_{Handout 64}

Other Fields of Biblical Criticism

A. Recap:

In the previous handout, we mentioned that one of the ‘reactions’ to Wellhausen’s work and the seeming success of source criticism, was the development of other fields of biblical criticism. To be precise, some of these fields had already begun before Wellhausen published his conclusions. But they are logically, if not chronologically, the offshoots of source criticism.

New fields get added from time to time, and sometimes an existing field runs for a while, but produces little by way of consensus or useful results, and so is abandoned. To complicate things, sometimes the name of a given field has changed.

E.g., (1) "source criticism" was initially called "literary criticism." But now "literary criticism" means: reading & examining books of the Bible as a whole, in their canonical form, whereas "source criticism" involves dividing books of the Bible up into hypothetical earlier sources, and then examining those sources. (2) The entire field of critical studies used to be called "historical criticism"; now "historical criticism" refers to the specific endeavor to try to find out what really happened, in history, and the whole field is called "biblical criticism."

In the present handout, we will look at four other fields of biblical criticism:

• Form Criticism
• Redaction Criticism
• Literary Criticism
• The Canonical Approach (sometimes mis-labelled “canonical criticism”)

B. Four Other Fields of Biblical Criticism

1. Form Criticism Two main names: Hermann Gunkel, & Sigmund Mowinckel

   Form criticism had two main ideas / two main endeavors:

   1. Rather than looking for large running sources (like J, E, D, & P), it seeks to analyze and compare the smallest possible literary units: a story, a parable, an individual prophetic oracle, a psalm, a saying, etc. In specific, it sought to identify their characteristic features, their structure, their “form.”

   2. It assumes that a given “form” could be linked to an underlying “life-setting” (Sitz im Leben = literally: “setting/situation in life”), such as a specific social or ritual occasion in which such forms were commonly used. [There is some plausibility to this idea. For example, in modern American society, we recognize formulaic sayings such as, “Dearly beloved, we are gathered today . . .”, “It is my great privilege to introduce . . .”, and “Welcome to Fantasy Island.” ]

   So form critics closely studied the structures & forms of the smallest literary units in the Bible, and sought to identify the life setting in which such forms might have been used.

   Form Criticism's Useful Aspects:

   (I will suggest two.)

   • It helps us to think in terms of identifying “bite-sized pieces,” and then reading that entire ‘unit’, not just isolated verses, and to look for common patterns. Some examples:

     In the gospels, a given episode often records some action, or a miracle of Jesus, or a conversation, and then ends with a teaching point that Jesus is making. That “literary unit” is not complete without the point, the teaching application, that Jesus makes.

     Similarly, NT parables often begin with: (i) a conversation that leads to (ii) the actual parable, and then after the parable, (iii) Jesus often makes a concluding point or application. The ‘unit’ is not complete without all three parts.

     So in such cases form criticism would emphasize the need to read the entire unit, not just a verse or two of it. It makes us sensitive to look for the “moral of the story,” the point of teaching application that Jesus makes.

     To note: Good common-sense preaching commonly does this, without ever having heard of form criticism.

   • There is some value in comparing passages in Scripture that are similar to each other in their structure and patterns. In particular, by comparing passages that are generally similar in form, the differences from the common pattern in a given passage tend to stand out as likely points of emphasis.

     A noteworthy example from the book of Psalms: Lament Psalms.

     • There are several “lament psalms” in the book of Psalms, i.e., psalms that express the pain of the psalmist and that cry out to God for relief or for justice. [Psalms 6, 13, 22, 30, 32, 35, 38, 39, 69, 88, & 102 are commonly recognized as lament psalms.]

     • While lament psalms do not have a mechanically tight common pattern, they do have common features, common elements. The common elements are as follows:

       • There might be a brief initial statement of praise to God

       • Then the psalmist states the problem.

         [All lament psalms have this element; it is the defining feature of a lament psalm.]

       • There is often something of a complaint against God, or the psalmist questions God, for allowing this to happen.

       • There is almost always a complaint directly against the psalmists enemies / the wicked.

       • There is often a brief statement of trust in God.

       • Somewhere in the psalm there will be the psalmist’s specific petition to God.

     • Where being familiar with the common features of lament psalms can help us → is when we encounter a lament psalm that has a significant difference from the common features.

