A GUIDE

TO
BIBLICAL
EXEGESIS
By
Mark McEntire
Belmont University
School of Religion

A GUIDE TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS

CONTENTS
PART I: INTRODUCTORY ISSUES
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Guide
Chapter 2: Beginning Procedures for Exegesis
PART II: DIACHRONIC METHODS
Chapter 3: Introduction to Diachronic Methods
Chapter 4: Source Criticism
Chapter 5: Form Criticism
Chapter 6: Tradition Criticism
Chapter 7: Redaction Criticism
PART III: SYNCHRONIC METHODS
Chapter 8: Introduction to Synchronic Methods
Chapter 9: Canonical Criticism
Chapter 10: Rhetorical Criticism
Chapter 11: Narrative Criticism
Chapter 12: Additional Methods
PART IV: CONCLUDING ISSUES
Chapter 13: Utilizing Exegetical Methods
Chapter 14: A Word on Hermeneutics
Chapter 15: Culture and Reading the Bible
Chapter One
Introduction to the Guide

What Is Exegesis?
Exegesis is the attempt to understand the meaning of a text. Everybody does exegesis
every time they read something. They are not always aware that they are doing it or of how they
are doing it, so exegesis is not always intentional and conscious. One of the major convictions
which motivates the writing of this book and others like it is the belief that biblical exegesis needs
to be intentional. There are no guides written about how to do newspaper exegesis. Why? The
reason is that most people who read the newspaper are in the group to which the authors aimed
their writing. The writers of the newspaper are professionals trained to write in a way that their
target audience will understand easily. The Bible is different in almost every way. Contemporary
readers are not members of the audience to whom the original authors of the Bible were writing.
Our culture is vastly different from theirs both because of time and location. In fact, we can not
be sure that the Bible was as easily understandable to its original audiences as a contemporary
newspaper is to us. Because much of the Bible consists of literary forms such as poetry and
parables, it probably was never easily understandable. The gospels, for example, often comment
that Jesus' parables were puzzling to his hearers.
Generally, there are two questions with which biblical interpreters are concerned. First,
what was the author trying to communicate? Second, what does that mean to me and my faith
community today?. These two questions are not as easily separated as one might think. Our
concerns about contemporary, personal meaning are always entangled with our attempts to
understand what biblical texts are saying. Nevertheless, this guide is primarily concerned with the
first of those questions.1 The second question will be addressed in the final chapter on
1Some would understand the more literary methods of Part III in this guide to be aimed at answering
only the second (hermeneutical) question, but this is a distortion. Methods such as rhetorical and narrative
criticism often make very definite claims about the intentions of the author of the final form of the text. Some

"hermeneutics." The explicit intersection of these two questions will be the primary concern of
chapter fifteen. Exegesis, then, is a process of overcoming the barriers which lie between us and
an understanding of the text. These barriers are linguistic, cultural, chronological, and
geographical in nature. Another way of saying this is that the writers of the Bible lived in a very
different world from the one in which we live. As exegetes, we are struggling to get into their
world in order to understand their message. One thing you must understand from the very
beginning is that we will never completely succeed. We will never know for sure if we have
grasped the writer's full meaning. Therefore, exegesis is an ongoing process which must be done
in community. The dogmatic belief that I have the correct interpretation of a text is never
justified. Interpretive communities take many shapes. The most important one for Christians is
the church, both past and present. Academic institutions and Bible study groups also function as
interpretive communities. Individuals must always perform exegesis in open dialogue with others
in order to correct, refine, and improve their own understanding.
The original purpose of this book is to fill a very specific need. There does not exist a
guide to exegetical methods written for students who study in English, but for whom English is
not their first language. Therefore, I began developing this guide for my students when I was
teaching at a seminary in Ethiopia. There are a large number of good works on biblical exegesis
available. If it were not certain gaps, such as the just described, I would not venture to create
another one. Other helpful studies will be listed in the bibliography at the end of this chapter.
This guide will differ from those currently available in three ways. This book is unique in a
number of ways. First, I will direct the language of this book, in terms of level of difficulty,
toward undergraduate students who are new to the academic study of the Bible. Most books on
extreme understandings of interpretation argue that answering the first (exegetical) question is either impossible or
unnecessary, or both. This guide is based on the assumption that the intent of the author of the text is accessible,
and is essential to careful exegesis.

biblical exegesis are more complex than this one. Second, in the chapters dealing with each
specific method, I will include a sample exegetical essay. I will structure these samples in both
length and depth to approximate the kinds of assignments which might be required of beginning
students. My hope is that beginning theological students will be able to make use of this guide to
begin writing their own exegetical papers. Third, the end of this book will point toward the most
significant emerging trend in biblical exegesis, this is giving careful attention to the role of cultural
experience in interpretation.

The Plan of the Book

Following this introductory chapter, chapter two will address preliminary procedures
involved in most or all exegetical methods. The primary subjects of chapter two will be textual
criticism and grammatical analysis. I will assume that most users of this guide will not be
proficient in biblical languages. Therefore, my discussion of these matters will be relatively brief
and simple.
The exegetical methods have been divided into two groups. Part II will address methods
which may be classified as the traditional historical-critical methods. They might further be
defined as "diachronic" methods which focus on issues behind the final form of the text, such as
historical reconstruction, prior uses of the text, and the editing process. Part III deals with what I
have labeled the "synchronic. These methods are primarily concerned with interpreting the final
form of the text and are typically literary in nature. Part IV concludes the book with some
proposals for the choosing and integration of methods and an introduction to the issue of

hermeneutics. The discussion of hermeneutics includes a chapter which gives significant attention
to the issue of inculturation.
In each chapter dealing with a specific method I will offer theoretical background,
procedural guidelines, a sample exegesis, and a bibliography for expanding the use of each
method. The bibliographies are not exhaustive. They will simply take the reader to the next step.
Bibliographies in these books will provide a more exhaustive survey of the available literature.
The sample exegeses are intended to illustrate each method in as pure a form as possible.
Though some exegetical methods are dependent on or overlap with others, I have tried to mix
methods as little as possible. I am sure some readers will notice many places where I have failed
in this attempt. These exegeses are intended to match what might be expected of beginning
students in length, depth, and complexity. I have not attempted to produce the type of thorough
biblical exegesis which might be expected of a professional scholar. While these are intended as
models of a sort, beginning students would probably not be expected to utilize one method in pure
form when writing exegetical papers. Therefore, Chapter 13 on combining methods will be of
significant importance to students. The final chapter will point beyond the strict exegetical task to
a hermeneutical understanding of the tasks of ministry.

Some Foundational Issues

I am aware that in some of the contexts to which this guide is addressed there may be
considerable resistance, among both students and instructors, to the methods I discuss in Part II.
My own teaching experience has lead me to the conclusion that nearly all beginning students enter
their theological studies reading the Bible from a primarily devotional, and therefore "pre-critical,"

perspective. There is great power in such reading, but there are also some serious, potential
weaknesses. The most serious of these weaknesses is the lack of limitations or guidelines for
interpretation, which leads to an almost complete dependence on individual experience. The
purpose of exegetical methods is not to destroy such pre-critical readings, but to raise them up to
a level of "critical awareness."2
I also recognize that the historical-critical era is coming to an end.3 If it was possible to
move such students directly from a pre-critical to a synchronic, critical approach to reading the
Bible, I might be in favor of doing so. I simply do not believe, however, that it is possible or
advisable. Paul Ricouer described a process by which readers who have been exposed to critical,
academic study of the Bible might return to the final form of the biblical literature with a second
navet. To adopt the language of Ricoeur, I believe that to achieve a "second navet" reading,
the "first navet" must be discarded.4 In simpler terms, a literary reading is not the same as a
literal reading. For example, if one is to apply a narrative method effectively to Genesis 2-3,then
it may be necessary to abandon the idea that this is a precise, historical record of an actual event.
This can be an extremely painful process, but it can also be an extremely educational one. In a
sense, it requires a leap of faith. It requires a mature conviction that the Bible is the word of God
and, therefore, that no set of questions poses a threat to its ultimate truth. The plan of this book
rests upon one assumption which can and should be questioned. The exegetical path traced in
these pages required the academy, in Western contexts, more than a century to travel. Is it
possible for beginning students in a one semester course, or even in a three to four year program,
2Daniel Patte has provided a thorough discussion of this issue in Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A
Reevaluation (Westminster/John Knox Press: Louisville, 1995).
3This does not mean that historical methods are no longer important, but that they no longer dominate
the field of biblical exegesis.
4On the term "second navet," see Ricoeur, The Symbolism of Evil, p. 351.

to travel the same path? The answer assumed here, and in other exegetical handbooks is
substantially yes.

There seems to be little consensus within the field of biblical interpretation as to what
constitutes a method. For the purposes of this guide, I will define a method as a set of questions
which leads to a specific procedure for interpreting the text. This definition will leave out such
approaches as those sometimes called feminist criticism and materialist criticism, both of which I
understand as more of a "hermeneutical stance"5 than a procedural method. In other words, the
feminist or materialist critics must still choose a set of steps for answering the questions they pose
to the text. There is no procedure inherent in these approaches. There are a few other methods
which I will restrict to a brief discussion in chapter twelve, because they involve a level of
theoretical sophistication which is beyond the scope of this guide, or because their procedures
have not yet reached a common state of development which is possible to describe here. I must
also acknowledge, based on the definition of method presented here, that canonical criticism is on
the margin between an exegetical method and what I have called a hermeneutical stance. It does
not point to a very specific procedure. This will be obvious to the reader when he or she
encounters chapter nine. I have included a full chapter on canonical criticism primarily because of
the role it has played in motivating the general move toward synchronic, or literary, methods.
Finally, a word to students is in order concerning the word "criticism" which appears
frequently in this guide. The use of this word has become an unavoidable convention in biblical
interpretation. Within academic contexts this word is not used in a negative sense. It does not
mean "to say something bad about something or someone." It is used more in the sense of "to
analyze closely" or "to evaluate." This is the sense in which criticism is used in this guide. A term
such as "form criticism" means, therefore, to evaluate a text using a specific procedure which pays
particular attention to the form or type of literature which constitutes the text.
5See Phyllis Trible's discussion of this distinction in Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of
Biblical Narratives (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), pp. 1-5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fee, Gordon D. New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1983.
Hayes, John H. and Carl R. Holladay. Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, rev. ed.
Atlanta: John Knox, 1987.
Kaiser, Otto and Werner G. Kummel. Exegetical Method: A Student's Handbook, rev. ed. New
York: Seabury, 1981.
Keck, Leander and Gene M. Tucker. "Exegesis." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976, pp. 296-303.
Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: A Reevaluation. Westminster/John Knox Press:
Louisville, 1995.
Steck, Odil Hannes. Old Testament Exegesis: A Guide to the MethodologyScholars. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1995.
Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Primer for Students and Pastors, 2nd ed.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1984.

CHAPTER TWO
BEGINNING PROCEDURES FOR EXEGESIS

Before making use of a specific method of exegesis to interpret a text, there are some
preliminary steps an exegete must take. To some students these may seem obvious, while to
others they may seem pointless. The exegete who skips these steps, however, is making some
assumptions and is allowing other persons to make some decisions for him or her. We all must
rely on the judgments of experts at times, but we should at least be aware that we are doing so.

Textual Criticism
Explanation
Before interpreting a text, the interpreter must determine what the text is. For those
unaware of the history of development of the Bible, this might not seem important. Therefore, a
brief discussion of that history is necessary. We possess nothing close to any of the original
written documents that compose the Bible. In the case of the Old Testament, the Bible you have
is, either directly or indirectly, primarily a translation of one manuscript of the Hebrew Bible. This
manuscript, which is called the Leningrad Codex, was copied in about 1000 C. E. 6 The books of
Old Testament were originally written about 1500 years before that. During the past century a
number of older Hebrew manuscripts of individual books or parts of books have been found. The
biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls were produced about 2000 years ago, but
they are only partial. Therefore, the oldest complete Hebrew Bible is still the copy of the

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

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

The books of the Old Testament also exist in several other ancient versions. These include
the Greek version (the Septuagint), the Aramaic version (the Targums), Syriac versions (such as
the Peshitta), and the Samaritan Pentateuch. These versions were produced during the period
from 500 B. C. E. to 500 C. E., though the oldest physical manuscripts of these versions which
we possess are much younger than this. These ancient versions often reveal that they were
translated from Hebrew texts which were significantly different from the standardized Masoretic
Text available to us today. Because of this difference and the translation processes themselves,
the various witnesses to the Old Testament text sometimes present different readings. When
available manuscripts of biblical texts differ in their contents, we refer to these differences as
variant readings. Because of the existence of these variant readings, we are not certain what the
original manuscripts of the books of the Old Testament said. The process of trying to determine
what the original text said is called "textual criticism."
There is some disagreement as to the purpose of Old Testament textual criticism. Because
there is a dominant manuscript, the Leningrad Codex, some argue that the purpose of textual
criticism is only to correct the obvious errors in that manuscript. Others favor a more extensive
combining of readings from other witnesses, along with the Leningrad codex, in order to produce
the best possible text. A combined text like this is referred to as eclectic.
Specialists who perform textual criticism must be trained in the languages of all of these
different versions. They have also developed an understanding of how ancient manuscripts were
transmitted. Because the books of the Bible were copied by hand for hundreds of years, certain
types of copying errors were commonly made. These errors are difficult to demonstrate in
English. The examples below will illustrate how students working with the Bible in English can

become aware of many of the more important variant readings and the issues surrounding them.
Those interested in a more technical explanation of textual criticism with more thorough
collections of examples may refer to some of the works in the bibliography below.
New Testament textual criticism is somewhat different from Old Testament textual
criticism. Modern editions of the Greek New Testament and standard English translations are not
based primarily on any single Greek manuscript. The books of the New Testament were all
written in the second half of the first century of the Common Era. The oldest manuscripts of
individual New Testament books, however, come from the second century. The oldest complete
manuscript of the New Testament was copied in the fourth century. Scholars have examined
approximately 8000 ancient Greek manuscripts using the reasoning processes involved in textual
criticism to put together what they believe is the closest approximation to the original text. This
pieced together version is an eclectic text, because it comes from many sources.
Though Old Testament textual criticism and New Testament textual criticism differ
somewhat in their goals and, more significantly, in the nature of the sources they use, they follow
some of the same principles in making decisions about the original text. Both disciplines attempt
to describe and keep in mind the common kinds of changes in the text that scribes who handcopied ancient texts tended to make. These changes fall into two general categories, intentional
and unintentional.
There are several different types of intentional changes. Below are descriptions of four of
the most common types, along with suspected examples of such changes.

1) A "simple expansion" is a word or phrase added to the text by the scribe. The Hebrew
text of Joshua 1:1 refers to Moses as "Moses, servant of Yahweh." The Greek text (Septuagint)

refers to him simply as "Moses." The generally accepted opinion of text critics is that a Hebrew
scribe added "servant of Yahweh" to pay tribute to Moses. The Septuagint was likely translated
from an earlier Hebrew text which did not contain this expansion.

2) Some changes in the text appear to be attempts to improve the grammar or style of the
writing. The variant reading in Luke 4:1 may be an example of this type. In some manuscripts
the phrase translated "in the desert" uses the Greek preposition en with the locative case. Others
use the preposition eis with the accusative case. The latter is believed by some to be an attempt
to conform this text to what became a more commonly accepted grammatical construction at
some time after the original text of Luke was written. The two different Greek readings have
essentially the same meaning.

3) Some biblical texts have approximate or precise parallels in other parts of the Bible. In
cases where these parallels do not match exactly it appears that scribes attempted to alter them so
that they would. This kind of change is called conflation or harmonization. II Samuel 22 and
Psalm 18 are virtually identical. In v. 43 of each, however, there is a difference. The Masoretic
Text of II Samuel 22:43 contains the phrase "like the dust of the earth." In Psalm 18:43 the
Masoretic Text reads "like the dust upon the face of the wind." Some manuscripts alter the phrase
in Psalm 18 to match that found in II Samuel.
A New Testament example of this phenomenon is found in the gospel of Matthew. Some
Greek texts of Matthew 27:49 contain the added sentence "Another took a spear and pierced his
side, and water and blood came out." Other manuscripts do not contain this sentence. On close
comparison, this sentence is identical to that found in John 19:34, and it appears that one or more

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

4) It appears that scribes sometimes wrote notes in the margins of manuscripts, perhaps as
commentary on, or clarification of, the text. At a later time, such marginal notes may have been
incorporated into the text. This kind of change, sometimes referred to as a gloss, could be
classified as a combination of intentional and unintentional. This may explain a variant reading in
Genesis 7:6. The second half of this verse in the Hebrew text says, "and the flood came, waters
upon the earth." The Greek text does not contain the word "waters." It is quite possible that
because the Hebrew word for "flood" was much less common than the word for "waters" that a
scribe wrote a note of explanation between the lines or in the margin of the text, which was later
moved into the text itself. This would also help explain the awkward syntax of the phrase in
Hebrew, which I have tried to preserve in the English translation above.

In ancient times, before the invention of printing, scribes may have produced copies of
texts in a number of ways. It is important to have in mind some picture of two of these
possibilities. A scribe may have sat at a table reading a previously made copy of the text and
copying a new one from it. On the other hand, a scribe may have listened and copied as another
person read an original copy aloud. These copying processes made several types of unintentional
errors common. You may often find very similar mistakes in your own written work. Some of the
more common types are explained and illustrated her.

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

known as "dittography." If you were to examine the Hebrew text of II Kings 7:13, you would
find a phrase consisting of seven Hebrew words repeated twice. The phrase says something like
which are remaining in it, behold they will be like all the multitude of Israel. English versions of
the Bible only translate the phrase once. Apparently, at some point in the process of transmission
of the text a scribe copied these words twice by mistake. This is an error almost everyone has
made themselves when writing a paper or a letter.

2) The opposite of the mistake of duplication above is the accidental omission of a letter,
word, or phrase. This type of error is called "haplography." John 5:44 illustrates a likely
occurrence of this mistake. Some Greek manuscripts omit the word "God." In the Greek
manuscripts which do contain the Greek word for God, this word is the third of a sequence of
four words which all end with the same two letters. It is easy to see how a scribe could have lost
his place and skipped a word. Most text critics agree that this is what likely happened.

3) Two final types of unintentional mistakes may be treated together. They are based upon
the two simple facts that some pairs of Hebrew and Greek letters look very much alike and other
pairs sound very much alike. The Hebrew text of Genesis 22:13 may be translated literally as,
"And he looked up and behold, behind was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns." While this
reading is understandable, it is a bit awkward. The Samaritan Pentateuch reading of this verse is
different by only one letter. The Hebrew equivalents of the letters "r" and "d" look very much
alike. With this single exchange of letters, the Samaritan Pentateuch reads, "And he looked up
and behold, one ram was caught in a thicket by its horns." It is difficult to judge which reading is
more likely original, but he second one is certainly smoother.

Greek manuscripts differ on the reading of Romans 5:1. One reading contains an
indicative verb and is translated, "we have peace with God." Other manuscripts contain a
subjunctive verb and might be translated, "we should have peace with God." The difference
between these two readings is the simple exchange of two Greek vowels which have identical
sounds, equivalent to the English vowel "o." If copies of Romans were produced by the second
method described above, with the scribe copying as he listened to the text reading aloud, it is easy
to see how such a mistake could have occurred.

