Topical Memory System Package: Hide God's Word in Your Heart Book

To Each Its Own Meaning is a collection of essays that introduces the most important methods of biblical criticism. McKenzie and Haynes are both professors at Rhodes College, the former specializing in Hebrew Bible and the latter being a professor of religious studies. Their own contrasting professional experience reflects the major shift in biblical criticism in the past fifty years: McKenzie is trained in the traditional historical-critical method while Haynes has a nontraditional skill set in literary criticism. This contrast is seen in the structure of the book itself. The first part (“Traditional Methods of Biblical Criticism”) opens with a chapter dealing with history and Scripture in general, followed by essays on Source Criticism, Form Criticism, Tradition-Historical Criticism, and Redaction Criticism. The second part (“Expanding the Tradition”) treats disciplines that began in the twentieth-century such as Social-Scientific Criticism, Canonical Criticism, and Rhetorical Criticism. The final part of the book deals with the most recent disciplines at the time of the book’s publication: Structural Criticism, Narrative Criticism, Reader-Response Criticism, Poststructuralist Criticism, Feminist Criticism, and Socioeconomic Criticism.
Originally published in 1993, this book was revised in 1999 to include two treatments of critical methods that were not as popular six years earlier (Feminist Criticism and Socioeconomic Criticism). Two of the essays (form criticism and rhetorical criticism) in the second edition were written by different authors because the first essays were not wide enough in scope to connect with the target audience. Each of the other contributors had the opportunity to update their essays with relevant information. Revision and expansion notwithstanding, this twenty-seven year old book is somewhat dated now that Feminist Criticism and Socioeconomic Criticism are much more common. Nevertheless, the information presented here still represents the main branches of the discipline. In fact, recent developments in methodology such as reception history may indicate that not much has changed in the past two decades.
This volume stands out because it not only explains the most important critical methods but it demonstrates the methods in each chapter with a test case, an example of each research method in action. Each chapter follows the same pattern of providing an explanation of the field of criticism under consideration, an overview of its development, and an illustration of how it works. The authors developed this format from years of teaching introductory classes and struggling to use biblical criticism to bring “the Bible to life for undergraduates” (6). Some essays in this book are easier to read than others but if the sections that illustrate these biblical criticisms in action were removed, this book would be as a dry read. Seeing how a redaction critic reads Jesus’s sermon at Nazareth, for example, is a highly effective method for seeing the strengths and weaknesses of this approach (which are discussed below).
Another benefit of this book is its demonstration of diversity within each discipline of biblical criticism. The individual authors help readers to see that each field of criticism is nuanced and resists hard and fast categorization. Most of the authors reveal not only how distinct each discipline is but also how diverse the thought is within each discipline. For example, Edgar V. McKnight’s chapter on Reader-Response Criticism opened my eyes to the methodological nuances within this field of research. Not each reader-response critic searches for meaning within the response of the reader but some take mediating positions between reader-response and the more general “literary” criticism, such as Wolfgang Iser who takes the position “that meaning is purely and simply a content of texts” while at the same time affirming that “meaning is essentially a product of the reader” (232). It is enlightening to see scholars within the different brances of biblical studies working to nuance their field of research.
McKenzie and Haynes’s target audience is “the student, educated members of the clergy, and the nonspecialist who teaches the Bible” (5). Although “the nonspecialist who teaches the Bible”, depending on his training, may have trouble reading and understanding some jargon at times, the contributing authors meet the goal set by the editors. They have balanced the book on one end with specialist authors who bring their expertise to the student and on the other end with the fascinating demonstrations of how their field of research approaches the Scriptures, which keeps the interest of the student.
The weaknesses of this book are the same kind of weaknesses any edited volume may have with an inconsistency in style from chapter to chapter. For the most part, the goals set forth by the editors create a consistent framework for each contributor yet the individual style of the authors can be considered both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength because diversity in a treatment of different critical methods provides greater depth of knowledge and expertise. This is also a weakness, however, because the writing style gives the reader a feeling like riding in a car on the interstate with a driver who is feathering the gas pedal. One author is concise and smooth while the next is verbose and cumbersome.
The opening chapter, “Reading the Bible Historically: The Historian’s Approach” by J. Maxwell Miller of Emory University, sets the pace for the first part of the book on traditional historical-critical methods of research. This essay teases out the tension between the Bible being written as history as well as theology, a tension critical scholars have seen as mixing together oil and water. Miller is correct when he says that “the biblical writers were more akin to contemporary theologians than to historians. Nevertheless, the theological messages that the biblical writers sought to convey are so thoroughly intermeshed with their perceptions of history that it is difficult to separate one from the other” (21). However, Miller surely has his own theological convictions that influence his perception of history. Miller demonstrates for readers, perhaps unknowingly, the presupposition that historical inquiry can be completely objective. For example, he speaks of “apparent contradictions” in the Bible (21) and the “often legendary context” from which the historian “must separate the authentic historical memory” (22). Miller concedes that the weak epigraphical evidence in ancient Palestine and the political insignificance of ancient Israel helps explain why there is so little evidence to corroborate the biblical text. Miller’s own presuppositions notwithstanding, this first essay is a fine example of the purpose and assumptions of the historical-critical method.
