Raymond E. Brown, “How to Read the New Testament”  from An Introduction to the New Testament.  New York:  Doubleday, 1997. Presentation from his Perspective

Intro:  Hermeneutics – “the study of interpretation, or the quest for meaning”

(A) Survey of Methods of Interpretation (Hermeneutics)

1.  Textual Criticism

2.  Historical Criticism – “literal sense, i.e., what the author literally meant to say; and its detection are one aspect of Historical Criticism” (21)  Example:  Qorban in Mark 7:11-12

3.  Source Criticism

4.  Form Criticism – “genres or literary forms of components” (22); absence or presence of expected features (22-23); form “tells us nothing about the historicity of the material molded into the form of a saying, parable, or miracle story.” (23); concentrated on the preexisting units compiled by the evangelists” (22)

5.  Redaction Criticism – “recognized that the writers creatively shaped the material they inherited” (23); when one knows the sources, “one can diagnose theological emphasis by the changes the author made in what was taken over from the source.” (23-24)

6.  Canonical Criticism –meaning in the light of the context not of one biblical book, but of whole New Testament or of whole Christian Bible. (24)

7.  Structuralism.  Looks for deep structures rather than surface structures. (24-25)

8.  Narrative Criticism. Use of real author, implied author, implied audience, and real audience model.  Looks at continuous stories.   Brown argues it counters excesses of historical criticism, but disagrees with some narrative critics who he holds argue historicity is irrelevant (25-26).  He writes,   “On the one hand, the effectiveness of the Gospels stems to a major degree from their presentation of Jesus in a long, unified, attention-getting narrative (…).  On the other hand, by its own self-understanding Christianity is too fundamentally based on what Jesus actually said and did to be cavalier about historicity.” (26)

9.  Rhetorical Criticism. – “analyzes the strategies used by the author to make what was recounted effective, e.g., the discovery of suitable material to be narrated; the organized arrangement of that material; the choice of appropriate words.” (26)  He also notes use of judicial, deliberative, and demonstrative rhetoric. (26)

10.  Social Criticism – “studies the text as a reflection of and a response to the social and cultural settings in which it was produced.  It views the text as a window into a world of competing views and voices.” (27)

11.  Advocacy Criticism.  “umbrella title sometimes given to Liberationist, African American, Feminist and related studies.” (27)

12.  Overview.  Brown’s position:  “Different approaches to the text must be combined so that no ‘criticism’ becomes the exclusive manner of interpretation.” (28)

Sandra Schneiders – three “worlds” –

 “(a) The world behind the text would include both the life of Jesus and the religious reflection on him through faith, preaching, and community religious experience.” (28)

“(b) The world of the text as it now stands (no matter how it came to be) contains the written witness of the evangelistis, reflecting their own understanding and experience of Jesus and their abilities to express that witness.” (28)

Brown holds the texts may convey meaning beyond what the original author or audience understood. (28-29)

“(c) The world before the text concerns the interaction of the Gospels with the readers who by interpretation enter into them, appropriate their meaning, and are changed by it.” (29)

Brown points to disagreement about whether religious belief is necessary for full appreciation or whether only those who are not committed can be objective. (29) [Other folks often call this the insider/outsider problem in the study of religion.]

(B) Special Issues Raised by Views on Inspiration and Revelation

“Criticisms” assume humans wrote the New Testament texts using the “literary conventions” of their time and thus one can apply the same methods to them as to any other text.  However, Brown holds that Christians think the texts are “inspired”.  He asks, Does this change the rules of interpretation?  And, does the view that biblical texts are a “uniquely important element in divine revelation affect interpretation?” (29)

Inspiration – Four “General Positions”

(1) No inspiration.  “Some maintain that the inspiration of the Scriptures is a pious theological belief that has no validity.” (29) sometimes a “reactive factor” against tradition and literalism (29-30)

(2) Inappropriate to reference inspiration in “scholarly study” – whether one believes it is or isn’t (30)

