references, 246 exegetical use, 214–16, 228–29, 243 expository, 48 historical-critical method, 203 literary context, 97–99 literary genres, identifying, 125 Philo of Alexandria, 278 “seeing,” in, 251 software, 260–63 source of Bible quotations, 40 structuralist, 162 Women’s Bible Commentary, 190 commonality, between sender and receiver of communication, 3, 5–6, 25–26 communication, oral and written, 2–7, 129–32 communication triangle, 25–27 communities, religious, 14, 166–68 concordances, biblical about, 76–77 criteria for useful, 255–56 interpretive work using, 79 semantics and, 81 types of, 77–79 constitutive function, of ministry, 232 content, form criticism and, 116 contrarian readings, as interpretive ­strategy, 193, 196, 276 creation story ANE comparison, 58 gender identity and, 194 grammatical criticism of, 85 modern implications, 229 structuralist interpretation, 157–58 tradition criticism, 130 critical apparatus, 44, 47, 274 critical editions, of Bible, 44–45 critical theory, 184, 202, 274 criticism, biblical. See exegesis, biblical; interpretation; individual types cross-referencing, 245–46, 249, 276 cultural differences, of texts, 8–9, 15–16 cultural shifts, exegesis and, 182–85

Dalit theology, 199, 274 Darton, Michael, 77 David (king of Israel), 56, 60, 108, 118, 134, 146, 175, 194 Dead Sea Scrolls, 39–40, 44, 49, 246, 248, 259, 266, 274, 278. See also Qumran writings Decalogue, 132 deconstruction, 30, 162, 179 deductive logic, 97 deep structures, 30, 153–54, 156–57, 160, 162 derash, homiletical meaning, 22, 274, 278 Derrida, Jacques, 162, 274 deuterocanonical writings, 78, 80, 171, 246, 274. See also languages, ancient diachronic analysis, 155, 168, 275, 279 diagrams Abrams model, 26 chiastic structure, 102 communication triangle, 25–27 OT psalms, 118 structural analysis, Good Samaritan, 158 dictionaries, Bible, 58, 75–76, 82–83, 214, 244, 258, 260–61 didactic function, of ministry, 232–33 dittography, 42, 275 diversity, radical, 201 divine intervention, and history, 223 editorial changes to text. See redaction criticism eisegesis, 18 electronic technology, for exegesis, 253– 71. See also tools encyclopedias, Bible, 58, 75–76, 99, 214, 244, 260, 263, 267 Enlightenment, the, 24, 200, 222–23, 275 Erasmus, 38 Estienne, Robert, 37 ethnic identity, 105, 188, 191–95, 198 ethos, rhetorical proof, 96 eucharistic tradition, 75, 135–36 European scholarship, 199–200 evangelists. See Gospels

Index of Subjects and Names 289 exegesis about, 1–36 art of seeing, 241–52 definition, 220, 233, 275 etymology, 1 history of, 19–24 interrogating the text/author, 25, 27–29, 31, 47, 55–56, 79–81, 84, 86, 94–95, 99–101, 109, 115, 117, 121, 125, 132, 135, 143–44, 147, 154–55, 162, 168, 178–79, 191, 202, 209–20, 224, 234, 249–50 process of (see exegesis, procedural integration of) stages of, 217–20 as text-led, 210–13 exegesis, biblical application of, 48–49, 62–63, 125, 136– 37, 140–41, 215–20, 242–43 changes in, 182–85 considerations for (see exegesis, considerations of) criticism types and, 28–31 goal of, 24–25, 209 history of, 19–24 questioning, interpretive (see questioning, interpretive) self-knowledge in, 188–89, 212–13, 250 theology and, 226–29 (see also theologies/theology) uses, 221–40 exegesis, considerations of, 7–19 collective authorship and historical growth, 10–12, 16–18 cultural differences, 8–9, 15–16 historical distance, 9, 16 historical growth/collective authorship, 10–12, 16–18 language barriers, 8, 15 sacred texts, 13–14, 18–19 texts/editions, multiple, 12–13, 18–19 third-party perspective, 7–8, 15 exegesis, procedural integration of, 209–20 autonomous text and, 106, 153, 187–88, 213, 251 papers, compositional strategies of, 215–17

