The contribution of modern critical scholarship to the study of either the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament

Originally the preserve of Christian theologians, the study of the Bible has in recent decades been expanded by the application of modern methods of criticism, usually developed in other fields such as literary criticism or social anthropology. Many of these fields grew out from or overlap each other, but the main fields of modern criticism which are the most relevant to the study of the New Testament in particular are the schools of social-scientific criticism, structural criticism, and the post-modern schools of reader-response criticism and deconstructionism.
Social-scientific criticism stands within the tradition of historical-critical scholarship which has been applied to the study of the Bible for hundreds of years. (Martin, 1999, p 125) It can be placed in this tradition because it is concerned with increasing knowledge and understanding of the New Testament world, but it is a fresh approach because it does not merely assess the evidence of the Bible from a historical point of view, but seeks to understand more of the world described in the New Testament by applying modern anthropological and sociological methods. Characteristically, it applies models garnered from other societies which have been studied at first hand by anthropologists. These societal models, if appropriately and sensitively applied, can illuminate aspects of the New Testament which were not well understood, such as the relationship of the new Christian religion with Judaism and the social make-up of Jesus’ followers.
One example of how social-scientific critical scholarship has contributed to the study of the New Testament is found in the work of Gerd Theissen (1999), an influential German critic. Theissen used his knowledge of the sociology of literature to show that due to the nature of oral tradition the sayings of Jesus, many of them very radical in their insistence on poverty and the severing of family ties, would not have been preserved for long if they had not been “taken seriously”: “It is improbable that ethical precepts will be passed on for long if no-one takes them seriously and if no-one makes at least an attempt to practise them.” (Theissen, 1999, pp 97 – 8) The earliest gospel was not written until about thirty years after the death of Jesus so there arises the problem of how and why radical sayings such as “Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” (Matthew 10:37) were preserved. Theissen then solved the problem he had discovered by deducing the existence of a class of radical, itinerant preacher. (Theissen, 1999, 102) He posited the existence of this type of person based firstly on the radical sayings of Jesus, which if they had been carried out strictly would have required homelessness, rejection of normal family structures and a life of poverty, and secondly on the instructions given to the first missionaries in Matthew 10:10ff (“Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts… search out some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave”) (Theissen, 1999, 103). Theissen then confirmed the plausibility of such a lifestyle in the Graeco-Roman world by invoking the Cynic philosophers who lived isolated lives of poverty. Theissen’s thesis not only illuminated the features of oral transmission but also placed Jesus within a social context as a radical itinerant preacher, which provides a fresh insight on how he and his teachings would have been understood by his original followers.
A quite different method of critical study is structural criticism. This stands in the tradition of literary criticism rather than historical criticism in that it concentrates on the interpretation of the finished text, rather than trying to increase knowledge about background issues such as the New Testament world and history or the sources which were used in writing the text. (McKenzie and Haynes, 1999, p 7) Structural criticism is based on semiotic and semantic theories, both of which are studies of how meaning is produced and communicated by language. The method used in structural analysis is close reading of the text to identify what is being communicated, and how. With regard to the Bible, structural criticism can be very useful in identifying different forms of communication so that scholar of comparative religion can compare parts of texts on a ‘like with like’ basis rather than randomly comparing the use of Hellenistic or Jewish terms in the New Testament when they are actually being used quite differently. (Patte, 1999, pp 184 – 5) In the study of the New Testament itself structural criticism has much to offer, too, as the close reading cuts through the familiar narrative to find the intended message, and the methods used for communicating the message. A good example of this is Patte’s structural exegesis of Luke chapter 24. (Patte, 1999, pp 187 – 195) By closely examining the interactions between the characters in the passage, and paying special attention to “inverted parallel” occurrences, he is able to draw out the theological message which the early Christians or seekers reading the passage were supposed to imbibe: that one needs reliable knowledge of the events and purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection, interpreted in the light of the Hebrew scriptures, in order to enter into the “great joy” of being a true believer.
The most recent additions to critical scholarship come from the realm of postmodernism. Two of the most influential are reader-response criticism and deconstructionism. These theories, however, despite being influential and radical, have not been nearly as useful to the study of the New Testament as those discussed above. Reader-response criticism rejects the supposition that there is a meaning in texts which can be extracted. Instead, in the act of reading, “It is the reader who ‘makes’ literature.” (Stanley Fish, quoted in McKnight, 1999, p 231) Another branch of the theory holds that there may be a meaning in the text, formed by the author’s intention, but this meaning is unknowable. (McKnight, 1999, p 232) These views are radical enough when applied to fiction, but when applied to the New Testament, which is a collection of texts written as history and as letters to actual people, it becomes most unhelpful. The reader is “freed” to interpret the text in whatever way he finds “satisfying” to his own concerns. (McKnight, 1999, p 240) This may be liberating for some readers of the New Testament, but as any interpretation would necessarily only be applicable to the one particular reader who created it, this form of scholarship can have nothing to add to New Testament scholarship at large. Reader-response criticism can be usefully used to investigate the “implied reader” of texts, (McKnight, 1999, p 240) which can tell us more about the New Testament world and early Christians, but in general reader-response criticism has nothing to add to Bible scholarship.
Deconstructionism, which takes the idea of no fixed interpretation further, denying the possibility of even a reader-response interpretation (and staggeringly even the possibility of finding a referent for the proper name “Jesus” in the gospel of Matthew [Burrnett, 1991]) is of even less use. This theory asks us to challenge our reading of texts which are biased by our history and the exercise of power, but it offers nothing to put in their place and holds that “no ‘closure’, no final, and indeed, no real result is possible in this quest.” (Beardslee, 1999, p 255) It is in a very pure sense pointless. Rejecting the idea that interpretation is possible, it cannot contribute meaningfully to the study of the New Testament. Other modern branches of critical scholarship, such as social-scientific and structural, have enhanced our powers of interpretation by bringing knowledge and understanding from other fields such as semiotics and anthropology. It is these branches which have contributed most to the study of the New Testament in recent decades, rather than radical, post-modern literary theories which cannot be usefully applied to a text which is historical and theological in character, such as the New Testament.