     • A few examples:

       • Psalms 32, 38, & 51. The psalmist does not cry out against any enemies in these psalms. It naturally leads us to ask → who caused the problems that the psalmist is lamenting?

         The psalmist acknowledges that the problem is → himself, his own sin.

       • Psalm 88. This psalm is unique. The closest to it is Psalm 22. Unlike in Psalms 32, 38, & 51, in Psalm 88, the psalmist does not acknowledge any sin of his own. In Ps 88, the striking unusual feature comes when the psalmist identifies who is causing his pain & distress; is it the wicked? Read vv. 6–8 and vv. 15–18 yourself.

   So if we are familiar with the common features of, for example, the lament psalms, it is precisely the points at which a lament psalm does not line up with those common features that we see something that is noteworthy, a likely point of emphasis.

   Form Criticism's Useless Speculations:

   • We mentioned above that form criticism’s second main idea / second main endeavor was to try to identify the ‘life situation’ (Sitz in Leben) in which a given form was used, or from which a given form arose. By analyzing the forms and then contemplating their possible underlying ‘life situation’, Gunkel & co. hoped to somehow penetrate to the oral prehistory of the text.

   • But before long, there was very little agreement as to what the underlying ‘life situation’ might have been, or what the oral prehistory of the text had been. Such efforts proved to be hopelessly subjective; one could hardly call this endeavor “scientific.” Even critical scholars came to admit that it felt too much like their colleagues were making stuff up.

     The German technical term for the hopeless subjectivity of this effort was machengrossenonsenz; the corresponding Latin expression was balonius maximus. American cowboys used another term, but we cannot print it in a proper academic handout.

   • Further, no one could answer the question: So what? For those who believe the Bible is from God–in its written canonical form–the possible underlying ‘life setting’, and the highly hypothetical oral prehistory of the text is not the issue. So critical scholars could not agree on what any of this was, and for conservative Christians, it was irrelevant. For good reasons, the effort to identify the oral pre-history of the text has largely been abandoned.

   But the other aspects of form criticism (its useful aspects), mentioned above, have value, and are born in mind by scholars and Bible interpreters.

2. Redaction Criticism

   On the assumption that originally separate sources were combined and edited (“redacted”) to make one resulting document, redaction criticism asks: What was the purpose, the intent, of the redactor / the editor?

   What effect / message was the redactor trying to achieve?

   In particular, redaction criticism regards the final editor (redactor) who edited and combined the underlying sources as the effective the author of the resulting document.

   By its very nature, redaction criticism assumes source criticism.

   Unlike form criticism, redaction criticism does not analyze the various parts or small units of a narrative seeking to discover a possible original form or life setting. Instead, redaction criticism focuses on how the redactor shaped and molded the underlying sources into a narrative to express his theological views, to accomplish his ideological goals.

   Where conservatives and redaction critics see things differently:

   • Redaction critics assume form criticism = they assume that the final form of a given book of the Bible was compiled and edited from originally separate sources. Conservatives do not share that assumption.

   Where conservatives and redaction critics have some common ground:

   • We can both ask the question: What does the final form of this book of the Bible intend to achieve?

   In biblical studies, the areas in which redaction criticism is most active are in the study of the Pentateuch, and the study of the synoptic gospels in the New Testament.

   New Testament redaction critics assume that Mark was written first, and that Matthew and Luke both used Mark. And so they look for what Matthew and Luke retained from Mark, and what they omitted, and what each of them added. And based on that, they ask: Compared to Mark, what point is Matthew trying to make? What point is Luke trying to make?

3. Some form of Literary Criticism –

   Again, this approach reads a book of the Bible as a piece of literature. It reads them in their finished form = their canonical form, and seeks to understand → What is the message of this book? What is the message of the text as it stands?

   However(!), a literary-critical approach does not read the books as a part of a larger canon; it reads each as an independent work of literature. Also, it makes no assessment as to whether the message of the book is true; it simply seeks to identify the message of the book, as it stands; that’s it.

   There are at least three fields of biblical criticism that fall under the general category of “literary criticism”: rhetorical criticism, structural analysis / structural criticism, and narrative criticism. They each have their own scholars. These fields have produced a considerable amount of books and journal articles.

   But when we ask the question: Compared with what we learn using the basic principles of sound biblical interpretation (such as we teach in BS 102/502, Biblical Interpretation), in light of these various literary-critical efforts, what is it about this passage that I now truly understand better than I used to? When we ask that basic question, the answer is that often–though not always(!)–there is rather little that is gained.

