02 The Historical Critical Method PDF

Lecture 2: The Historical Critical Method's (HCM) Techniques; BI 5305 Advanced
Introduction to the Old Testament; Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Fall 2008
I. INTRODUCTION.1
A. The history of the HCM has been a history of the on-going evolution of newer
methods of exegesis.
1. Each method has seemed to grow out of previous ones, being perceived as
related to them, yet different from them.
2. This process is likely to continue in the future.
B. This evolution of new methods has been perceived in academic circles as an end
in itself, which has produced several problems.2
1. The insistence “that there is, somewhere, a ‘correct’ method which, if only
we could find it, would unlock the mysteries of the text.”
2. “The tendency of each newly-discovered method to excommunicate its

predecessors.”
3. “The tendency to denigrate the ‘ordinary’ reader as ‘non-critical.’”
4. The on-going pursuit of method “tries to process the text, rather than to
read it.”
C. Even with these problems, as we have observed, the HCM is here to stay–it is not
going to go away.
D. The purpose of this lecture is to introduce you to the more prevalent methods
extant at this time.
1
There are many works extant which describe and evaluate the different exegetical methods.
These were the primary ones used in the following discussion: Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of
Biblical Criticism, 3d ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 2001), 1ff.; John H. Hayes and Carl R. Holladay
Biblical Exegesis: A Beginner's Handbook, rev. ed. (Atlanta: John Knox, 1987), 1ff; Victor H.
Matthews and James C. Moyer, The Old Testament: Text and Context (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1997), 28-30.
2
John Barton, Reading the Old Testament: Method in Biblical Study, 2d ed. (Louisville, KY:
Westminster/John Knox, 1996), 5.
1
II. TEXTUAL CRITICISM.
A. The study of the text to “reconstruct the original wording of the Biblical text” and
“to establish the history of the transmission of the text through the centuries.”
B. “The first of these two goals is in fact hypothetical and unattainable. In every
instance the original copy (called the autograph) of the books of the Bible is lost,
hence ever reconstruction is a matter of conjecture. TC’s task, therefore, is to
compare existing MSS, no two of which are alike, in order to develop a ‘critical
text’ . . . which lists variant readings in footnotes, called a ‘critical apparatus.’
Modern translations of the Bible are, in the main, based on such critical texts
(TEV, JB, NEB).”3
C. The BHS and the GNT, or the NA are the most prominent examples of these.4
D. This fact usually surprises the non-professional and indicates we should not say,
“the Greek/Hebrew says,” but say instead, “the Greek/Hebrew, according to X
critical text, says”
III. GRAMMATICAL CRITICISM.
A. “Grammatical criticism includes all attempts to answer questions pertaining to the

language of the text. This includes both the words themselves, either alone or in
phrases, as well as the way in which the words are put together or the syntax of
the sentence or paragraph. Rules of grammar in effect at the time the passage was
written may also need to be examined if it appears that meaning and
understanding depend upon resolving grammatical issues.”5
B. E.g., Acts 2:1 “They” refers back to “apostles,” not the “120”
3
Richard N. Soulen, Handbook, 192.
4
A. Alt, O. Eißfeldt, P. Kahle, et al, eds.. Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelstiftung, 1967/77), abb. BHS; Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo
M. Martini, and Bruce M. Metzger, eds. The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. rev. (Stuttgart:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994) abb. GNT; Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Carlo M. Martini,
Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren, Novum Testamentum Graece, 26th ed. (Stuttgart:
Gesameherstellung Biblia Druck, 1979), abb. NA.
5
Hayes and Holladay, Biblical Exegesis, 27.
2
C. This method encompasses the older “philological study” employed in word

studies.
IV. HISTORICAL CRITICISM.
A. HC deals “. . . with the historical setting of a document, the time and place in
which it was written, its sources, if any, the events, dates, persons, and places
mentioned or implied in the text, etc. Its goal is the writing of a chronological
narrative of pertinent events, revealing where possible the nature and
interconnection of the events themselves.”6
B. HC “. . . is based on assumptions similar to those used in working with other

ancient texts. The biblical critic is concerned with both the situation depicted in
the text and the situation which gave birth to the text.”7
V. SOURCE (THE “OLD” LITERARY CRITICISM).
A. Literary Criticism has three basic definitions:8
1. “a particular approach to the analysis of Scripture which appeared in

