A Catholic Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
By John Gresham

The World Behind the Text (Historical Context)
HISTORICAL CRITICAL METHOD

Description / Justification / Limitations / Tools / Application

Description of the method:
The historical-critical method studies the scriptural text as an historical document and seeks to understand the text in terms of its historical context.
For the historical-critical method, the clues to the meaning of the text are to be found in the world behind the text:
The historical-critical method is the attempt to determine the original meaning of the text by reconstructing:
Different methods of historical analysis are used at each stage in the history of the text. Form Criticism is used to uncover the oral traditions behind the text. Source criticism is the attempt to discern the earlier written sources that were incorporated into the biblical text. Redaction criticism focuses on the role of the final redactor or editor(s) who combined these oral and written sources into the final form of the biblical text. Textual criticism is interested in the history of the transmission of the text after its original composition.
Form Criticism investigates the individual units of oral tradition that precede the written text. This method focuses on the typical form or structure of oral traditions and seeks to reconstruct the life setting for that tradition. For example, form critics classify psalms by common structural characteristics and seek to reconstruct their setting in the temple worship of Israel, prior to their collection in written form in the book of Psalms. New Testament form critics analyze common structural characteristics of certain types of stories in the gospels (miracle stories, parables, etc.) and reconstruct the life setting in which these stories were recited in the early church before they were collected and written in the gospels.
The next stage in the history of the biblical text is the collection of these oral traditions into written collections that became sources for the biblical text in its final form. Source criticism (sometimes called literary criticism in the past) tries to unravel the final biblical text into various earlier written sources. Many Old Testament critics, for example, read the Pentateuch as a combination of four written sources, the Jahwist, the Elohist, the Deuteronomist and the Priestly sources (J, E, D & P). Source criticism of the gospels explores the interrelationships of the three synoptic gospels and a reconstructed fourth source called Q (from the word "quelle" meaning "source"). Related to source criticism is "traditions criticism." Traditions Criticism is less interested in locating written sources, but like source criticism, tries to discern the distinct preexisting traditions (oral or written) which have been combined in a biblical text.
Redaction criticism is interested in the final stage of composition of a biblical text. The "redactor" is the editor and final author (individual or community) who combines the diverse oral and written traditions into their final form in the biblical text. In redaction criticism, the interpreter is especially interested in the active role of the final redactor in selecting, organizing and interpreting the earlier tradition. For example, the redaction critic would be interested in determining the historical and theological reasons behind the unique way in which Luke tells the passion narrative, in contrast to other gospels. Similarly, an Old Testament scholar using redaction criticism might focus on the unique theological perspective with which the Chronicler tells the story of King David, especially in contrast to the deuteronomistic history found in the books of I and II Samuel.
Textual criticism studies the subsequent transmission of the text. Since we do not have the original biblical writings, the methods of textual criticism are used to analyze existing manuscripts. Historical and comparative studies of the variations among these manuscripts are used to reconstruct the original text. For example, textual critical methods are used to compare the various endings to Mark found in the extant manuscripts and determine which is the original ending to the gospel. This is study is sometimes called lower criticism because it is not concerned with interpretation of the meaning of texts as is higher criticism (historical criticism). Textual criticism is simply concerned with reconstructing the text itself.

