orthodox reading of the new testamentgrowing hostility to jews, delay of the parousia. redaction...

Orthodox Reading of the New Testament

Week 4

Modern HermeneuticsHistorical-critical methods

‘Lower’ criticism: textual criticism

‘Higher’ criticism: source, form, redaction criticism

Responses to historical-critical methods:

anti-critical:

fundamentalism

post-critical:

new literary criticism

lens / ‘embodied’ methods

canonical approach

narrative theology / critical-realism

Modern HermeneuticsHistorical-critical methods

‘Lower’ criticism: textual criticism

‘Higher’ criticism: source, form, redaction criticism

Responses to historical-critical methods:

anti-critical:

fundamentalism

post-critical:

new literary criticism (the New Testament as literature)

lens / ‘embodied’ methods

canonical approach

narrative theology / critical-realism

Form Criticismstarted post First World War in Germany with OT, eg Hermann Gunkel and the ‘types’ of Psalms

in Britain and America, most associated with NT: H. J. Cadbury (in America) and R. H. Lightfoot and Vincent Taylor (in Britain) - one of the leading practitioners would be German Rudolf Bultmann

accepted source theory’s priority of Mark

based on W. Wrede’s theory of the apologetic nature of the gospels, beginning with Mark

question: what was happening to the memories about Jesus in the 30+ years before anything committed to writing?

Form Criticism

early church: preaching, teaching, worship, controversies with Jews, relations with other authorities, interpretation of the OT and Torah

apostles and early Christian leaders had treasury of recollections and stories to draw upon as they preached, taught, advised, reassured, and solved problems

these stories developed into characteristic shapes eg incidents, miracles, parables, and injunctions

the gospel writers would eventually assemble these fragments and isolated units together into their persuasive/kerygmatic narratives

Form Criticismbut these units circulated in isolation during the‘oral’ period

form critics call these units ‘pericopes’, scrutinising and classifying them into ‘forms’

their original historical situation in the life of Jesus has been lost

what remains is to discern what their purpose was in the life of the early church, for its needs and purposes: this is called the Sitz im Leben (‘situation in life’) of the pericope

the purpose is to find how the content has been adapted to fit the life of the church, eg the expanding gentile mission, or growing hostility to Jews, delay of the Parousia

Redaction Criticismform criticism tends to downplay role of the writers (who merely collect and string together independent units)

redaction criticism refocuses attention on literary merit of the writer/editor/redactor and work

again starts with OT (in 1930s) before moving on to NT (in 1950s)

it accepts principles of source criticism and recognises the importance of oral traditions stressed by form critics

but it rejects the description of synoptic gospels as mere collections of fragments

Redaction Criticismfor redaction critics, gospels assemble and organise traditional materials gospels into sophisticated works with plans, presuppositions, and motifs

they may sing in harmony, but not in unison

they each have a unique theological stance and outlook, which is skillfully expressed

this can be discerned by changes made in vocabulary, style and structure to sources being used

this had been ‘anticipated’ in form criticism’s treatment of the passion narratives, which were seen as to hold together more completely, with reliable topographical and chronological details, but with the different evangelists’ variations (eg words of Jesus on the cross) expressing their special theological interests

Redaction CriticismMark is a creative author in his careful selection of material — eg 12 healings of Jews, one of a gentile (Syro-Phoenician woman’s daughter) — and structuring of narrative around progressive enlightenment

Matthew uses midrash in the infancy narratives to show how Jesus fulfils Messianic expectations in OT; he enlarges and reorders the gospel of Mark, and arranges his material against OT background and understanding of Torah

Luke shows that in his day Christianity is now at home in the Roman Empire with tiled houses (5.19) replacing miserable dwellings with roofs of straw; Christians are expected to take up the cross ‘daily’ (9.23) in Spirit-filled community