systematic form in the 19th cent. (often called Source Criticism) and
which, considerably refined, is still practiced.”
2. “that investigation of a text which seeks to explicate the intention and

achievements of the author through a detailed analysis of the component
elements and structure of the text itself (here the what and how of a
writing rather than its whence or why . . . is sought).”
3. “any undertaking which attempts to understand Biblical literature simply

as literature, often in a manner paralleling the interests and methods of
contemporary literary critics generally, such as I. A. Richards, T. S. Elliot,
Northrop Frye, et al.”
6
Soulen, Handbook, 79.
7
8
3
4. Older scholars used the first definition for the term “Literary Criticism,”
but with the rise of “New Literary Critical School” the method is better
designated “Source Criticism,” leaving the other two definitions for the
new literary critical school's use.
B. Source Criticism, as the first definition asserts, is the task of analyzing the literary
features of a given document to determine its literary character, origins, and states
of written composition in order to determine what particular sources make up the
complete unit.
C. Five pillars of Source Criticism:
1. The use of divine names (Pentateuchal Studies)

2. Language and style.
3. Contradictions and divergences within the text.
4. Duplications and repetition of material.
5. The evidence that different accounts have been combined.
D. Techniques:
1. Compare // accounts, 2 Sam. 7:11-16 vs. 1 Chr. 17:10-14, (God’s promise

to David).
a. Cf. especially 2 Sam 7:14-16 with 1 Chron 13-14

b. In one Yhwh promises to punish for disobedience, but not the other
2. Distinguishing combined accounts, 1 Sam. 16:14ff. And 17:55ff. (David

and Goliath–“Who is this man?”).
a. Chapter 16 Saul is introduced to David.

b. Yet he asks, “Who is this man?” in chapter 17
3. Recognize literary style and terminology;
a. Cf. Judges 3:7-11, 12ff; 4:1ff; 6:1ff.; 10:6ff; 13:1ff.

b. Cf. 2 Kgs 14:1-3; 15:1-3; 16:1-3; 18:1-3, etc.
4. Establish divergent viewpoints and ways of thought, Jer. vs. Jer. 33:14-26,
(Hope for a better day–Redactor?).
4
5. Trace normative motifs, Eccles. 1:2-3 (Vanity of Life in the context of

seeking what is good.)
E. Categories for discovering literary sources:
1. Style–writing technique, structural arrangement, use of language.

2. Terminology–recurring terms, names, expressions, clusters of words.
3. Perspective–central thrust, outlook, vantage point.
F. Examples of supposed sources and their interpretation:
1. Finding sources:
a. Gen 1:1-2:4a & 5=P

b. Gen 2:4b-4:26=J
c. Gen. 6-9= two versions of flood story.
2. Interpreting sources:
a. Yahwist–promise, grace, etc.

b. Priestly writer and covenant–structure–exile or later.
VI. FORM CRITICISM.
A. “(Ger.: Formgeschichte, Gattungsgeschichte) may be loosely defined as the

analysis of the typical forms by which human existence is expressed linguistically;
traditionally this referred particularly to their oral pre-literary state. . . .”9
B. General characteristics:
1. Attempts to ascertain what kind of speech is used when a particular event

was recorded.
2. Was God speaking? If so, was he warning of Judgment? Is the speech an

argument (disputation) between a prophet and his audience?
3. (Some of this we have been doing for years, we have just never called it
form criticism.)
9
5
4. Even so, the method is based on the theory of a long period of oral
tradition before events were committed to writing.
a. We must admit that there was probably an oral period before the
events in books were recorded, but nothing nearly as long as
scholars theorize.
(1) Jeremiah and his book indicate that the preaching (oral) and
the written (both editions) existed side-by-side.
(2) The prophetic books, for example, are probably intended as

prophetic summaries of their ministries.
(3) Surely, there was more to the prophet Jonah's ministry than
what he records in his book (cf. 2 Kgs 14:25)!
(4) Examples of this in more modern times are your sermons,

