Literary Approaches to the Bible

Douglas Mangum,Douglas Estes

• Éditeur: Lexham Press
• Année: 2018
• ISBN:
  9781577997078
• Sujet: Theology & Religion
• Sous-sujet: Biblical Criticism & Interpretation

The study of the Bible has long included a literary aspect with great attention paid not only to what was written but also to how it was expressed. The detailed analysis of biblical books and passages as written texts has benefited from the study of literature in classical philology, ancient rhetoric, and modern literary criticism. This volume of the Lexham Methods Series introduces the various ways the study of literature has been used in biblical studies. Most literary approaches emphasize the study of the text alone—its structure, its message, and its use of literary devices—rather than its social or historical background. The methods described in Literary Approaches to the Bible are focused on different ways of analyzing the text within its literary context. Some of the techniques have been around for centuries, but the theories of literary critics from the early 20th century to today had a profound impact on biblical interpretation. In this book, you will learn about those literary approaches, how they were adapted for biblical studies, and what their strengths and weaknesses are.

1 Introduction: The Literary Approach to the Bible

Douglas Estes

The Teacher was full of wisdom, and he taught the people with knowledge. He carefully considered many proverbs and carefully arranged them. The Teacher sought to find delightful words, and he wrote what is upright—truthful words. [Ecclesiastes 12:9–10 LEB]

1.1 A Brave New Literary World

In a few short decades in the latter half of the twentieth century, the interpretation of the Bible underwent a notable shift such as has happened only occasionally over the last few thousand years. During this time the focus in biblical interpretation began to shift from what the text can teach us about the past to also include what the text can teach us about the text (and ourselves). Increasingly, the Bible began to be viewed and read not just as a religious or historical document but also as a literary text. Bible scholars speak broadly of this shift as being from a historical-critical method of biblical interpretation toward a literary-critical method of biblical interpretation. This shift was not wholesale; it was felt more in some areas of biblical studies than others.1 This description also does not tell the whole story—there is much more involved here than simply the inclusion of a new method (which, in some cases, also largely replaced an older method).2 The growth of the literary approach to the Bible was and is philosophical more than theological or anything else.

This shift in biblical interpretation correlates strongly with the sea change that took place in the Western world during the twentieth century. During this century, there are clear examples of change in areas such as science and technology, in which the telegraph and the Pony Express were completely eclipsed by the mobile phone and the space shuttle. We describe these changes as surface changes because they occurred on the surface of our world, fully visible and understood as dramatic changes by any observer. However, below these surface changes, this century also brought rapid change (by historical standards) to the Western worldview. Yet, below even these changes there were deeper changes in the most fundamental understanding of how people know, learn, exist, and interact. These fundamental shifts set in motion the shifts in biblical studies, through a long process of cause and effect.3 As a result, for a beginning student, it can be challenging to ask, “How and where did the literary approach to the Bible get started?” since each answer reveals more answers (and questions) lurking below the surface. Therefore, instead of trying first to pinpoint an inexact origin, let us begin with a different type of answer: The shifts in biblical interpretation in the late twentieth century have little or nothing to do with the Bible itself. Instead, they have everything to do with the changes occurring in Western thought and culture.

To give us a taste for these shifts, let us mention a number of them in passing. The meaning of “literature” changed—moving from the more narrow poetic type to signifying almost any text type (including the Bible). Romanticism, as it had been applied to literature, completely fell out of favor. The science of language moved from a “soft” philology to a “hard” linguistics. Modernism, that incredibly powerful structure of Western thought prevailing for more than three centuries, cracked and began to crumble. The Cartesian basis for the identity of individuals began to be rejected. Disciplines such as psychology and phenomenology were launched. Old disciplines such as history and literary criticism were largely reinvented. New ideologies such as naturalism, Marxism, and feminism supplanted or complemented previous ideologies. Two world wars, the end of colonialism, and a sexual revolution formed the backdrop for the “narrative turn” in the study of world literature. There were many more factors than we can possibly mention here. Yet, few have anything to do with the Bible itself.4

By acknowledging this up front, we can gain a positive perspective on the literary approach to the Bible. It is just one philosophical approach. It is useful in the era in which we live. One day, it will be eclipsed by another approach. The approach that preceded the literary approach is also just one approach. It was useful in the era in which it was most prominent. It too became eclipsed by another approach. One day, it will probably be found useful again (though in a different form with a different name). If we can recognize that the various historical and literary approaches, with their respective methods, are simply tools in an interpreter’s toolbox, we can faithfully use those tools without fear or blame. Some of these new literary tools—like deconstruction—can seem daunting and unusual at first to beginning students of the Bible, but it is just a tool like any other.5 In any situation, one tool will work better than another, but the skilled interpreter understands that most every tool has its proper use.