New Literary Criticism“The evangelists are genuinely authors, authors using traditional material but nonetheless authors: they write for a definite purpose, they give their work a distinct and individual structure, they have thematic concerns which they pursue, the characters in the story they each tell function as protagonists in a plot, and so on. . . If the evangelists are authors, then they must be studied as authors, and they must be studied as other authors are studied.” - Norman Perrin, 1972

as form criticism anticipates redaction criticism, so redaction criticism anticipates literary criticism

but it is not simply methodological heir, but represents a significant shift in perspective away from the concern for historical matters that has dominated biblical studies for so long

move from historical-critical approach to literary-critical approach

New Literary Criticismcf. analogy of car

learn much from component pieces

only when assembled into integral whole can it be understood as ‘car’

literary critic:

finds no reason to dispute the important insight that much oral tradition does lie preserved in our written Gospels

accepts that the sociological setting of any piece of language, whether oral or written, can scarcely be ignored

is impatient to put all the pieces isolated by the form critic back together, to see what the whole looks like

New Literary Criticismredaction criticism had put some of the pieces back together

demonstrated distinct and ‘surprisingly’ coherent theological viewpoints of the gospel writers

pervasive influence on the traditional materials they were editing

not mere collectors and editors of tradition, but proper authors

but still tendency to separate texts into ‘tradition’ and ‘redaction’ rather than view them as narrative ‘wholes’

literary criticism arises from the success of redaction criticism, but is a different method altogether

fundamental insights of historical-critical approach could be appreciated, but the time had to come to resist disintegration of the gospels and other NT books and to appreciate them as integral, literary texts

New Literary Criticismuses the tools of study of literature, of how stories are told

example of two feeding miracles in the gospel of Mark: literary approach and focus on Mark’s choice to tell both stories (regardless of sources, pre-existing traditions, or new composition) reveals new insights into Mark’s purpose and themes

specifically, emphasises the disciples’ lack of understanding (which as it turns out may be THE theme of the whole gospel of Mark)

literary approach offers a challenge not only to historical investigation (texts, sources, forms, redaction of traditions, etc)

but also to the church, which has often stifled the voice of each evangelist

disintegrating the gospel into bite-sized lectionary texts

melting them together into one collection of gospel ‘lore’

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary Criticism

form criticism steps:

(i) identify and bracket redactional elements (what was contributed at the later written stage)

(ii) classify the form of the remaining pericope

(iii)seek to understand its original Sitz im Leben

redaction criticism: seek to understand how the evangelist interpreted the tradition in committing it to written form

literary criticism: seek to understand how the final text functions within the context of the whole gospel


Luke 10.25-37, parable of the good Samaritan

24 of 37 parables are in Luke, including 18 unique parables

familiar story with well-known ‘exegesis’: pleasant tale about traveller who does a good deed, ending with exhortation for us all to do the same

until the 18th century, mostly interpreted allegorically

This is a simple account of a reality. And if we meditate deeply upon it, it will confirm for us certain wondrous mysteries. For Jericho is a figure of this world, to which Adam, cast forth from Paradise, the

heavenly Jerusalem, because of sin, descended; that is, he descended from the things of eternal life to the things of this lower world: he who through, not change of place but change of will, had brought exile upon his posterity. For he was far changed from that

Adam who had lived in untroubled blessedness, when he descended to earthly sinfulness and fell among robbers; and he would not have

fallen among them, had he not exposed himself to them, through turning away from what God had laid down for him.

St Ambrose of Milan, PL 15 Evang. Sec. Lucam, Lib. VIII

On the Good Samaritan

Who are these robbers, if not the angels of night and of darkness; who will at times change themselves into angels of light, but cannot remain so? These first of all strip us of the

garments of spiritual grace we received, and this is how they are able to wound us. For had we preserved the unstained

garments we received, we could not feel the blows of the robbers. Watch therefore that they do not first strip you, as

they stripped Adam in the beginning, as he was stripped of the protection of the divine commandment, as he was stripped of

the garment of faith, and so received a deadly wound. In him all mankind would have been slain, had not this Samaritan,

descending, taken care of his grievous wounds.

This was no ordinary Samaritan, who did not despise him whom the priest, whom the Levite had despised. And neither let you despise him

because of the name of his people; the meaning of whose name will astonish you. For the word Samaritan means a defender. This is how it

is interpreted. And who is a defender, if not He of Whom it was said: “The Lord is the defender of little ones” (Ps. cxiv. 6)? And as one man

is a Jew in the letter, another in the spirit, so likewise one man is outwardly a Samaritan, another thing inwardly. Who then is this

Samaritan who was going down? It is He “Who descended from heaven, and who had ascended into heaven, the Son of man who is in

heaven” (Jn. iii. 13). Seeing the man half dead, whom no one before Him had been able to cure; like that woman having an issue of blood

“who had bestowed all her substance on physicians” (Lk. viii. 43); He came near him, that is, He came close to us by sharing our suffering,

and a neighbour to us by showing us mercy.