and Campbell’s “Sermon on the Law.”
b. Rendtorff explains:
On the one hand we must certainly reckon with the fact that for a
long period in ancient Israel a variety of texts were preserved and
handed down by word of mouth and only set down in writing at a
relatively late stage. On the other, we often hear in the Old
Testament that particular things were written down: laws and
commandments (Ex. 24.4; 32.25; Josh. 24.26), legal documents
(Deut. 24.1; Jer. 32.10), cultic texts (Ex. 17.14; Num. 5.23); letters
(II Sam. 11.14; 1 Kings 21.8; II Kings 10.1) etc. There were also
books like the “Book of the Wars of YHWH” (Num. 21.14); the
“Book of the Just” (Josh. 10:13; II Sam. 1.18), the “Chronicles” of
Solomon (I Kings 11.41) and the “Chronicles” of the kings of
Israel (I Kings 14.19, etc.) and Judah (I Kings 1.29, etc.).10
C. Principles (assumptions, presuppositions):
10
Rolf Rendtorff, The Old Testament: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Fortress, 1986), 79-80.
6
1. Inherent in the long oral prehistory of the text, there is a certain tenacity in
the genres, but also flexibility and change as they develop.
2. Each genre originates in a particular Sitz im Leben and this setting can be
recovered through a study of the genre itself.
3. In earliest usage genres were short, oral, and originated in and were
employed in general, communal life.
4. Collections of popular and classical literature came into being as Israel

moved into a more literary phase.
a. Collectors gave structure and unity to literature derived from its

oral stage.
b. In the final stages, different genres were combined and mixed.
D. Goals:
1. To recover the full living history of the OT literature, especially for insight
into oral stages and to place all stages into their settings in the life of
Israel.
2. To operate as a tool of exegesis to help grasp the meaning of texts.
E. Methods:
1. Structure–analyze, outline, pattern, schema (original unit) for analysis,

formulae, patterns.
2. Genre–describe type, example, elements constant or variable,

conventional structure of genre and how different.
3. Setting–situation which maintained the various genres - speaker, audience,

etc.
4. Intention–state purpose, etc.
F. Relation to other criticisms:
7
1. Literary criticism:
a. Form Criticism–not authors but collectors, editors, redactors of

traditions.
b. Form Criticism–new way of analysis through structure, genre,

intent.
c. Evidence of multiple authorship = evidence of multiple traditions.
2. Gave rise to:
a. Tradition criticism–complete history of OT literature through pre-

literary stages.
b. Redaction criticism–theological motivation as for the revision of

the material gave it emphasis and themes.
G. Form Criticism and the Historian–Form criticism uncovers older traditions

closer to events, separates these out from the newer interpretations, and helps
reconstruct institutions.
H. Form Criticism and Theology–how people created and passed on and used
traditions. There are many different genres which are reflected in this
transmission. Rentorff categorizes them according to the following groupings:11
1. Genres of the Family, Clan, Tribe, and Local Community: love songs,
lamentation, communal songs, proverbs, riddles, wisdom, prohibitions,
tribal sayings, narratives, folk tales, sagas, novellas, aetiologies, legends,
sacred narrative.
2. Genres of the Legal Sphere: clan law, family law, legal procedures,
accusations, defenses, confessions, verdicts, consequences, casuistic laws,
apodictic laws, prohibitions, law of death, and curses.
3. The Cult: nomadic worship, communion and sacrifice, passover,

pilgrimage, cultic legends, festal calendars, sacrificial rituals, atonement,
purity, psalms, hymns, songs of Zion, participial hymns, imperative
11
Rendtorff, Old Testament, 80-128.
8
hymns, hymns to Yhwh, individual hymns, lamentations, and songs of

thanksgiving.
4. Political Institutions--Monarchy: lists, historical narratives (rise of

David; succession to the throne), royal psalms, wisdom traditions, wisdom
sayings, admonitions, proverbs, didactic discourses, didactic narrative, and
personification of wisdom
5. Prophecy: terms descriptive of prophets (seers, men of God, sons of