The second essay, “Source Criticism,” is written by Pauline A. Viviano of Loyola University of Chicago. The editors are to be commended for using qualified female scholars as representatives of the different research methods (Viviano is one of the five female contributors). She defines source criticism simply as “the determination of written sources” (35–36), noting that oral sources are the focus of form criticism. The criteria source critics use to find the written sources behind the text are “variations in style, vocabulary, and perspective; contradictions and inconsistencies in a passage or between passages; abrupt interruptions that break the continuity of a passage; and various kinds of duplications or repetitions” (37). These criteria, however, are subjective and not guaranteed to provide concrete answers. For example, in her treatment of Gen 1–11 she argues that the change in perspective in Gen 1:1–2:4a and 2:4b–4:26 means that scholars “are forced to conclude that there are two very different images of God in Genesis 1–11” (46). Viviano overlooks her own assumption that God’s personality is static and can be so easily categorized as either “majestic and transcendent” or “down-to-earth, humanlike” (46). Neverthless, her essay is helpful in tracing the historical development of source criticism and she even concedes that the “criteria source critics use are inadqueate for identifying sources” (52). In the end, this is a fair treatment of source criticism.
The third essay, “Form Criticism,” is by Marvin A. Sweeney of Claremont Graduate University. He defines form criticism by distinguishing the concept of form from genre. “Form refers to the unique formulation of an individual text...whereas genre refers to the typical conventions of expression” (59). Form criticism, then, is the search for the formulation of a text. The most valuable part of Sweeney’s essay is his tracing of form criticism’s history which reveals the presuppositions of the first form critics by placing them in their own historical context. For example, Hermann Gunkel operates on “the prevailling view that primitive peoples were relatively simple minded and incapable of memorizing lengthy texts” (61), which may say more about Gunkel than the “primitive peoples.” Also Gerhard Von Rad and Martin Noth, both Germans, were highly influenced by the situation in Germany in World War II, questioning “the preoccupation with tracing the historical development of ideal centralized leadership” (65). As a whole, Sweeney’s chapter is full of fascinating details about the history of form criticism and the execution of form criticis in Gen 15. However, Sweeney is verbose and the reader could get lost in the details, especially considering that this is an introduction to form criticism.
The essay on “Tradition-Historical Criticism,” by Robert A. Di Vito of Loyola University of Chicago, details how this research method depends on form criticism and source criticism to “reconstruct the history of the transmission of the various individual traditions and tradition complexes that are to be found in the Old Testament” (91). Herein is the weakness of tradition-historical criticism: it stands or falls on the back of source and form criticism. He addresses other problems, such as disagreement among tradition-historical critics regarding their methodology and goals, not least the lofty goal of recovering “the entire prewriten phase of” Scripture (97) when all we have is the written documents. Di Vito’s concise treatment of this research method is concise and honest, demonstrating its goals and weaknesses.
Gail. P. C. Streete of Rhodes College calls redaction criticism “arguably the most significant advance in Gospel scholarship in this century” because it allows scholars “to take seriously the differences between the gospels, to explain the differences without explaining them away” (105). She explains that this discipline was an effect of the hypothesis of Mark’s priority and was spearheaded in North America by Norman Perrin. Redaction criticism is certainly fascinating in its results but it seems like patchwork in that it uses a little form criticism, a little tradition-history, and a little source criticism, all at the preference of the scholar. Streete herself lists the weaknesses of this method, one of which is the “intentional fallacy” (116) that assumes a definite author with a singular and demonstrable personality was behind each of the Synoptics. She also considers it a weakness that redaction criticism has only been applied to the Synoptics, although some scholars are examining Pauline texts with this methodology. One could add another weakness in mirror-reading, where scholars see details behind the authors situation and intention behind every nook and cranny in the text. In small doses, mirror-reading in the Gospels may not be that bad. However, it can jade the interpreter if done in excess.
Dale B. Martin of Duke University treats “Social-Scientific Criticism” and is one of the more engaging authors in this book. He provides a concise account of the history of social-science criticism and its nuanced branches of inquiry. His illustration of Luke-Acts and social-scientific criticism is concise and diverse by showing different strata of approaches within this discipline. Martin also shows current trends in this field (for the time in which he wrote this) yet he does not discuss possible limitations. His essay is informative and insightful, particularly when he concludes that “new directions in scholarship will emerge more from new questions and perspectives on the part of scholars than from new ‘raw’ data” (137).