“And bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine.” Many are the remedies this Physician brings to heal us. His words are

medicines. One word binds up our wounds, another soothes them with oil, another pours in wine. He binds our wounds by

His more austere rule of life, He soothes us by the forgiveness of our sins, just as He urges us forward by the threat of His

judgement.

“And setting him upon his own beast.” Hear how He raises you up. “He bears our sins, and for us suffers” (Is. liii. 4, Sept.).

And the Shepherd lays the weary sheep upon His own shoulders (Lk. xv. 5). For man had become like the beast (Ps.

xlviii. 13). So He places us upon His own shoulders, lest we become like the horse and the mule (Ps. xxxi. 9); so that by taking upon Himself our body, He might do away with the

weaknesses of our flesh.

And then He brought us to an inn; we who had become as beasts (Ps. lxxii. 23). It is to an inn they come who are weary from a long journey. And so the Lord takes us to an inn; He

who “raises up the needy from the earth; lifting up the poor out of the dunghill” (Ps. cxii. 7). “And took care of him”; for fear the

sick man might not be able to keep the precepts he had received.

But this Samaritan was not to stay long on earth. He must return whither He had come. And accordingly “the next day”,

etc. What is this next day, if not the day of the Lord’s Resurrection; of which it was said: “This is the day which the

Lord hath made” (Ps. cxvii. 24)? “He took out two denarii, and gave to the host, and said: Take care of him.” What are these “two denarii”? Perhaps the two Testaments, upon which have been stamped the image of the Eternal King, by Whose price

our wounds were healed? For we were redeemed by His Precious Blood, that we might escape the festering wounds of

eternal death.

He then promises payment when He returns. When will you return, O Lord, but on the Day of Judgement? For though

Thou art everywhere at all times, and stand now in our midst, though we see Thee not, yet there shall be a time when “all

flesh” shall behold Thee returning. Then Thou wilt repay what Thou owest. Blessed are they to whom Thou art Debtor!

Would that we could repay what we have received, and that the office of Priest or of Levite (deacon) might not make us proud! How will you repay, O Lord Jesus? You promised the just that their “reward is very great in heaven” (Mt. v. 12). You will repay when You say: “Well done, good and faithful servant; because thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will place thee over

many things. Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord” (Mt. xxv. 21).

And so since no one is more our neighbour than He Who has healed our wounds, let us love Him as our Lord, let us love Him

as our neighbour; for nothing is closer than the Head to Its members. And let us also love him who is an imitator of Christ.

Let us love him who in the unity of this Body has compassion on the need of another. For it is not kinship that makes a

neighbour, but mercy. Because mercy accords with nature; for there is nothing so in accord with nature, than to help one who

partakes of our nature. Amen.


patristic reading = allegory

but what does a close reading from the perspectives of form, redaction and literary criticism tell us?

key principle: do not seek allegorical significance unless it is absolutely necessary

start with form criticism and structure

form critic will bracket (dismiss?) the redactional elements and focus on the core pericope


introductory narrative and teaching re greatest commandment, Luke 10.25-28

25 Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus. “Teacher,” he said, “what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 26 He said to him, “What is written in the law? What do you read there?” 27 He answered, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbour as yourself.” 28 And he said to him, “You have given the right answer; do this, and you will live.”

