For two thousand years, Christians have read the Bible individually and collectively. For most of that time, and for most people, the Bible was a sacred text that one heard read to them at worship, often in a language that was foreign to the worshiper. A priest or other church official explained what the Bible meant, and the parishioners for the most part went along with church leadership. Those who could read, particularly those who could read the ancient languages of scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin, the language of the Vulgate), had a great advantage over the common layperson. Scholars--whether bishops, priests, monks, or educated laypeople--could read the scripture without the filter of another person's interpretation and had the potential to decide for themselves what they thought the Bible was saying.
Several historical developments led to more people reading the Bible for themselves.
Reading the Bible was sometimes a dangerous exercise, for sometimes the church--both Catholic and Protestant--sought to silence those with "unorthodox" opinions, and many people were killed for reading the Bible differently than the dominant tradition (see Foxe's Book of Martyrs for the stories of many such people). Why did people continue to read the Bible if is was dangerous? Why do people read the Bible, a two-thousand-year-old book, today? People read the Bible because it offers a profound, often radical picture of the world. People who read the Bible and come away with a point of view that is the same as the typical person on the street just aren't paying attention! We read the Bible because we see it in some sense as the word of God. If the Bible is truly the word of God, then God must be willing and able to speak to us when we read it, if only we learn how to do so.
There are many different ways to read the Bible. Many people today read the Bible literally, taking every detail as historical fact. This type of reading was often looked down upon by Christians of past generations, who saw much greater value in a "spiritual" or allegorical reading of the text. Modern understanding of different types of literary material (genres), historiography, and science also call into question some extremely literal methods of reading the Bible.
How, then, should we read the Bible? A saying circulates among some Christians that says, "The Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it." Although this statement is pithy and quotable, it is deeply flawed.
People today read the Bible in different ways, for different purposes, and from different perspectives. The fact that the Bible is valued by people from such diverse backgrounds and with such different interests is an indication of the power that the Bible continues to wield as sacred text. Although we can only really read the Bible from a single perspective--our own--it is a good exercise to see how people with different perspectives, and particularly different worldviews, read the Bible. While we cannot change our worldview, which informs our reading of the Bible, we can learn to read the Bible in different, complementary ways. In fact, many people do this to some extent already. As we discuss the topic "Ways of Reading the Bible," we will look at reading the Bible from the following perspectives: devotional, historical-critical, contextual, canonical, and literary. (Note that these different readings of the Bible are not mutually exclusive. One can employ more than one reading strategy to the text, either by combining different ways of reading or by focusing on one strategy in one situation and a different strategy in a different situation.) We will then read five different texts--three from the Old Testament and two from the New Testament--in each of these ways and see where the various ways of reading may lead us.
Perhaps the most familiar way in which individual Christians read the Bible is devotionally. A devotional reading is typically done on an individual basis, though it can certainly be done in a group setting as well. The goal of devotional reading is to read a text and listen for the spirit of God to speak to us directly. We don't hear God speak audibly, but as we read, we often hear God speak "to our hearts." That is, we have a mental impression that God is telling us something specific as a result of reading the scripture in question.
When we read the Bible devotionally, we often read a fairly short passage, then we meditate on it or pray about it, asking God for guidance. Because we recognize the Bible as the word of God, we expect to hear God's voice speaking to us, giving us guidance for our daily lives or helping us to make a difficult decision. The nature of devotional reading is such that two different people who read the Bible in a devotional manner will probably hear God saying different things to them. In fact, the same person who has previously read a passage devotionally may read the same passage under different circumstances and hear in the words of scripture a message that is quite different from the previous one. Both readings may be entirely legitimate, because devotional reading is based in large measure on the current state of mind of the reader.
The historical-critical method of reading the Bible reflects an attempt to apply the fruits of modern study of biblical languages, critical methods, archaeology, history, and literary studies to the text in a scientifically rigorous manner. Reading the Bible in this way requires much preparation, usually in a college or seminary setting. Although it is certainly possible to read the Bible in this manner without mastering all the subjects mentioned below, the greater the mastery of these subjects, the more likely the person is to come to a reasonable, historically accurate understanding of the text. This method is called historical-critical because it emphasizes the original setting of the biblical text, and it uses various critical tools to get at the meaning. The word "critical" does not imply criticism of the Bible in the sense of making negative comments about it. Rather, the word reflects its Greek root, which means "judgment." Critical tools help us to make sound judgments about the text by applying the results of scholarly study.