290

Index of Subjects and Names

exegesis, procedural integration of (continued) secondary quality, 214–15 starting, 212–13 suggestions, practical, 217–20 suggestions, prevent feeling overwhelmed, 209–12 exodus story, 132–33, 198, 277 feminist interpretation, 189–90, 194–95, 198, 275 Flavius Josephus. See Josephus footnotes (notations, textual), 38–39, 44, 48, 84–85, 212 form criticism, 115–27 about, 29, 125 definition, 275 form, content, meaning, their interrelationship, 116, 125, 275 genre identification and (see genre identification) logic of, 116–17 NT, 119–20, 121–24 OT, 117–18 sociological analysis and (see sociological analysis) fourfold meaning, interpretation, 22, 275, 278 Geden, Alfred S., 78–79, gender identity, 189–90, 193–96, 198 genre identification about, 115–20 in Gospels, 119–24 language and, 243–44 prophetic writings, 118 psalms, 117–18 setting in life and, 116–17 subgenres, 124–25 Gerasene demoniac story, form criticism of, 121–23 glossary, 273–81 God feminine characteristics of, 193–94 J, E, D, and P sources and, 147 Scripture, presence in, 167, 170 Word of, 13–14, 231

Good Samaritan parable, 21, 158–59, 161 Gospels canonical criticism, 177 genre identification, 119–24 history of the text, 59–60 redaction criticism, 141–46 reliability, 119 See also New Testament grammar, 84–87. See also grammatical criticism grammatical criticism, 74–92 about, 29 grammar/syntax, 84–87 language analysis, 74–75 NT example, 85–86 OT example, 85 tools, 76–77 translation from original language, 81–82 wordbooks, word studies, 82–84 Greek. See languages, ancient Gunkel, Hermann, 129–30 Handel, George Frideric, 235, haplography, 42, 276 harmony, biblical, 46, 142, 145, 169, 275 Hatch, Edwin, 78, Hebrew. See languages, ancient hermeneutic(s) of suspicion, 196, 202, 234, 276 Herodotus, 1 Hillel the Elder (rabbi), 20 historical analyses, 195–96 criticism (see historical criticism) distance, 9, 16, 248 growth, of texts, 10–12, 16–17, 129–30, 132, 136–37 reconstruction, biblical, 222–26 settings, canonical criticism, 173–74, 177 historical criticism, 55–73 about, 28–29, 56 ancient approaches, 56–57 history in the text, 55–59 history of the text, 55–56, 59–62 reception history, 62–63 Homer, 1, 20



Index of Subjects and Names 291

homosexuality, 190–91, 194–96 hymn tradition, 131

folk life/tales, 118, 133 history, 58, 64–65, 222–25 history and religion, 24, 210, 249 interpretive context, 75, 83 literary genres, 117–18 Nahash, 39 oral traditions, 129, 134, 137 patriarchal culture, 189 psalms, psalter, 26, 118, 121, 125, 174 rhetoric, 95 Samaritans, 279 Scripture, 166, 170, 233 slavery, 192, 195, 198 Song of Moses, 193 supersession, 193 “universe,” Abrams diagram, 185 women, notable, 194

Ibn Ezra, 17, 22 identity, 182–208 biblical rejection of, 189–91 ethnic, 183, 188–89, 191–95, 198 gender, 189–90, 193–96, 198 sexual, 190–91, 194–96, 198 See also identity, interpretation identity, interpretation, 185, 188–89, 193–97. See also Identity ideological criticism, 196, 202, 224, 234 imperialism, 183, 199–200, 275, 278 inclusio (rhetorical device), 104 inductive logic, 97 intentional fallacy, 106, 276 intention of author/speaker, 2, 30, 152– 54, 168, 178, 188, 234 interlinear Bibles, 82, 259–60, 263, 276 internal evidence, textual criticism, 45–46 internet resources. See electronic technology; tools interpretation exegesis papers as, 215–16 history of, 247–48 modern approaches, 185, 188, 193–99 reception history, 62–63, 247–49, 279 second-level, 8 sermons and, 231 strategies, 193–97 types of, Medieval period, 22–24 types of, Modern period, 24 types of, Renaissance and Reformation, 22–24 written communication, 3–5 See also exegesis; exegesis, biblical interpretive variants, 39 intertextual analysis, 245–47 Irigaray, Luce, 162 Ishmael (rabbi), 20 Israel (people) Ahab, 225 apocalyptic, 124 David, spiritual leader, 108 enemies, 103 exodus, 133

