METHODS OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION

The majority of scholars today contend that various methods of biblical interpretation must be combined to arrive at a more comprehensive meaning of the Bible. They speak of three “worlds”: the world behind the text (the world from which the text arose and the subject of historical methods), the world of the text(the creation of the author and the subject of many literary methods), and the world in front of the text (how we receive it now). Below are very brief descriptions of the major methods of interpretation available today.

HISTORICAL CRITICISM tries to reconstruct the historical situation out of which the writing arose and how it came to be written. It means detecting the actualsense, i.e., what the author actually meant to say. This method is fundamental to all other forms of interpretation. It involves determining the date and place of composition, as well as the authorship (including both the identity of the author and the author's method of composition). It also seeks to determine to whom the work was addressed and the circumstances that existed between the author and the audience. Unless there are clear indications in the text the method makes use of archeological evidence and non-biblical writings from the same period to determine the dating.

  • SOURCE CRITICISM has emerged as a sub-discipline of historical criticism. It inquires about the written and/or oral sources used by a biblical author, and the historical and cultural settings of such sources.

LITERARY CRITICISM examines a text as a finished piece of literature. It analyses the use of the language, examines the style, recognises the various literary genres, studies the unity and integrity of a text, asks questions about character portrayal and interaction, analyses the plot, the mood, how tension is introduced and resolved, and the literary perspective of the text. Its main focus then is what can be learned from what is said in the text itself, rather than how the text came to be written or what we can learn about the text from outside evidence.

  • NARRATIVE CRITICISM is a branch of literary criticismandassumes that the work of source, form, and redaction criticism has already been done. It focuses on the unified narrative, the story being told and how it is told. It tries to distinguish the real author (the person who actually wrote) from the implied author (the one who can be inferred from the narrative), and the real (first) audience from the implied audience (those the author has in mind when writing). It tries to highlight the author’s main interest and counters the excesses of historical investigation.

FORM CRITICISM is a hybrid of historical and literary criticism and seeks to determine the particular genre of a text. It tries to get behind the underlying oral and written forms that may have been used in the final written text. It attempts to determine the original form, life setting and purpose of such oral and written forms. It focuses on small units of biblical text.

  • REDACTION CRITICISM is an outgrowth of form criticism and combines literary and historical criticism to consider a biblical text in terms of its editor(s). It recognizes that writers creatively shaped the material they inherited. It seeks to determine what stages of editing a text has undergone, and how the particular interests, theological perspectives and historical setting of the author/editor could have influenced the text.

LIBERATIONIST CRITICISM views the biblical texts in terms of their relevance for and usefulness in the struggle for peace and justice. It attempts to read the texts from the viewpoint of the poor.

FEMINIST CRITICISM begins with women’s experience and explores the Bible as the product of patriarchal culture. Using various approaches strategies it seeks to arrive at alternative interpretations to those that over 2000 years have legitimated the oppression of women so that the dignity of women is promoted and the misogyny and devaluation of women is challenged.

LITERAL INTERPRETATIONtakes the meaning of the text as communicated by the words only. It does not allow for the figurative or metaphorical meanings of the text and privileges the reader’s context while excluding all other contexts. The Bible is considered a word by word dictation of God to the Evangelists and there is no acceptance that the text is expressed in human language in a variety of forms and styles for particular purposes. The cultural context of the authors is not considered. Literal interpretation sees the biblical world as an absolute that is they maintain that the text is immediately understandable and needs no further interpretation.

The Catholic Church believes that the Bible must be read with the knowledge and understanding of the Tradition who with the help of the Holy Spirit have gradually deepened and enlarged our understanding of God’s revelation in history. The Catechism makes it clear that Catholics are not to take the Bible literally but to

take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at the time, and the modes of feeling, speaking and narrating then current. ‘For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed in the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.’

Catechism of the Catholic Church # 110

Sources:

  • Brown, Raymond. (1996). An Introduction to the New Testament. London: Doubleday.
  • Achtemeier, Paul. (ed). (1996). HarperCollins Bible Dictionary. San Francisco: HarperCollins.
  • Pontifical Biblical Commission. (1993). The interpretation of the bible in the church. Boston: Pauline Media.

Biblical Interpretation Teacher Background