prophets, prophetic groups, prophetic office, relationship to king, various
metaphors), narratives about prophets, sign actions, visions, message
formulas, words of disaster, announcements of judgment, two-part saying,
admonitions, disputation sayings, words of salvation, sayings against
foreign nations, and apocalyptic.
VII. TRADITION CRITICISM
A. Derives from form criticism and is “the study of the history of oral traditions
during the period of their transmission.”12
B. This method attempts to reconstruct the entire history of a particular literary unit
from it hypothetical origin and development in its oral stage to its composition
and final redaction in literary form.
C. For example, the revised edition of Jeremiah was also an expanded version (cf.
36:1-4, 23, 27-31). So can we trace the earliest to the latest components of the
book until its Hebrew text of Jeremiah extant today is adequately explained?
VIII. REDACTION CRITICISM.
A. This method “seeks to lay bare the theological perspectives of a Biblical writer by
analyzing the editorial (redactional) and compositional techniques and
interpretations employed by him in shaping and framing the written and/or oral
traditions at hand. . . .”13
12
13
9
B. Often the things identified as theological (or special) interests are what we
evangelicals call the divine interests.
C. E.g., some scholars see several things as the special interests of the so-called Dtr:
1. “There was no king in Israel, every man did what was right in his own
eyes.”
2. The reasons given for the fall of the nations of Israel and Judah.
3. Reasons given for the particular punishment of an individual.
4. Explanations of historical events and circumstances.
IX. STRUCTURALIST CRITICISM.
A. This is an ahistorical approach which focuses on the structure of the language to

determine the relationship of the “whole” text.
B. “Structuralists are as interested in how texts communicate and have meaning as in

what they communicate and mean. They emphasize such questions as the
following: How does a particular text produced under particular cultural
constraints embody and give expression to universal concerns? How does a
reader decode the text or how does the text communicate its deep structure to
resonate with the deep structures of the reader? For structural literary critics,
emphasis falls on the text and the reader and the process of reading and
understanding rather than on such matters a writing and the author's intention.”14
X. CANONICAL CRITICISM.
A. Is less interested in textual development and more interested in the final form of
the text.
B. “Primary here is the perspective of the text as ‘sacred’ or ‘canonical’ and the
process of asking questions about the ways in which the text is used to address the
faith concerns of the communities that use it.”15
14
15
Matthews and Moyer, Old Testament, 29.
10
XI. SOCIAL-SCIENTIFIC CRITICISM.
A. Attempts to understand the text in terms of the social world.
B. Utilizes psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc. "to recreate the biblical world
and to gain insights into the reasoning behind such things as ritual, shame as a
social control device, and legal procedure."16
XII. NEW LITERARY CRITICAL SCHOOL.
A. Once the sources were found, the explanation of how they were combined to form
the complete text became of primary importance.
B. Such emphasis on the nature of the completed text evolved this new literary
approach.
C. Simply put, any time a text is discussed in terms of its completed state this is part
of what is known as literary criticism.
D. Major characteristics include:
1. View all received texts as wholes.
2. Acceptance of the work as intentional production of single author (some

ignore this–not concerned).
3. Bible as literature on synchronic level–for its own sake.
4. Key to meaning is logic and intrinsic rather than historical situation.
5. As a result the method is more interested in readers than authors.
XIII. NARRATIVE CRITICISM.
A. Narrative Criticism is a spin-off of the New Literary Criticism.
16
11
B. “Through a close reading, this method identifies formal and conventional

structures of the narrative, determines plot, develops characterization,
distinguishes point of view, exposes language play, and relates it all to some
overarching theme.”17
C. This method is much more palatable to conservative scholars.
XIV. READER RESPONSE CRITICISM.
A. A spin-off of both the New Literary Criticism as well as Narrative Criticism.
B. Assumes that the communication process involves understanding the relationship

between sender, message, and receiver.
C. Every text presupposes a reader, whether a real person or a hypothetical reader,

who influences the way the text is structured and framed.
D. The author assumes the reader has the ability to decode and understand what is
written (similar to the symbols in Revelation)
XV. POSTCRITICAL BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
A. Cannot use “postcritical criticism,” as this would be an oxymoron.
B. The very name indicates a “denial” of critical methods
1. “Postcritical biblical interpretation is not ‘post’ critical because it rejects

outright critical methodologies and their guiding philosophical
assumptions.”
2. Rather, the postcritical exegete argues the above critical methodologies