Justification for the historical critical method

This is a crucial method for the study of scripture for the obvious reason that these documents emerge in a different historical and cultural world than that of the contemporary reader. Study of any ancient document requires some knowledge of that document's historical setting. This was part of the argument which launched the modern historical-critical study of the biblical writings in the nineteenth century - the same historical methods which had proven useful in the study of other ancient writings could likewise prove fruitful for the study of these ancient writings of the Hebrews and early Christians. Given the historical and cultural distance between the times in which the biblical writings were created and our own day, it is difficult to dispute this argument.
Another argument for this method of studying the biblical texts is more controversial. The historical-critical method emerged as an attempt to "free' biblical study from dogmatic theology. It was argued that theologians treated the biblical texts as mere proof texts for their theological systems, imposing a meaning on the text derived from a theological system that obscured rather than elucidated the original meaning of the text. For these early advocates of the historical-critical method, and many of the method's adherents today, a key to the historical method is to study the biblical texts, not as some uniquely inspired sacred text but as any other historical document. Hence, an approach to biblical study has developed, especially in the universities, which is exclusively historical, without reference to faith, theology or church teaching.
The question is then raised whether there is a place for the historical-critical method within a Catholic approach to scripture which reads the Bible with faith, guided by the theological teaching of the church. While an exclusively historical approach must be rejected (for reasons developed below), Catholic faith nonetheless affirms the historical approach. Indeed, a Catholic understanding of revelation and inspiration requires the historical approach.
First, the historical approach to the scriptures is recognition that Divine revelation occurs in human history. The Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum) affirms that divine revelation occurs when the invisible God, out of the fullness of his love "moves among [us]" in human history. The " economy of revelation" is realized by "deeds and words... intrinsically bound up with each other." The biblical writings arise out of a "history of salvation." So, we can use historical methods to help us enter into this past history of salvation as we seek to understand the deeds and words of God. The incarnational and sacramental perspective of Catholicism affirms the divine presence in the midst of human history. In other words, Catholic faith declares that revelation occurs in a human historical context. The historical-critical study of scripture provides tools that can help us better understand that context. According to the Pontifical Biblical Commission document, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church::
The Bible, in effect, does not present itself as a direct revelation of timeless truths but as the written testimony to a series of interventions in which God reveals himself in human history. In a way that differs from tenets of other religions, the message of the Bible is solidly grounded in history. It follows that the biblical writings cannot be correctly understood without an examination of the historical circumstances that shaped them.
Second, a Catholic understanding of the divine inspiration of the biblical writings requires the historical approach to scripture. According to the Catholic understanding of inspiration, God speaks through men in human fashion. God chose the authors of sacred scripture and acted in them and by them to communicate his word and yet he made full use of their powers and faculties so that they wrote as true authors. (Dei Verbum 11-12) Pope Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu wrote that the inspired author of scripture is the living and reasonable instrument of the Holy Spirit. In other words, while inspired by God, the human authors were not passive but active instruments of God bringing their own personality into the sacred writings. This is consistent with Catholic belief that divine grace perfects nature. In divine inspiration God elevates and works through and with natural human abilities of the scriptural authors to create sacred scripture. Historical-critical methods may be used to better understand the human authors by whom and though whom God worked to speak His word.

Thus, when we look to the teaching of the Catholic Church, despite rejection of an exclusively historical methodology, we find the historical approach affirmed. The Vatican II Constitution on Divine Revelation calls the biblical interpreter to

look for the meaning which the sacred writer, in a determined situation and given the circumstances of his time and culture, intended to express giving due attention to the customary and characteristic patterns of perception, speech and narrative which prevailed at the age of the sacred writer, and to the conventions which the people of his time followed in their dealings with one another.
Pope Pius XII, in the encyclical letter, Divino Afflante Spiritu, says,
Let the interpreter, then with all care and without neglecting any light derived from recent research, endeavor to determine the peculiar character and circumstances of the sacred writer, the age in which he lived, the sources written and oral to which he had recourse and the forms of expression he employed.

Limitations of the historical-critical method

While people of faith have often questioned certain tendencies of the historical method, in recent times the method has been widely criticized both within the church and the university. Those criticisms show the limitations of this method.
One criticism is that the historical method has often tended toward a study of the pre-history of biblical texts with a concurrent failure to wrestle with the meaning of the completed text. Some would argue that historical-critical scholars have often expended so much energy in analyzing the sources and historical antecedents of a biblical text that there is no energy left to explain the meaning of the text before us. Historical-critical study has often been characterized as a dissection of the text into many component sources and parts, leaving the text like a dissected (and lifeless!) corpse that cannot be put together again. Those who have raised these criticisms have called for renewed attention to a biblical book as a whole, a sacred or at least literary work to be interpreted in its final form, regardless of the previous history of its sources.
A similar criticism finds the focus of the historical method misdirected. Rather than looking for meaning in some reconstructed history behind the texts as the historical critics do, some argue that we should pay greater attention to the biblical narrative within the text. These critics of the historical method argue that it is a mistake to replace the biblical narrative with the historical critics' reconstruction of history according to the norms of modern historiography. The reader of the bible is left with the minimal facts that can be affirmed with historical certainty and loses the rich multilayered meanings to be found in the biblical narrative itself.
Another criticism has been sharply stated by people of faith. Faith communities read the bible, not primarily as a work of ancient history, but as the word of God. Historical-critical study has often failed to move beyond analysis of what the text meant in its original historical setting to discerning what the text says today to the people of God who look to that text for instruction. Exegesis is not complete with the merely historical analysis. Historical exegesis must contribute to "ecclesial exegesis." Pope Paul VI (Address to Pontifical Biblical Commission, March 14, 1974) called biblical scholars to ecclesial exegesis in these words
Your work is not simply to explain ancient texts to get back to the original primitive form of some sacred text. The prime duty of the exegete is to present the message of revelation to the People of God; to lay bare the meaning of the word of God in itself and in its relationship to contemporary man.
 Criticism is also directed toward the often rationalistic bias that has characterized much historical critical study of the scriptures. In some cases this has been the result of philosophical bias imposing conclusions on an otherwise neutral historical methodology. Some biblical critics work with a rationalistic, naturalistic philosophy that leads them to look for "historical" explanations of miraculous elements in the biblical record. In other cases, this reflects a certain inherent tendency of the method. An approach directed toward the method of historical analogy or influence as an explanatory principle is ill equipped to handle the sometimes novel and miraculous events of divine self-disclosure to which scripture bears witness. Catholic exegesis will use historical methods with caution, aware that the method can be distorted by rationalistic bias antithetical to the very biblical content under interpretation.