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary Criticismcf. narrative and teaching re greatest commandment, Mark 12.28-34

28 One of the scribes came near and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that he answered them well, he asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God, the Lord is one; 30 you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ 31 The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” 32 Then the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other’; 33 and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbour as oneself,’—this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” 34 When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.” After that no one dared to ask him any question.


cf. narrative and teaching re greatest commandment, Matthew 22.34-40

34 When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, 35 and one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. 36 “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” 37 He said to him, “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself.’ 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary Criticismwhen identifying framework material look for (i) distinctive vocabulary, eg Mark’s ‘immediately’, (ii) literary and theological motifs characteristic of the writer, eg Mark’s secret motif, (iii) elements that betray interests of early church which transmitted and used it, and (iv) material not needed for sensible telling of the story

(1) redactional ‘frame’ opening

29 But wanting to justify himself, he asked Jesus, “And who is my neighbour?”

(2) main pericope vv 30b-35

(3) redactional ‘frame’ closing

36 Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” 37 He said, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus said to him, “Go and do likewise.”


what is the form of this pericope? parable

form criticism hypothesis: here we have parable contained within redactional ‘frame’ set after redacted narrative and teaching about the ‘greatest commandment’

for form critic, focus will be on interpretation of vv 30b-35 without reference to the redactional/literary context which is seen as secondary

what can we glean from the form of this pericope? what is its Sitz im Leben? what is its main point?

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary Criticismthree main classes of NT forms:

(i) sayings of Jesus

parables

wisdom sayings (proverbs, admonitions, questions and riddles)

prophetic and apocalyptic sayings

legal sentences

revelatory sayings (‘I’ sayings)

(ii) chreiae (brief anecdotes about a character, pronouncement stories)

Socrates the philosopher, when a certain student named Apollodorus said to him, "The Athenians have unjustly condemned you to death," said with a laugh, "But did you want them to do it justly?”

Mark 13.1-2: As he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what large stones and what large buildings!” Then Jesus asked him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left here upon another; all will be thrown down.”

(iii) narratives


what is a parable?

“At its simplest, the parable is a metaphor or simile drawn from nature or common life, arresting the hearer by its vividness or strangeness, and leaving the mind in sufficient doubt about its precise application to tease it into active thought.” — C.H. Dodd, The Parables of the Kingdom (1961), p. 5

share characteristics of folk narratives: complete story, normally in the aorist (past), with beginning (situation/problem), middle (sequences that respond to situation), and end (resolution); normally a realistic narrative (not fabulous or surreal), with ordinary details, but relating to an unusual incident

main elements described by Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (1968), pp. 188-192


(1) conciseness—only persons necessary to the plot appear in it and there are seldom more than three persons or groups (which are treated as single persons)

(2) duality is operative: that is, only two persons (or groups) interact at one time

(3)single perspective: the auditor is asked to consider the events from the point of view of one character

(4) little or no characterisation: persons are not designated as good or evil

(5) feelings and motives are left unstated

(6) frequently uses direct speech and soliloquy

(7) repetition (often threefold) is used for internal coherence and dramatic development

(8) focus on the conclusion (‘end stress’)

(9) call for judgement or verdict from listener on a specific action (but not on wider context, eg slavery, imprisonment for debt) — Bultmann

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary CriticismSome questions to ask in posing, what is the main point of the parable? what is the Sitz im Leben?

what are the political/religious/economic/social factors in play?

what terms are repeated in the parable?

what does the parable dwell upon?

what is the main contrast?

what comes at the end of the parable?

what is spoken in direct discourse?

what characters appear? what are the most important? (typically two)

what is the intended audience?

with whom does the auditor identify? what is the hoped for response?

how would you have told the parable? if it is recorded as having been told differently, what does this reveal?

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary CriticismFirst pass: form critical observations

since Luke 10.25-29 is parallel to Mark 12.28-31 and Matthew 22.34-40, and neither of the others includes the parable, the insertion of the parable into the context of the pericope of the greatest commandment is due to Luke and therefore secondary

logical inconsistency between the meaning of ‘neighbour’ in Luke 10.27,29 (object of love) and in Luke 10.36 (subject of love)

in oral tradition, the parable was circulating to answer the question ‘what it means for me to be a neighbour’ — not ‘who is my neighbour?’ as in the redacted context

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary CriticismFirst pass: form critical observations from Sitz im Leben

while question of ‘who is my neighbour’ was current in Jewish circles (exclusive nature of Pharisees, Essenes, etc), no evidence of that this was debated within early Christianity, which focused instead on moral/spiritual subject of love (according to model of Christ)

that it is a ‘hated’ Samaritan enemy of the Jews, not the priest or Levite, who shows mercy highlights capacity to show love can be in unexpected, surprising people, not necessarily those who pay lip service to God (cf. Matthew 7.21 — and Luke 6.46 — and Matthew 25.31-46)

also reflects composition of early Christian community (eg Acts 1.8, 8.14)

