Implication
of Historical Criticism: Jewish Scripture or Old Testament
Written
by John
Lee on the date of April 12, 1994
I. Why is doing
historical criticism on traditions found on the Bible not always identical with
interpreting Jewish Scripture or Christian "Old Testament"?
The priority in biblical interpretation of Jewish
scripture and the Old Testament differ each other mainly because the principal subject matter of
Scripture within Judaism is the Torah, and that within Christianity is the
Gospel of Jesus Christ. Within Jewish
scripture, torah, prophecy, and wisdom become key idioms of biblical
revelation. So Judaism debates the
relation of torah to wisdom, or how the later prophecy provides commentary on
the torah. Christians inherit these
idioms from Judaism; and in the written Gospels, Jesus is presented as one
greater than Moses, the prophets, or Solomon, one who employs and fulfills each
of these idioms in the age of Messiah.
It further raises questions of the relativism between law and wisdom,
and law and Gospel.
We need to consider how other key idioms of scripture
play an important role. Within the
divisions of Jewish Scripture we find blocks of literature associated with
certain figures who are identified with particular idioms of revelation. Moses is presented in association with Torah:
At the end of Deuteronomy that says no prophet will arise who is superior to
Moses guarantees that his account of the Torah cannot be supplanted by any
later prophet claims. Next we find the
Prophets who do not know God face to face, but whose prophetic word is an idiom
of revelation complementing the revelation of the Torah through Moses. In 1 King 3:12, Solomon is presented as
receiving the gift of wisdom from God, and he is described in language similar
to that of Moses as the sage par
excellence. As the Mosaic books
within scripture demarcate the essentials of the Torah and the prophetic books
circumscribe the prophetic word, so the Solomonic books epitomize a divinely
given wisdom (cf. Prov. 2:6; 30:1-6).
By maintaining a sensitivity to the role of scripture in Judaism and
Christianity, we can begin to describe how the context and intertext of
scripture reflect a transformation of mere human words into a biblical witness
to divine revelation.
Because of the human element in Scripture, we need valid
and reliable evidences which enable us to establish the background of the
authors and what the authors meant when they wrote of which the knowledge does
not come from revelation. The historical
criticism deals with the problems of how the biblical books were historically formed with consideration of the form and function of
scripture. In doing historical criticism,
we seek to hear the text,
with internal and external criticism, apart from the mass of biblical
interpretation that has been laid over it in the history of its use. This basic respect for the historical
integrity of a text sometimes causes difference with Jewish scripture or the
Old Testament .
In the debate between liberalism and literalism, the
form and function of the biblical text as a scripture within a religion has
received surprisingly little attention, because the "realism of a
text" had become associated almost entirely with the accuracy of its
implied reference to the past historical events. The modern method of literary interpretation
has opened the door to a fresh debate about the primary norms of reality, and
therefore, "realism." The
change in the intellectual climate of opinion regarding the relation between
history and realism perhaps to explain why liberal historical critics have
begun to re-evaluate more positively the role of editors in the formation of
scripture. A revision of our
understanding of the history of the
interpretation of scripture was inevitable and the consequences for how we will
play the Bible to commentary and preaching are startling.
There is always the possibility that a text which does
not seem to have a literal sense
for one generation may be viewed in a different light by another. Nonetheless, the principle subject that the
literal sense must envision the text as a witness to its subject matter
corresponds to the most basic definition of the Bible as a scripture. Our appeal to the Bible as scripture is not
simply an arbitrary "functionalist" position, but claims to honour
the actual form of the Bible itself.
Doing historical criticism enables us to reconstruct historical events
in the pre-history of the Bible, however, we should not forget the form and
function of scripture.
II. How can a knowledge of
historical criticism prove helpful or essential to a modern understanding,
whether theological or not, of scripture?
A helpful and essential way to understand Genesis is,
first of all, a source critical method, the recognition and isolation of the
component narrative strands of J, E, and P; and then form critical study of the
origin and development of the smaller parts of the larger complexes and sources
and the institutional setting of these identified units. We also can get help through the literary
critical method, which deals with the final form of text with literary
sensitivity, within the framework of the text as Scripture, as the sacred
collection of writings normative for communities of faith. Other contemporary approaches include
feminist's interpretation in chaps. 1-3 and in the ancestor stories in chaps.
12-50.
Gen. 1-11 will illustrate the interdependence of the
sources. Two blocks assigned to P are
1:1-2:4a and 5:1-28, 30-32. When we read
these two sections in sequence, the discrepancy between the two passages is
immediately apparent. Genesis 5 begins
by recalling the creation of humanity in the divine image (1:26) and of the
divine command to reproduce (1:28).