Jacob (patriarch), 107, 130, 133, 160 J, E, D, P sources, 17, 98, 129, 147, 276 Jericho, 21 Jerome, 56, 281 Jesus Christ birth and infancy, 63, 119, 145 canonical criticism, 177 death of, Luke’s account, 143–44 Gospels, reliability, 119 parables, 119, 123–24, 158–59, 161 passion narrative, 107, 119, 142–44, 245 poor, embrace of, 198 sayings (logia), 62, 103, 119–20, 124, 177, 244, 277–78 sermon in Nazareth, 100 Jewish exegesis, 22 Jewish vs Christian, Scripture, 169, 171–74 Josephus, Flavius, 11, 39, 246, 248, 258– 59, 277 Jowett, Benjamin, 24 Julius Africanus, 56 Kristeva, Julia, 162 language (as symbol), 156, 241 language analysis. See grammatical criticism language barriers, of texts, 8, 15

292

Index of Subjects and Names

languages, ancient Bible composition, 15, 18 concordances, 77–79, 255–56 exegesis, 243 grammar, 84–87 grammatical criticism, 81–82 Greek, rhetoric, 95–97 knowledge of, 48–49 NT and, 15, 38, 76, 81–82, 85, 243, 255–56, 273 translations, from/to, 8, 15, 18, 23, 37–42, 49, 81–82, 254, 276 Latin. See languages, ancient lay reader, of Bible, 233 Leningrad Codex, 18 lexicons, Bible language, 74, 76, 81–82, 258, 263, 277 LGBTQIA+ identity. See sexual identity liberation theology, 183, 197–99, 201 life setting. See Sitz im Leben; sociological analysis linguistics, 25, 74, 82, 153, 278 Lisowsky, Gerhard, 78 literal meaning, 21–22, 248, 273. literary composition, textual, 61 literary context, 46, 97–101, 123, 132, 211, 244–47, 250 literary-critical theory illustration, 26–27 literary criticism, 93–114 about, 29, 93–95 context and, 97–98 form/function and, 99–101 interests of, 94 literary mood, 105 narrative criticism, 105–9 rhetorical criticism, 95–97 rhetorical techniques, 101–5 structure, 98–99 literary form. See genre identification logos, rhetorical proof, 96 looking vs seeing, 241–42 Lord’s Supper, Paul, 135–36 Luther, Martin, 23, 254 MacLeish, Archibald, 235 Maimonides, 172, 227 manuscript families, 43–44

manuscript variants, in originals, 40–41 Marxsen, Willi, 146 Masoretic Text (MT), 39–41, 277 meaning, form criticism, 116 Medellín Conference, 197 Medieval biblical interpretation, 19–22 Metzger, Bruce M., 78, 254 Mills, John, 37 ministry, exegesis in, 229–33 minjung theology, 198–99, 277 miracle stories, 121–23 modern biblical interpretation, 24 modernism, 201, 277 moral guidance, biblical, 233–35 morphological tagging, 256, 259 morphology, 256, 259 Morrison, Clinton, 77 Moses (prophet), 16–17, 56, 75, 168, 193 Moulton, William F., 78–79 mujerista interpretation, 191 mythic structures, 160–61 narrative criticism, 105–9, 186, 217 narrative grid, 158, 158i narrator (narrative element), 107–9 New Criticism, 106–7, 187–88, 276–77 New Testament anti-Semitic uses of, 192–93 canonical criticism, 177–78 editions, 18, 37–38, 40, 44–49, 218, 254, 266, 268, 274 form criticism, 119–24 genre identification, 119–24 grammatical criticism, 85–86 history of the text, 59–60 literary devices, use of, 101–5, 108 parables, 123–24 redaction criticism, 142–46 structuralism, 158–59, 161 tradition criticism, 134–36 website/internet resources, 267–70 See also Gospels; index of scriptural references nonbiblical/prebiblical antecedents, 129–30, 137 notations, textual (footnotes), 38–39, 44, 48, 84–85, 212