Thus it is both true and not true that the literary approach to the Bible goes back to the time of the early church. One chapter in this volume will introduce you to the ancient art of rhetoric. This interpretive method existed long before the writing of the NT, and it comprises one of the modern literary approaches to the Bible. At the same time, one chapter in this volume will introduce you to the variegated methods of poststructuralist thought. These methods are almost completely distinct from ancient interpretive techniques. But both rhetorical criticism and poststructuralism are examples of the many methods that comprise the literary approach to the Bible.

We should clarify a few terms at the outset. This volume of the Lexham Method Series is called The Literary Approach to the Bible. By “literary approach,” a very general and nontechnical term, Bible interpreters mean reading the Bible with an eye for any method that could fit into any literary theory (new or ancient, conventional or radical). In contrast, when we speak of “literary criticism,” we are talking about a specific consideration and analysis of a literary text by means of a literary method. Therefore, a literary approach is a general way of speaking of some type of literary criticism. In contrast, “literary theory” describes a philosophical consideration of the many possible methods and meanings that a reader may be informed of by the text.6 Or, to put it another way, we could describe literary criticism as the practical application of some form of literary theory. In this chapter, even though there will be some “theory” considered, what we are working through is some highlights of literary criticism, far more than literary theory. Literary theory, especially after the shifts in the late twentieth century, tends to be—for the average reader—philosophically dense and often not too interested in the texts themselves.7 The literary approach to the Bible is meaningful, because the Bible is literature—but “literature” is a term describing any text that can be read and interpreted; it no longer refers only to a particular subset of Western writings. Further, we use the word “modern” to denote primarily the thinking and ideology of the classical-to-late modern periods, roughly synonymous with the time between the mid-eighteenth century and the mid-twentieth century; and we use the word “postmodern” to refer to the period beginning from the fall of modernity, which roughly started in the late mid- to late twentieth-century.8

The confusion over these literary foundations has led to the rise of a number of inaccurate assumptions about the literary approach to the Bible. Here we mention the most frequent objections to the literary approach to the Bible:

•The Bible is not literature. The problem with this statement is what one means by “literature.”9 Usually this statement implies that literature is a specific group of fictional works that range from Milton to Hemingway. However, the term “literature,” while traditionally used to mean “to designate fictional and imaginative writings—poetry, prose fiction, and drama,” now means “any other writings (including philosophy, history, and even scientific works addressed to a general audience) that are especially distinguished in form, expression, and emotional power.”10 The former definition is closer to what literary critics mean when they use the term “(literary) canon.” As we rely on current definitions of the word “literature,” the Bible is literature.

•The literary approach is new and therefore anachronistic. The first known occurrence of literary criticism in the West dates back to the production of Aristophanes’ Frogs in 405 BC.11 After this, Aristotle (384–322 BC), Longinus (fl. late first century AD), and Dionysius of Halicarnassus (fl. late first century BC) produced works on literary theory and criticism that are still extant today, not to mention that the Teacher in the book of Ecclesiastes mentions at least one aspect of literary criticism (Eccl 12:9–10). While some of the individual methods within the broad umbrella of the literary approach to the Bible are new and could be used anachronistically, the approach itself is not new and actually predates the NT (and some parts of the OT as well). Further, some methods within other approaches (such as the historical-critical approach, the most notable predecessor to the literary approach) are also new and can also be used anachronistically. Therefore, anachronism is always a concern for interpreters of ancient texts, regardless of approach and method.

•The literary approach has no final “answer” in interpretation or endpoint—many different interpretations are equally valid. This claim is partly true and partly false, but it only has a little to do with the literary approach itself.12 Differences in interpretation have existed from the moment of creation of any biblical text. In past generations, it was not the method that provided an end to interpretive discussion but rather an authority (such as a council, a church, a church leader, or a consensus). It is true that one of the results of recent literary theory is a proliferation of different methods (and as a result, interpretations), but this is more a result of the proliferation of id...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Table of Contents
• Series Preface
• Abbreviations
• Chapter 1: Introduction: The Literary Approach to the Bible (Douglas Estes)
• Chapter 2: Canonical Criticism (Ron Haydon and David Schreiner)
• Chapter 3: Old Testament Rhetorical and Narrative Criticism (Suzanna Smith)
• Chapter 4: Inner-Biblical Interpretation and Intertextuality (Jeffery Leonard)
• Chapter 5: Narrative Criticism of the New Testament (Daniel Brendsel)
• Chapter 6: Rhetorical Criticism of the New Testament (Douglas Estes)
• Chapter 7: Structural Criticism (Gretchen Ellis)
• Chapter 8: Poststructural Criticism (John DelHousaye)
• Bibliography