Because of the amount of study required to read the Bible using the historical-critical method, we will devote a larger amount of space to this way of reading than to the others, not because it is more important, but because of the variety of critical tools and the unfamiliarity that beginning students often have with this method. We will give a brief definition and overview of several critical tools, followed by some examples of their use.
Textual criticism has already been discussed in detail in "How We Got the Bible: The Text of Scripture." Review this document again and compare it with the other critical tools, which will be discussed much more briefly.
Linguistic criticism is the attempt to determine the meaning of a word in a particular context, especially where the word is obscure or its traditional meaning is questionable. The data used by the linguistic critic is evidence from cognate languages (i.e., Hebrew, Aramaic, Arabic, Syriac, Ugaritic, Indo-European languages, etc.), nonbiblical texts, medieval or modern texts, archaeological discoveries, and non-cognate loan-words. Linguistic critics try to find a meaning of the word under investigation that makes sense (or better sense) in the context.
Example: In Jdg 8:16, the verb traditionally translated "taught" can be translated "made submissive," as in, "With them (the instruments) he made submissive the men of Succoth." This different translation is based on an Arabic word that is similar to the Hebrew for "taught."
Example: The word normally translated "traveling bag" in Matt 10:10 may be better understood as a beggar's bag, used by priests of the Syrian goddess to ask for alms. This usage is documented on a monument found in Syria, dating to about the time of Jesus.
Historical criticism is that branch of study which deals with the actual historical content of the scriptural text. The goal of historical criticism is to elucidate the historical context of a passage by means of advances in historiography and archaeological discoveries so that its original meaning and impact can be determined.
Example: Jehu was anointed by Elisha's servant and charged to avenge the blood of the prophets shed by the house of Omri, so he killed Ahaziah and his relatives, as well as Joram king of Judah (see 2 Kgs 9-10). Assyrian records, but not the Bible, detail the invasion of Israel by Shalmaneser III, so Jehu's assassination of the recalcitrant king was an apparent attempt to ingratiate himself to Shalmaneser. Jehu brought tribute to Shalmaneser in 841, as described on the Black Obelisk (image 2, image 3), which also has a picture of Jehu (or perhaps Jehu's representative) prostrating himself before the king of Assyria.
Example: Some of the material concerning the community associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls, especially the Damascus Document (also called the Zadokite Fragment) gives a possible historical context for the preaching of John the Baptist in the Desert. John might have been associated in some way with the community.
Source criticism is the discipline that seeks to determine the written documents that lie behind the biblical books, primarily on the basis of literary analysis. After determining the natural units of the text (pericopes), the source critic studies these units in isolation and in relationship to one another, watching for variations in vocabulary, literary style, or theological perspective and for duplications or inconsistencies.
Example: An analysis of the creation accounts in Gen 1 and 2 (actually Gen 1:1-2:4a and Gen 2:4b-25) reveals two separate accounts with several variations: differences in the mode of creation (word, hands), order (humans last, man before animals), creation of man and woman (together, separate), name of God (Elohim, Yahweh Elohim), style (repetitive, narrative), vocabulary (different words for "create," "man," "land," etc.).
Example: A close examination of the Synoptic Gospels suggests that Mark was the first gospel to be written, and both Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source, along with another, now lost, source document called Q.
Form criticism is the analysis of the biblical text which attempts to determine the original use of traditional material within the context of the ancient community. Form critics focus on the Sitz im Leben (life setting) of various types of materials, especially (but not exclusively) those that were originally oral.
Example: Amos 1-2 contains a series of oracles directed against foreign powers (before turning his attention to Israel), possibly in connection with a New Year's Festival, in which the enemies of the king were cursed.
Example: Form critics established that parables generally dealt with one major point and should not be interpreted allegorically, as though every detail in the story had a symbolic meaning. Furthermore, the parables tell us something about the situation in the church at the time the gospels were composed. For example, Matt 25:1-12, the Parable of the Wise and Foolish Virgins, reflects the late first-century church's anxiety over the Second Advent.
Tradition criticism (also called tradition history) is a method for analyzing biblical literature in terms of the process by which it moved from stage to stage until it reached its final form. Parallel traditions are compared with one another to determine possible relationships, and such relationships help one to reconstruct the history of the tradition, including causes for change and basic functions or intentions that might have been fulfilled in the process.