The practice of textual criticism in both Old and New Testament studies has produced a
variety of lists of rules. While these lists may differ somewhat from one text critic to the next,
there are some major points of agreement. Below is a list of some of the more commonly agreed
upon rules for evaluating variant readings. While these rules illustrate generally accepted
principles, the practice of textual criticism should avoid a rigid application of any of them. One
guiding thought which is frequently expressed is that when examining variant readings the
interpreter should try to place herself or himself imaginatively in the world of the ancient scribe, in
order to understand what kind of new decision or mistake in copying was most likely.

1) The shorter of two possible readings is more likely to be correct. Scribes added
something to the text more often than they removed something from it.

2) The more difficult of two readings is more likely to be correct. A scribe was more likely
to have changed a text to make it easier to read than to make it more difficult.

3) Readings which actually exist in ancient manuscripts should be given primary authority
over suggested corrections proposed by later interpreters. The latter type is called an emendation,
and should generally be avoided except in cases where a text is completely unreadable in its
present form.

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

5) The reading which is best able to explain the existence of the other alternative(s) is most
likely to be correct.

Further Illustration
Most instances of variant readings in the Bible are quite minor in importance. They often
have little or no effect on the meaning of the passage. In rare cases, however, the differences are
quite significant and can seriously influence our interpretation. Here are two illustrations of the
role textual criticism can play in interpretation. One comes from the Old Testament and the other
from the New Testament.
When a student begins interpreting a text, he or she should examine several versions very
closely. In doing this, the student will usually find that various versions or translations, even in the
same language, are not identical. There may be several reasons for these differences. One reason
is that the two different versions are not translating the same text. Suppose for a moment that
you wanted to interpret the story of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:1-16. If you were to examine the
text in several different English versions, you might find something rather surprising at v. 8. The
following list illustrates the problem.

Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out into the field." And when they were in the
field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed him. (Gen. 4:8, NRSV)

And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field,
that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. (Gen. 4:8, KJV)

Cain said to his brother Abel, "Let us go out;" and while they were in the open country,
Cain set on his brother and killed him. (Gen. 4:8, JB)

There are many small differences among these three versions of Gen. 4:8 which are of little
importance, but there is one major difference. What did Cain say to Abel? Did he say anything?
Some Bible versions may attempt to explain the problem in a brief footnote. Most of the major
versions, including the Septuagint, contain the direct quotation from the mouth of Cain. The
Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible does not. There is no way to be certain whether the original
Hebrew text contained the quotation. There are good arguments both for including it and
excluding it. You will need to decide whether to interpret the text with the quotation or without
it. This text-critical decision may determine the extent to which you decide that Cains crime is
premeditated. A good exegetical commentary will summarize these arguments and offer an
opinion. Again, there is nothing wrong with accepting the opinion of an expert, but you ought to
know when you are doing so. If you simply read one English version and interpret its text, you
will probably remain completely unaware of this issue.
Most variant readings are fairly minor, involving a change in a single word or even a single

letter. The most significant variant reading in the New Testament, however, involves many verses
which have a profound impact on the understanding of an entire book. Suppose you wish to
interpret the resurrection narrative in the gospel of Mark. If you begin reading Mark 16 in many
English versions, you may discover that in the KJV this chapter has twenty verses, while in the
NEB it has only eight. The footnotes of the NEB do contain the missing verses. What is the
problem here? The oldest manuscripts of the gospel of Mark contain only eight verses in chapter
sixteen. Some other manuscripts contain a longer version of verse eight. Still others contain
twelve additional verses (vv. 9-20). There are even some manuscripts which contain more than
one ending. How did the original gospel of Mark end? Nobody knows for sure. The short
ending, which concludes with the phrase, "for they were afraid," is troubling but very dramatic. If
you are interpreting Mark 16, you need to understand this issue and choose intentionally which
Mark 16 you are going to interpret.
A full treatment of the causes of textual variants and the techniques used to evaluate them
are beyond the scope of this guide, but there are many resources to which you may refer for more
information. There is one basic rule of textual criticism which even those who do not read the
ancient languages can apply. The reading that best explains how the other different readings
developed is likely the original. For instance, it is easy to see why a scribe who was copying the
gospel of Mark might have been dissatisfied with the short ending. The story ends abruptly.
Therefore, someone decided to add a more satisfying ending, one that more closely matches those
in the other gospels. It is almost impossible to explain why or how any copyist could have left off
the last twelve verses if the original extended through verse 20. The short ending explains the
existence of the long, but the long ending can not explain the short. Even this simple rule,
however, should not be applied to rigidly.

Grammatical Analysis
Explanation
The basic unit of language which can be interpreted is the sentence.7 Sentences are
composed of words, however, and any method of exegesis is dependent upon the understanding
of words and how they are being used in the text. The most basic type of grammatical analysis is
the process of determining the meanings of words and their functions in a sentence (syntax).
Exegesis should always begin with repeated readings of the text in several different
versions. Three types of words in particular will require significant study. First, there are words
whose meanings are uncertain to you. An English dictionary is the first place to begin with such
words, but a Bible dictionary or theological dictionary can also be helpful. Second, there are
familiar words which contain significant theological meaning. These you should look up in a Bible
dictionary or theological dictionary. In addition, you should consult a concordance in order to
find other biblical passages where the same word is used. Third, if you wish to make use of
Hebrew and Greek words, there are lexicons and word-books which can provide important
information about them. These steps will help you gain a good understanding of the full range of
meaning of key words. Sometimes differing arrangements of words can create different meanings,
even when all of the words are the same. You should give careful attention to sentence structure
in a passage, especially when you find significant differences in the versions which you compare.

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

which may be necessary. Grammatical analysis and the careful reading that goes with it could be
very important in the interpretation of Gen. 3:15. Notice the differing translations below.

I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he
will strike your head, and you will strike his heel. (Gen. 3:15, NRSV)

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between her offspring and hers; he
will crush your head and you will strike his heel. (Gen 3:15, NIV)

I will pure enmity between you and the woman, between your brood and hers. They shall
strike at your head and you shall strike at their heel. (Gen 3:15, NEB)

First, many readers may need to look up a key word like enmity in and English dictionary, because
it is not commonly used in popular, spoken English. Second, there are some minor differences
among these versions which need little or no attention. The placement of "And" at the beginning
of the NIV reading is of no real significance. The meanings of "brood" and "offspring" are not
significantly different." Third, notice that the NEB translates as plurals two pronouns in the final
sentence which are singular in the other versions. This should cause you to ask some questions.
If you could read Hebrew, you would notice immediately that the pronouns are actually singular.
If you do not read Hebrew, consulting additional versions and exegetical commentaries should
lead you to the same discovery. This difference may be of little significance, but you might gain
some interesting insight by thinking about what the NEB is trying to communicate by this choice
of translation. It has become fairly common in Christian interpretation of Genesis 3 to associate

the snake with Satan, though the concept of an individual arch-villain developed much later than
the book of Genesis. The NEB, on the other hand, is promoting and understanding that the
enmity is between snakes and human beings. Fourth, and most important is the use of the verb
"crush" in the NIV. Notice that the other two versions each use "strike" twice. Why is this
important? For a long time this verse has been considered very important in the Christian
tradition. It has been proposed that the second half of the verse speaks prophetically about Jesus
and Satan. Satan will strike Jesus heel (the crucifixion) and Jesus shall crush Satan's head (the
resurrection). This interpretation is dependent upon the one verb (crush) having a stronger
meaning than the other (strike). In Hebrew, however, the same word is used both times, and a
careful examination of numerous versions and a good commentary would lead you to this
discovery. It is clear that this "prophetic" reading is incorrect, and that certain versions, like the
NIV, push readers in the direction of this wrong conclusion. Careful attention to the grammar of
the text will help you avoid such mistakes.
Next, examine Romans 8:9 carefully. The major difficulty with this verse is not the
differences which might be found in different versions of the Bible. The problem is understanding
two central words and the concepts they represent. The Apostle Paul seems to be using a pair of
opposing words or ideas in Romans 8:9. These words are "spirit" and "flesh." Notice that some
versions capitalize the first letter of "Spirit." The Greek New Testament does not use this kind of
capitalization. The translators of English versions which do are already proposing a certain
element of theological meaning for this word. It is absolutely essential for you to understand how
these two words are being used in the Epistle to the Romans. There are several sources which
can help you. Any Bible dictionary or theological dictionary will have an explanation of these
terms. Thorough dictionaries will discuss specifically how Paul uses these terms. Commentaries

on the book of Romans will also provide important information. In addition, you should use a
concordance to examine for yourself other texts in which Paul uses "spirit" and "flesh."
Finally, John 3:3 illustrates how even small words can be critical in the interpretation of a
text. This is one of the best known texts in the New Testament. In John 3:2, Nicodemus comes
and engages Jesus in conversation. In 3:3, Jesus responds to him. Notice the differing versions
below:

Jesus answered him, "Very truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God without
being born from above." (John 3:3, NRSV)

In reply Jesus declared, "I tell you the truth, unless a man be born again, he cannot see the
kingdom of God." (John 3:3, NIV)

Do not be distracted by the use of words like "reply" and "answer." They mean the same thing.
The important difference is that between "born from above" (NRSV) and "born again" (NIV).
The problem is that the Greek word used here can have each of these meanings. To their credit,
both of these English versions provide the other translation in a footnote. Any exegesis of this
passage must take this problem into account. Good exegetical commentaries will provide relevant
background information and a summary of the arguments concerning the translation of this verse.
There is a tendency among interpreters to choose one position on such a problem and argue
strongly for it. You should at least be willing to consider the possibility that the author
deliberately chose to use a word with these two meanings because he wanted to communicate
both meanings. There is not necessarily one correct translation.

Bibliography

Textual and Grammatical Criticism

Aland, Kurt and Barbara Aland. The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical
Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1987.
Barr, James. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1961.
Cotterell, Peter and Max Turner. Linguistics and Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, Ill.:
Intervarsity Press, 1988.
McCarter, P. Kyle. Textual Criticism: Recovering the Text of the Hebrew Bible. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986.
Metzger, Bruce M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London: United Bible
Societies, 1971.
Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Wurthwein, Ernst. The Text of the Old Testament. Trans. Errol F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1979.
Bible Dictionaries: There are dozens available. Only a few are mentioned here with comments.
Most individual readers will be limited to owning a one-volume Bible Dictionary. There are at
least three excellent ones available.
Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
2000.
Harper's Bible Dictionary. Ed. Paul Achtemeier. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1985.
Mercer Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. Watson E. Mills, et al. Macon, Ga.: Mercer University
Press, 1990.
Multi-volume dictionaries are able to present much more thorough and technical information
related to the study of the Bible. Two such dictionaries are of note.
The Interpreter's Bible, 4 vols. Ed. George A. Buttrick. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962. This is an
excellent and very thorough resource, though it is becoming quite dated. A Supplementary

volume, edited by Keith Crim, was published in 1976.

The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Garden City: Doubleday,
1992. This is the most exhaustive Bible dictionary ever published. It is now, and will remain, the
standard work for many years to come.
Theological Wordbooks: For students with minimal ability in biblical languages, there are many
reference works available which provide insight into the meaning of Greek and Hebrew words.
The two most significant are listed below.
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 10 vols. Ed. G. Kittel and G. Friedrich. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964-76. This is a monumental work and provides an abundance of
information on Greek words. Its methodology has come under legitimate attack from James Barr,
among others, but it is still a valuable tool. A one volume abridged edition was published in 1985.
Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, incomplete. Ed. J. Botterweck and H. Ringgren.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977-. Like the work above, this is a massive source of information.
It is now more than half completed, but the appearance of remaining volumes has been slow.
Lexicons: There are a wide variety of works which come under this heading. The standard
reference works are listed below.
Brown, Francis, S. R. Drive, and C. A. Briggs. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Oxford: oxford University Press, 1906.
Koehler, Ludwig and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament, 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Bauer, Walter. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian
Literature. Trans. W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1979.

Concordances: These are available in abundance now, with the advent of computer technology. I
will not list specific titles. Many on-line Bible search sites are available, such as:
http://bible.gospelcom.net/
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
Grammars: There are a large number of introductory and intermediate grammars of biblical
Hebrew and Greek. I will not list them individually. The standard English reference grammars for
Hebrew and Greek are listed below.

Kautzsch, E. Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar. Trans. A. E. Cowley.

Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910.
Robertson, A. T. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the
Light of Historical Research. Nashville: Broadman, 1914.
Biblical Commentaries: Exegetes must be very careful here. Commentaries are produced for
many different purposes. Some are exegetical, some homiletical, and some devotional. While
those written for the latter two purposes can provide important insight, they are not the best place
to start. Exegetical commentaries always include a discussion of the text itself before they begin
interpreting or applying it. Some are more thorough than others. Some of the most useful series
are listed below, with descriptions.

The Anchor Bible. This series has been in process for about thirty years and is nearly complete.
The method and approach of the various volumes varies widely, as do their quality and usefulness.
Some of the earlier volumes are being replaced by new editions. Among the highlights of the
series are the volumes on Leviticus, Ruth, Song of Songs, Esther, Joel, Jonah, Zephaniah, Luke,
John, Romans, and Galatians.
Hermeneia. Published by Fortress press, this series contains Old and New Testament volumes,
but is not yet near completion. This series is extremely technical in nature and many students will
find it too difficult, but the volumes are consistent in their thorough discussions of the biblical
text. Many of the volumes were originally published in German and have been translated into
English. Among better volumes are those on Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Zephaniah, Daniel, Acts,
Galatians, Hebrews, and I Peter.
The New Century Bible. Published by Eerdmans, this series contains Old and New Testament
volumes and is complete. Some volumes are being updated. The commentaries in this series are
briefer and simpler than most other exegetical commentaries. Consequently, they are not as
thorough, but many of the volumes are of good quality and are very useful. Among the most
helpful are the volumes on Chronicles, Job, Isaiah, John, Corinthians, Thessalonians, and
Revelation.
The New International Commentary on the New Testament and The New International
Commentary on the Old Testament. Published by Eerdmans, these series are nearly complete and
some older volumes are being replaced. The volumes in this series tend to provide complete
discussions of the text, though their quality is uneven. Among the best are Deuteronomy,
Jeremiah, John, Acts, Philippians, Hebrews, and the Epistles of John.
The New International Greek Testament Commentary. This series is about half complete. For
those students with some training in Greek, these volumes are very helpful.
The Old Testament Library. This series has been in production for many years. Some of the
earlier volumes were translations of classic German commentaries. New volumes continue to
appear and the series is nearing completion, with some of the earlier volumes now being replaced.
The highlights of the series are numerous, including the volumes on Genesis, Joshua, Chronicles,
Ezra-Nehemiah, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, Hosea, Amos, Jonah and Micah.
Word Biblical Commentary. Published by Word, this series contains Old and New Testament
volumes and is nearing completion. Students will probably find this series the most useful. It
provides thorough discussions of textual issues in a format that is not difficult to follow. There
are no weak volumes, to date. The unevenness of the series is due to the existence of several
superior volumes, which overshadow the rest. Among the best are Exodus, Ezra-Nehemiah, Job,
Psalms, Ecclesiastes, Luke, John, Romans, Galatians, James, and Hebrews.
Interpretation. This is the best set of commentaries that is primarily homiletical in focus. It
contains excellent volumes on Genesis, Deuteronomy, Psalms, Ezekiel, John, Acts, and
Philippians, among others.

CHAPTER THREE:
INTRODUCTION TO DIACHRONIC METHODS

The diachronic methods arose within the modern era. These approaches to the biblical
text are sometimes called the historical-critical methods. One of their basic premises is that the
Bible can be read much like any other ancient document. The reader may ask questions about
who wrote the text and why? Who was intended to read the text and when? How might it have
influenced them? The nature of the historical-critical method and its use has helped to create
conflict between the academic world which used it and the church. This conflict is not necessarily
a bad thing. Much has been gained from historical-critical study of the Bible. At the same time,
many continue to be threatened by its conclusions. Among the more controversial conclusions
which have been reached by historical-critical study is the understanding that the books of the
Bible are editorial combinations produced by a large number of authors and that the editorial
process for many biblical books took place over a long period of time. For some, this calls divine
inspiration into question by emphasizing the human aspects of the writing process. Also, some
are troubled by the thought that by moving the final writing of the books further away from the
events they report, historical-critical study questions the historical reliability of biblical texts. The
succeeding chapters in this section attempt to illustrate how historical-critical methods are used,
without arriving at any final conclusions regarding these points of controversy.
The terminology of exegesis can be extremely confusing. In this part of the book we will
examine four individual exegetical methods. It is important to understand that while these
methods are individual, they are not entirely independent. Collectively, they are sometimes called
"the historical-critical method." They are sometimes grouped together because they have a
common concern. That concern is understanding the process of development which led up to the
final form of the biblical text. Practitioners of the historical-critical methods are committed to the
belief that if they can understand how the text came to be what it is, then they can better

understand its message. In other words, the history of the text is the key to exegesis. This basic
assumption has come under attack in recent decades. Some interpreters have dismissed the
historical-critical methods altogether. While newer exegetical methods are beginning to dominate
biblical interpretation, it would be a mistake to ignore the historical-critical methods, for two
reasons. First, during their century of dominance historical-critical methods were tremendously
productive. These methods have produced a huge body of secondary literature and they have
increased our understanding of the Bible enormously. Second, the newer methods which have
emerged were all born out of the historical-critical era. To deny the influence of the historical
critical methods on more contemporary methods is dishonest. Understanding the more recent
methods requires an understanding of the context from which they first arose.
Historical-critical investigation begins with the procedures discussed in chapter two. As
with any method, the interpreter should not examine issues related to the text and grammar and
then simply move on, however. Textual and grammatical issues should be continuously
reexamined in light of subsequent steps.
Some guides to exegesis discuss "historical criticism." This term can create some
confusion. Historical-criticism usually involves the comparison of the biblical text with other
historical sources, either other writings from the period or archaeological evidence. This process
is vital to the use of the methods which will be discussed in the next few chapters, but by itself is
not truly an exegetical method. The study of history can provide essential clues to the meaning of
the text, and it is a necessary beginning point for all of the methods in Part II of this guide. The
exegete should be aware, for example, of available information concerning places which are
named in a text. It is also helpful to know some basic information about the time periods in which
biblical events may have taken place. What was the world like then? How did people live? What

was the political situation? Posing and answering such questions provides background for
understanding the text, but one or more of the methods examined in the next few chapters is still
necessary for examining the text itself. The bibliography at the end of this chapter will include
sources for beginning the study of Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern history.
The first three methods discussed in this part, source, form, and tradition criticism are
often used in sequence. This is another reason for the frequent use of the singular term,
"historical-critical method." Each of these methods will be treated in detail individually in the
following chapters. At this point, a brief overview might be helpful. Source criticism is the
process of identifying the literary collections which were used to compose the final form of a
biblical book. Where did the biblical authors get these stories, poems, genealogies, etc.? What
was the nature and purpose of the previously existing collections of literature? These are among
the questions which occupy source critics.
Form-criticism breaks down the biblical literature even further and traces its development
another step back in time. After dividing the text into individual units, form-criticism classifies
these units according to types, or forms, of literature. This is the step from which it gets its name.
Finally, form-critics ask about the original use or function of the unit, before it was collected
together with other small units. Tradition-criticism takes individual units identified by formcriticism and attempts to trace their development through time until they were deposited in the
written biblical tradition. Because changing traditions may have entered into the Bible at more
than one point, tradition criticism also compares and contrasts units of tradition with similar units
in the Bible.
Redaction criticism may or may not fit well into a unit with the three methods described
above. To some extent it is a transitional method. It is strongly related to these other methods

and is dependent upon their results, but it moves in the opposite direction from form and source
criticism. The central questions of redaction criticism concern why the final author put the
available materials together in this particular way, and what can be determined about the author's
intended message by examining the final editorial process. Thus, redaction criticism examines the
process leading from the textual units identified by historical-critical methods to the final form of
the text. It is possible to understand redaction criticism in close relation to tradition criticism.
Tradition criticism has been almost entirely an Old Testament concern, while redaction criticism
has arisen primarily in relation to New Testament Studies. The last phase of tradition criticism
examines the placement of traditional material into the biblical text. This placement process is
very close to the process which is the primary concern of redaction criticism. This concern with
the final form connects redaction criticism to some extent with the methods outlined in Part III.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bruce, F. F. New Testament History. Garden City: Doubleday, 1969.
Finegan, J. The Archaeology of the New Testament: The Mediterranean World of the of the
Early Christian Apostles. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969.
Fitzmeyer, Joseph. Responses to 101 Questions on the Dead Sea
Scrolls. New York: Paulist, 1992.
Hayes, John H. and Miller, J. Maxwell. Israelite and Judean History. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1977.
Krentz, Edgar. The Historical Critical Method. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975.

