Source Criticism and Theology (Noch einmal)
James Pate left a comment on my prior post about source criticism and theology. He asked how source criticism determines which layers of the text are authoritative. In other words, is the final form of the text authoritative or does the authority reside in the layers itself?
I wanted to address this by first noting that source criticism does not determine which layer(s) are authoritative. Authority is a theological concept (at least as applied to the Bible) and source criticism is a philological method. It gives us an idea of the date and social location of the text, but by its nature it cannot tell us what to do with the text afterwards.
In my previous post, I noted that the reading the text theologically is best done by paying attention to the various layers, hearing their different voices, and seeing how the text in its final form unites those layers without destroying their distinctiveness. Canonical criticism would suggest that it is this final form that is authoritative, and that is a theological judgment.1 Such theological judgments are appropriate, but they are not a part of source criticism.
Canonical criticism sees the authority of the text as residing in the final form because this was the form that was canonized by the faith communities. I don’t completely disagree with this, but I think earlier layers are authoritative as well, because they were considered canonical (to an extent) by the communities that produced and transmitted them. The canonical process obviously accepted the authority of those layers or they would not have been included in the final form. The canonical process may have modified some of the layers, but it did not obliterate them. This suggests that the authority of the original layers should be respected to a degree, although it should not be confused with the authority of the text as a whole. That is why it is so important to pay attention to the various voices as well as to the way they have been combined.
This means that ultimately my answer to James’s final question is yes. James asked:
[S]hould we try to balance the difference perspectives against each other, recognizing them all as simultaneously true in some sense
This is opposed to his other options, where he asked whether we should treat P as “a degeneration of Israelite religion from a better, freer form.” This kind of Hegelian understanding of history is inappropriate when applied to biblical theology.2 Nor should we prefer Deuteronomy’s supposedly more egalitarian reading of the law to that of Exodus. It is not a question of privileging one over the other. To move from Hegel to a reversal of Kierkegaard, I would say it is not either/or but both/and. We have to listen to both Exodus and Deuteronomy, noticing the differences and tension between the layers, as well as the harmonies (and discordant notes!) they produce in their final form.
On August 27th, 2007 at 4:34 pm
[…] I came home and looked at my feed reader and behold! a post on the very topic. Kevin over at Blue Cord has some interesting things to say. […]
On August 27th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Thanks for your response. I should have phrased the question “How should theologians use source criticism for theology?” or something like that. You are right to point out that source criticism by itself is theologically neutral (or it should be; bias can be a factor in some cases). Your conclusion is more or less how I approach the text–I try to see value in all of the diverse parts, while recognizing that there are layers and that diversity exists. I wonder to what extent this would work in traditional or orthodox Judaism, however. As a Protestant, I can read the law in Exodus about slavery, and I can read the law in Deuteronomy, for example, and I can come up with a lesson that each teaches. But I do not have to do those laws. The situation would be different if I actually had to observe them. I would have to come up with some way to harmonize them, as the rabbis tried to do, and the result may be a disregard of layers or diversity in the text.
I may have to develop or clarify these ideas, but I’ll stop here for now.
On August 28th, 2007 at 10:02 am
I wonder what you think of some of the relatively recent literary approaches (which are distinct from the canonical approach(es) as Childs himself wanted to make absolutely clear), and if you think these approaches and source criticism are mutually exclusive.
On August 28th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Dave,
Could you elaborate a bit on what you mean by recent literary approaches. I know some literary approaches that are compatible with source criticism and some that would ignore it entirely.
On August 28th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Yeah, that is a bit vague. I suppose I mean the kind of narratology practiced by figures like Sternberg and Alter.
On August 28th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
I have to admit I don’t know much about the approaches of those two. I read some Alter back in seminary, but he seemed to be merely repeating what James Kugel had already said better. I haven’t read any more recent stuff, so I am afraid I can’t say how their approach fits with source criticism.
On August 29th, 2007 at 1:27 am
Thanks, Kevin, for a carefully nuanced post.
The both/and approach is more respectful of the texture of the literature.
On August 29th, 2007 at 10:50 am
Kevin,
Write me! call me! Please! You know where I work!
Susan Schmoozin “Is 3rd Isaiah in that Catholic Bible?” Olson.
On September 1st, 2007 at 5:40 am
[…] of this ties in with the questions raised by Kevin Wilson about source criticism. The interpretative task does both: the examination of the particular […]