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary CriticismSecond pass: redaction critical observations

in Luke’s redaction, both the redactional frame (intro) and connection to the greatest commandment put the issue of ‘who is my neighbour’ back on the table

not to engage the question as in Jewish debate, but to rebuke the question, and to highlight the conflict between the lawyer’s attempt to limit the scope of love towards his neighbour, and Jesus’s concept of what it means to be a neighbour to all

we must concern ourselves only with loving, not with what a person must do to qualify as an object of love

cf. other places in Luke where Jesus makes the same argument: Luke 6.27-28, 6.34-36, 14.12-14

for redaction critic, this argues strongly for the unity of the passage

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary CriticismThird pass: literary critical observations

that the overall parable narrative employs but ironically overturns the normal ‘priest, Levite, Israelite’ rhetorical pattern suggests I (as auditor, in the context of the narrative, an Israelite) am to identify with the victim in the story

given overall theme of Luke as reflected in

“The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor.He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free,to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.” (4.18-19)

“For the Son of Man came to seek out and to save the lost.” (19.10)

Example of Form, Redaction and Literary CriticismThird pass: literary critical observations

and given throughout the Gospel of Luke, the evangelist emphasises the love and grace of God toward — and Jesus’s identification with — outcasts in society

full literary understanding of the parable in Luke is not only that we must love our neighbour and that this love is to be unconditional and unqualified (and irrespective of human barriers) and unlimited (“all your heart, soul mind and strength”), but that such love reflects the love of Christ Himself (who is identified with the enemy Samaritan) for us (in our weakness and near-death)

And who is a defender, if not He of Whom it was said: “The Lord is the defender of little ones” (Ps. cxiv. 6)? And as one man is a Jew in the letter, another in the spirit, so likewise one man is outwardly a Samaritan, another thing inwardly. Who then is this Samaritan

who was going down? It is He “Who descended from heaven, and who had ascended into heaven, the Son of man who is in

heaven” (Jn. iii. 13). Seeing the man half dead, whom no one before Him had been able to cure; like that woman having an issue

of blood “who had bestowed all her substance on physicians” (Lk. viii. 43); He came near him, that is, He came close to us by sharing our suffering, and a neighbour to us by showing

us mercy.

– St Ambrose of Milan

Gospel of Luke - Introduction

Author

Date / place of composition

Style / genre

Purpose

Gospel of Luke - Structuretwo volumes of a single literary project: Luke-Acts (Luke 1.1-4 / Acts 1.1-2)

structural, stylistic, thematic elements unite the two books

together 52 chapters (1/4 of NT canon) covering 60 years

tells as one story of God’s fulfilling His promises to Israel both in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus AND the birth and spread of the church (that we read the life of the church as the continuation of Jesus’s story is the accomplishment of Luke)

first volume treated ‘canonically’ among the four gospels (early separation)

Theophilus (“God lover”) - a symbol for Luke’s readers?

Gospel of Luke - Structuregeographical structure: centre of the story is the city of Jerusalem

Gospel: movement towards Jerusalem

presentation in the temple (2.22), discovery there after being lost (2.41-51)

temptation account reverses Matthew’s order for the last two temptations with climax now in Jerusalem (4.9)

Transfiguration at end of Galilean ministry prepares for the journey to Jerusalem and Jesus’s death (9.31)

journey itself begins with solemn announcement (9.51), followed by multiple references, during the journey to destination (13.22, 13.33-34, 17.11, 19.11, 19.28)

after resurrection, appearances take place in the environs of the city, with the last of them ending with instruction “Stay in the city” (24.1-49)

Acts: movement away from Jerusalem (with frequent circling back)

Gospel of LukeInfancy narratives - use of OT / Jesus and John / Israel / Mary

Prophetic Messiah and the outcasts

Time / fulfilment / ‘today’ / problem of the ‘delayed Parousia’

YHWH’s return to Zion / symbolism of the Temple

Passion narrative - the glorious dying of the righteous one

Resurrection and ascension

Canonical shape of Luke as a separate book

orthodox reading of the new testamentgrowing hostility to jews, delay of the parousia. redaction...

Documents