Lance, H. D. The Old Testament and the Archaeologist. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981.
Mazar, Amihai. Archaeology and the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York:
Doubleday, 1992.
Roetzel, Calvin J. The World that Shaped the New Testament. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.
Wiseman, D. J., ed. Peoples of the Old Testament Times. London: Oxford, 1973.

CHAPTER FOUR:

SOURCE CRITICISM

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

century. The most familiar model of source criticism, and its highest achievement has been the
four source theory, or Documentary Hypothesis, of the origin of the Pentateuch. The idea that the
Pentateuch was composed primarily from four written source documents dominated Old
Testament studies for about one hundred years. The origins of this understanding primarily within
the eighteenth century as readers of the Pentateuch began to give attention to various literary
features of these books, most notably the varying names used for God. The Documentary
Hypothesis was then more carefully refined during the nineteenth century.8 The idea of sources
has met significant resistance from those who have insisted on the traditional belief that Moses
wrote the entire Pentateuch in the form we have it. This resistance has largely faded except in
fundamentalist circles, but more recently the Documentary Hypothesis has been challenged from
two directions. One group of challengers insists that even if books of the Bible were written with
the use of sources, it is still the final form of the text which is of greatest importance for
interpretation. Another challenge has come from those who accept the understanding of sources
and its importance, but insist that the four source theory is far too simple. Instead, there was a
much larger number of sources, which were combined in a much more complex process. The
biblical authors themselves often acknowledge the use of sources in the writing of their books.
For example, Joshua 10:13 and II Samuel 1:18 both mention "the Book of Jashar," Numbers
21:14 makes reference to "the Book of the Wars of the LORD," and I Kings 14:29 mentions "the
Book of the Annals of the Kings of Judah." This last book along with "the Book of the Annals of
8The idea of sources did not originate with Julius Wellhausen, but he is generally credited with its standard formulation, including delineation of the Yahwhist (J), Elohist (E), Priestly (P),

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

the Kings of Israel are frequently mentioned in the biblical books of Kings and Chronicles. In all,
approximately thirty different books are mentioned in the Old Testament, none of which are in
existence today. In the New Testament, the Introduction to the gospel of Luke, in 1:1-4, is
perhaps the clearest statement concerning the use of previously written sources to write a biblical
book.
Though source criticism began with the study of the Pentateuch, it has had tremendous
influence in the study of almost all of the books of the Bible. Nearly all of the books show
evidence of the use of previously existing documents or oral sources. The book of Isaiah has been
divided into three basic sections, which come from three different eras in Israel's history. Many
interpreters insist that the two parts of Job, the poetic dialogues and the narrative framework,
represent two different sources. Interpreters of the gospels have argued that Matthew and Luke
both used the gospel of Mark along with other pre-existing written traditions about Jesus.
One area of severe disagreement among source critics has been the description of the
process by which the writers of the Bible may have used sources. Some tend to consider those
who produced the final books to be only editors, who gathered materials and pieced them
together, with little addition of their own abilities. Others focus on the artistry of these authors
who took existing traditions and weaved them together carefully along with their own writings to
create great pieces of literature. The use of sources in the final editing process is the concern of
redaction criticism, which will be examined later.
The use of source criticism as an exegetical method requires several steps. The first step,
after choosing a text, is to identify the source or sources which may have been used to compose
that text. This is no easy or certain procedure. If you examine a number of commentaries which
discuss sources you will find that there is sometimes disagreement among the experts concerning

the identification of sources. Source critics use many different criteria to identify the presence of
multiple sources.
1) Changes in literary style may be an indication of more than one original author. The
highly structured lists found in the genealogy in Genesis 5 sound very different from the
stories that make up most of Genesis 2-4. Some would argue that this indicates the
presence of more than one source in Genesis.

2) Changes in vocabulary may indicate the presence of sources. Sometimes authors have
a tendency to use certain words in a distinctive manner. Exodus 12:1-20 and 12:21-27
contain two sets of instructions for the celebration of Passover. Among the many
differences between the two passages is the fact that they use different Hebrew words for
"lamb."

3) The two texts just cited from Exodus 12 point to another possible indication of sources,
passages which are repetitions of each other. Another example of such repetition is the
three descriptions of the animals Noah takes into the ark in Genesis 6:19-20, 7:2-3, and
7:8-9.

4) Sometimes within one biblical book the point of view or perspective of the writer seems
to change. The observation of such a change has led to the division of the book of Isaiah
into three basic sections. Isaiah 1-39 seems to be related primarily to situations in Judah in
the eighth century B.C.E. Isaiah 40-55 appears to be set within the Babylonian exile of
the sixth century. Isaiah 56-66 speaks about the period of the Restoration of Judah,

perhaps during the fifth century.

5) Sometimes a biblical book contains sentences which appear to link together two
previously existing texts. The historical note in Luke 3:1-3 forms a link between the story
of the boy Jesus in the temple and Luke's account of the preaching of John the Baptist.
Luke appears to have used the gospel of Mark as the source for his story of John the
Baptist and the baptism of Jesus.

6)Some longer biblical narratives contain interruptions in the flow of the story which may
point to multiple sources. A primary example is Genesis 38 which breaks up the Joseph
story found in Genesis 37 and 39-50.

After the possible sources within a text are identified, using criteria like those listed above,
the characteristics of each source must be carefully studied. Questions asked by source critics at
this point include: How is this part of the text related to other material in the Bible that may come
from the same source? What are the main concerns of each source? When might each source
have originated? Why did the final author/editor choose to use these sources? How has the final
author/editor put them together to construct the whole text? This last question approaches the
domain of another method called redaction criticism, which we will examine later. Questions such
as these should lead to a particular understanding of the meaning of the text, the end goal of
exegesis. Not all of these questions are answerable for every text, however. Perhaps the most
speculative element of source criticism is the attempt to reassemble a hypothetical source and

assign it to a particular historical and social setting.9

It is in this final stage that source criticism risks making use of a circular argument. The
texts assigned to certain sources are used to determine the concerns, themes, and characteristics
of the source. These concerns, themes, and characteristics can then become additional criteria for
assigning further texts to the source. Care should be taken in assigning texts to a specific source.
Beginning students will often rely on biblical commentaries for the source division of the text.
The arguments used by these commentaries should be examined very closely. The identification of
sources is always hypothetical, because the sources do not physically exist now. Results of source
analysis always contain a degree of uncertainty. The great strength of source criticism is the
careful attention it pays to the literary features of the biblical text. 10

Sample Exegesis

Exodus 1:8-22 tells the story of how the Israelite people came to be slaves in the land of
Egypt. The first seven verses of the book of Exodus provide a list of the sons of Joseph, who had
traveled to Egypt, a report of the death of Joseph and his brothers, and brief description of the
growth of the Israelites. The increasing population of this people is the factor which sets up the
conflict in 1:8-22. Exodus 2 tells the story of Moses birth and growth into adulthood. The story
of Moses being put in the basket and being found and adopted by Pharaoh's daughter is related to

9Examples of this attempt include Richard Elliot Friedman, The Hidden Book in the Bible: The
Discovery of the First Prose Masterpiece (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1998) and The Critical Edition of
Q, ed. James M. Robinson, et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000).
10This factor reveals why source criticism is sometimes referred to as literary criticism, a term avoided
in this guide because of its lack of precision and potential for confusion.

Pharaoh's attempt in, 1:8-22, to have all the Hebrew baby boys murdered. Thus, Exodus 1:8-22
fits well with its context and is logically connected to what precedes and what follows.
There are some internal characteristics within this text which point to the possibility that
multiple sources were used in its writing. The first section of the text, vv. 8-14, reports the initial
attempt of Pharaoh to control the burgeoning Israelite population. Verses 13-14 seem to repeat
information already given in vv. 8-12, even though the end of v. 12 reports that the first plan of
action was ineffective in controlling the Israelite population. Besides describing the oppression of
the Israelites again, v. 13 attributes this oppression to "the Egyptians," not just to Pharaoh's court
and the taskmasters assigned in v. 11. Vv. 15-22 describe two subsequent plans to control the
population which differ significantly from the first. While it is not clear how the earlier plan of
forced labor would control population, the killing of all the male children would. In v. 9, v. 12,
and v. 13, the chosen people are called "Israelites," while vv. 15-22 uses the term "Hebrews."
Thus, there are variations in vocabulary and inconsistencies in the plot of the story which point to
the possibility of multiple sources being used in its development.
Source critics are not in complete agreement concerning the division of this text. Most do
assign vv. 8-12 to the Yahwist (J) source and vv. 13-14 to the Priestly (P)source. Some assign vv.
15-22 to the Elohist (E) source.11 Others consider these verses to be a combination of the J and E
sources.12 Vv. 13-14 do appear to be an intrusive repetition. Therefore, assigning them to a
separate source is reasonable. The appearance in vv. 13-14 of words derived from the Hebrew
root `bd (serve), which does not appear elsewhere in this text, points to P as a source for these
verses. Verses 8-12, together with vv. 15-22, form a single story line that seems to fit together.

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

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

The possibility of a third source would explain some of the variations in naming characters and
groups and the preference of the use of Elohim to designate God. Clear separation of the sources
in these verses does not seem possible, however. Assigning these sections to J seems most
reasonable, with some possible influence from E.
The primary purpose of the basic story in vv. 8-12 and vv. 15-22 seems to be the assertion
that Pharaoh's attempts to control the Israelites fail. The climax of the story is God's intervention
through the lives of the midwives in vv. 17-21. This fits with the general pattern of J of describing
threats to the promises of God, which are overcome and followed by God's blessing (vv. 20-21).
The J source is also concerned with setting up the miraculous story of Moses childhood in Exodus
2. The central message of this passage is that God is on the side of the Israelites and will deliver
them from their oppression. Nevertheless, the threat of destruction is continuously renewed.
The two verses from the P source (vv. 13-14) are primarily interested in reporting the
ruthlessness of the Egyptians. The fruitfulness of the Israelites in Egypt was already reported in
1:1-7, also a P section. This discussion of the ruthlessness of slave labor perhaps points ahead to
the limitations placed on slavery in the legal material of P, in places like Exodus 21:1-11. The
main concern of these two verse is the brutality of slavery.

In conclusion, this narrative is shaped by the J source and its concern for promise, threat,
and blessing. The P account of slavery in Egypt has been added at the appropriate point to
underscore the suffering of God's people in the land of Egypt.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Beardslee, W. Literary Criticism of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1970.
Blenkinsopp, J. The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible. New
York: Doubleday, 1992, pp. 1-30.
Fretheim, Terrence E. "Source Criticism, OT." In The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975. Pp. 838-839.
Habel, N. Literary Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.
Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.

CHAPTER FIVE
FORM CRITICISM

Form criticism is based in large part on a rather obvious assumption. This assumption is
that in any culture there are many kinds of literature which perform many different functions. In
order to understand what a piece of literature is trying to communicate, it is essential to
understand its type and function. The different types, or forms, of biblical literature can be
classified on more than one different level. The most basic level would distinguish between the
two distinct modes of writing, prose and poetry. A broad, general classification might identify
such types as psalms, narratives, prophetic oracles, gospels and epistles. A more detailed
classification might list the following types: Lament, hymn of praise, genealogy, legend, call
narrative, oracle against the nations, salvation oracle, parable, miracle story, greeting, doxology,
apocalyptic vision. Most persons who have read the Bible carefully already realize this to some
extent. Nevertheless, many have not considered all of the implications of this understanding. For
example, the primary function of some sections in New Testament epistles is to instruct and
exhort the recipients in matters of personal and communal behavior. These sections are
sometimes called "paraenesis." Now that these epistles are part of the Christian canon, these texts
are sometimes understood to establish moral norms for the church. Many readers of the Bible,
however, seem to read all of the Bible as if such instruction is the primary function. On the
contrary, the primary function of most of the psalms is to worship God. To assume that these
psalms might be teaching ethics in the same direct way as a paraenetic portion of an epistle can
lead to very poor interpretation. For example, reading Psalm 137:9 in this way might lead to the
conclusion that murdering the children of our enemies is morally acceptable. Thus, identifying the
form and function of specific portions of scripture is essential to sound interpretation.
The process of form criticism is commonly outlined in three steps.

1) Isolate the unit. The interpreter must determine where an individual unit of scripture
begins and ends.
2) Second, classify the unit as to literary type.
3) Finally, determine the life situation in which the unit may have originally been used.

In the end, form criticism is an attempt to connect biblical texts with the lives of the people who
first used them. This final step is, of course, the most speculative. In practice, this process tends
to vary. The first step is often greatly expanded into a detailed analysis of the structure of the
passage. This is done both to justify the chosen boundaries of the text and to provide detailed
evidence for the identification of the literary type. The third step is frequently divided into two
separate parts, focusing separately on the social setting of the text and the intent, or purpose, of
the text. These two parts of the third step inform each other. Neither these two steps nor the
other steps of form criticism are necessarily performed in a strict sequence. Conclusions reached
in one step may cause an interpreter to go back and reconsider the conclusions of an earlier one
It should be apparent that historical knowledge is essential for this method. Units of
literature must be assigned an approximate date. Original use and setting are also linked to
geographical location. Because most biblical texts are religious texts, knowledge of ancient
Israelite religion or primitive Christianity are vital. For some form critics, the goal of this method
is an attempt to use Old Testament materials to reconstruct the religion of ancient Israel, and to
use New Testament materials to reconstruct the life of the historical Jesus and the religion of the
first century church. Others who use these methods place much less emphasis on the degree of
certainty with which ancient history can be reconstructed. One point that frequently creates

controversy is the assumption by some form-critics that the use of a unit of scripture in the final
from of the text we now have may be quite different from its original use as an independent unit.
Even those who accept the possibility of these two different uses often disagree on which is more
important.
A recent revision of form criticism should be noted here. The standard process of form
criticism, which dominated the last half of the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth
century, focused on oral tradition. Newer movements in form-critical study have widened this
focus to include literary processes and stages of development, right up to the production of the
final form of the text. A revised form-criticism attempts to overcome the earlier tendency of form
criticism to break the text up into smaller and smaller "pre-literary" units. There is also a greater
effort to move from the traditional form-critical steps to theological interpretation of the text, a
step that often received little attention in older form criticism.

Sample Exegesis
The song of Zechariah is a poem embedded within Luke's gospel, which is primarily a
narrative. The poem, found in Luke 1:68-79, fits well within its present context in Luke's gospel.
Zechariah has been introduced as a priest whose wife is barren. When an angel visits him and tells
him that he and his wife will have a child, he expresses some doubt because of their age. Because
of this doubt, he is punished with muteness. This punishment is finally lifted on the eighth day
after the birth of the child, when Zechariah and Elizabeth take the child for his circumcision
ceremony. Naturally, after nearly one year of silence, Zechariah has a lot to say and he bursts into
song. Following the song is a brief report about the growth and development of John.
Luke 1:68-79 has much in common with the hymns of praise found in the Old Testament

book of Psalms and in other portions of the Old Testament. Zechariah's song may then be
classified as an example of a specific form or type of unit which may have been used in either oral
or written form within specific social contexts. Hymns of praise are often understood to be
organized in three distinct sections. These are 1) a brief exhortation or call to praise, 2) a longer,
often specific praise section, and 3) a short blessing, prayer, or wish which acts as a conclusion to
the poem. A clear example of this form is Psalm 113, in which v. 1 is the call to praise, vv. 2-9b
make up the praise section, and v. 9c the conclusion.
The context of Zechariah's Song in the gospel of Luke places it within the temple. This
would be an appropriate setting for a hymn of praise. There are many possible backgrounds for
Zechariah's Song. It could be understood as an original song sung by Zechariah or it could be a
traditional song which Zechariah knew and sang on this occasion. In addition, it could be an
original composition of the writer of the gospel, or a traditional hymn used by the writer in this
context. The carefully structured, highly traditional nature of this song and its similarity to other
hymns of praise point to a prior existence of this literary unit, before its use by Zechariah or the
writer of the gospel of Luke.13 In addition, the similarity and proximity of this unit to the Song of
Mary in Luke 2:46-55 may be significant. If so, then the Song of Hannah in I Samuel 2:1-10,
which seems to lie behind the Song of Mary, provides another important parallel. These further
examples of what might be classified as hymns of praise provide a possible understanding of the
use of such hymns in response to the birth or impending birth of a child. Taken together, these
three texts provide at least three examples of hymns of praise sung by parents on the occasion of
the birth or conception of a child.
Luke 1:68 fits a general pattern for an exhortation or call to praise at the beginning of a
13

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

hymn of praise. It announces who is to be praised, "The Lord God of Israel," and provides a
general reason for praise, "He has looked favorably upon his people." Vv. 69-79 then describe the
specific occasion as a cause for praise. The current occasion is connected with the Davidic
tradition in v. 69 and with the prophetic tradition of Israel in v. 70. Vv. 72-73 trace connections to
Abraham and God's covenant with Israel, linking this current event with God's faithfulness to
Israel through the ages. In vv. 76-77 the poem states the specific role of this child, John the
Baptist, within the tradition of God's faithfulness. The language of these verses is strongly
reminiscent of that in the book of Isaiah, in places such as 9:2-3, 40:3-5, and 58:10-12. Once
again, this emphasizes continuity between the events in the day of Zechariah and God's previous
acts of deliverance.14 A clear statement of conclusion, typical of hymns of praise, is missing here.
This raises the possibility that Luke 1:68-79 is only a portion of a such a hymn. Another
possibility is that this is a combination of hymns. V. 75 does contain a kind of wish for eternal
praise and is similar to the ending of some hymns of praise. Therefore, it is entirely possible that
this song is constructed from all or part of two separate songs, a hymn of praise in vv. 68-75 and a
prophetic oracle in vv. 76-79.15

14

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

15

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

An original setting or function for this text is difficult to establish. Supposing that it was
associated with the life of John and later incorporated into the gospel of Luke creates a forty to
eighty year time span over which the poem would have been preserved and used. The strong
connections to Davidic, Abrahamic, and prophetic traditions and the lack of specific references to
Jesus may point to a pre-Christian community usage. Other New Testament traditions (Acts
10:37 and Matt. 11:2) indicate the presence of communities of John's disciples. The worship
gatherings of such communities present a possible setting and function for a hymn of praise
concerning the life of John. There are also possible indications of conflict between the followers
of John and the followers of Jesus (Luke 7:32-34 and Matt. 11:7-15). If this song comes from a
community of John's followers, then it asserts two very important convictions about John. First,
he fulfills Israel's central traditions - the Abrahamic covenant, the Davidic monarchy, and the role
of the prophets. Second, while John's task is understood as preparatory, it is not necessarily
connected with the life of Jesus. A dispute over the extent of the fulfillment of God's purpose in
the person of John may be reflected in the textual problem of Luke 1:78b. Taken along with other
texts mentioned above, this poem may provide evidence that the early church had to struggle to
bring together the John and Jesus traditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bultmann, Rudolf and Kundsin, Karl. Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament
Research. Tans. Frederick C. Grant. New York: Harper & Row, 1962.
Carlston, C. E. "Form Criticism, NT." In Interpreter'sfDictionary of the Bible, Supplementary
Volume. Pp. 345-348.
Koch, Klaus. The Growth of the Biblical Tradition. New York: Scribner's, 1969.
McKnight, Edgar V. What is Form Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
Tucker, Gene M. Form Criticism of the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.