Old Testament canonical criticism, 174–77 form criticism, 117–18 grammatical criticism, 85 literary devices, use of, 102–3, 108 patriarchs, 133 prophetic writings, 17–18, 61, 98, 100, 103, 117–18, 124, 133, 148, 169, 174–75, 198, 217, 247 redaction criticism, 146–48 structuralism, 157–58, 160 website/internet resources, 266–67 See also Index of Scriptural References oppression, 183, 197–98, 274 oral communication, 2–7 oral period, 122, 129–30 oral Torah, 128 oral tradition(s), 2–3, 5–6, 129–33, 280 organizational structure, of exegetical paper, 216–17 Origen of Alexandria, 21, 37, 267 outlines, for literary criticism, 97–98 parables, form criticism, 123–24 parallel texts, 59, 80, 121–24, 136, 141–42, 217, 225, 246, 262, 267, 275, 280 PaRDeS, Jewish interpretation, 22, 278 Passion narrative, 107, 119, 142–44 pathos, rhetorical proof, 96 patriarchs, 130, 133, 194 patristic citations, 44 patristics, 278 Paul (the apostle) argumentative strategy, 98 chiasm, use of, 103–4 homosexuality, views, 191 innkeeper, 21 letters, 15, 59, 95, 119–20, 117–78, 186, 245 pistis Christou, 85 poor, collection for, 198 Romans 9–11, function, 100 slavery, views, 192 Son of Man, the, 79 textual variants, 46

Index of Subjects and Names 293 transmitter of traditions, 134–36 website, 263, 269 women, views, 194, 196 Pentateuch authorship/sources, 16–17, 60, 129, 222 history of the text, 59 literary criticism, 99 patriarchs, traditions, 133 Samaritan, 18 tradition criticism, 133 See also Old Testament; Index of Scriptural Resources; Old Testament peshat (plain meaning), 22–23, 278 pericope, 97, 115, 142, 146, 243, 245, 278 Philo of Alexandria, 21, 246, 248, 258–59, 278 pistis Christou, 85–86 Plato, 1 plot (narrative element), 107 Porphyry, 57 postcolonialism, 199–201, 278 postmodernism, 201–3, 278 poststructuralism, 161–63, 278 poverty, 197–98 power dynamics, 199–200 preaching/sermons, exegesis, 229–33 prebiblical/nonbiblical antecedents, 129–30, 137 pre-understanding, 167, 171–73, 188–89, 212, 250 priestly function, of ministry, 232 Prodigal Son parable, 159 proofs, rhetorical, 96–97 prophetic function, ministry, 232 prophetic writings, form criticism, 118 psalms, types, 117–18, 121, 245 pseudepigraphic writings, 11, 246, 278 Q (quelle, sayings source), 278 questioning, interpretive beginning, 212–15, 217–18 concordance work, 79 exegesis as, 25, 28–29, 31 form criticism, 125 literary criticism, 99–101 structuralism, 154–55

294

Index of Subjects and Names

Qumran writings, 39, 44, 80, 246, 248, 266, 274, 278. See also Dead Sea Scrolls Qur’an, 14 radical diversity, 201 Rashi, 22, 85 reader (narrative element), 109 reader-response criticism, 187–88, 276, 279 reader-text relationship, 170, 186–88 reception history, 62–63, 247–49, 263, 279 reconciliation, 86, 157, 159 redaction criticism, 140–51 about, 30, 140–41 cautions, 144–45 evangelists, 145–46, 148 NT examples, 142–46 OT examples, 146–48 tools, 141–45 Redpath, Henry A., 78 remez (allusion or allegory), 22, 278–79 Renaissance/Reformation biblical interpretation, 22–24 retrieval (interpretive strategy), 193–95 rhetorical criticism, 95–97 proofs, 96–97 techniques, 101–5 roles, in narrative structure, 158, 158i root fallacy, 83, 279 rule of faith (regula fidei), 20 Sabbath commandment, 132 sacred texts, 13–14, 18, 135, 166–68, 170, 190, 221, 279. See also canonical criticism Said, Edward, 199 Samaritan Pentateuch, 18, 266, 279 scribes, 40–46, 124 Scripture arrangement, 172–74 cumulative reading, 169–70, 177 functions, 231–32 God’s presence, 167, 170