   By way of an example of a sensitive literary-critical reading of a passage that has been well-received: The literary critic Robert Alter has addressed the admittedly curious account of Judah & Tamar (Gen 38), which seems to intrude itself into the otherwise very coherent account of Joseph in Gen 37–50. He reads the text very carefully, assuming it makes sense, and he observes and points out some subtle connections between ch. 38 and what happened earlier when the brothers <falsely!> reported to Jacob that it appears that Joseph has been killed by a wild beast (ch. 37). Alter also notes that Judah's change of heart in Gen 38 when he acknowledges his own sin in his treatment of Tamar sets the stage for when Judah offers to take the place of Benjamin (Gen 44). Alter rightly concludes that the account of Judah & Tamar in Gen 38 is not there by mistake. Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (1981, Basic Books), pp. 3–12.

4. The Canonical Approach (Main name: Brevard Childs, 1923-2007).

   In terms of books published, seminars held, and journal articles published, critical scholarship was quite active all the way through the 1900’s, and remains so today.

   However, by the 1960’s & 1970’s, moderate critical scholars had begun to realize that critical scholarship was offering very little by way of making contributions to theology. In other words, despite their massive amount of scholarship, they had produced very little by way of answering the question: What should we believe about God? And that question is self-evidently the ultimate goal of any study of the Bible.

   [By way of illustrating the problem: If, for the sake of discussion, we accept Wellhausen’s conclusions about JEDP and the Pentateuch, then → What should we believe about God?

   • Should we abide by J’s understanding of God? But critical scholars judge J’s theology to be primitive.

   • Should we accept the view of what Wellhausen called the “JE stratum?” Wellhausen liked this one.

     But how are we to know that it is the true word about God?

   • Should we accept the view of God that the final form of the Pentateuch = the priestly redaction of the Pentateuch seems to present? That is the form accepted and believed by Jews and Christians. But Wellhausen said that the religion of the final priestly redaction of the Pentateuch was encrusted with legalism and rituals; he said it was lifeless and dead.

   So → what should we believe about God? I think you can see the problem.]

   Out of fairness to critical scholarship, they have significantly increased our understanding of the world of the Bible, they have definitely produced insights at a number of points, and have often clarified the structure of a book or a lengthy biblical passage. But again, when it comes to the basic theological question: What should we believe about God? – critical scholarship has offered rather little.

   The scholar who really put his finger on this was Brevard S. Childs (1923–2007; he taught for 40 years at Yale Divinity School). Childs himself was very well trained in critical scholarly issues; he is a first-rate scholar, and is well regarded among critical scholars. He wrote some 80 articles & reviews and over a dozen scholarly books. But Childs was also a Christian; he believed the message of the Bible. And he became keenly aware that critical scholarship was making rather little by way of contributions to theology, or by way of pointing believers in the theological directions to which they should go.

   So in 1979 Childs published a substantial work, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (1979, Fortress Press), in which he outlined a major proposal aimed at critical scholarship. In brief, his proposal was this: (This is my summary of Childs’ perspective; I quote him at the end of it.)

   Theology is done by people of faith, people who generally believe the Bible, and who believe it is from God. Critical scholars are free to do all of the scholarly research they want, but the only basis on which to develop theology is to use the form of the text which a believing community affirms and holds to be sacred, i.e., the final canonical form of the text.

   So when Childs wrote his Introduction to the OT as Scripture, he described the purpose of his Introduction as follows:

   “The subject matter of the Introduction is the received and authoritative writings of ancient Israel which constitute a canon. This analysis is an attempt to hear the biblical text in the terms compatible with the collection and transmission of the literature as scripture.” (p. 16)

   He refers to what he is doing as an “approach,” not a new field of biblical criticism (p. 16). Childs’ approach is sometimes called “canonical criticism,” but that label is inaccurate. It is correctly called “the canonical approach.” Again, the canonical approach seeks to read a book of the Bible:

   1. in its final = canonical form (not a reconstructed form; this makes it different from source criticism);
   2. as a part of the overall canon of Scripture (this makes it different from “literary criticism”).

   Childs’ approach and his analysis of the Old Testament are of benefit to anyone who believes that the Scriptures as we have them are sacred and are from God.

   In the next handout (= the last handout), we will set forth conservative replies to Wellhausen & JEDP.