Tucker, Gene M. "Form Criticism, OT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary
Volume. Pp. 342-345.
For extensive examples of contemporary form criticism in practice, see the volumes in the
commentary series "The Forms of the Old Testament Literature," edited by Rolf Knierem and
Gene M. Tucker, and published by Eerdmans. Currently about a dozen volumes have been
published.

CHAPTER SIX:
TRADITION CRITICISM

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

criticism is primarily concerned with the original use of a piece of biblical literature in its original
life setting. The primary concern of tradition criticism is how the use of a particular literary unit,
or type of unit, changed through time. Tradition criticism gets its name from the assumption that
the Bible consists of materials that reflect the central traditions of certain communities of faith.
Through the history of these communities, these traditions were used in varying ways to meet the
social needs of the communities. Specific texts can be understood when they are correctly placed
within this process of growth and development of traditions. To put it another way, from time to
time traditions became "fixed" or crystallized" within the biblical literature. These fixed forms
reveal their uses and understandings at particular times. Tradition criticism began within Old
testament studies and reached its peak in the work of two German scholars, Gerhard von Rad and
Martin Noth. Von Rad, Noth, and others attempted to describe the process of growth and
development of traditions which led to the existence of various biblical texts as they now exist.
The introduction to Part II briefly explained the relationship between tradition criticism
and redaction criticism. The nature of tradition criticism is heavily dependent upon a certain
understanding of how the Old Testament literature came into being. Because this process may
have lasted as long as 1000 years, the traditions contained within the Old Testament were likely to
have changed significantly during this time. The New Testament, on the other hand, came into
being all within a period of only fifty to seventy-five years. Because this time period was very
short, the process of development of the New Testament is comparable to only the very last phase
of the development of the Old Testament. The focus on this last phase, the use of traditions by
the final authors of the Bible, is the concern of redaction criticism. Therefore, tradition criticism is
used rarely in relation to the New Testament. Redaction criticism has developed primarily in

relation to New Testament studies, but there are some instances where it applies to Old Testament
literature. Examples of this will be presented in the next chapter.
A precise procedure for tradition criticism has not been well established, but the following
steps reflect a manner in which tradition criticism is often carried out. First, as mentioned
previously, tradition criticism assumes some of the results of source and form criticism.
Therefore, the steps involved in these other methods must be performed first, to some extent. In
short, the text being interpreted and other texts which provide versions of the same tradition must
be assigned to source documents and original settings. Second, the various versions of the
tradition need to be placed in an approximate order. Third, by examining the ways in which the
tradition appears to have developed, the purposes and special interests of the primary text in
question can be inferred. The results of these inferences will, of course, be speculative. They are
dependent upon the accuracy of each of the previous steps, and upon the validity of the inferences
themselves. There should be no assumption that the versions of the tradition found in literary
form in the biblical text are the only stages through which the tradition passed. It is also possible
to use tradition criticism to analyze texts which are not part of a group of texts which show an
apparent development. Sometimes previous versions of a tradition can be inferred from a single
text if it shows signs of having grown and developed over time. But the results of such a study
will be dependent upon the accuracy of one additional step, the dividing up of a single text into
layers of tradition.
One important example of this kind of process involving a single text is a common
understanding of the story of the binding of Isaac in Genesis 22:1-19. It is possible to see in this
text an original story which may have ended after v. 13. In this story, Abraham is commanded to
sacrifice his son. As he is about to do so, the angel stops him and the ram is provided as a

substitute. One purpose of this story may have been to support the legal tradition allowing for the
redemption of the firstborn (see Numbers 3:44-51 and compare to the straightforward statement
in Exodus 22:29-30). V. 14 may be understood as a secondary layer added to the story which
associates the event with a particular place. This verse explains how the place got its name and, in
with a subtle reference to "the mount" may be associating the event and the place with the
eventual location and significance of the Jerusalem temple.16 The second message of the angel in
vv. 15-18 may be a third layer of added tradition in which the binding of Isaac was associated with
the covenant tradition. One purpose of this layer would be to establish the faithfulness of
Abraham as the basis for the blessing of Israel with a special covenant. 17
A good illustration of the implications of tradition criticism is von Rad's argument
concerning Deuteronomy 26:5-9. In its present context, this passage represents a statement to be
recited by a worshipper who is bringing an offering to a priest. The nature of the statement
appears to be something of a creed. Von Rad identified this as one of the ancient Israelite creeds
which form the core of the book of Deuteronomy. He noticed that this creed, which describes the
key events of Israel's faith story makes no mention of the giving of the law at Sinai. From this,
von Rad reasoned that the Sinai tradition was originally independent of the exodus and settlement
tradition, which is prominent in this creed. Furthermore, other Old Testament creeds, such as
Deuteronomy 6:20-25 and Joshua 24:2-13, also fail to mention Sinai, though the latter is more
highly developed than the shorter creedal statements in Deuteronomy. This case illustrates how
certain traditions within ancient Israel developed independently at early stages and were later

16The association became more explicit in late Jewish interpretation of the passage.
17 Further evidence of the flexibility of this tradition is found in the Samaritan Pentateuch, in which
Abraham binds Isaac on Mount Gerazim, rather than on Mount Moriah, and in the Koran, in which Abraham
binds Ishmael, rather than Isaac.

brought together.18 A later stage when earlier traditions are combined to form a new one may be
reflected in the creedal statement of Nehemiah 9. Here, the traditions of exodus and Sinai are
finally brought together in a statement of Israels faith.
Frequently tradition criticism is used to analyze rather large blocks of material, such as the
Jacob narratives. It is possible, however, to use tradition criticism on an individual unit of the
text. The relationship of this text to certain others will form part of the process of using the
method in these cases.

Sample exegesis

II Chronicles 30:1-27 reports the celebration of Passover in Jerusalem, under the direction
of King Hezekiah. The celebration of the Passover is described in a relatively large number of
texts. The initial text in Exodus 12 describes the Passover celebration twice, once in God's
instructions to Moses (12:1-20) and once in Moses' instructions to the elders (12:21-27). After
the report of the killing of the firstborn of Egypt and the departure of the Israelites from Egypt,
Passover legislation is given again in the form of instructions from Yahweh to Moses and Aaron in
Exodus 12:43-49. The celebration of Passover at Mount Sinai is recorded in Numbers 9:1-14.
Passover legislation appears again in Deuteronomy 16:1-8 in a speech of Moses. Later Passover
celebrations are recorded in II Chronicles 30:1-27, II Chronicles 35:1-19, and Ezra 6:19-22. It is
clear from these texts that understandings of the Passover ritual and its meaning changed through
18
Gerhard von Rad, "The Form-Critical Problem of the Hexateuch," in The Problem of the Hexateuch and
Other Essays (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1958), pp. 6-8.

time and that the instructions are used by the authors of these biblical books for various purposes.
What is the purpose of the Passover narrative in II Chronicles 30:1-27? What is the
understanding of the Passover ritual that is presented here? How does this description of
Passover compare to others and what does this reveal about the meaning of the Passover at this
particular point in the development of the tradition?
Some difficult decisions are required at the beginning of this analysis. The various
Passover texts must be placed in an approximate sequence of development. The oldest tradition is
likely the story found in parts of Exodus 12:21-27, though this text itself is often understood as a
composite of material from the Yahwist (J) source and the Deuteronomist (D) source. According
to this understanding of the text, Exodus 12:21-23, 27b forms the original story which is
expanded by the Deuteronomist who added vv. 24-27a. These added verses would then have a
strong connection with Deuteronomy 16:1-8 and likely belong to the same layer of tradition. The
Passover legislation in Exodus 12:1-20 is usually assigned to the Priestly (P) source. This would
likely make it a later tradition than those previously mentioned. The Sinai Passover in Numbers
9:1-14 should also probably be assigned to the P source. The Book of Chronicles seems to be
closely related to the P source in the Pentateuch. Therefore, the Passover stories in Chronicles are
most likely to be dated just after the P account. To summarize, this analysis leads to the following
chronological development of the Passover tradition. The original Passover story in Exodus
12:21-23, 27a was expanded by Deuteronomic legislation in Exodus 12:24-27a and Deuteronomy
16:1-8. This legislation later became more detailed in the Priestly account which is now in
Exodus 12:1-20 and Numbers 9:1-14. The narratives of Passover celebrations in II Chronicles
and Ezra were written after all of this legislation was developed from the original story of the final
plague. This leads to important questions about how the writer of Chronicles made use of this

intricately developed tradition to tell stories about the reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah, particularly
the Hezekiah Passover in 30:1-27.
The story of Hezekiah's Passover does not appear in the appropriate place in II Kings. It
is, therefore, unique to Chronicles. What is the relation of this text to other Passover traditions
found in the Bible? Close examination of the Passover account in II Chronicles 30:1-27 reveals
some important connections to earlier Passover traditions. In vv. 15-17 the account of Hezekiah's
Passover places great emphasis on the details of the sacrificial process and the purity of those
involved. This element appears to be closely tied to the P tradition from Exodus 12:1-20.
Hezekiah's Passover is portrayed as a pilgrimage festival, for which all the people gathered in
Jerusalem, according to II Chronicles 30:1,13-14. The emphasis on the location of the celebration
is consistent with the legislation in Deuteronomy 16:1-8, which refers to Jerusalem as "The place
that the Lord your God shall choose as a dwelling place for his name." The Passover of Hezekiah
is delayed, according to II Chronicles 30:3-5, because of a lack of preparedness. Special
provision is made in vv. 18-20 for some from the North who were not clean. The justification for
these special actions may be found in the story of the Sinai Passover in Numbers 9:1-14.

The manner in which the writer of Chronicles has combined a wide variety of traditions
within the Hezekiah account reveals much about the author's intent in describing this event. The
essential elements of this Passover are: 1) It is a pilgrimage festival celebrated in Jerusalem, 2) it
is celebrated by a unified Israel, including members of Northern tribes, 3) Ritual impurity is
important, but adjustments to such requirements can be made for the sake of unity. More
important than strict purity is the healing of the nation (II Chronicles 30:20). Hezekiah's Passover
is a part of his overall reform movement (see II Chronicles 29:1-36), in which he attempts to unify
the nation around a purified system of worship centered in the Jerusalem Temple. The Passover
account brilliantly combines a variety of traditions to produce a celebration which upholds these
themes of purity, healing, and unity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, R. S. Tradition-Historical Criticism of the Gospels. London: SPCK, 1972.
Coats, G. W. "Tradition History, OT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary
Volume. Nashville, Abingdon, 1972, pp. 912-914.
Knight, Douglas A. The Traditions of Israel. Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1973.
Nielson, Eduard. Oral Tradition: A Modern Problem in Old Testament Interpretation. London:
SCM, 1954.
Noth, Martin. A History of Pentateuchal Traditions. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1972.
von Rad, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology, 2 vols. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. New York:
Harper, 1965.
Rast, Walter E. Tradition History and the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972.
CHAPTER SEVEN:
REDACTION CRITICISM

It was mentioned earlier that redaction criticism can be understood as a transitional

method of exegesis. Like the other historical-critical methods, redaction criticism seeks to
understand the process which led up to the final form of the text. Its primary concern, however, is
the last stage in that process, the final editing of the biblical books. Thus, like the synchronic
methods in the next section, redaction criticism is interpreting the final form of the text. Unlike
synchronic methods, however, redaction criticisms focus is behind the text, rather than in front of
it. The distinction between redaction criticism and tradition criticism can be rather difficult to
understand. There is one large concern which the two methods share. Both are interested in the
way that the materials found in the Bible were adapted for specific use at different times. What
separates the two methods is whose adaptation of the material they seek to analyze. Tradition
criticism is interested in the changing uses of oral or written units by communities of faith over
long periods of time. This includes the use of by the final editor or author, which is found in
written form in the Bible. The characteristics of these units found in the Bible may serve as
evidence of particular uses at particular times. Redaction criticism analyzes the adaptation and
use of certain traditions and literary units only by the persons who produced the final form of the
biblical text. Therefore, redaction criticism is the study of a strictly literary process, while
tradition history is related to the history of religious ideas and practices within communities of
faith. As mentioned in previous chapters, redaction criticism is most significant in the study of the
New Testament. This is true primarily because the development of the New Testament books
took place relatively quickly in comparison to Old Testament books. There was, therefore, not a
long process of growth of New Testament tradition.
Redaction criticism might be used on any book in the Bible, but its most common uses

arise with books which have parallels. In the Old Testament, this is the books of Samuel and
Kings and their parallels, the books of Chronicles. In the New Testament, this is the gospels,
primarily the Synoptic Gospels, which parallel each other. It is in these books where the final
editors' use of their sources is most apparent. Still, even in these books redaction criticism is
dependent upon certain historical-critical assumptions.
Redaction criticism in the gospels has most frequently been based upon what is known as
"the two source theory of the Synoptic Gospels." This theory basically asserts that the gospel of
Mark was the first to be written and that the writers of both the gospel of Luke and the gospel of
Matthew had access to the gospel of Mark in written form and used it as a source. In addition,
the writers of Luke and Matthew had a second source in common. This hypothetical source is
commonly called the "Sayings" source or "Q." Finally, the writers of Matthew and Luke each had
their own independent sources of traditions about the life of Jesus. Beginning with this broad
framework of the process of development of the gospels, interpreters then examine how individual
texts take shape in the separate gospels. When, for example, the gospel of Matthew takes a story
found in the gospel of Mark and presents it in a very different context, this may reveal much about
the purpose of the gospel of Matthew as a whole and the purpose of this individual text within the
gospel of Matthew. Such a case will be examined in the exegesis below.
The most valuable tool for redaction critics of the gospels is a "gospel parallels" volume.
Many versions of this tool have been produced. Typically such a book has several columns and
presents side by side the parallel texts found in the gospels. For example, the versions of the
feeding of the five thousand, found in each of the four gospels, will be presented on the same
page. This allows for much easier comparison of the texts, without having to move from one to
another in the pages of a normal copy of the New Testament.

A similar situation exists in the Old Testament. The books of I Samuel, II Samuel, I Kings,
and II Kings present a history of Israel during the period of the monarchy. The two books of
Chronicles cover basically the same history. It seems quite obvious that the writer of the books of
Chronicles used Samuel-Kings as a source. For many long sections, the two histories match word
for word. This is not always the case, however. There are significant differences of various types.
The writer of Chronicles leaves out many short and long stories found in Samuel-Kings and
includes in Chronicles some stories which are not found in Samuel-Kings. For example, the David
and Bathsheba story in II Samuel 11 is not present in I Chronicles, and the long narrative of
Hezekiah' Passover in II Chronicles 30 is not found in II Kings. In addition, there are smaller
changes, such as the altering of details or wording of some stories and the removal or addition of
small elements of stories. One very important example is the Chronicler's alteration of II Samuel
24:1 in I Chronicles 21:1, which changes the source of David's inspiration for the census from
God to a satan, or adversary. Of course, all of these differences are to be expected. Why would
one writer simply copy all of the writing of another word for word? A common assumption is that
much can be determined about the purpose of the books of Chronicles by looking at how their
author reshaped the material found in Samuel-Kings. One possibility which complicates
comparisons slightly is that the writer of Chronicles may have used an earlier version of SamuelKings which is not identical to the one which we have. While this is not a major obstacle to using
redaction criticism, it must be kept in mind. A tool similar to the gospel parallels mentioned above
has been developed for comparing texts in Samuel-Kings and Chronicles.
There are other instances of parallel passages in the Old Testament, such as the two
accounts of Hezekiah's illness in II Kings 20 and Isaiah 38. Redaction criticism can be a fruitful
method for interpreting these passages as well. A concordance can be useful in finding such

parallel stories.
Redaction criticism has been used on texts which do not have parallels. In interpreting
such texts this method is somewhat more speculative, but not without benefit. Suppositions must
first be made about the sources which were used to produce the final form. This involves
methods such as source and form criticism. Once these have been determined, the redaction critic
can ask questions concerning how the final author or editor made use of these sources. The
difference is this: The gospel of Mark and I Samuel are real documents. Their existence is not a
matter of speculation. What is uncertain is the assertion that the writers of other gospels or the
writer of Chronicles may have possessed copies of the gospel of Mark or I Samuel which were
very much like the versions which we have today. The final editor of the book of Jeremiah may
have used previously written sources, such as collections which may have contained only
Jeremiah's poetic oracles or his prose sermons. The final author may then have deliberately
arranged these materials within a narrative framework of the life of Jeremiah. But even the
existence of such documents is speculative and we cannot examine them. This does not mean that
nothing is to be gained from asking why the final editor of the book of Jeremiah wrote the book
the way he did.
To repeat, and sum up, redaction criticism attempts to interpret the message and purpose
of the biblical writers. It does this by analyzing the process they used to bring together available
materials and compose the books of the Bible in the form that we now have them. The nature of
these final "redactors" has been highly debated. Some interpreters view them as clumsy editors
who pieced together the books of the Bible. Others see them as highly creative theologians who
combined existing traditions with their own writing to produce careful expressions of their
theological understandings. Those who tend to accept this second perspective will probably find

the results of redaction criticism more significant.