“fully bracket out questions of ultimate meaning and too often devolve
into interminable scholastic debates about the methodological legitimacy
or adequacy of this or that approach.”
C. “Unlike methodologies such as source and form criticism, which disintegrate the
text into its antecedent kernels, postcritical biblical interpretation assumes that the
canonical form of the text was designed to convey a message, and that finally the
17
12
Bible itself is a text in its own right in which all discernible units large and small
take on new hues and connotations.”
D. This message is determined by the community, the end result of which means the
meaning of the text is fluid.18
XVI. POSTMODERN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
A. Once again, we cannot use the term “criticism,” because the postmodern critic “is
suspicious of modern rationalist accounts of truth, reason, and objectivity.”
1. The postmodern exegete “sees the world and personal identities as diverse,
dispersed, indeterminate, and ungrounded.”
2. He “celebrates (or is resigned to) an approach to life and thought that is

playful, eclectic, pluralistic, and subversive of traditional boundaries.”
B. The postmodern exegete attempts to point out what he/she considers to be three
fallacies of biblical criticism:
1. “the view that biblical texts are artifacts that have a single, stable,
meaning”
2. “a text’s meaning, though initially hidden from the modern interpreter by

temporal and cultural distances, can be recovered by historical
reconstruction”
3. “the benefits of critical methods accrue over time as methods become

more sophisticated and as data increase.”
C. The postmodern exegete asserts instead “. . . the meaning of a text is not ‘in’ the
text waiting to be recovered through the use of neutral, generally applicable
criteria. Rather, textual meaning is constructed through the interplay of a text’s
semantic and rhetorical aspects and the reader’s own life-world. In effect, the
reader constructs the meaning of a text by creative use of the language, nuances,
and conventions in which the reader is immersed. Thus postmodern biblical
interpretation shifts the focus of attention from the historical origins of a text (‘the
world behind the text’) and even from the text itself (‘the world of the text’) to the
18
Soulen, Handbook, 139-40.
13
reader’s use of a text within a given community of interpretation (‘the world in

front of the text’).”
D. Doing this means the postmodern exegete emphasizes two things:
1. The distinctiveness of different interpretative communities and the

insistence that no community can claim to particular knowledge of a text.
2. The interpretative process requires the reader “to lay bare his or her
interests in the act of reading the text” (race, gender, class, sexuality,
institutional location, etc.) as part of the interpretive process.19
E. The form of interpretation makes truth relative (fluid), involves the exegete in
eisegesis rather than exegesis, and is very common in our pluralistic society.
XVII. POSTCOLONIAL BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION
A. This approach is the umbrella term covering a multitude of practices, such as the
last two discussed.
B. It emphasizes that all interpretation of the past three to four hundred must be
viewed through the lens of the imperial and colonial ideas of dominance and
resistance.
C. It focuses on the Bible in the context of Western colonialism
1. “It demonstrates how Christian missionaries, official representatives of the

colonizing powers, and colonized peoples themselves used the Bible in
ways that legitimated colonialism.”
2. The focus is on how these interpreted the Bible rather than any inherent
meaning of the holy word
a. Cf. Roy Moore’s lawyers’ argument in his Ten Commandments

lawsuit as argued before the Supreme Court
b. “These laws are part of our culture and should be allowed to be

displayed.”
19
14
3. So “The Bible figures not as an ancient document to be investigated, or as

a source of faith to be interpreted, but as an instrument of colonial power
to be unmasked and deflected.
D. Postcolonial interpretation uses diverse methods, including, but not limited to:
1. Comparative religion
2. Feminist interpretation
3. Afrocentric interpretation
4. Folklore
E. Such an approach means the postcolonial exegete determines “to accept the
ideological distortion of God’s word as God’s word “20
XVIII. POSTCRITICAL, POSTMODERN, AND POSTCOLONIAL

INTERPRETATION HAVE OPENED THE DOOR FOR A NUMBER OF
NEW CRITICISMS.21
A. Feminist Criticism.
1. The rise of feminism has developed this approach in biblical studies.
2. “Feminist critics attempt to show the intrinsic importance of women in the

ancient world and the influence they had in shaping its culture as well as
the biblical narrative.”22
3. Consists of a wide range of feminists.
a. Some, such as Mary Daly and Andrea Dworkin, have been

identified as “radical” and “inappropriate for doing biblical
studies,” while others, such as Alice Bach, Mieke Bal, Athalya
20
21
R. P. Carroll, “The Reader and the Text,” in Text in Context, A. D. H. Mayes, ed. (Oxford:
Oxford University, 2000), 14-23.
22
15
Brenner, and Cheryl Exum “have worked the Bible brilliantly for
and on behalf of women readers.”23
b. Such exegetes have highlighted what they see as “The hostility

towards women which may be apparent in the texts,” which, they
argue, “raises questions about metaphor, metonym, trope, and
representation are used in the biblical text and then appropriated by
reading communities.”24
c. Such interpretation means, according to them that “The prophetic

penchant for denouncing Israel as a whore, a faithless wife or a
promiscuous bawd (e.g. Ezekiel 16,23; cf. Hosea 1,3) can no
longer be tolerated in silence or internalized as a biblical value, but
must be challenged, deconstructed, and opposed by modern readers
and readings.”25
d. Such is easily seen in more subtle ways—Job’s wife echoes