Example: The exodus tradition is reinterpreted in both the Old Testament and the New Testament to apply to the situation at hand in Israel or the church. In Exod 20:2 the emphasis is on salvation/deliverance from bondage in Egypt. In Deut 1:30, the exodus is reinterpreted to mean victory over enemies. In Isa 51:10-11 and Jer 23:7-8, the exodus is applied to the return from Babylonian exile, which is seen as a new exodus. In Matthew's Infancy Narrative, the holy family journeys to Egypt to escape persecution, and a historical reference to the exodus in Hos 11:1 is reinterpreted as applying to the circumstances surrounding the infancy of Jesus (Matt 2:15). In Luke's version of the Transfiguration, Moses and Elijah talk with Jesus about the "exodus" which he will accomplish (Luke 9:31), indicating that the early church viewed the passion and resurrection in the light of the exodus tradition.
Redaction criticism is a method of studying the Bible that concentrates on the way the principal author of a work adapted ("redacted") earlier materials to his own theological ends. It is related to form criticism and tradition criticism in focusing on the use of the material in a particular setting, but it differs from the others in the following way. Form criticism focuses on the Sitz im Leben of original setting, tradition criticism on the Sitz im Leben of communities of tradents (those who transmitted the traditions), and redaction criticism on the Sitz im Leben of the final author/redactor. Redaction criticism is particularly important in helping readers of the Bible overcome the tendency to harmonize parallel accounts and ignore differences. By focusing on the difference in the accounts instead of ignoring them, we can see that individual authors had distinct perspectives and particular points that they were trying to make to their audience.
Example: 1 Chron 21:1 changes the subject of 2 Sam 24:1 from God to Satan for theological reasons. Also, the book of Chronicles as a whole is concerned with proper worship, the southern kingdom (Judah), and the doctrine of retribution. All these differences from the content, theology, and emphases of Samuel and Kings may be attributed to the author of Chronicles (sometimes called the Chronicler).
Example: Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have the story of the "Rich Young Ruler" (Matt 19:16-22; Mark 10:17-22; Luke 18:18-23). However, there are important differences among the stories. The redaction critic will be aware first of all that Mark is the source of both Matthew's and Luke's accounts, so differences between these latter versions and Mark will be noted for further study. One difference in Matthew is that whereas the man in Mark calls Jesus "Good Teacher," in Matthew he says, "Teacher, what good thing must I do?" Jesus' response likewise varies. In Mark he says, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Matthew was written at a later time and in a setting in which Mark's version might be seen as denying the divinity of Jesus, so in his version Jesus answers, "Why do you ask me about what is good? Only one is good." Note that in Mark the man is described as rich, in Matthew he is described as young and rich, and in Luke he is described as rich and a ruler. In none of the gospels is he actually a "rich young ruler." Luke's portrayal of the man is the least favorable, omitting both Mark's statement that Jesus loved him and Matthew's note that he was young. For Luke, the man was simply a rich ruler who lacked the commitment to abandon his riches and follow Jesus.
Sociological exegesis is the analysis of the biblical text that makes use of theoretical, sociological models (developed in the field of sociology of religion) in order to better understand social dynamics embedded in the text, so that the text itself might be better understood. Sociological exegesis uses data from all the social sciences (sociology, anthropology, archaeology, political science, psychology, economics) to generate sociological models in light of which to interpret the data found in the text and in other sources.
Example: The Marxist model of societal development (i.e., the class struggles between the establishment and the disenfranchized resulting in a synthesis in the new community) can be used to help elucidate the conquest of Canaan, the establishment and split of the monarchy, and the Maccabean revolt.
Example: The letter of 1 Peter may be read against the backdrop of social-scientific research into sectarian communities. These communities typically emerge under conditions of social tension and conflict; begin as a protest group within a larger, established entity; experience gradual marginalization from the parent group because of their beliefs and behavior; experience social disapproval and harassment; see themselves as an elect and elite community favored with special grace and revelation; develop a rigorous moral code; and see themselves as separate from "outsiders." All of these characteristic apply to the early Christian community, so observations of contemporary sectarian groups may shed light on the interactions within the community and between the community and larger society, as addressed in 1 Peter.
As noted above, people continue to read the Bible today because it has meaning for them. A contextual reading of the Bible stresses the idea that the Bible speaks to communities, not just individuals. Whereas the historical-critical approach begins with an analysis of the text in its historical context then moves toward contemporary application, contextual readers begin with an analysis of their current situation, then read the text while asking the question, "What does this text say to me and my group?" (However, contextual readers regularly make use of the fruits of historical-critical analysis.)