Sample Exegesis

Matthew 9:1-8 tells the story of the healing of a paralytic man by Jesus. It appears to be
the same healing story found in Mark 2:1-12 and Luke 5:17-26. It also has some significant
connections with the healing story in John 5:2-9, but these connections are less certain, so the
parallels from Mark and Luke will be used here in a redaction-critical analysis of Matthew 9:1-8.
A first reading of the three parallel texts from the Synoptic Gospels reveals several
obvious differences. The first is the literary context of the story within each gospel. In Mark and
Luke this episode occurs near the beginning of Jesus' ministry. In Matthew it happens somewhat
later, just after the healing of the Gadarene demoniac. Both Mark and Luke record the story of
the demoniac after this story of the paralytic. Perhaps most striking is that Matthew has removed
the references to this healing taking place in a house and the report of the friends of the paralytic
lowering him through the roof. In Matthew's account Jesus encounters the people carrying the
man after he returns to Capernaum. A third major difference occurs at the end of the story. Mark
2:12 reports that the reaction of those present is that they were simply amazed and "glorified God
saying, "we never saw anything like this." In Luke 5:26 the people present were amazed and
filled with awe. They said, "Today we have seen strange things." In Matthew 9:8 the miracle is
witnessed by "crowds." Mark 2:4 does report that there was a "crowd" at the house. Mark 2:6
also states that some scribes were present. The event in Mark, therefore, should not be
understood as private, but because the event in Matthew is removed from the house setting it

becomes more public. In addition, the crowds in Matthew have a somewhat clearer
understanding of what they have witnessed. "They glorified God, who had given such authority
to humans."
These elements of Matthew's story may reveal much about what the writer of this gospel
is trying to communicate through the story. First of all, the miracle is a very public confrontation.
Jesus establishes his authority in the presence of religious leaders who protest, and the crowds
who are present must choose a side. Second, the crowds acknowledge the authority of Jesus.
They do not yet recognize him as divine, but they do recognize that God is the source of his
authority. Matthew 9:8 makes the view of the crowds clear. Third, in Matthew this story is
placed further along in the story of Jesus as a whole. This is perhaps why it is important that the
confrontation between Jesus and the authorities must be public. Jesus' ministry has progressed
further. This may also be why more is expected of the onlookers here. At this point in Matthew's
gospel, it is not enough for the crowds to simply be amazed or in awe. They must be beginning to
perceive the true nature of the conflict which is brewing between Jesus and the authorities. The
crowd does not yet perceive Jesus as God. The description of their response in v. 8 reveals that to
them Jesus is still just a human being, but they have correctly perceived the source of Jesus'
power.

A point which all of the synoptic versions of this story share is the link between sin and
sickness. Certainly, Jesus is not teaching here that sin is the cause of sickness. Forgiveness and
healing require two separate acts here. The paralysis is not automatically healed when the man's
sins are forgiven. Of course, such a teaching would be in clear contradiction to Jesus' teaching in
John 9:1-3. The link between these two is rather a structural one within the religion of Jesus' day.
The religious authorities in first century Palestine had the authority both to declare sins forgiven
and to declare a person healed. In this story, Jesus claims the authority to do both. By
performing the less visible act of forgiveness first, he leads the scribes into a trap. The visible
power of healing thus verifies the authority to forgive in a way that the scribes can not refute. In
all three synoptic accounts they do not speak again after the healing.
The removal of this story by the writer of the gospel of Matthew from its house setting in
the gospel of Mark creates some awkward features. Most notable is the problem of how Jesus
"saw their faith." Their faith is demonstrated much more vividly in Mark's account. The
willingness of this writer to permit such a difficulty might reveal the tremendous importance of the
unique message which is produced by bringing this miracle story out into the street. Jesus
authority to forgive and heal is declared and demonstrated. Those who have witnessed this, and
those who read the text, must make the choice to accept or reject this authority.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fortna, R. T. "Redaction Criticism, NT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976, pp. 733-735.
Perrin, Norman. What is Redaction Criticism? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969.
McKenzie, Stephen L. The Chronicler's Use of the Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1984.

Newsome, James D., ed. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles: With Related
Passages from Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezra. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1986.
Stein, Robert H. The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985.
Wharton, J. A. "Redaction Criticism, OT." In Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible,
Supplementary Volume. Nashville: Abingdon, 1976, pp. 729-732.

CHAPTER EIGHT:
INTRODUCTION TO SYNCHRONIC METHODS

The methods discussed in Part III may be defined in many different ways. It might be
more appropriate to say that an understanding of these methods requires multiple definitions. To
begin, these methods are often grouped together because they deliberately take as their object of
study the final form of the text. Their intent is not to go behind the text to reconstruct earlier
written or oral traditions. Secondly, they are not interested in the process of development of the
text, or the history of the text. Thus, they are sometimes called synchronic. They deal with only
one specific time in the development of the text, the time of the final form. Third, in some way,
each of these methods might be described as literary. The meaning of the text lies in
understanding the written text itself, not in understanding the author, the writing process, or the
historical context in which the text first arose. This does not imply, HOWEVER, that the
historical-critical methods are completely non-literary.
Each of these methods can be understood, in both origin and practice, as a reaction to the
diachronic methods. Just after the middle of the twentieth century, many interpreters of the Bible
began to be bothered by certain trends within biblical studies. First, historical-critical exegesis
was often quite dependent on very speculative assumptions. Many of these assumptions may have
been quite correct, but others were probably wrong. Historical-critical exegetes were not always
moving toward a consensus about such issues, as many had expected they would. Sometimes this
dependence even led to circular arguments. For example, certain ideas within a text reveal the
date of its writing. The supposed date of the writing of a book could then serve as a basis for
explaining some of its ideas. Second, historical-critical exegesis had a tendency to fragment the
text, to break it up into ever smaller pieces. While this may have been important and legitimate, it
is at least as important and legitimate to interpret the text in its final form. Finally, the historicalcritical era seemed to be losing momentum. On many points it seemed to have reached a limit in

its ability to explain the meanings of biblical texts. At this same time, the general study of
literature had developed a large body of theories and methods that had not yet been applied
extensively to biblical literature. Some of the newer methods, therefore, were waiting to provide
a fruitful new direction for biblical studies.
On the other hand, there are some significant differences among the methods
demonstrated here. Canonical criticism is the most different from the others. Its primary intent is
to hold the entire Bible together and ask what each text means in light of the fact that it is now
found as part of the Christian Scriptures. Each and every text is part of a book called the Bible,
which has been accepted as authoritative scripture by the Christian church. Each text must then
be understood within this canonical context. Rhetorical criticism focuses primarily on the
structure and language of the text. It deliberately assumes each text to be an artistic expression, a
literary construction which communicates a message. While the context of the passage within the
Bible is of importance, it is the language and structure of the individual text which is the
overriding concern. Narrative criticism focuses on biblical texts as stories. Context and use of
language are important, but the use of the elements of storytelling - events, characters, and
settings - are of greatest importance. Each of these methods will be explored in greater detail in
the following chapters.
There is still significant conflict over the value and legitimacy of certain methods. One
mistake to be avoided is the understanding that these "final-form" methods are "uncritical." In the
sense that the word "critical" is used in this guide, the use of final-form or literary methods can be
just as critical as the use of historical methods. They analyze and question the text just as
rigorously, following carefully developed procedures. There is one sense, however, in which these
newer methods are not critical in the same way as older methods. During what I have defined as

the "critical era" biblical scholars commonly assumed that each biblical text had one correct
interpretation. The task of exegesis was to find that correct meaning, the meaning the author
intended. Consequently, historical issues became central. What I have called synchronic, or finalform, exegesis does not hold so strongly to this assumption. In fact, many who use these methods
often specifically deny that a text has a single meaning.
The shift that has occurred in biblical interpretation in the second half of the twentieth
century is largely based on an understanding of how literature functions. It begins with a very
simple model:

author -> text -> reader

Historical-critical exegetes were concerned primarily with the left-hand side of this model, the
writing process and all the sources and traditions involved in it. The most significant criticism
directed at historical-critical exegetes is that they have failed to acknowledge that they are readers
of the text. Their own understandings and assumptions about the text influenced the conclusions
they reached. Their work is not a thoroughly objective, historical analysis of the text. In the postcritical era, which should more appropriately be called the "post-historical-critical" era, most
interpreters insist that the biblical text has multiple meanings and that these meanings are formed
in the interaction between the reader and the text. They are thus concerned primarily with the
right-hand side of the model above.
This situation has led to a significant point of confusion and conflict. In contemporary
exegesis, to what extent does any interpretation claim to be an explanation of the intended
meaning of the author? Modern interpreters do not agree on this issue. To some extent the

disagreement is a matter of degree. The proponents of contemporary, synchronic approaches

rightfully condemn historical-critical scholars for being too certain that they could determine the
author's intent. Some contemporary methods have moved to an extreme position which says that
the author's intent is of no importance. It is difficult, but important to maintain a balanced view
on this question. The original intended meaning of the author is important. It is a goal to be
sought. At the same time, for any person to claim to have found the one true meaning of the text
is arrogant, destructive, and oppressive. I prefer to understand that the meaning of the Bible
comes through the interaction of differing interpretations. For that reason, biblical interpretation
must be an ongoing, communal activity. The problem of both extremes on this issue is that they
both discourage communication between interpreters. One side says, "My interpretation is
correct because it is what the author meant and, therefore, I do not need to listen to anybody
else's interpretation." The other side says, "My interpretation is the right one for me as an
individual reader of the text, and anyone else's interpretation has no value for me because it is not
mine."
The post-critical, or post-modern era, has produced a large number of new methods for
interpreting biblical texts. Part III of this book deals specifically with only three of them in full
chapters. A fourth chapter in this part will contain a brief survey of several other emerging
methods. In recent years there seems to have been more of a spirit of cooperation between
methods. Interpreters using synchronic methods are more likely to interact with the historicalcritical tradition. Historical-critical exegetes appear to be more open to the value of the newer
methods. Hopefully, this spirit of interaction will increase and the variety of methods will be able
to articulate common goals.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Harper, 1981.
Frei, Hans. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974.
Patte, Daniel. Ethics of Biblical Interpretation: AReevaluation. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox, 1995.
Perdue, Leo G. The Collapse of History: Reconstructing Old Testament Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994.

CHAPTER NINE
CANONICAL CRITICISM

In the opening chapter of this guide, I raised questions about the classification of the
canonical approach to the Bible as an exegetical method. The focus of this guide has been on
critical methods of exegesis. The term "critical method" is understood to mean a specific
procedure which may be rigorously applied to biblical texts. This is precisely where the problem
with the canonical approach arises. To what extent does it follow a strict procedure? The
development of the canonical approach has been largely the work of Brevard S. Childs and James
A. Sanders. The canonical approach has been concerned primarily with biblical theology. Childs,
however, has developed something of an exegetical procedure in some of his work. 19 An
examination of this procedure reveals the defining characteristics of the canonical approach.
Child's first step is to establish the place of the text within the Christian canon, its
canonical context. Each text has at least four levels of context. First, it has other biblical texts
immediately surrounding it. Second, it has a place within a particular biblical book. Third, it has
a place within one of the two testaments which make up the Christian Bible. Finally, it has a place
in and is a part of the Christian canon as a whole. This step demonstrates that the primary
concern of canonical criticism is the final form of the biblical text. This includes not only the final
form of the text to be interpreted, but also the role that text plays the final form of the whole
Christian canon.
In a second step which is closely related to the first, it is important to note other biblical
texts to which the one being interpreted is intimately connected. Is a passage from the Old
Testament used within the New Testament? How is it used and how does that affect the meaning
19This procedure appears in two of his published works. In Biblical Theology of the Old and New
Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992), see especially pp. 325347. See also The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary, OTL (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974).

of the passage as part of the Christian canon? An important illustration is warranted here.
Genesis 15: 1-6 gives an account of God's covenant with Abraham. Genesis 15:6 is a key verse,
which can be quite confusing. A literal translation would read, "And he believed the LORD; and
he reckoned it to him as righteousness." The use of "LORD" in the first phrase makes it clear that
"he" in the first phrase is Abraham. The uses of "he" and "him" in the second phrase, however, do
not have clear antecedents. Certainly, they refer to God and Abraham, but which is which? There
are sound arguments for understanding the text as either "and the LORD reckoned it to Abraham
as righteousness," or "and Abraham reckoned it to the LORD as righteousness." It is even quite
plausible to argue that the writer intended the uncertainty so that the text could be read in both
ways. Using any other method of exegesis, an interpreter would be required to give a balanced
and careful treatment of these possibilities. To most Christians, however, the rendering,
"Abraham reckoned it to the LORD as righteousness," will seem strange and perhaps even
objectionable. Why? Most likely because Paul's interpretation of this verse in Romans 4:1-5
assumes that the pronouns work the other way around.20 In a canonical interpretation of Genesis
15:1-6, the New Testament use of this verse becomes significant, and it would be difficult to
interpret v. 6 in a manner sharply different from Paul in Romans 4. Likewise, when interpreting
New Testament texts using canonical criticism, related Old Testament texts must be taken into
account.
A third step is to review the history of exegesis of the passage. Of course, for many
passages this could be a nearly endless process. To place some limits on this process a few
significant points of reference may be established. How was the text interpreted by one or a few
representatives of the Patristic period? How was it understood by the leading figures of the
20In fact, Paul quotes the Septuagint's reading of Genesis 15:6, which is less ambiguous than the
Hebrew.

Protestant Reformation? How was the text generally treated within the historical-critical era.
These questions illustrate the concern of the canonical approach with community use of the text.
In Child's case, these specific questions show that the significant communities are those which
form the tradition behind contemporary Protestant Christianity.
The final stage is deliberate theological reflection on the text within its canonical context.
This part of the procedure illustrates the intensely theological nature of this method. Within
historical-critical methods, a variety of purposes may be understood to lie behind biblical texts.
Interpretations may then be based on these purposes or functions. In canonical criticism only one
purpose is of significance, and that purpose is the role the text plays within the Christian canon to
inform the Christian community about God, humanity, and the world. For example, Exodus 12:120 may originally have served the purpose of instructing ancient Israelites in how to prepare the
Passover meal. It's purpose for the Christian church is now only to tell about God's interaction
with Israel. The history and development of the Passover celebration within ancient Israel can
only be a matter of curiosity. Canonical criticism attempts to remove the text from such historical
concerns and provide a general theological understanding.

Sample Exegesis
Hebrews 8 offers a formidable challenge to the interpreter. It is filled with references to
Old Testament events and passages. It interprets the ministry of Jesus in light of these, and it is
intensely theological in character. It thus offers an ideal test for the method of canonical criticism.
It is preceded by the text in Hebrews 7, which establishes Jesus as the eternal high priest "in the
order of Melchizedek." It is followed by Hebrews 9, which portrays Christ as the founder of or
the "mediator of a new covenant" (9:15), by the act of sacrificing himself. In the midst of these

two texts, Hebrews 8 serves to define the new covenant in relation to the old. The book of
Hebrews may be understood as an argument placing the ministry of Jesus Christ firmly within the
history of salvation worked out by God through the ages. By contrasting the old covenant with
the new, chapter eight plays a pivotal role in the argument.
The book of Hebrews is something of a mystery within the New Testament. From
Romans to Philemon, every epistle explicitly claims the apostle Paul as its author. As the only
epistle with no named author,21 Hebrews is a transitional book within the New Testament canon.
It lies between the epistles explicitly attributed to Paul and those attributed to James, Peter, John,
and Jude. All of the epistles claiming Paul as author receive their titles from the name of the
recipient(s). All of those following Hebrews are named for the person understood to be the
author. Again this book is transitional. It contains no named author or recipient in the text of the
book, and the "Hebrews" of the title is completely unexplained. One of the purposes of the book
of Hebrews is to relate elements of the Christian faith to the traditions of Israelite faith. Thus, it
contains vast number of references and allusions to the literature of the Old Testament. It is
essential, therefore, to read the book of Hebrews as part of the full Christian canon, both Old and
New Testaments.
A brief examination of a few of the more important Old Testament texts will inform the
interpretation of Hebrews 8. Explicit reference is made, in vv. 2-5, to the tabernacle and the role
of the high priest in worship. Among the Old Testament texts which describe these elements of
Israelite worship are Exodus 25-31, Exodus 36-40, and Leviticus 8-10. Exodus 25-31 reports
Yahweh's instructions to Moses concerning the building of the tabernacle. Exodus 36-40 tells of

21The only other epistles with no author named in the initial greeting are the three Johannine epistles.
The titles of these three, however, separate them from the book of Hebrews, the only epistle which has no
attribution of authorship of any kind .

the actual building of the tabernacle. Leviticus 8-10 tells the story of the ordination of Aaron as
the first high priest. Hebrews 8 contains two direct quotations from the Old Testament. Exodus
25:40 is quoted in Hebrews 8:5b, and Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Hebrews 8:8-12.22
The Early Church Fathers treated this text rather sparingly. Clement (Miscellanies: Book
6, chapter 5) argued for a clear distinction between the Christian Church and the Jewish faith.
Origen (Origen de Principiis: Book 4, Chapter 1, Section 13), on the other hand, insisted, based
on Hebrews 8:5, that some Jews have been called to salvation in Christ. It is understandable in
this early era that the focus of interpretation would be the relationship between the two faiths.
The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers give even less attention to this chapter. Luther did not refer
to Hebrews 8 in his "lectures on Hebrews, but Calvin treated the chapter at great length in his
commentary. Focusing on contrast between the two covenants, Calvin struggled with the sense in
which the old covenant was inadequate, if it was a covenant made by God. His conclusion was
that the old covenant was inadequate in form, but not in substance. The implication is that the
Christian faith is not an abandonment of the substance of Judaism, but only its form. This
interpretation fits well with the emphases of the Reformation, which did not abandon the
substance of the Roman Catholic faith, but only the form it had assumed in the Roman church. In
his great commentary from the early part of this century, James Moffatt emphasized points of
continuity between the old and the new. Jesus still has a ministry (leitourgia). Hebrews 8 leads
into the next chapter which highlights the sacrifice because the author "cannot conceive any

22The introduction to this second quotation forms the most serious textual problem in Hebrews 8. The
available manuscripts are fairly evenly split between two readings of 8:8a. One group puts the third person plural
in the accusative case reading, "For he finds fault with them saying." The other group of manuscripts has the
pronoun in the dative case, making possible the reading, "He finds fault, saying to them." The issue is whether
God finds fault with the people or with the old covenant. See the discussion of William L. Lane in Hebrews 1-8,
WBC (Waco Word, 1991), p. 202.

pardon apart from sacrifice."23 In this way, Moffatt appears to contradict Calvin's distinction
between form and substance. In a more recent work, Barnabas Lindars has drawn attention to the
rhetorical use by the writer of Hebrews of familiar images to express the meaning of Jesus' life and
death.24
Theologically, Hebrews 8 is arguing for two related replacements. Jesus has taken the
place of the temple priesthood, and a new covenant has replaced the old. The understanding of
the first replacement is based on a problematic and difficult interpretation of Exodus 25. 25 The
argument for the second replacement is grounded in a more obvious interpretation of Jeremiah 31.
The question this second replacement leaves open is in what sense Jesus is unique if this covenant
was already established after the Exile. Put together, these two replacements mean that the
people of God are no longer dependent on the law as a means of fulfilling an old covenant,
administered by the Aaronide priesthood. These were all of human design (v.2). Jesus has
provided a new law, a new covenant, and is himself the priest who will administer these. This
understanding of Christ sets the stage for the more detailed description of his work in terms of
law, covenant, and high priesthood which follows in Hebrews 9. The potential problem, that
Jesus did not establish and practice an institutionalized ministry on earth, is turned into an
argument for his legitimacy as the Son of God (Hebrews 1:2). There is a true dialectic of
continuity and discontinuity in the relationship between Jesus' ministry and Judaism

23James Moffatt, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, ICC (London: T
& T Clark, 1924), p. 111.
24Barnabas Lindars, The Theology of the letter to the Hebrews (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), pp. 80-81.
25There is no reason to read Exodus 25:40 to say that the pattern Moses was shown was a heavenly
temple. That it is only a pattern, or set of instructions, provided to Moses seems a much more sensible reading of
Exodus 25:40. Within a New Testament context, the idea of a heavenly temple contradicts Revelation 21:22.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barr, James. Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1983.