Jewish vs Christian reading, 169, 171–74 literary context, 250 pre-understanding, 167, 171–73, 188–89, 212, 250 reading, 234 text, final form, 169 theory, 227–29 variations, 171–73 See also exegesis, biblical; interpretation; index of scriptural references; interpretation searches, computer complex string, 255, 259 morphological, 256, 259 simple string, 255, 260 secondary sources, use of, 214–15 seeing vs looking, 241–42 self-knowledge, exegesis and, 188–89, 212–13, 250 semantics, 81, 243–44 Septuagint (LXX), 38, 273, 275–77, 279 Christian scripture, 171 concordance, 78 differences from Masoretic text, 40–41 English translation, 49 sermons exegesis, 229–31 Jesus’ Nazareth inaugural, 100 setting in life. See sociological analysis sexual identity, 190–91, 194–96, 198 Shakespeare, William, 12 Shalmaneser III (Assyrian king), 225 Sitz im Leben. See sociological analysis slavery, 16, 192, 195–96, 198 social location, 188, 212–13, 250, 279 sociological analysis about, 115–17 application, 125 Gerasene demoniac healing, 121–23 parables, 123–24 psalms, 118, 121 Socrates, 1 sod (mystical meaning), 22, 278–79 software, biblical, 253–60. See also tools Son of Man, the, 75, 79–80

source criticism, 93–94, 99, 157, 217, 235, 279 spiritual guidance, biblical, 233–35 Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, 189 Stoicism, allegorical interpretation, 20 Strong, James, 77, 79 structural criticism, 30 structuralism, 152–65 about, 153–54 ahistoricity, 154–55 mythic structures, 160–61 NT examples, 158–59, 161 OT examples, 157–58, 160 poststructuralism, 161–63 universal ordering principles, 155–57 structure, literary, 98–99 style manuals, 215 surface structures, 153, 156–57 symbolic world, 171, 185, 280 synchronic analysis, 155, 168–70, 280 synopsis, redaction criticism, 141–42 Synoptic Gospels, 79–80, 98, 108, 122, 136, 141, 177, 267, 275 Synoptic problem, 268–69 syntax, 29, 74, 84–87, 156, 212, 243, 276. See also grammatical criticism synthesis stage, 219–20 Syriac, 18, 38, 40–41, 273 systematic theology, 226–29 Tanakh, 85, 105, 254, 280 Targum(s), 38, 49, 280 techniques, literary and rhetorical chiasm/chiasmus, 102–4 compositional, 29, 97–99 exegetical, 217–18, 220 inclusio, 104, 276 literary style, 94 redaction criticism, 141 rhetorical, 104 structural, 101–2 technology communication, 4–7 exegesis tools (see tools) text message, in and through, 143–44

Index of Subjects and Names 295 as mirror, 27, 153, 251 as window, 55, 106, 152–53 text, biblical. See Scripture texts/editions, multiple, 12–13, 18 textual criticism, 37–54 about, 28–29, 37 critical editions, 44–45 evaluation, 45–47 manuscript families, 43–44 original manuscripts, textual differences, 40–41 process, 48–49 textual variants, types, 41–42 variants, discovering, 37–39 textual variants about, 37–38 evaluation, 45–47 examples, OT and NT, 38 internal evidence, 45–46 types, 41–42 See also textual criticism Theodore of Mopsuestia, 22, 273 theologies/theology authors/editors/interpreters, 20, 23, 30, 42, 140, 143, 145 (see also redaction criticism) biblical exegesis, 249–50 biblical studies, 226–29 canonical criticism, 170–71 Dalit, 199, 274 evangelists, 145–46 liberation, 183, 197–99 minjung, 198–99 systematic, 226–29 Theophilus, 15 theory of language, 156 third-party perspective, 7–8, 15, 233 Thomas Aquinas, 227 tools biblical software, criteria, 253–57 biblical software packages, 257–60 exegesis, 217–18 history in the text, 57–59 language analysis, 76–77, 82–84 redaction criticism, 141–42 secondary sources, 214–15