Satan’s statements (“Curse God and die.”)
B. Ethnicity:
1. Assumes “because every ethnic group has a different story and brings to
the biblical text different ways of reading it” (Carroll, 18)
2. The problem with this method is the imprecise meaning of “ethnicity.”
3. People are multi-cultured:
a. What is your background according to genealogy, social status, job,

political orientation, religious orientation, etc.?
b. Which ones are to be accepted and which ones are to be rejected?
4. One perfect example is the Global Bible Commentary
23
Carroll, “The Reader and the Text,” 17.
24
25
16
a. What I wrote:
The socio-political climate of today’s globally shrinking

world demands that Bible students, whether academician,
pastor, evangelist, or the like, maintain a dialogue with
those engaged in similar pursuits, but living in other
contexts. The GBC facilitates this process because of its
methodology. Each commentary opens with an
identification of the commentator’s personal social
location, proceeds with an interpretation of the text, and
concludes with a discussion of the text’s relevance or
irrelevance in the commentator’s larger life setting. The
result for readers of the GBC is the entrance into the world
of others, who may not “see as we see,” “think as we
think,” “believe as we believe,” but nevertheless perceive
God’s word as a relevant force in their lives. This dialogue
of diversity is a necessary first step to achieve “the unity of
the spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph 4:3).
—Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Bible
Faulkner University
b. What they printed:
The socio-political climate of today’s globally shrinking

world demands that Bible students, whether academician,
pastor, evangelist, or the like, maintain a dialogue with
those engaged in similar pursuits, but living in other
contexts. The GBC facilitates this process because of its
methodology. Each commentary opens with an
identification of the commentator’s personal social
location, proceeds with an interpretation of the text, and
concludes with a discussion of the text’s relevance or
irrelevance in the commentator’s larger life setting. The
result for readers of the GBC is the entrance into the world
of others, who may not “see as we see,” “think as we
think,” “believe as we believe,” but nevertheless perceive
God’s word as a relevant force in their lives.
17
c. Not only are they arguing that each culture should read the Bible in
its own way, but, “Jehoiakim like” they edited out what I wrote,
interpreting my words as they desired rather than what I said.
d. Revisionist history, etc., is part of this whole movement
C. Fundamentalism:
1. Comprised of such wide-ranging groups, all of which are often “inimical

to academic and historical readings,” and which “have tended to be kept
isolated from one another.”26
2. Fundamentalists make up the major groups with which you are familiar:
a. A rejection of rationalism
b. A belief in the plenary verbal inspiration of the scriptures
c. Their views of inspiration usually predisposes them to a “flat”

reading of the text—“God said it, that settles it.”
d. Premillennial in orientation
D. Carroll’s evaluation of these yields food for thought:
Personally I find all modern approaches to reading the Bible which make no
allowance for the historical and antique dimensions of the Bible to be fairly
useless because they confuse modernistic readings with wishful thinking and
impose their own ideological holdings on the text while fondly imagining that
they are doing nothing more than reading the text innocently. I am however aware
that religious communities invariably read the Bible as if it were timeless and
addressed to themselves and therefore the historical-critical scrutiny is regarded as
being not only unnecessary but intrusive and wrongheaded. Between these two
poles I imagine most Bible readers may well find themselves.27
XIX. SUMMARY AND LIMITATIONS.
26
Carroll, “The Reader and the Text, 21.
27
18
A. The HCM is a conglomeration of approaches which “seeks to reconstruct the life

and thought of biblical times through an objective, scientific analysis of biblical
material.”28
B. As we noted previously, this approach is here to stay, though some have begun in
this postmodern world to talk of its demise.
C. “Modern readers are . . . faced with a plethora of reading strategies of hermeneutic

possibilities and conflicting systems in relation to communities of Bible reading,
which embarrass them with the riches of what is on offer. What must also perplex
modern readers however is the range of choice and the competing claims for
attention and commitment. How is any one group to determine which strategies
they should employ and which communities they should join?” (Carroll, 23).
D. This is the postmodern world in which we live.
E. In light of Peter’s admonition to “. . . but in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord.