Also criticized is a certain emphasis on discontinuity in the historical-critical interpretation of the Bible that sets earlier and later traditions in an unnecessary opposition. Thus for some nineteenth century rationalistic biblical scholars, the Apostle Paul distorts the simple ethical teaching of Jesus with his Hellenistic myths of redemption. Later twentieth century biblical scholars find the genuine Pauline message of grace lost as Christianity is institutionalized in the later New Testament writings. In more recent times some scholars are attracted to non-canonical writings and certain reconstructed oral traditions which, they argue, better express the radical egalitarian message of Jesus than the New Testament canon imposed by an authoritarian church. The Catholic approach by contrast stresses the continuity and development of the biblical traditions from the oral and written prehistory, through final composition and inclusion in the canon, extending to the ongoing use and interpretation of the text in the life of the church.

A final criticism directed toward the historical-critical method by many today is directed against the sometimes presumed scientific objectivity and the privileged status of this method. In the past one would often hear of the "assured results" of higher criticism as if the historical-critical method had definitively and scientifically reconstructed the origins and meanings of biblical events and texts. In the pluralistic world of postmodern biblical studies, historical approaches (which already represent a diversity of methods and conjectures) now appear as one of several approaches to the biblical text. We argue for a convergence of these many approaches in this Catholic approach to biblical interpretation. The Catholic exegete affirms the historical-critical study of the text as essential but not the exclusive method for understanding the biblical text.

 

Tools

Bible encyclopedias and dictionaries provide easily accessible information on historical and cultural backgrounds to the biblical writings. Some helpful works include:
  • Anchor Bible Dictionary 6 volume scholarly encyclopedia.

  • Cultural Dictionary of The Bible John Pilch. (Liturgical Press) Socio-cultural description of biblical objects, daily activities, symbols and concepts in their historical context

  • Eerdman’s Dictionary of the Bible. (Eerdmans) Ecumenical scholarly general Bible dictionary (600 Bible scholars contributed) Most up-to-date.

  • The Dictionary of The Bible. J. McKenzie. (Simon Schuster) Edited by a Jesuit biblical scholar.

  • HarperCollins Bible Dictionary HarperCollins Another good dictionary.

  • Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Dictionary (Thomas Nelson) Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Tyndale House.) New Bible Dictionary (InterVarsity Press) Good general Bible dictionaries based on conservative biblical scholarship.

    •

    Most modern commentaries stress the historical interpretation of scripture. A comparative study of several commentaries will provide a diversity of interpretations based on historical considerations.

    Single volume commentaries include::

  • The Collegeville Bible Commentary  Historical and literary interpretation by Catholic Bible scholars in accessible language.

  • New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall) Academic historical-critical commentary by Catholic biblical scholars. A revised version more accessible to the non-scholar is The New Jerome Bible Handbook  (Liturgical Press).

  • Farmer, William R., et al. The International Bible Commentary: A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century (Liturgical Press) Global scholarly historical, literary and pastoral commentary with good introductory articles.

    •

    Multi-volume commentary series providing historical-critical interpretation include the following:

  • Word Biblical Commentary

  • Anchor Bible Commentary

  • New International Commentary on Old Testament and New International Commentary on the New Testament

    •

    Theological and Exegetical Dictionaries of the Bible provide word studies which define the theological meaning of biblical terms in their original historical and cultural setting.  Examples include:

  • Dictionary of Biblical Theology by Xavier Leon-DuFour, French Catholic biblical scholar. Pauline Books & Media.

  • Theological Dictionary of the New Testament Kittel, Gerhard, and G. Friedrich, eds. G. Bromiley, trs.Eerdmans. 10 vols. Includes scripture and English indexes.

  • Dictionary of New Testament Theology Colin Brown. Zondervan.

  • Sacramentum verbi: an encyclopedia of Biblical theology. Ed. by Johannes Baptist Bauer.  Herder and Herder

     

    •

    Application
    Answer the following questions regarding the biblical passage you are researching: When, where and why was it written? What earlier sources or traditions does it use? How have those sources been restated in this passage? What did the key words of the text mean in the original setting? What was the original author trying to say to the initial readers? What specific insights does this historical study provide for a contemporary interpretation of the passage?

    Back to A Catholic Introduction to Biblical Interpretation