Bruce, F. F. The Canon of Scripture. Chicago: IVP, 1985.

Childs, Brevard S. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on
the Christian Bible. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Childs, Brevard S. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1979.
Childs, Brevard S. The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction Philadelphia: Fortress,
1985.
Gamble, Harry Y. The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1985.
Sanders, James A. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1984.
Sanders, James A. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987.
Sanders, James A. Torah and Canon. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974.

CHAPTER TEN:
RHETORICAL CRITICISM

The use of rhetorical criticism in biblical exegesis, as much as any other method,
originated in the work of one person. An American biblical scholar named James Muilenburg
formulated, named, and first demonstrated this method of biblical exegesis. Of course, his work
was dependent on the previous work of others. The study of rhetoric goes back at least to
Aristotle. Rhetoric can be defined as the use of persuasive speech. The study of rhetoric asks
questions about how a speaker or writer attempts to communicate his or her message. Rhetorical
criticism of the Bible is concerned with how a biblical text attempts to make its point. As a
method of exegesis, rhetorical criticism is based upon the assumption that understanding how a
text communicates is essential to understanding what it communicates. In Muilenburg's terms, the
form of a text and the meaning of a text can not be separated. 26 Already, the reader may notice
that rhetorical criticism and form criticism have some common interests. There are two vital
differences, though. Rhetorical criticism is concerned with the final written form of the text
within its biblical context, while form criticism explores possible earlier uses and settings.
Rhetorical criticism also places much greater emphasis on the unique structure of a text, while
form criticism relates a text to common categories or types of literature.
A first, provisional step in rhetorical criticism is to establish the boundaries of the text,
based on its overall structure. This leads to a next step, which is close observation of the internal
structure of the text. As you read a passage closely, ask yourself how the text moves along from
one part to another. Not every reader will necessarily agree on what the determining feature of a
particular text is. Here are some, but not all, of the possibilities. Some texts seem to get their
26See Phyllis Trible's discussion of Muilenburg's classroom teaching in Rhetorical Criticism: Context,
Method, and the Book of Jonah (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 27.

structure primarily from the alternation of speech and narrated action. Other texts move from one
location to another, while still others are ordered by the passage of time. Here are some texts to
consider. I Samuel 4 is a story which moves from one place to another: Field of battle > Israelite
camp > Philistine camp > field of battle > Shiloh > birth chamber. Notice that the text gives very
little indication of how much time passes in the story. Genesis 1 is perhaps the ultimate example
of a story structured according to time. Time is marked by passage of days. There are other
structural features, such as the alternation between God's declarations, "Let there be...," and
reports of creation events, "And there was...." These, however, are placed within the dominant
seven day structure. Notice that in Genesis 1 location or geographical setting is never mentioned.
The Cain and Abel story in Genesis 4 seems to derive its structure from the alternation of speech
and action. There is very little mention of location in the story and no mention of the passage of
time.
Once the overall structure is established, the next step is to read the text carefully for
smaller details. How does the text begin and end? During each step, the interpreter must confirm
the appropriate boundaries of the text in order to assure that they continue to be compatible with
the ongoing analysis. Luke 19:1-10 contains the only biblical account of the story of Zacchaeus.
The story begins, "He entered Jericho and was passing through it. A man named Zacchaeus was
there...." At the end of the story Jesus says, "The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost."
The beginning and end complement each other, with Jesus' definition of his mission at the end of
the story matching what he was doing at the beginning of the story.
Another kind of detail to observe carefully is repetition. Some texts use words or phrases
repeatedly. Genesis 1 was already mentioned above. The phrases in God's speech are repeated in
the reports of the acts of creation. In I Kings 12, Rehoboam's command to the people is reported

twice, in v. 5 and v. 12. The first chapter of Jonah makes repeated use of the words "get up" and
"go down." Rhetorical critics ask why the text uses language in these ways.
The other side of repetition is variation, which is also an important rhetorical feature.
Often one portion of a text reflects another, but with some important variations. These variations
may or may not communicate some meaning, but they must be carefully noted and analyzed. The
story of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5 is fascinating. It is told in two somewhat repetitious
episodes, the first telling of the death of Ananias and the second of the death of Sapphira. Unlike
in the Ananias episode, the Sapphira episode reports in 5:10 that she fell down "at his [Peter's]
feet and died." Does this variation have some meaning? Is there a significant difference between
her death and his? Of course, it is easier to notice such features than it is to determine their
influence on the meaning of the text.
A note is in order here, in relation to both repetition and variation, about the problem of
translation. Biblical interpreters who specialize in rhetorical criticism do so reading the Bible in its
original languages. Those who do not read biblical languages may still profitably engage in
rhetorical criticism but must do so carefully. They must consult multiple translations. Frequently,
translators follow accepted conventions in their own languages which destroy rhetorical features
of the text. For example, in English repetition is considered to constitute poor writing style.
Whereas biblical writers often used the same words repeatedly, English translators will often use
different words in order to create variety of vocabulary, which is considered desirable in written
English. In addition to a variety of translations, it will be helpful to consult interlinear versions of
the Old and New Testaments.
There is a strong relationship between rhetorical criticism and narrative criticism, which
will be discussed in the next chapter. They are both, of course, literary methods. In addition to

the rhetorical features discussed above, rhetorical criticism is also concerned with the
development and portrayal of characters in biblical stories and with the movement or plot of a
story. These features of biblical narrative will be discussed in more detail in chapter ten, but a few
questions relevant to rhetorical criticism should be raised here. The language used about
characters is very important. A reader naturally forms thoughts and impressions about a character
as a story progresses. How does the text create those thoughts and impressions? What does the
text tell us about a character and how does it tell us? How are the events which make up a story
put together to form a plot? How does the story move along, and how does the structure of the
story affect the readers impressions of the events within it? These are important questions for
rhetorical criticism.
Once all of the information outlined above, including structure and linguistic detail, is
gathered, then the interpreter must ask the key question. What ideas do these features of the text
communicate to the reader? The sample exegesis below illustrates one way that rhetorical
criticism might be used in the interpretation of a text.

Sample exegesis
Isaiah 6 is a familiar text for many people, up to a point. On most occasions when this
text is used, the reading stops at 6:8. This text as a whole is a fascinating mixture of poetry and
prose, of call narrative and oracle, of praise and judgment. The final form of the text reports a
profound experience of the prophet Isaiah, which becomes the formative event of his prophetic
career.
This text begins with the description of Isaiah's theophanic vision and ends with a
foretelling of the general results of his prophetic ministry. The text can thus be understood to

encapsulate the fullness of Isaiah's prophetic career. The overall structure of the text and its
movement from one part to the next supports this reading. Vv. 1-5 detail the vision which Isaiah
saw and the accompanying sounds and then go on to describe his response to what he has seen
and heard. Vv. 6-8 describe Isaiah's personal interaction with the vision. He is touched and
responds directly to the question which is asked. Vv. 9-10 contain a detailed description, in poetic
form, of the message Isaiah is to proclaim. This message itself tells how the hearers will respond
to it. In v. 11a Isaiah asks a question. Yahweh's response in vv. 11b-13 carries the prophetic
message to its destructive end.27
The first major section of this text, vv. 1-5, has a sense of movement on its own. Isaiah
sees, hears and speaks. This entire section is dominated by patterns of three. First are the three
descriptions of the Lord, "Sitting on a throne, high and raised, the hem of his robes filling the
temple. Second, the wings of the seraphim are assigned functions in three pairs. Third, the
seraphim repeat the word "holy" three times. Finally, in v. 5 Isaiah summarizes his condition in
three "I" statements. The narration with which the text begins is in first person, but there is a
significant difference between the introduction by the narrator in v. 1 and the direct speech of
Isaiah in the context of the vision in v. 5. In v. 1 Isaiah, as the narrator, says he saw the Lord
('adonay). This word can be only a common noun, and in this case does not actually have a
definite article. It could be translated simply as "I saw a lord." In v. 5, the Isaiah within the story
speaks and says he has seen the LORD of hosts (YHWH sabbaot). This may be understood as
the most formal and specific name for the God of Israel. The presence behind the vision seems to
be uncertain at the beginning of vision, but by the end it could not be more clear. Awed by the
vision, Isaiah senses and expresses his own unworthiness to be in this holy presence. This is a
27For a somewhat different division of the text, see John D. W. Watts, Isaiah 1-33, WBC (Word: Waco,
1985), p. 70. Watts also arranges the entire chapter as poetry (pp. 67-68).

common element of prophetic call experiences in the Bible.

In response to Isaiah's statement in v. 5, the vision moves in and interacts with him in vv.
6-8. He is touched by the coal and hears a question, which he answers. Whereas Isaiah's
statement in v.5 is introspective and may even be understood as talking to himself, in v. 8 he
speaks directly to the vision, answering the question of the voice which comes out of it.
The tone of the experience changes sharply in v. 9. There is a reason why only the first
eight verses of this chapter are used so often. The awe which Isaiah experiences in the vision, the
positive interaction between Isaiah and the vision, and Isaiah's enthusiastic response are all
overshadowed or even reversed by the harsh message he is told to preach. After vv. 9-10, Isaiah
has heard enough. In fact, v. 9 and v. 10 are drastically different. This is not clear unless the
English translation is punctuated properly. V. 9bc contains the actual message.28 V. 10 then
contains instructions for Isaiah. The two verses reflect each other in content. The prophetic
message Isaiah is to preach in v. 9bc tells the people of their inability to understand. The
instructions in v. 10 tell Isaiah it is his job to make them not understand. But this is not the job of
a prophet. Is not a prophet's role to make the people understand the word of God? By v. 11, the
reader is likely to be objecting along with Isaiah.29 Surely this message and its purpose are only
temporary. Eventually the people will understand and Isaiah will be a successful prophet. But
this is not the case, which vv. 11b-13 make clear in very vivid language. It is language of total
destruction. The judgement is not temporary at all.30
28Note the single quotation marks in the NRSV.
29Of course, the reader may object by not reading past v. 8, which is often done.
30The message of judgement may be somewhat confused by the difficult textual problems in v. 13. The
last phrase, "the holy seed is its stump," seems out of place. In fact, most of this phrase is missing from the Greek
text, and it can simply be omitted. As it stands, it seems to soften the word of total judgement which precedes it,
and places some hope in a surviving remnant. For a translation of v. 13 which keeps this final phrase and
maintains the finality of the judgement, see Watts, Isaiah 1-33, p. 76.

As a whole, this text begins and ends with death. First the death of Uzziah, then the death
of Israel. The text moves from exaltation to falling. The Lord is "high" and "raised up" at the
beginning. Israel "is felled" (NRSV) at the end. God's presence fill the temple in v. 1 while the
land is "empty" in v.12. This vision is a moment of transition for Isaiah, from King Uzziah to King
Ahaz, for whom Isaiah will be the court prophet. The placement of chapter 6 here in the book of
Isaiah, with such stark contrast between its beginning - the hope of God's presence - and its end the destruction of Israel - highlights this transition.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
House, Paul, ed. Beyond Form Criticism: Essays in Old Testament Literary Criticism. Winona
Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Kennedy, G. A. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

Mack, Burton L. Rhetoric and the New Testament. Minneapolis Fortress, 1990.
Muilenburg, James. "Isaiah 40-66." In The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 5. Ed. George Buttrick.
Nashville: Abingdon, 1954.
Trible, Phyllis. Rhetorical Criticism: Context, Method, and the Book of Jonah. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1994.
Trible, Phyllis. Texts of Terror: Literary-Feminist Readings of Biblical Narratives.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

CHAPTER ELEVEN
NARRATIVE CRITICISM

Narrative criticism is based upon the assertion that because certain biblical texts are stories
they should be read as stories. This method of interpreting biblical texts has gained enormous
popularity since the 1970's. It has been highly dependent, especially in its beginnings, upon the
general study of narrative technique in literature. One problem with narrative criticism is that it
often makes use of an extremely specialized, technical vocabulary. This discussion will attempt to
avoid the use of such terminology. Works cited in the bibliography at the end of the chapter
provide more technical discussions of the method.
Narrative criticism is primarily interested in four components of storytelling: Narrator,
events, characters, and settings. At first glance, the first of these four elements may appear quite
different from the other three. Events, characters, and settings are the ingredients that make up a
story. People (characters) perform actions (events) in certain times (temporal settings) and places
(spatial settings). That is what a story is. More careful reflection, however, reveals that the
narrator is part of the story also. It is the narrator who guides the reader through the story, telling
the reader where to go, what to look at, and to whom to listen. In a sense, the reader sees the
story happen through the eyes of the narrator. Narrative critics call this aspect of a story "point of
view." Change the narrator and the story will change too. One way to understand thevarious
elements of narrative is to divide them into two components, story and discourse. The story is
simply what happens and involves events, characters, and settings. Discourse is the way the story
is told, and this is determined by the one telling the story. Some narrative critics make a fairly
sharp distinction between the author and the narrator. Sometimes these two are distinct because a
story is told within a story. Jesus narrates the parables to us, but someone else has told us the
story of Jesus telling the parable. Multiple levels of story telling in a narrative can make analysis

quite complex.31
There are two basic types of narrators, overt and covert. Overt narrators are easier to
find. They make themselves visible in the telling of a story. They speak directly to the reader.
Two examples will illustrate this. In II Samuel 2:12-17 there is a battle between a group led by
Abner and a group led by Joab. In vv. 12-16a, we watch the battle take place through the eyes of
the narrator. We hear Abner and Joab speak through the ears of the narrator. In v. 16b the tone of
the story changes. Here the narrator speaks directly to us, not describing action or quoting
speech, but explaining how this event led to the naming of the place. The narrator steps out of
hiding and becomes overt. The same thing happens, in an even more obvious manner, in John
12:1-8. During this story of the anointing of Jesus at Bethany, the narrator stops telling the story
in order to speak to the reader and provide information. In v. 4 the narrator tells us something
about Judas, which has nothing directly to do with the story, and in v. 6 the narrator stops to
explain the motive of Judas. You may even find that in some English translations of the Bible
these two statements are placed within parentheses.
Examples of covert, or hidden, narrators are less obvious for exactly that reason. There
are times, though, where the narrator is conspicuously hidden. One clear example of this is in the
story of the Levite and his concubine in Judges 19. Throughout this disturbing story the reader
wishes for the narrator to step out and pronounce judgement on the behavior of the characters.
Yet, the narrator simply reports the events, with no direct commentary to the reader.
Narrators have a wide variety of tools at their disposal. Narrators may include some
elements of a story and leave others out. They can link elements together to indicate similarity,
contrast, or causation. They can provide background information for the reader. They can
31For a more thorough discussion of this issue, see Mark Allen Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), pp. 25-27.

foreshadow events or spring them on the reader with a sense of surprise. Understanding the role
of the narrator requires the persistent asking of a very important question - "Why is the story
being told in this way?"
Characters are developed in a story in two basic ways. In Genesis 37:11, the reader is told
that Joseph's brothers are jealous of him. A few verses later in Genesis 37:18-24, the reader sees
Joseph's brothers in action and hears their words. Even without the report in 37:11, perceptive
readers of this chapter would know the brothers are jealous. Their words and actions indicate, or
show, their feelings. These two kinds of character development are sometimes called "telling" and
"showing." In this case, the story does both, but often only one pattern is present. A narrator can
choose either to tell the reader directly what a character is like or show the reader indirectly by
describing actions and reporting speech. The latter method typically takes longer and involves the
reader more in the story.
This discussion of characters provides a good opportunity to define more clearly the
relationship between historical-critical and literary-critical methods. In interpreting a narrative
text, all methods are interested in understanding the characters and their actions. They all have a
similar concern. The ways in which they pursue this concern, however, are quite different. For
historical-critical methods, the primary approach to understanding characters is through
examining historical documents and artifacts, including biblical texts, and determining how these
characters fit into the world which produced the text. For literary-critical methods, particularly
narrative criticism, the primary approach to understanding characters is to examine the text itself
to discover how characters are portrayed in the world which the text produces.
The discussion of the narrator above introduced the concept called point-of-view. A
story is told from the narrator's point of view, but sometimes this coincides with the point of view

of a particular character. In the gospels, the narrator often tells the story from the point of view
of Jesus. He is right and his opponents are wrong. In some episodes, however, this general
tendency becomes more apparent. In Matthew 22:15-22, some Pharisees approach Jesus and ask
him about paying taxes. The narrator tells the reader at the very beginning (v.15) that their intent
is to trap him. In v. 17, the narrator reports that Jesus was also aware of their purpose. The
reader knows what Jesus knows, and is therefore encouraged to see the event through the eyes of
Jesus, one of the characters in the story.
The significance and meaning of an event within a narrative depends on several factors.
Among these are its placement in the order of events, its duration, and its frequency. Biblical
narrative typically describes events sequentially. One event happens, then the next, and the
next,and so on. Sometimes, however, events are described out of sequence. I Kings 11:26-28
reports Jereboam's rebellion against Solomon, then tells of Solomon's promotion of Jereboam,
which preceded his rebellion. At other times, events in differing locations are described
simultaneously, though this is difficult to do in writing. Joshua 6 tells of the battle of Jericho. In
the midst of the general destruction of the city, the storyteller pauses to report the safeguarding of
Rahab. Though the narrator interrupts the story, the saving of Rahabs family is described after
the primary act of destruction of the city. The narrators ability to describe simultaneous action is
limited.
Normally, events happen only once and are described only once. Sometimes, however, a
single event is described twice. One very important example of such repetition is the two
descriptions of the miracle at the Reed Sea. The narrator describes the event in Exodus 14, and
the Israelites describe it again, in song, in Exodus 15. There are other times when a single
description is meant to portray an action which is repeated regularly. This cannot always be

determined with certainty. Did Cain and Abel bring only one sacrifice to God in Genesis 4 or was
this a regular practice? Mark 10:1 clearly indicates that Jesus frequently taught in the fashion
described there. Does this mean that the gospels provide us with only a small fraction of the
teaching of Jesus?
The final element of a story is its setting. Settings can be defined in at least three ways spatial (geographical), social, and temporal. For example, the conversation between Ruth and
Boaz in Ruth 2:14 happens in the fields outside of Bethlehem (spatial), at a meal (social), at the
time of the barley harvest (temporal). The behavior of characters is often strongly connected to
the setting in which they act. Some stories happen all in one place at one time. Other stories
move from one setting to another, and cover longer periods of time. Determining settings
precisely often requires very careful reading. All of the information about a setting is not always
provided, however.
The following interpretation attempts to take many narrative factors into account.
Observation of these factors leads to a particular understanding of the meaning of the story.
Narrative criticism may be particularly helpful with a mysterious story like this one. Careful
attention to characters and settings reveals subtle shades of meaning in the story. One word of
caution is in order. The interpretation below will relate the meaning of this story to larger events
occurring in the books of Judges and Samuel. Not all stories point to such issues outside of their
own boundaries in this way.