296

Index of Subjects and Names

tools (continued) websites/internet, criteria, 260–62 websites/internet, general, 262–66 websites/internet, NT and early ­Christianity, 267–70 websites/internet, OT and Ancient Near East, 266–67 websites/internet, world of the Bible, 270–71 tradition criticism, 128–39 about, 29–30, 128–37 NT, 134–36 oral and written, 130–32 OT, 130, 132–34 tradition origin/growth, 129–30 traditions, biblical. See tradition criticism translations, biblical, 18, 23, 37–42, 81–82, 254. See also textual criticism tropological (moral) meaning, 22, 275

two-source hypothesis, 141 Tyconius, 20 units, literary, 124–25, 245 universal structures, 155–57 variant readings. See textual variants Vatican II, 197 von Rad, Gerhard, 134 Vulgate, 15, 38, 254, 259, 273, 277, 281 website/internet, for biblical exegesis. See under tools womanist interpretation, 191 wordbooks, biblical, 76, 82–84 worship, 229–33 writings, in antiquity, 10–12 written traditions, 2–6, 130–32 Young, Robert, 79

“In this fourth edition of the well-known handbook Biblical Exegesis, Holladay offers a fully revised, freshly updated version of the beloved classic published decades ago. Both comprehensive and comprehensible, this volume is an invaluable guide to the wonderfully complex world of biblical exegesis. It tops my list of recommended resources for new students and experienced pastors alike.” —MICHAL BETH DINKLER, Associate Professor of New Testament, Yale Divinity School

FOURTH EDITION

FOURTH EDITION

“This fourth edition of Biblical Exegesis is an amazing gift of scholarly expertise set to the task of defining biblical exegesis; describing its methods, its histories, its values; and ultimately showing why it matters for biblical and nonbiblical scholars. Biblical Exegesis is a wonderful companion for the exegetical beginner and researcher; it is at home with a student in the classroom or a researcher in the library or a prophet on the streets or a preacher in a house of worship.”   —KENNETH NGWA, Professor of Hebrew Bible, Drew Theological School

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

“Over twenty-five years ago, I purchased the second edition of Biblical Exegesis for my first biblical studies class as a seminarian. My scribbled notes revealed both anxiety about the task in front of me and confidence that this book would help me do the work. This fourth edition, with its up-to-date bibliographies, clear explanations of multiple types of exegesis, revised chapters, and words of encouragement, will give students the same confidence to engage with biblical texts. The book is subtitled A Beginner’s Handbook, but it will help beginners become skilled veterans.” —STACY DAVIS, Professor of Religious Studies and Theology, Saint Mary’s College, Notre Dame, Indiana

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS A Beginner’s Handbook

“Hayes and Holladay have guided countless students over multiple decades by clearly setting forth the tools and methods involved in reading the biblical text well. There is no better onevolume guide that demystifies biblical exegesis.” —JOSHUA JIPP, Associate Professor of New Testament, Trinity International University

This revised edition includes several updated and improved chapters with discussions of emerging methods of interpretation, a fully revised chapter on exegesis with a focus on identity and advocacy, and a new concluding chapter on exegesis as the art of seeing. JOHN H. HAYES † was Franklin N. Parker Professor of Old Testament at Candler

School of Theology of Emory University. His books include A History of Ancient Israel and Judah (with J. Maxwell Miller) and Old Testament Theology: Its History and Development (with Frederick Prussner).

CARL R. HOLLADAY is Charles Howard Candler Pro-

fessor Emeritus of New Testament at Candler School of Theology of Emory University. He is the author of Introduction to the New Testament: Reference Edition and Acts: A Commentary in the New Testament Library series.

www.wjkbooks.com

HAYES | HOLLADAY

“A book that has now served generations comes to us here afresh in a fully updated version. If you care about the Bible and its meaning, then this is the book for you. To care is to listen. Tools to take the Bible seriously—a wonderful gift.” —WILLIAM LOADER, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Murdoch University, Perth, Australia

JOHN H. HAYES | CARL R. HOLLADAY