1:26ff. uses the noun "Adam" in its generic sense of mankind,
whereas 5:1 employs it as a proper name.
The solution to this friction lies in the transition from generic term
to a proper name which the J source had made in chaps. 2-4. The link between the P and J material lies on
a far deeper level than is generally assumed.
Both the form and content of P are shaped by the earlier sources. The priestly genealogical formula in 2:4a,
"these are the generations of the heaven and earth" is the
introduction to the J account in 2:4bff, which makes it clear that J's account
has been subordinated to P's account.
The formula can neither refer to P's prior creation account nor stand
alone, nor refer to the next block of P material which follows in 5:1. Therefore we should conclude that the
priestly formula serves a redactional purpose of linking together the P and J
creation accounts. Moreover, the formula in 2:4 must be on a different literary level
from the Priestly creation account of which it is not an integral part. We can notice, in chaps 1-2, that two
different accounts have not been simply juxtaposed in Genesis as two parallel
creation stories, but rather they have mutual influence between P and J
material in the process of canonical shaping.
Prior to Enlightenment, it was assumed that Isaiah wrote
the whole book of Isaiah in the eighth
century B.C. The historical critical
study of the last two centuries discovered that Isaiah 40-55 and 56-66 are
collection of prophetic speeches dating to the second half of the sixth century
B.C. and appended to chaps. 1-39 the bulk of which records the eighth century
work of Isaiah of Jerusalem. Chaps.
40-55 are easily dated. The author assumes that his hearers in
Babylon are aware that Cyrus II will conquer the Neo-Babylonian Empire. This assumption was possible only after Cyrus
deposed his sovereign Astyages of Media in 550 B.C. and conquered Croesus of
Lydia in 547. Therefore Second Isaiah
must have been written afterwards.
Isaiah's own version of the tradition influenced Second
Isaiah. Isaiah preached the decree of
judgment he heard in the divine assembly (chap. 6), and the author of Second
Isaiah preached the decree of
restoration he heard (40:1-11). The
Assyrian king had been the instrument of punishment for Zion (10:5-9) and the
Persian king was the instrument of the restoration for Zion (44:24-45:13). Second Isaiah also exploits several times the
darkness-light sequence of 8:16-9:7 for exile-restoration; and also utilizes
other traditions, for example of the new exodus-conquest tradition from Hosea 2
and Ezekiel 20. By doing the source
criticism and the form criticism we can easily detect logical inconsistencies,
and what is typical and recurrent in Second Isaiah: idol passages (41:21-24)
and four servant songs (42:1-4, 49:1-6, 50:4-11, 52:13-53:12).
Historical critical study recognized the association of
Solomon with the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs as a later
imposition on earlier traditions. Judaism
and early Christianity sought to interpret the Song of Songs allegorically. Cult theory proposes that the original
function of the Song was ritual or cultic in close analogy to the Babylonian
Tammuz festival or the Baal cycles of Canaanite myth.
Form critical studies recognize that Song of Songs is
partly a collection of older erotic love songs.
Many scholars conclude that the Song was in its earliest form, several
distinct shorter poems, although there is disagreement about the number of
poems comprising the whole. Though
Solomon is mentioned at a few places, the book begins and concludes in the
first person voice of woman. Only the
title links Solomon to the book as the author and its conformity to a fixed
editorial formula is a sign that we cannot trust it historically. However, from this reason that the Song is
attributed to a great sage Solomon, the Song, in my opinion, should be
interpreted in the context of wisdom literature. It is clear from the redactional addition of
wisdom saying in 8:6-7, which does the role of climax of the Song. In 8:6, "a raging flame" in Hebrew
with emphatic "yah" ending suggests that love is the powerful divine
passion.
Historical critical approach enables us to see the Song
in a form critical method, and leads us to analyze and find similarities with
Egyptian poems with import of secular love songs. Literary critical reading of the Song may end
up with a mere secular love songs, however, reading the Song within the
framework of God's revelation enables us to find the divine nature in this
secular love song.
III. Implications for my
own preaching the Bible in a church
Preaching is an effort to interpret the literal sense of
scripture according to the witness of its subject matter, the Gospel, and in
the light of various biblical idioms of revelation: the law of God, God's
promise and judgment, and the wisdom of God. Historical criticism is essential for our precise and
scientific understanding of the grammar and etymology of the biblical text and
give greater acuity to our programmatic vision of the scripture as a literal
witness to divine revelation. However Scripture as the Church's collection of sacred
and normative books goes beyond what the authors meant in a particular
book. Therefore critical biblical
scholarship is not an option but a necessity for our preaching and the Bible
study, but it should be done within the framework of God's revelation.
|