Sample Exegesis
Judges 19 tells a very troubling and confusing story. A man's concubine runs away from

him, he goes after her, and brings her back. While they are returning, they spend the night in a
house which is besieged by a mob. The man sends the concubine out to the mob, which brutally
rapes and assaults her. The man then cuts up her body into twelve pieces and sends them to
different locations. This story, as it is told here, might seem relatively meaningless. Examining
details of the story, such as the characters, sequence of event, and settings, however, may
illuminate the meaning of the story. Those with knowledge of the whole Bible may experience a
sense of familiarity her, because of the similarity between this story and the one told in Genesis
19:1-11.
This story has two main characters and several other minor ones. The first character
introduced is the man. He is a Levite, living in the country of Ephraim. One odd feature of the
story is that it never reports any of the characters names. This places even greater emphais on
their tribal identities and geographic associations. The second character is the concubine. She is
from Bethlehem in Judah. The third character is the girl's father. He, of course, is a Bethlehemite
also. The reader is also provided with some important information about the character of each of
these three, though some of this information is indirect. The Levite apparently loves the
concubine. He wants her back and intends to "speak tenderly" to her. The father-in-law is
characterized by his joy in seeing the Levite and his overwhelming hospitality. The character of
the concubine is difficult to judge because of a textual problem.32 The most that can be said is that
she shows a surprising degree of independence. At first glance, the old man in Gibeah appears to
be as hospitable as the concubines father, but his character comes into question when he offers to
give the two young women to the mob. The mob which assaults the concubine is made up of
Benjaminites. The narrator calls them "perverse." This example of "telling" is reinforced as their
32The Hebrew text says that she "prostituted herself against him," while the Greek and Latin texts say
she "became angry with him."

actions in the following verses "show" them to be perverse.

The plot of this story is formed by a sequence of narrative events. The concubine leaves,
the Levite goes after her, they travel back together, they stop in Gibeah, the woman is raped, and
the Levite cuts up her body and sends the pieces throughout Israel with a message. One
important question is how this story fits into the book of Judges as a whole. It is somewhat
different from most of the other stories in the book because it is not about one of the judges.
Judges 19 may or may not be connected to the stories in the preceding two chapters. Judges 1718 also tell of a Levite living in Ephraim. This may or may not be the same man as in Judges 19.
Because the Levite in Judges 18 is taken away by the Danites and Judges 19:1 introduces this
Levite as if he is a new character, we should probably assume him to be a different person. Judges
19 is closely connected to what follows. In Judges 20, all of Israel goes to war against the
Benjaminites. The behavior of the Benjaminites in Judges 19 is given as the reason for this action.
Settings are very important in Judges 19, especially geographical settings. Informed
readers of the Bible will quickly notice the association of places with tribes. The story takes place
in Ephraim, Bethlehem of Judah, and Gibeah of Benjamin. The travelers also pass by the city of
Jebus, which the narrator deliberately tells the reader is the same city which will become
Jerusalem, once David establishes it as his capital.
This story leaves several initial impressions. It is a strange and brutal story. It does not
sound like a story one would expect to find in the Bible. This story serves as justification for the
war in the next chapter, but it is retold there by the Levite in 20:4-6. Therefore, the story in
Judges 19 seems somewhat unnecessary, especially in the degree of detail with which it is told. A
narrative interpretation, however, reveals the importance of the story and its details.. Placement
of the names of the characters and places into three categories (positive, neutral, and negative)

will help expose the purpose of the story. This distribution may be somewhat debatable, but might
reasonably look like this:

Positive

Neutral

Negative

Concubine

Jebus (Jerusalem) Old man

Father-in-law

Levite?

Bethlehem

Ephraim

Judah

Benjaminites
Gibeah

In light of this list, it becomes apparent that this text is about the tribes of Benjamin and
Judah. The entire book of Judges has a tendency to look favorably upon Judah and unfavorably
upon Benjamin. The story in Judges 19 pushes these characterizations to an extreme level. If this
facet of the story is extended beyond the boundaries of the book of Judges, one notices that the
elements in the positive list can also be associated with David, while those in the negative list are
associated with Saul. The purpose and meaning of this story seems to be to create a positive
impression of the tribe of Judah and its territory, and to create a negative impression of the tribe
of Benjamin and its territory. These positive and negative images may then be cast upon David
and Saul, respectively. The story treats the dominant northern tribe, Ephraim, along with the
priestly tribe, the Levites, and the city of Jerusalem in neutral fashion. The deliberately neutral
evaluation of Jerusalem, a foreign city, may begin to set the stage for its acceptance as the new
capital established by David.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Harper, 1981.
Berlin, Adele. Poetics and the Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. Winona Lake, Indiana:
Eisenbrauns, 1994.
Culpepper, Alan. The Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel: A Study in Literary Design. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1983.
Bar-Efrat, Shimon. Narrative Art in the Bible. Sheffield: Almond, 1989.
Exum, Cheryl. Tragedy and Biblical Narrative: Arrows of the Almighty. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Crowds. Minneapolis: Fortress,
1991.

Kingsbury, Jack Dean. Matthew as Story, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988.
Powell, Mark Allen. What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990.
Rhoads, David and Michie, Donald. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a
Gospel. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.

CHAPTER TWELVE
ADDITIONAL METHODS

This guide has outlined and demonstrated seven specific exegetical methods. These seven
are arguably the most well developed and widely used methods. There is a great variety of other
methods. A full discussion and demonstration of all of them will not fit within the scope and
purpose of this guide. Nevertheless, these other methods deserve a brief description and some
initial bibliographic references for those who may want to pursue them further. The purpose of
these descriptions is only to make students aware that they exist. Most of these methods fall
primarily within the category of synchrocnic. They are concerned primarily with the final form of
the text. The shift in biblical studies from a predominantly historical to a predominantly literary
framework has created an explosion of new methods. At times these methods seem almost as
individual as each interpreter. This chapter will provide a brief description of some of the more
important additional methods along with some sources for further study. Readers will notice that
some of these methods require a fairly thorough and technical understanding of other fields
outside of biblical studies. This is another reason that these have not been included in the main
sections of this guide. As I have acknowledged earlier, the line between an exegetical method and
what I have called a hermeneutical approach is not always clear, and many will not agree with
where I have drawn that line. For example, is there such a thing as "feminist criticism"? What
about biblical interpretation which arises from liberation theology? I see both of these as
hermeneutical frameworks. They approach the Bible with a specific set of concerns or questions,
but do not have inherent within them a specific procedural method of examining the text.
Feminist interpretation has tended to use literary methods, such as rhetorical criticism, narrative
criticism, and deconstruction. In practice, there is a very close link between liberation theology
and social scientific methods of biblical study. So, I have not included methods which carry the
names of such specialized theologies as feminist, liberation, and womanist, etc.

Social-Scientific Criticism
This method is sometimes referred to as the sociological approach to the Bible. A
particular view of the Bible goes along with this approach. The Bible is understood as the
product of the social processes and mechanisms of the communities which produced it. Thus, the
starting point is to understand how those communities operated. The Bible is then both the
product of these social forces and evidence of the nature of ancient societies. Information about
these communities from other sources, such as archaeology, is also used. The picture of these
communities which has been reconstructed is then analyzed using the methods and understandings
produced by modern social sciences such as sociology, anthropology, and political science. The
primary strength of this approach is that it brings to light a much neglected element of the biblical
tradition. It moves away from many other approaches which place such a great emphasis on the
sacred, theological character of the biblical text that they ignore the fact that it was written and
used by real people in the real world. This is very much a historical method, because it is vitally
interested in history. Nevertheless, it tends to be more concerned with the final form of the text
and its production, rather than earlier stages of development. A sub-category of this approach
may be what is sometimes called ideological criticism. This kind of reading is particularly
concerned with how biblical texts attempt to present a certain political or social perspective.
Some might sense that the narrative interpretation of Judges 19 in the previous chapter is moving
in this direction.

Structuralism
Structuralism in biblical studies and in other fields operates on the assumption that there

are certain basic patterns present in all human behavior. These patterns are even detectable within
literature, but are hidden beneath the surface. Persons within a social group, or readers of a piece
of literature, are often not completely aware of these patterns or structures. Within the field of
structuralism, there is general agreement that stories are structured according to the following
model:

sender ---> object ---> receiver

^
4 ^
helper ---> subject <--- opponent

The entire book of Jonah may be used to illustrate this model. In this story the sender (God)
wishes to send the object (the prophetic message to repent) to the receiver (the inhabitants of
Ninevah). The subject of the story is the one who actually carries the object, in this case Jonah
himself. One of the unique features of the Jonah story is that Jonah also acts as the opponent, one
who acts to prevent the subject from delivering the object. Just as unexpected is the identity of
the helper(s) in the Jonah story. Among them are the non-Israelite sailors and the great fish. The
actions of these characters all assist in getting Jonah to Ninevah to deliver the object.
Structuralism gained tremendous popularity in the 1970's and 1980's, but has declined in
recent years. It has suffered from two primary weaknesses. First, structuralism imposes highly
technical, modern theories of social mechanisms and literature upon ancient texts. Second, the
exegetical results produced by structural exegesis are often not conducive to theological reflection
and application. Nevertheless, this method still has its proponents and certain elements of it can

be quite useful in conjunction with other methods.

Deconstruction
This recent development in the study of literature as a whole, and the Bible in particular, is
perhaps the most difficult to describe and to understand. This is true because of the very nature of
the method itself. Deconstruction is, in part, a reaction against structuralism. Structuralism
assumes that all texts have a point to make and that, by following or applying a specific structure,
they succeed in making this point. Deconstruction responds that all texts eventually fail to make
their point with consistency, and that somewhere each text will unintentionally undermine, or
deconstruct, the argument it is trying to make. The primary problem of this method is that it deals
with issues in the text which are often significantly hidden from the conscious reader. In fact,
these weak points in the argument of the text are likely to have been unknown to the writer. A
brief example may make this clearer. The primary theme of the gospel of Matthew may be how to
live a life of discipleship as characterized by the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). One of the
central teachings of the discipleship which Jesus teaches is love of enemies (5:43-48). Yet many
interpreters have noticed a strong sense of anti-Semitism in the gospel of Matthew, especially in
27:25 where the crowd tells Pilate, "His blood be on us and our children." This text has created
enmity between Christians and Jews. Because that gospel of Matthew in this and other places
undermines its argument for love of enemies, it has often served as motivation for persecution of
Jews as the "God-killers."

Reader-Response Criticism
As the name suggests, this method focuses upon the reader and the act of reading. It is

questionable whether this can be considered an exegetical method, since it is based on the
assertion that the meaning of a text is created within the act of reading itself. Therefore any
meaning intended by the author or inherent in the structure and words of the text is disregarded as
either non-existent or of no importance. The procedures followed in reader-response criticism are
grounded in rather complicated theories about the reading process. The reader approaches the
text from his or her own pint of view with certain questions and concerns. In the act of reading,
readers make use of the text to address those questions and concerns, thus constructing their own
meaning in response to the text. More moderate streams of reader-response theory have made a
valuable contribution to biblical interpretation by emphasizing the active role of the reader. This
has appropriately called into question the frequent assumption that each biblical text has one
correct meaning for all people in all situations. The more extreme forms of reader-response are
objectionable to many because there seems to be no sense of control by which any interpretation
can be judged as inappropriate.

Psychoanalytic Approaches
In various ways, some interpreters have attempted to apply a modern understanding of
psychology to biblical texts. As with other contemporary approaches, psychoanalytic ones do not
assume any particular set of steps for interpreting the text. Perhaps the most common way in
which psychoanalysis is used is applying it to the characters within stories. The Bible contains
very few highly developed characters. Readers trained in psychology may legitimately examine
the ones which are the most highly developed, such as David, Saul, Moses, Joseph, and Paul. The
actions, words, and sometimes even inner thoughts of these characters are available for analysis.
This is a rather delicate task, as is real psychological inquiry of living persons. The tentative

nature of the findings must be emphasized. Used carefully, however, this approach may provide
insight into biblical characters and why they behave the way they do. It may also be possible to
apply psychoanalysis to the writers of the biblical text. Through examination of their words, it
may be possible to answer questions about the way they perceived the world and their hidden
motivations. Finally, there is one area where psychoanalytic approaches may overlap with readerresponse theory. That is asking questions about the way certain texts affect the reader. Are there
reasons which may not be obvious why certain texts encourage, frighten, or disturb certain
readers?

Conclusion

Sometimes it seems that a new method or approach to biblical interpretation appears every
month. This causes some to despair that they will never understand, much less master, all of
these. It is important to understand that nobody does master them all. Most biblical scholars
have one or a few methods in which they specialize. The advantage of the many methods which
have arisen is that they bring many different areas of human understanding to the biblical text.
The value should be seen in the combined effort of all of these approaches to continue to expose
new meaning in the Bible

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adam, A. K. M. What is Postmodern Biblical Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995.
Clines, David J. A. What Does Eve Do to Help?: And Other Readerly Questions to the Old
Testament. Sheffield, JSOT Press, 1990.
Elliott, John H. What is Social Scientific Criticism. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Exum, J. Cheryl and Clines, David J. A., eds. The New Literary Criticism and the Hebrew Bible.
Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1993.
Jobling, David. The Sense of Biblical Narrative: Three Structural Analyses in the Old
Testament. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1978.
McKnight, Edgar V. and Malbon, Elizabeth Strothers, eds. The New Literary Criticism and the
New Testament. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1994.
Overholt, T. W. Cultural Anthropology and the Old Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996.
Patte, Daniel. What is Structural Exegesis? Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976.
Steinmetz, Devora. From Father to Son: Kinship, Conflict, and Continuity in Genesis.
Louisville: Westminster, 1992.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of
Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Wilson, R. R. Sociological Approaches to the Old Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.

CHAPTER THIRTEEN
USING EXEGETICAL PROCEDURES

The review of a large number of exegetical methods up to this point probably leads many
readers to some important questions. How does an interpreter make use of these methods? Are
they always used individually or can they be combined? How does one choose which method or
methods to use? There is no definitive answer to any of these questions, but I will offer some
observations and suggestions.
In some contexts it has long been an established rule that "pure exegesis" is the careful and
systematic use of one, and only one, method. This idea can be disputed at several points. First,
the idea that there is such a thing as "pure exegesis" has been largely rejected. Those within the
field of biblical studies are rapidly discovering that all biblical interpretation is subjective, that the
personality of the interpreter plays a major role in the interpretation process. Second, the overlap
between various methods has become increasingly obvious and accepted. Third, the rapid
appearance of new methods of exegesis has called into question the kinds of strict definitions that
used to be present within biblical studies.
Nevertheless, some basic principles may still serve to limit confusion. First, some methods
mix well and others do not. For example, it is very difficult to make use of a method which
divides the text into independent units or sources along with a method which focuses on the final
form of the text. Generally speaking, diachronic methods and synchronic methods are based on
two very different sets of presuppositions. The former insist that the processes behind the text,
those involved in its production, are the key to meaning. The latter understand the present text as
the primary object of study. Second, to some extent the nature of the text itself must be allowed
to help shape the method of exegesis. Simply put, some methods work well with certain kinds of
texts and not with others. An obvious example is that narrative criticism works well with stories,

and does not tend to work well with psalms, proverbs, or legal material.33 Third, the best
exegetical method to use with a particular text is the one which produces the best results.
At first, this final principle may seem ridiculously simplistic and backwards. It does,
however, reveal an important idea concerning biblical exegesis. Even if exegesis is done in a
careful, methodical manner, it is still no exact science. The interpreter cannot know what the
quality of the results will be at the beginning. Exegesis requires an element of trial and error, or
risk taking. It can be a series of starts and stops, and the interpreter can never know for certain if
an exegetical method will produce helpful results until the process is finished. A few basic steps at
the beginning, however, may make the choice of a helpful method more likely. First, be sure to
begin with the text. Read it carefully and repeatedly. What questions form in your mind as you
read it? We must be honest, at this stage, that exegesis generally has a premeditated purpose.
The interpreter need not deny such a purpose or try to force it out of mind. The most important
thing to do is be honest about it. As long as we are human beings, who we are and why we are
interpreting the Bible will shape our interpretation. Admit this to yourself and others and keep it
in mind. Chapter 15 will take up this issue in greater detail. Hopefully, the text will also raise
some questions which you did not have in mind at the beginning. Write down all of your
questions. Second, examine the nature of the questions which you have written. Which method
will serve to answer the largest number of those questions? If, for example, you have many
questions concerning the historical situation that lies behind and is presented in the text, then use
the diachronic method or methods which answer those kinds of questions. If many of your
questions concern the relationship between this text and other biblical texts, then canonical
criticism may be the best method. If most of your questions center on the nature of the characters
33Significant efforts to apply narrative method to some of these other forms are beginning to emerge, but
are still at early stages.

in a story and how they behave, then narrative criticism may prove most helpful.

It is doubtful that any method will answer all of the questions which you have posed. If
you want all of the questions answered, then you may have to use more than one method. In this
case, it may be wise to separate the questions into categories and proceed with one method at a
time. Remember that each exegetical method is really a specific set of questions. These sets of
questions have already been established within each method. The task of exegesis is then to use
these sets of questions to interrogate the text, with the end goal of answering the questions which
we bring to it. What can make exegesis difficult is that the text does not always answer our
questions directly. A more indirect line of questioning may be necessary. It is also possible that a
text does not answer some of our questions at all. Because of these realities, biblical exegesis is
an unending, exciting, frustrating, and joyful task. The best way to learn how to do it is to begin
doing it with courage, humility, and faith.

CHAPTER 14
A WORD ON HERMENEUTICS

The introduction to this guide mentioned a commonly used distinction between exegesis
and hermeneutics. Exegesis is the process of determining what the text meant (author's intent)
and hermeneutics is the process of determining what the text means (contemporary application).
In reality, the distinction is not so clear. One of the primary contributions of newer critical
methods has been to call this distinction into question. At several points this guide has raised
questions about the certainty with which interpreters in the historical-critical era believed they
could locate the one true original meaning of a given text, the authors intended meaning. This
sense of certainty turned out to be an illusion. To some extent, the personality and
presuppositions of the interpreter always enters into the interpretive process. This blurs the line
between exegesis and hermeneutics, as they are defined above. Perhaps it will be more helpful at
this point to revise definitions a bit. One might define exegetical methods as procedures for
moving back into the world of the text. For the diachronic methods, the world of the biblical text
is ancient Israel or first century Palestine. For synchronic, the world of the text may be one of the
communities which took part in the canonization of Holy Scripture or which interacted with the
text of scripture at an important moment. On the other hand, it may be a story-world created by
the text. Hermeneutics, then, is the attempt by readers to move back into their own world,
bringing something of the text with them. Hermeneutics may have various goals, everything from
a wish to inform the contemporary world, to a desire to transform the contemporary world. A
proper clarity, or lack of clarity, might be maintained between these two processes by honestly
acknowledging that when we move into the world of the text, using any method, we take
something of our world there with us. Exegesis is not a pure process. Good reading of the Bible

involves moving back and forth between the worlds of the text and the world of the reader.34
Because most users of this guide will probably be involved in theological education, the
practice of ministry, or both, it is important to connect the hermeneutical task to other areas of
study. One way to view theological studies is in a progression from foundational studies (biblical,
historical, and philosophical) to synthetic studies (biblical theology and systematic theology) to
applied studies (ethics, Christian education, pastoral care, preaching, evangelism, missiology, and
worship).35 In an important sense, all of these synthetic and applied areas may be understood as
hermeneutical tasks. These tasks involve bringing the biblical text, and the experience of reading
it, to issues of contemporary life. This is not the place for a discussion of how these various
hermeneutical tasks might be carried out. The bibliography below will provide resources which
may be a good beginning point in each area. Many other good books have been written on these
subjects. I have deliberately chosen examples which begin with an explicit exegetical foundation.
This fits with the general philosophy of this guide that biblical exegesis is the foundational activity
for Christian ministry. It is the necessary beginning point for the work of the church, which has
adopted a literary canon and made that canon of Scripture its central source of authority. It must
be emphasized just as strongly that for Christian ministers biblical exegesis is never an end in
itself. It is only a starting point. In the same sense, understanding the content of this guide will
not make anyone a competent minister. Once you have begun to understand the task of biblical
exegesis, you still have a harder task ahead, learning to apply the results of your exegesis to the
tasks of ministry in your own context. The resources below and the experiences of ministry which
34 This understanding may be a simplified version of the proposal of HansGeorg Gadamer, who spoke of
productive reading as a fusion of horizons in his work Truth and Method London (Sheed and Ward, 1975), pp.
269-278.
35Certainly this model is highly simplified. Many will argue that theological training can be understood
in a longer series of progressions. This simplified model does, however, serve to illustrate my definition of
hermeneutics, and I will leave more complex models to be outlined in other places.

you begin to have are the next step. Therefore, it is essential for you to do biblical exegesis and to
apply its results in ministry. Neither activity can remain vibrant and alive without the other.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Hermeneutics, General
Brown, Raymond McAfee. Unexpected News: Reading the Bible with Third World Eyes.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985.
Ferguson, Duncan S. Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Atlanta: John Knox, 1986.
McFague, Sallie. Speaking in Parables: A Study in Metaphor and Theology. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1975.
McKim, D. K., ed. A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical
Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.
Sanders, James A. "Hermeneutics." In Interpreter's Bible, Supplementary Volume. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1972, pp. 402-407.
Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of
Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992.