(3) Divine inspiration Dominant – humanity of authors not relevant, literalist.  Often associated with a “sweeping theory of inerrancy” applied to all sorts of data as infallible.  All texts viewed as historical and apparent contradictions “harmonized.” (30)

(4) Intermediate Position.  “They accept inspiration, deeming it important for the interpretation of Scripture; but they do not think that God’s role as an author removed human limitations.” (30)  Within this position different views on inerrancy.

a. “dispense with inerrancy as a wrong deduction from the valid thesis that God inspired the Scriptures.” (31)

b.  “inspiration did produce an inerrancy affecting religious issues (but not science or history), so that all theological stances in the Scriptures would be inerrant.” (31)

c.  “Limited theological inerrancy” (31)

d.  Qualitative not quantitative:  “all scripture is inerrant to the extent that it serves the purpose for which God intended it.” (31)  example: Vatican II – “’The books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully, and without error that truth which God wanted put into the sacred writings for the sake of our salvation.’” (31)

How to tell – two proposed criteria, each with difficulties associated with Protestant and R. Catholic perspectives in the West (31)

i. “Spirit guides the individual reader of the Bible to religious or theological truth, i.e., ‘private interpretation’ of the Bible.” (31)

ii. “Spirit supplies guidance through church teaching.”

Revelation

Paralleling Views of Inspiration

1.  “Radical Christians deny the existence of any revelation coming from God other than that already implied in creation.” (32)

2. Believe in divine revelation, allow no role in interpretation.  Bible “conveys humanly conditioned ideas, and logic rather than faith determines whether they should be accepted.” (32)

3.  Conservative Christians:  “every word of it [Scripture] constitutes a divine communication of truth to human beings.” (32)  Scripture is Revelation.

Objection:  some passages such as lists of names, temple dimensions, etc. don’t seem to involve truth related to salvation (33).

Responses to this Objection:  a.  allegory  b.  important whether we understand why or not

4.  “Scripture is not revelation but contains it.” (33) 

Is Scripture only normative “witness” to revelation?  Simplification according to Brown::  Protestants yes.  R. Catholics no.

He points out more complexisty:  Many Protestants acknowledge later interpretations have influence and reformulations take place over time.  But usually “do not accept as revealed or normative any affirmations that are not to some degree explicit in Scripture.” (33)

Roman Catholic – How to deal with doctrines not literally found in Scripture such as Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Assumption.

a. Popular approach -more than literal sense, in which the doctrines are hidden (33)

b.  Popular approach – first century oral traditions, Tradition, a second source of revelation.  Vatican II, however, rejected proposal for two sources of revelation

c.  simplified:  Bible contains God’s revelation  of  God’s action for salvation and interpretation of it.  Scriptural interpretation of God’s action is most important, but there can be subsequent interpretation that is also normative.  “Indeed the subsequent role of the
Spirit in human history, in the history of the church and its pronouncements, in the writings of the Fathers and theologians enters into a Tradition that embodies the post-scriptural interpretation of the salvific action of God described in Scripture.” (34)

(C) The Literal Sense – Historical Criticism

“The literal sense means what the biblical authors intended and conveyed to their audiences by what they wrote.” (35)

By what the Biblical Authors Wrote

Translation and understanding of historical and cultural background important.  For example, Jewish background of most or all of the NT authors, issues of language:  Greek, Aramaic, etc.

To Audiences

1. Author’s intention and audience understanding may differ.  Ex.  Jewish author and Gentile audience.

2. Limited knowledge of specific audiences.  Ex. Temple veils.

3. Would audiences have understood “Scripture” or Jewish traditions–  would they have caught subtle allusions

4.  Sociological analysis

What the biblical authors intended and conveyed.

1.  arguments from silence(39)

2.  general correspondence between what author intended and what was conveyed; do sometimes words not convey what the author intended

What to do about “contradictions”, (40)

use of sources (40

(D) Wider Meanings beyond the literal