Liberation theology is a good example of a contextual reading of scripture. Proponents of liberation theology begin with a particular historical-cultural situation: the plight of the poor and marginalized in a particular location. Liberation theology originated in Latin America, but interpreters of the Bible from a liberation standpoint can be found in many other locales now, including Africa, Asia, and even North America. Other perspectives that have been used as a starting point for reading the Bible include feminism, the African-American situation, and environmentalism. Advocates of contextual methods of reading the Bible do not say that their interpretation of the Bible in the light of their social situations is the only correct perspective, but they do argue that their perspective is at least as valid as that of typical North American and European academic interpreters.
A canonical reading of the Bible seeks to move beyond the historical-critical approach and see a text within its context in the canon of scripture. The canonical critic is not content to determine the sources that lie behind the Pentateuch, for example, but wants to see what the final form of the Bible, the form we have, has to say to us.
Like contextual critics, canonical critics often make use of the results of historical-critical study, but they don't stop there. The placement of a pericope within a book, or even of a whole book within the canon, is relevant for the canonical critic. For example, the textual or source critic might note the fact that the book of Jeremiah in Hebrew is arranged significantly differently than the book of Jeremiah in Greek (LXX) and discuss what the original form might have been. The canonical critic, on the other hand, doesn't focus on which version might have been original but looks at the final form of both the Hebrew and the Greek text within the existing canon. The canonical critic will notice that whereas the Hebrew version of Jeremiah ends with a series of oracles against foreign nations (followed by a historical appendix, chapter 52, taken from 2 Kgs 24:18-25:30), the Greek version moves the oracles against foreign nations to the middle of the book, following Jer 25:13. The result is that (aside from the historical appendix) the Greek version ends with Jeremiah's challenge to his scribe Baruch (chapter 45 in Hebrew), immediately followed by the book of Baruch in the Greek canon. Thus the Greek version of Jeremiah is linked to the deuterocanonical book of Baruch (and further with Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah), suggesting that readers should consider all these writings together.
Whatever else it may be--sacred scripture, historical document, collection of religious treatises--the Bible is also literature. If we define literature as "imaginative or creative writing, especially of recognized artistic value," the Bible certainly qualifies. It is literature as opposed to raw data, or annals, or technical writing, because it shows every sign of skilled human authorship throughout, and it also has artistic value in and of itself, apart from other considerations.
People who read the Bible as literature read the scripture in light of other works of "literature" in a broad sense, including novels, short stories, poetry, plays, and even visual arts, music, and architecture. A literary reading of Genesis 1, for example, might compare the creation account with J. R. R. Tolkien's myth of the "Ainulindalë," found in The Silmarillion, which reworks the idea of the fall of the angels into a story involving divine music, harmony, and cacophony. The literary reader of the Bible will ask how Tolkien's creation myth sheds light on the themes of Genesis 1.
Authors frequently write stories that include characters that may be considered "Christ figures," so it is relevant to compare the manner in which Jesus is portrayed in the gospels with Christ figures in stories such as Hermann Melville's "Billy Budd," Tolkien's Gandalf in The Lord of the Rings, and Stephen Crane's Jim Conklin in The Red Badge of Courage. The literary reader asks how these characters are similar and how they are different from Jesus in the gospels, for example, in regard to self-sacrifice.
Readers of the conquest narrative in Joshua might compare the entry of the Israelites into the "Promised Land" with the reception the Joads received upon entry into the promised land of California in John Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath. They will also want to read the first half of the book of Judges for contrasting narratives within the Bible itself.
The visual arts as well as literature per se might profitably be used in reading the Bible from a literary perspective. For example, the battle scenes in Revelation, with their intricate symbolism, might be compared with Pablo Picasso's portrayal of the Spanish Civil War in his painting Guernica. The portrayal of the crucifixion in the four gospels might be compared with any of the innumerable paintings of the crucifixion that have been done over the years by artists such as Chagall, Dalí, or Dürer. Finally, the description of the temple in Ezekiel 40-48 might be compared with any of the great cathedrals of Europe or Latin America.
Next: Ways of Reading the Bible: Sample 1 (Judges 11:29-40)
© 2011, James R. Adair, Jr.