Biblical Theology
Ballentine, Samuel E. Prayer in the Hebrew Bible: The Drama of Divine-human
Communication. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Bartlett, David L. Ministry in the New Testament. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993.
Milazzo, G. Tom. The Protest and the Silence: Suffering, Death, and Biblical Theology.
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.
Niditch, Susan. War in the Hebrew Bible: A Study in the Ethics of Violence. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1993.
Terrien, Samuel. The Elusive Presence: Toward a New Biblical Theology. New York: Harper

& Row, 1978.

Westermann, Clauss. Blessing in the Bible and the Life of the Church. Philadelphia: Fortress,
1978.

Systematic and Contextualized Theologies

Koyama, Kosuke. Waterbuffalo Theology. London: SCM, 1974.
Mosala, Itumaleng J. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989.
Parratt, John, ed. A Reader in African Christian Theology. London: SPCK, 1987.
Shorter, Aylward. African Christian Theology. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1977.
Sigirtharajah, R. S. and Cecil Hargreaves. A Reader in Indian Christian Theology. Dehli:
ISPCK, 1993.

Song, C. S. Third Eye Theology: Theology in Formation in Asian Settings. Maryknoll, N. Y.:
Orbis, 1979.
West, Gerald. Biblical Hermeneutics of Liberation: Modes of Reading the Bible in the South
African Context, 2nd ed. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1995.

Christian Ethics
Achtemeier, Elizabeth. The Committed Marriage. Louisville: WJKP, 1976.
Ellul, Jacques. Money and Power. Trans. LaVonne Neff. Downers Grove: IVP, 1984.
Mott, Stephen Charles. Biblical Ethics and Social Change. New York: Oxford, 1982.
Muilenburg, James. The Way of Israel: Biblical Faith and Ethics. New York: Harper & Row,
1961.
Simmons, Paul D. Birth and Death: Bioethical Decision Making. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1986.
Stivers, et al., eds. Christian Ethics: A Case Method Approach, 2nd ed. Maryknoll, N. Y.:
Orbis, 1994.

Evangelism and Missiology

Carson, D. A., ed. The Church in the Bible and in the World: An International Study. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 1987.
Costas, Orlando E. Liberating News: A Theology of Contextual Evangelization. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1989.
Mugambi, Jesse N. K. The Biblical Basis for Evangelism: Theological Reflection Based on an
African Experience. Nairobi: Oxford, 1989.
Senior, Donald and Carroll Stuhlmuller. The Biblical Foundation for Missions. London: SCM,
1983.

Preaching and Worship

Bailey, Raymond, ed. Hermeneutics for Preaching: Approaches to Contemporary

Interpretation of Scripture. Nashville: Broadman, 1993.
Lowry, Eugene L. How to Preach a Parable: Designs for Narrative Sermons. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1989.
Martin, Ralph P. The Worship of God: Some Theological, Pastoral, and Practical Reflections.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Peterson, David. Engaging with God: A Biblical Theology of Worship. Apollos: Leicester,
1992.
Ramshaw, Gail. Christ in Sacred Speech: The Meaning of Liturgical Language. Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1986.
Thompson, W. D. Preaching Biblically: Exegesis and Interpretation. Nashville: Abingdon,
1981.

Pastoral Care and Counselling

Capps, Donald. Biblical Approaches to Pastoral Counseling. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981.
Oates, Wayne E. Temptation: A Biblical and Psychological Approach. Louisville: WJKP,
1991.

Christian Education
Brueggemann, Walter. The Biblical Word: Canon as a Model for Biblical Education.
Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982.
Groome, Thomas H. Christian Religious Education: Sharing Our Story and Vision. San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1980.
Wink, Walter. Transforming Bible Study: A Leader's Guide. Nashville: Abingdon, 1980.
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
INCULTURATION HERMENEUTICS

During the past two decades there has been a growing awareness in nearly all fields of
study that perspective influences the process of making observations and drawing conclusions.
This is perhaps the central tenet of postmodernism. The ideal of detached objectivity which
During characterized modernity has proven to be not only unattainable, but even undesirable. The
effects of this new direction are trickling down through the worlds of intellectual activity, but
often at a slow pace, which meets significant resistance.
Nowhere is this shift in awareness more significant than in the field of hermeneutics. The simple
literary continuum from author to text to reader (see chapter eight) has moved to the forefront of
the discussion and questions about meaning have danced along this line, drifting most often from
left to right. Nowhere is there more at stake in these questions than in the reading of the Bible.
The magnitude of the shift caused by this change in awareness is beautifully illustrated by these
observations from Justo L. Gonzalez:

Thirty years ago, if confronted with the theme, the Bible and the poor, I would
have understood that to mean simply, what does the Bible say about the poor? In order to
answer that question, I would have thought that it would suffice for me to read the Bible,
perhaps with the help of a concordance and a few scholarly books on the subject.
[W]hat has happened in the last decades is that we have become acutely aware
that what one finds [in] the Bible depends to a large degree on [the] perspective from
which one reads the Bible. Thus, the question becomes more complicated. It is no longer
simply, what does the Bible say about the poor? It is also and foremost, what does the
Bible say when read from the perspective of the poor? Or, in other words,, what do the
poor find in the Bible that the nonpoor easily miss? Today, when we speak of the Bible
and the poor, the question is no longer simply, what can we discover in the Bible about
the proper attitude of the church to the poor? The question is rather, what do the poor
find in the Bible that is an important message to the entire church? (pp. 57-58)

Terminology is always a thorny problem. I have chosen to borrow the term inculturation

hermeneutics from Justin S. Ukpong, to describe the issues confronted in this chapter.36 While
may use of the term is not identical to his, I hope that it is not inconsistent. What I am calling
inculturation hermeneutics arises from the realization that various aspects of an interpreters
identity - race, social class, gender, economic status, educational experience, etc. - influence the
way that person reads the biblical text. This realization reveals that all interpretation is cultural
or contextual. Two distinctions must be made clear, however. First, some readings of the Bible
openly and deliberately explore and delineate their cultural contexts and others do not. These
others often claim, either out of ignorance or arrogance, to be free of cultural influence.
Therefore, they mistakenly understand themselves to be detached and objective. One by-product
of inculturation hermeneutics should be to expose such false claims. I am concerned here with
readings which are not only deliberately aware of their cultural contexts, but consider this
awareness an asset.
Two general types of work have been done in this area. The first type consists of attempts
to establish a programmatic or methodological framework for contextual reading. The second
category contains attempts to interpret specific biblical texts from a self consciously cultural
approach.
In many ways, theoretical work is a necessary evil. Any attempt to interpret the Bible possesses
an underlying hermeneutical framework. Theoretical work is the attempt to describe and explain
such frameworks. This activity is unavoidably dull and complex. Theoretical writing is often
unjustly attacked, however, for not being its counterpart - the practical application of method.
Those who condemn theory and move straight to practice, though, are being lazy, deceptive, or
36See Justin S. Ukpong, Developments in Biblical Interpretation in Africa, in The
Bible and Africa: Transactions, Trajectories, and Trends (Leiden: Brill, 2000), p. 25. The
concept I am describing here is an interpretive framework that still provides room for a wide
range of exegetical methods. Contextual hermeneutics is sometimes used to talk about
the same set of concerns, but is a less precise term.

both. They either do not want to understand or do not want to reveal the means by which they
have interpreted the text. In the end, all biblical exegesis is cultural. The kind of biblical
interpretation under consideration here is that which is deliberately transparent about assumptions,
procedures, and conclusions. Any interpretation which is unwilling to take on this kind of
transparency risks becoming no more than disguised propaganda. On the other hand, theoretical
work in the field of hermeneutics which does not demonstrate its effectiveness through concrete
application to actual texts is incomplete. One point that must be emphasized is that when
incultured reading turns to examine the biblical text it is able to make use of whatever exegetical
methods (historical, literary, sociological, etc.) it finds most useful.
A number of highly developed hermeneutical frameworks have been produced. The
annotated bibliographical entries at the end of the chapter describe and evaluate some of the best
models produced to date, within various cultural contexts. They are intended to demonstrate
some of the directions in which this new understanding of biblical interpretation is moving. A
second set of bibliographic entries below describe examples of carefully developed readings of
specific biblical texts. Some are book-length interpretations of whole biblical books. Others are
collections of essays addressing shorter texts. In all cases, the biblical interpretations are openly
and deliberately incultured.
Becoming aware that other people read the Bible in very different ways is a sometimes
painful, but always enlightening experience. The result of this awareness is the struggle to
understand and accept that ones own reading is culturally conditioned. The freedom to read the
Bible authentically in the context of ones own experience, and to grant others the same freedom
is the ultimate reward.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Theoretical Models
Segovia, Fernando F. Decolonizing Biblical Studies: A View from the Margins.
Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 2000.
Segovia is one of the foremost thinkers in the area of contextual interpretation. This book
is perhaps the finest attempt to date to establish a thorough hermeneutical framework in light of
the developments in the field over recent decades. Not only does Segovia do the heavy lifting
required to develop a hermeneutical framework for what he calls cultural studies, but he also
painstakingly situates his approach within the current landscape of the field of biblical studies.
This volume brings together eight previously published essays which document Segovias very
personal journey into this territory. In the course of these essays, Segovia traces the development
of biblical criticism during the last two centuries through the dominant approaches he calls
Historical Criticism: The Text as Means, Literary Criticism: The Text as Medium, and
Cultural Criticism: The Text as Means and Medium. He defines his own approach as Cultural
Studies: The Text as Construction. Segovia could have avoided some confusion by using
Social-scientific Criticism to name the third category. Nevertheless, his descriptions of past
approaches and the delineation of his own in relationship to them are succinct, bold, and creative.
Most significantly, Segovia addresses issues of pedagogy in light of his analysis of other methods
and development of his own. His proposal for a pedagogical model for biblical studies which is
contextual and incultured is the best statement on this subject that has yet been produced. This
volume is too complex for undergraduate textbook use, but is the best available introduction to
the issues for instructors. One will have to look elsewhere to find Segovias application of his
method to specific biblical texts.
West, Gerald O. and Musa W. Dube. The Bible in Africa: Transactions, Trajectories and
Trends. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
This volume is a massive compendium of essays written by Africans and other biblical interpreters
who have extensive experience with the African context. It offers a number of elements which are
significant for an understanding of contextual hermeneutics. First, the collection of essays which
comprises Part I forms the best introduction to an African perspective of this issue. The
background essays by Knut Holter and Grant LeMarquand, and the programmatic essays by
Ukpong and West illuminate the past and point the way forward to a unique and constructive
African hermeneutic. Ukpong aptly names this approach inculturation. The remaining parts of
this large collection offers essays addressing specific biblical texts and issues of reading the Bible
in more specific African contexts. Most of the essays are of a level of academic sophistication
that makes them not suitable for direct use in the undergraduate classroom. In addition, the
immense cost of this volume makes it difficult to acquire and use. Nevertheless, as a tool for
background research it is indispensable.

West, Gerald O. The Academy of the Poor: Towards a Dialogical Reading of the Bible.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
Gerald West has taken a leading role in the development of African contextual
hermeneutics. One of his primary concerns is the interaction of ordinary, non-academic
readers with the Bible. West is leery of any reading practice which is detached from the lives of
ordinary people. In his own context these people are the poor of South Africa. More importantly,
West sees these readers as a tremendous resource for biblical interpretation, as his title indicates.
In this book, he carefully develops a process for academic readers who wish to be socially
engaged in their reading. West begins by comparing two readings of the story of the rich young
man in Matthew 19, one by Pope John Paul II in his 1993 encyclical Veritatis Splendor and one
by a group of poor South Africans. West then works out the details of a socially engaged reading
procedure, paying particular attention to the position and role of the biblical expert. The volume
concludes with a more extensive communal reading of II Samuel 21:1-14, with specific
attention to the character of Rizpah. There is no other resource available which explains and
demonstrates this kind of revolutionary Bible reading in detail.
Yeo, Khiok-khng. What Has Jerusalem to Do with Beijing? Harrisburg, Penn.: Trinity
Press International, 1998.
Yeo is most interested in connecting the Bible with Chinese culture. In this collection, he
keeps introductory and theoretical discussion to a minimum in a couple of essays. Yeo then
proceeds to address specific texts at length in two significant ways. First, he develops powerful
connections between ancient Chinese traditions (Confucianism, Taoism, etc.) and his
interpretation of biblical texts. In a second group of interpretive essays, Yeo examines points of
contact between contemporary Chinese culture and specific biblical texts. In all of these
interpretive essays, Yeo treats biblical texts with a full range of critical methods, ably
demonstrating that a overtly cultural approach can make effective use of past exegetical practices.
This book provides an excellent model for developing and applying a cultural framework for
biblical exegesis in East Asia. Yeos treatment of specific biblical texts in this volume, is more than
adequate for it also to be included in the next section of this survey.
Gonzalez, Justo L. Santa Biblia: The Bible through Hispanic Eyes. Nashville:
Abingdon, 1996.
Gonzalez is a well known church historian. This is a very personal account of his own
journey with the Bible. Gonzalezs own life has followed closely the contours of the path formed
by the field of biblical studies itself. His relationship with the Bible began with the pre-critical
phase of his youth, moved through the critical period which coincided with his formal theological
education and career, and has now progressed to a new phase which he typically talks about as
contextualization. Gonzalez takes the reader through the issues which are central to
contextualized reading in Latin America. Reading deliberately in a context characterized by

marginalization, poverty, exile, and alienation has not only revolutionized biblical interpretation
for Gonzalez, but has reaffirmed the goodness of the Bible. This book possesses a very good
balance between theoretical development and practical application of a contextual hermeneutic.
Because of the thematic approach, however, there is a lack of sustained reading of specific biblical
texts.
Inculturated Readings
Gutirrez, Gustavo. On Job: God-Talk and the Suffering of the Innocent. Trans.
Matthew J. OConnell. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1986.
This is a fully developed interpretation of an entire biblical book. Gutirrez follows a
deliberate procedure of inculturation, establishing the poverty and suffering of Latin America as
the context for his reading of Job. Gutirrez does not see the book of Job as a solution to the
problem of evil, but as a model for how to talk about God in the midst of suffering. His liberation
hermeneutic is in dialogue with a full range of interpretive tradition surrounding the book of Job.
His conclusion is that the issue at stake in the book of Job is the freedom of God. The hero of the
book courageously resists any system of God-talk, especially retribution theology, which blames
the victim or limits God to deterministic reactions to human actions. The payoff for Gutirrezs
cultural context is a God who is free to be on the side of the suffering. This book shows the way
for any biblical reading which is open and honest about its cultural agenda.
Levison, John R. and Priscilla Pope-Levison, eds. Return to Babel: Global Perspectives
on the Bible. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1999.
For pedagogical purposes, this is the most important and useful book produced to date.
The editors chose five Old Testament texts and five New Testament texts, then assigned a variety
of writers from Africa, Asia, and Latin America to produce incultured readings of each text. The
result is thirty essays which follow a careful procedure of establishing a specific cultural context,
examining the text, and bringing the context and text together. Putting the expression of the
cultural context first avoids the pretense that exegesis of the text can or should take place in an
objective vacuum. Incultured readings use deliberate contextualization to bring a sense of focus
to exegesis. Thus, subjectivity is a strength of such readings. Understanding takes place in a
dialogue between text and context which does not prioritize either. The end product is a large
collection of poignant, readable essays which can be used in the undergraduate or graduate
classroom in a variety of ways.
Mosala, Itumaleng J. Biblical Hermeneutics and Black Theology in South Africa. Grand
Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1989.
This is a problematic, but important, early work in contextual hermeneutics. Mosalas
methodology is deliberately Marxist/materialist. While his highly developed exegeses are
dependent upon many questionable historical and sociological assumptions, they are excellent

examples of the productive power of incultured reading. The best example is Mosalas
controversial reading of the Cain and Abel story in Genesis 4, which assumes that the text was
produced in the Solomonic empire of the ninth century. Mosala then connects that cultural
situation with contemporary South Africa. The Story of Cain becomes a piece of empirical
propaganda used to justify the taking of land away from peasant farmers who are portrayed as
murderous brutes. This book also contains powerful and provocative readings of Micah 4 and
Luke 2.
Sugitharajah, R. S., ed. Voices from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third
World. Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 1995
This is a wide-ranging collection of thirty-four essays by a large number of authors. They
fall into five groupings organized around the central theme of marginality. A highlight of the
volume is a sub-collection of seven essays specifically addressing texts and themes from the book
of Exodus from a variety of perspectives. Seven of the essays concern connections between the
Bible and texts and traditions from other religions. The final sub-collection is an attempt to
present popular readings from many different cultural contexts. The entire book contains
readings from many locations in Asia, Latin America, and Africa, even seldom represented
locations like the Solomon Islands. No other collection available contains this kind of variety.
Most of the articles are quite complex, however, and are written at a level that would make them
difficult to use in an undergraduate setting.
Tamez, Elsa. When the Horizons Close: Rereading Ecclesiastes. Tans. Margaret Wilde.
Maryknoll, N. Y.: Orbis, 2000.
Elsa Tamez is best known for her ground-breaking early work The Bible of the Oppressed
(1978, English 1982). In this recent work, she applies her interpretive skill in a full treatment of
the most perplexing book in the Bible. Tamez clearly establishes the cultural context of her
reading, the confusion and frustration caused by the oppressive system of free-market
globalization. She finds in the words of Qoheleth this same sense of frustration and an
appropriate response of faith. This is a good example of historical critical exegesis deliberately
applied within a cultural framework. Tamez argues that the book of Ecclesiastes is a response to
the process of Hellenization which was rapidly changing the socio-economic environment of
Palestine in the third to second century B. C. E. The closing horizons experienced by Qoheleth
match those of the current situation in Latin America. This feature also represents the books
greatest weakness. Those who do not agree with her dating of the book will be reluctant to give
attention to her reading.