Always be ready to make your defense to anyone who demands from you an
accounting for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet 3:15), how prepared are you?
F. People are around you everyday that have absorbed some of these beliefs.
28
Mark Allen Powell, “The Bible and Modern Literary Criticism,” Summary of Proceedings of
ATLA, 43d meeting (1989), 79.
19

02 The Historical Critical Method PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

02 The Historical Critical Method PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture 2: The Historical Critical Method's (HCM) Techniques; BI 5305 Advanced

Introduction to the Old Testament; Randall C. Bailey, Ph.D.; Fall 2008

2. This process is likely to continue in the future.

2. “The tendency of each newly-discovered method to excommunicate its

3. “The tendency to denigrate the ‘ordinary’ reader as ‘non-critical.’”

II. TEXTUAL CRITICISM.

III. GRAMMATICAL CRITICISM.

A. “Grammatical criticism includes all attempts to answer questions pertaining to the

C. This method encompasses the older “philological study” employed in word

IV. HISTORICAL CRITICISM.

B. HC “. . . is based on assumptions similar to those used in working with other

V. SOURCE (THE “OLD” LITERARY CRITICISM).

A. Literary Criticism has three basic definitions:8

1. “a particular approach to the analysis of Scripture which appeared in

2. “that investigation of a text which seeks to explicate the intention and

3. “any undertaking which attempts to understand Biblical literature simply

C. Five pillars of Source Criticism:

1. The use of divine names (Pentateuchal Studies)

1. Compare // accounts, 2 Sam. 7:11-16 vs. 1 Chr. 17:10-14, (God’s promise

a. Cf. especially 2 Sam 7:14-16 with 1 Chron 13-14

2. Distinguishing combined accounts, 1 Sam. 16:14ff. And 17:55ff. (David

a. Chapter 16 Saul is introduced to David.

3. Recognize literary style and terminology;

a. Cf. Judges 3:7-11, 12ff; 4:1ff; 6:1ff.; 10:6ff; 13:1ff.

5. Trace normative motifs, Eccles. 1:2-3 (Vanity of Life in the context of

E. Categories for discovering literary sources:

1. Style–writing technique, structural arrangement, use of language.

F. Examples of supposed sources and their interpretation:

a. Gen 1:1-2:4a & 5=P

a. Yahwist–promise, grace, etc.

VI. FORM CRITICISM.

A. “(Ger.: Formgeschichte, Gattungsgeschichte) may be loosely defined as the

1. Attempts to ascertain what kind of speech is used when a particular event

2. Was God speaking? If so, was he warning of Judgment? Is the speech an

(2) The prophetic books, for example, are probably intended as

(4) Examples of this in more modern times are your sermons,

C. Principles (assumptions, presuppositions):

4. Collections of popular and classical literature came into being as Israel

a. Collectors gave structure and unity to literature derived from its

b. In the final stages, different genres were combined and mixed.

2. To operate as a tool of exegesis to help grasp the meaning of texts.

1. Structure–analyze, outline, pattern, schema (original unit) for analysis,

2. Genre–describe type, example, elements constant or variable,

3. Setting–situation which maintained the various genres - speaker, audience,

4. Intention–state purpose, etc.

F. Relation to other criticisms:

a. Form Criticism–not authors but collectors, editors, redactors of

b. Form Criticism–new way of analysis through structure, genre,

c. Evidence of multiple authorship = evidence of multiple traditions.

2. Gave rise to:

a. Tradition criticism–complete history of OT literature through pre-

b. Redaction criticism–theological motivation as for the revision of

G. Form Criticism and the Historian–Form criticism uncovers older traditions

3. The Cult: nomadic worship, communion and sacrifice, passover,

hymns, hymns to Yhwh, individual hymns, lamentations, and songs of

4. Political Institutions--Monarchy: lists, historical narratives (rise of

5. Prophecy: terms descriptive of prophets (seers, men of God, sons of

VII. TRADITION CRITICISM

VIII. REDACTION CRITICISM.

3. Reasons given for the particular punishment of an individual.

4. Explanations of historical events and circumstances.

IX. STRUCTURALIST CRITICISM.

A. This is an ahistorical approach which focuses on the structure of the language to