What is Biblical Criticism?

Most North American Christians assume that they have a right, if not an obligation, to read the Bible. I challenge that assumption. No task is more important than for the Church to take the Bible out of the hands of individual Christians in North America. (p15)

And, so Hauerwas begins....

Let's begin with context. Who is Hauerwas? Briefly, Stanley Hauerwas is a Professor of Theological Ethics at the Divinity School, Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. His life began as the son of a bricklayer --which he says formed him in many ways, and his ministry has been within the ivory tower of academia. He identifies with the Methodist Church, attends an Episcopal Church where his wife, an ordained Methodist minister serves, and he calls himself catholic. He has written many books.

This particular book was completed in 1993.... --so mind you, it is a tad dated.... nonetheless, it speaks to fundamentalism, religion and politics --individualism... the how/why we are/be church. These are still hot topics in our current ethos, and worthy of discussion. It is why I chose the book.

Religion and politics --the two things one is never supposed to try to mix together.... So, here we go!

First and foremost, I would like to hear from you --what are you left thinking after reading the first two chapters? Was there something in particular that moved you? Made you angry? Left you with questions? Please click on the "Comments" word below.

Secondly, --more context: Hauerwas state that literalist-fundamentalism and the critical approaches to the Bible are but two sides of the same coin, insofar as each assumes that the text should be accessible to anyone without the necessary mediation by the Church. (p17) (1) What in the world is Biblical Criticism? (2) What is Fundamentalism? (3) And why does he say that they are two sides of the same coin (4) --and what does he begin to establish as the "third way" in approaching, reading, interpreting our holy scriptures that we call the "Bible" ??? Like --what does he mean by "necessary mediation by the Church!!!!???? (Yes, he does confess that cannot help but appear authoritarian and elitist!)

One thing at a time:

As to (1): Biblical Criticism is not judgmental comments about the Bible! "Criticism" comes from the Greek word krino which means 'to discern' or to be discriminating in making an evaluation or forming a judgment --like music or art critics.

Biblical Criticism has to do with looking at scriptural texts and verifying authenticity, authorship, preservation, production, audience, transmission and preservation.... who, what, where, when and why of the text. New forms of Biblical Criticism have emerged in the last couple of decades from new academic areas --such as Feminist, Womanist and, yes, Queer criticism --and these methods focus on experience and interpretation.

Here are a few approaches to Biblical Criticism (definitions taken largely from HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 1996)

Textual Criticism: examines changes in the text over time, determines when and how the changes were made, and assesses the significance in the changes... for example --yes, those scribes and monks did everything by hand, and they made mistakes, they made marginal corrections and comments, and they doodled.... Just like looking at a piece of art, an art specialist can determine when and where it was made by materials, style and other signifiers --so too with those engaged in Textual Criticism.

Historical Criticism: One of my favorite interpretive tools is Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels (Malina and Rohrbaugh). They give a context to scripture --how people behaved, relationships between the genders, attitudes about children, meaning of 'family,' dress codes, economics  --that kind of thing. Historical Criticism looks to place the scriptures in the wider events and cultures from which they were generated.

Literary Criticism: We know that some parts of the Christian Scriptures are letters --these are called Epistles on Sunday mornings. They have a definite form --a greeting, the matters addressed and communicated, and a closing. We know that the Psalms were songs --they too have a definite form. All of scripture can be related to a specific 'form' of writing. Sandra Schneiders states that the Gospel of John is actually written in two forms --one as a Greek tragedy --the whole Gospel is a play, with a last and will testament inserted (the part called the 'High Priestly Prayer --Written that You May Believe). So some scholars focus on the form as a means of interpretation, meaning, historicity and content.

Form Criticism: is very much a blend of historical and literary criticism, recognizing that literary forms may change over time.... which can be important because certain tendencies of certain texts can demonstrate certain themes or preoccupations.... which can say certain things about a certain people.... at a certain time.... which may reflect upon our understandings... certainly.

(Folks --this is one form of criticism that I respect, but in no way have the skills or desire to engage. I mean, I know from my museum work that a chair, for example, has not always been a chair --and that chair forms change from region to region --like the Chinese alway had backs on their chairs --Europeans chairs emerged from stools --and I know right away how to discern a pedigree of any chair --but a lot of good it does me! That is kind of what Form Criticism is!)

So --is it Chinese?

Canonical Criticism: This approach looks at the texts as received by the two communities of faith --Israel and the Church. Some texts were not written as sacred texts (such as the Song of Solomon, or the collection of philosophical writings called Ecclesiastes) but nonetheless have been looked at through and with the lens of faith --and so a more universal or over-arching witness or message of faith --the entirety of Scripture must be heard --not picked out in bits and pieces.

Liberationist Criticism: Originating in South and Central America, and looks deeply at what we might call the politics of the Bible --ideological structures of power and how, in the case of Christian Scriptures, Jesus himself does not take a neutral stand regarding the powers that be. Liberationist criticism demands a process of reflection on our own social structures and informs us of the neccessity to address the systems of oppression, degradation and privilege in our own time and place.

Feminist Criticism: This approach developed out of the "Women's Movement" --recognizing that the experience of women in the church and portrayal of women in the Bible was fairly exclusionary. The Feminist Criticism movement has moved from the radical stance that Biblical texts were sexist and even misogynistic, to a less absolutist interpretation. R.R. Reuther contends that at the heart of Christianity is a canon within a canon, a prophetic messianic principle for all. (Oxford Companion to Christian Thought, p239) Also, there has been a revision of theological themes --for example, less emphasis on the atonement theology of the cross, and more emphasis on incarnational and resurrection theologies. Or, even, the maleness of Jesus as a theological principle--hence the ordination of women may still be seen as an outward and visible sign of the priesthood of Christ. Womanist Theology has also emerged from the women's movement and --the perspective of women of African American descent --and is a critique of not only the women's movement and who it leaves out, but of a fresh and radically illuminating perspective perhaps best described as feminist and liberationist criticism combined.

There are other forms of Biblical Criticism --including ethnic varieties (Asian, African American, Native American) which offer diverse perspectives other than the northern European academic varieties --and these are refreshing and necessary to know and understand.

So, why does Hauerwas look at these methods as the other side of the same coin as Fundamentalism? And, yes, you guessed it, --I will post next on Fundamentalism....

So, I will ask again-- what are you left thinking after reading the first two chapters? Was there something in particular that moved you? Made you angry? Left you with questions? Please click on the "Comments" word below.