Interpretive Smackdown: Historical-Critical vs. Literary-Critical
A fascinating article concerning the contentious gulf separating Historical-Critical and Postmodern interpretations of the Bible appears in the Summer 2009 edition of Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL). It seems that, according to the article, the Biblical Studies department is divided on interpretive issues. On one hand, we have those who would advance the modern idea of one ultimate or final reading of the text(s) that is discovered via the interpretive paradigm aka the Historical-Critical approach (source criticism, form criticism, grammatical studies and archaeology); on the other hand we have the postmodern interpretive venture – or literary-critical method – that suggests an availability of several divergent but equally plausible readings that are produced by a variety of experiences, voices and, more importantly, the metanarrative void (Postcolonial Readings, Feminist Readings, Marxist Readings, Black (African-American) Readings, Hermeneutic of Suspicion, Rhetorical Criticism, Stylistic Criticism, Metaphorical Criticism, Post-structuralism, and Myth Theory, to name just a few).
The article, which is titled An Elephant in the Room: Historical-Critical and Postmodern Interpretations of the Bible, is especially interesting because the authors actually suggest that the gulf existing between the two interpretive approaches is bridgeable. In fact, bridge building is the goal. The authors write, “…we hope to make further conversation between these approaches more acceptable (or even desirable).” That is a wonderful hope, but it still remains to be seen if a conversational bridge can be constructed at all. It seems plausible that the literary critics could indeed appreciate the historical-critical method as just another of many voices and readings, while simultaneously rejecting the interpretive idealism that is expressed as “ultimate” or “final” readings, but it seems much less likely that most historical-critical aficionados would return the favor, given the foundational methodology implemented and – perhaps more importantly – the historic presuppositions involved in their interpretive exercise.
I have yet to finish reading the article, as I have only read the introduction. I am especially curious about the method the authors implement in their attempt to bridge the chasm that separates the two interpretive methods: Myth Making.
More random thoughts will follow my completion of the article. These thoughts and reflections will probably be published in a series of posts. Meanwhile, I wonder, what method, if any, do you use to interpret the texts? Why do you favor your method and reject the other? Interesting questions, I’m sure. I’m also sure very few people in pews even give it a thought. That’s another post …
FOOTNOTE: Personally, I appreciate the way that the authors of this article point out the poor and misguided use of the term “postmodernism” by opportunists who try to cash in on perceived cultural trends. We all have witnessed more than a few evangelical individuals and/or churches attempt to attach the term “postmodern” to whatever book or ministry they are peddling. We have all discovered churches that claim to be “postmodern churches” but are only “postmodern” in style (music and furniture), if that can even be called postmodern. Postmodernism is more than a shift in music, meeting time, dress and vocabulary; postmodernism is philosophical understanding and expression that will directly challenge worldviews and stories. Bluntly put, postmodernism is so much more than Len Sweet’s Soul Tsunami and/or Aqua Church.
The authors address this issues directly in the following excerpt.
As an aside, we mention an issue whose full treatment is beyond the scope of this article: the explicit use of the term “postmodernism” and the claim that a book or collection is postmodern. Although we freely use the term “postmodernism,” many of the works that we cite do not proclaim themselves to be postmodern even though they well exemplify the diversity and anti-essentialism of postmodernism. In contrast, evangelical Christian publishing houses now regularly issue books with “postmodernism” in the titles whose content may well not correspond to postmodernism as considered here. These evangelical titles are typically attempts to “baptize” postmodernism and to capitalize on current popular terms such as “postmodern” and “deconstruction” on behalf of evangelical theology.
So, if you sling the word “postmodernism” around, you would do well to actually start looking into the philosophy the term represents.
Related posts:
I wouldn’t say that there’s a gulf to bridge between scholars who use historical-critical method and those who use methods from literary criticism in biblical studies. There are lots of people out there, including me — I went back and forth as to whether to go to grad school in English lit or biblical studies, and have used tools from literary criticism as well as the social sciences since I started as a biblical scholar — who have used both for years, and there are several schools of scholars who for decades have prided themselves on eclecticism in method.
Interesting. It’s times like these that I wish I were I member so I could read the article.
Hi, Sarah! I have two thoughts in response to your comment: 1. The fact that you surf both of these approaches indicates that your approach differs from the historical-critical in one important, foundational area – the presupposition that one final or ultimate reading can be realized if only we would implement the right tools; 2. I use both methods too, and regularly! A quick search of my Biblical studies meanderings will reveal as much. :)
So, maybe “gulf” isn’t the best word, but it does point towards a tension that really does exist between the hardliners of each of these camps. And I think there is a variety of approaches that can be filed under the Historical-Critical heading. Some of them are a bit more stingy than others. For example, the Biblical Studies dept. at my Christian conservative undergraduate college preached a version of the historical-critical method, but it did not involve source or form criticism. It also discarded any validity reader-response theory offered as somehow “detrimental to the Word of God.” So, maybe it really depends upon which Historical-Critical camp we are engaging?
At any rate, I hear what you are saying and I obviously appreciate it because I too use and find value in both methods.
Perhaps another methodological name is required?
Membership is so worth it, Blake. The articles in the quarterly journal are so informative.
I think I may seriously consider it.