Mary C. Callaway of Fordham University defines canonical criticism as an analysis of “the text as it was received in its final form” (143). This discipline arose from dissatisfaction with the search for the Bible’s overarching theology and the dissatisfaction with the historical-critical method’s inability to help the church. Callaway gives an insightful history of how this method developed, explains it as primarily a theological discipline (147), and, thus, lists one of its weaknesses as its problem relating to the historical-critical method. Further, and perhaps more fundamental to the Scriptures, canonical criticism has “the tendency to read texts as a unity” (153) which may gloss over the inherent tension between texts. This essay is a fair and honest treatment of canonical criticism that is concise, informative, and treats its weaknesses.
Patricia K. Tull of Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary provides a great historical overview of rhetorical criticism, seeing that it, like canonical criticism, was a response to dissatisfaction with the historical-critical method and was ironically encouraged by famed form critic James Muilenburg. Her overview is more detailed than most of the historical treatments but the diversity within this field requires it. She sees rhetorical criticism as “a much-needed reality check” for interpreters (177). The one weakness of this chapter is that it does not address the limitations of this research method. One valid weakness I would add is the inability to have certainty about the audience’s situation. This directly affects rhetorical criticism which looks for how the author is seeking to persuade the audience. Overall, however, Tull’s chapter is informative and helpful.
Daniel Patte of Vanderbilt University introduces “Structural Criticism” to the reader who is, unfortunately, going to be challenged in completing this chapter. Patte’s two opening paragraphs were convoluted. After reading them three times, I still was not certain what this discipline is. This chapter is laden with jargon and needlessly abstract. A particularly tortuous sentence is on page 184: “One way to adjudicate such cases is to elucidate the dimension that expresses the basic characteristics of the ‘religion.’” If there is ever a third edition of this book, this chapter will hopefully be rewritten (especially considering that footnote 8 says, “The method I will present here is greatly simplified.” One can hardly imagine what this essay would be like if it were complicated). Nevertheless, structural criticism is presented as a kind of abstract narrative criticism. Its weakness can be that it is too specific in its search for meaning yet its strength may be in its orderly approach to the narrative.
David M. Gunn of Texan Christian University compensates for the previous essay’s deficiencies by writing a readable, informative essay on narrative criticism that provides a detailed overview of this research method, repeatedly citing Robert Alter as a seminal writer in this field. He lists the weaknesses of narrative criticism as its inability to play well with historical-critical methods because it assumes that whatever occurred prior to the final form of the text is irrelevant in determining meaning. He sees this, however, as also a strength because it frees the reader to listen to what the author says instead of wondering about what he did not say. Gunn shows vast knowledge of the trends within his field and writes a fascinating, albeit subjective, treatment of Gen 19. Gunn is correct to say that “narrative criticism of the Bible would do well to cultivate a healthy suspicion of systematics” (226) but he should have added that this should not require a suspicion of the obtainability of meaning. Gunn’s method shows fascinating results but is, sadly, postmodern to the core by never being able to say yes or no on what the meaning is.
Edgar V. McKnight of Furman University writes that reader-response criticism sees the reader as playing “a role in the ‘production’ or ‘creation’ of meaning and significance” (230). He adds that reader-response criticism is a “spectrum of positions” (230), which is not terribly surprising given its highly subjective nature. Like the majority of critical methods in this book, reader-response criticism is a reaction to the scientific quest for truth in the historical-critical method. McKnight raises a red flag when he says that “the Bible as literature is to be distinguished from the role of the Bible as historical ‘source’” (238). While these are two aspects of Scripture, they are hardly that easy to separate. The author clarifies himself in his conclusion by saying that reader-response criticism is not meant to be a substitute for other methods of historical inquiry. I was most skeptical about this essay but after reading it I saw that McKnight was fair and honest with his handling of his research method’s strengths and weaknesses.
The final three chapters are “Poststructuralist Criticism” by William A. Beardslee of Claremont Graduate University, “Feminist Criticism” by Danna Nolan Fewell of Southern Methodist University, and “Socioeconomic Criticism” by Fernando F. Segovia of Vanderbilt University Divinity School. These can be loosely examined together because of their ideological foundation. Poststructural criticism in this treatment is, more specifically, “deconstrontive criticism” (230), a negative way of finding the inconsistencies in the text and formulating conclusions based on the so-called lack of a determinative meaning. He lists John Dominic Crossan and Robert Funk as prime examples of deconstructive criticism but, regrettably, does not provide a substantial illustration of this method in action. While deconstructive criticism tears down the assumed power structures, feminist criticism and socioeconomic criticism build up the marginal that are often overlooked by those in power, particularly women and the poor. Fewell, regrettably as well, does not provide a substantial illustration of feminist criticism in action, yet she mentions one of the weaknesses of this method is that it is not always taken seriously. Socioeconomic criticism also does not have a substantial illustration of its method apart from an abstract treatment of the historical Jesus.
To Each Its Own Meaning is an informative book that illustrates each of the major fields of biblical criticism. With few exceptions, it accomplishes its goal well. I recommend it for graduate students and any other interested reader.