Form Criticism

This book contributes to the theory and practice of Biblical interpretation by engaging in an interpretation of Psalm 24 inspired by a particular understanding of Brevard Childs' "canonical approach": an understanding centred on the concept of "theological substance."

Sumpter shows how the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of Psalm 24 cohere into a single vision by reading the text according to the a dialectic between "witness" and "reality." An initial "synchronic" analysis of the psalm's poetic structure is then related to a "diachronic" reconstruction of the tradition history that lead to the final form. The question is then posed concerning the primary forces at work in this history of composition, a question which leads to reflection on the Trinity, first in se and then pro nobis. This latter dimension takes us back to the text, as its "Davidic" nature is further analysed in relation to the books of Samuel, the Psalter, and Isaiah. Finally, a contemporary actualization of the Psalm by Eberhard Jüngel is compared to its interpretation in Patristic exegesisin order to probe deeper into the mysterious subject matter of the text.

Inquiry into the content of the preaching and teaching of the early Church was commonplace in the first part of the twentieth century. Such research was carried out under a number of different headings – kerygma, catechesis, etc. – and pursued with the form-critical tools of the day. However, these reconstructions encountered serious criticism and since the 1970s such inquiries have been more reserved. Today the field is divided, if sparse, with some employing the methods and results of earlier scholarship and others all but ignoring the question entirely. The present article examines this history of scholarship from Alfred Seeberg into the twenty-first century.

Pre-pub uncorrected proof of chapter that describes Form Criticism of Martin Dibelius and Rudolf Bultmann. Final corrected version published in Porter and Adams (eds.), Pillars in the History of Biblical Interpretation (vol 1). https://wipfandstock.com/pillars-in-the-history-of-biblical-interpretation-volume-1.html

Proposes that describing the prophetic books as “prophetic fictions”
not only draws together much previous consideration of these books. It also accurately
describes their content and form and reflects what is most distinctive about this
genre as we find it in the Hebrew Bible. Having situated what is meant by the
genre description “prophetic fiction” I will try to show how this language can
help us understand the works themselves, focusing in particular on an outline
reading of Amos 1–3.

Acknowledging the explanation of the parable of the Weeds (Tares, Darnel) as secondary, this article attempts
to show that the parable itself could very well be original, though heavily retouched by the author of the First Gospel.
After a comparison with the version offered by the Gospel of Thomas (G.Th. 57) and an analysis of the elements
added by Matthew and/or tradition, I attempt to reconstruct the original version of the parable and see how
it fits into the framework of the historical Jesus’ understanding and proclamation of the Kingdom.

Ce mémoire de maîtrise a comme sujet la constitution du credo présent en 1 Corinthiens 15:1-11, son origine, son contexte littéraire et historique en 1 Corinthiens, ainsi que la théologie et l’historicité des éléments le constituant. Il se penche premièrement sur la question de la délimitation du credo présent dans cette péricope. Suite à une analyse basée sur la critique des formes, une version longue du credo incluant les v. 3b-7 (excepté le v. 6b) est défendue.
    Deuxièmement, la question de la réception de la tradition par Paul est abordée ainsi que son utilisation contextuelle en 1 Co 15. D’un côté, il est soutenu que Paul a probablement reçu le credo de l’apôtre Pierre et Jacques, le frère de Jésus, à Jérusalem vers l’an 36 et que la formation du credo est antérieure à cela. De l’autre côté, Paul s’en sert en 1 Co 15 pour contrer une perspective grecque de la vie après la mort qui considérait la résurrection corporelle comme absurde puisque cette notion était perçue comme un retour dans des corps identiques aux corps présents, c’est-à-dire mortel (corruptible) et caractérisé par le vice (péché).
    Troisièmement, le credo est systématiquement analysé sur le plan théologique et historique. Sur le plan théologique, il est démontré que l’union mystique des chrétiens avec le Christ est présupposée et que cette idée remonte probablement à la tradition présente en 1 Co 11:23-25. De plus, És 53, Os 6:2 et Gn 22:4 sont présentés comme les principaux textes ayant servi à l’élaboration de cette tradition ancienne. Enfin, il est argumenté que les trois événements fondateurs, à savoir la mort, l’ensevelissement et les apparitions du Christ, sont d’ordre historique. L’auteur ne se prononce pas sur l’historicité de la résurrection, considérant qu’il s’agit d’un « fait-explication » ce qui diffère d’un « fait- observation » ce qui nécessiterait une autre méthodologie qui dépasse le cadre de ce mémoire.

This Master’s thesis deals with the creed found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-11: its origin, literary and historical contexts in I Corinthians as well as the theology and historical significance of its parts. It is focused primarily on identifying the boundaries of the creed in the pericope. A form criticism analysis leads to an argument for a long version of the creed which includes verses 3b-7 (but excluding v. 6b).
    Secondly, the question of Paul’s use of tradition is addressed as well as its contextualization in I Corinthians 15. On the one hand, it is argued that Paul received the creed from the Apostle Peter and James, the brother of Jesus, in Jerusalem around the year AD 36, and that the creed had been formed before that time. On the other hand, Paul uses it in 1 Corinthians 15 to oppose a Greek perspective on life after death, which viewed physical resurrection as absurd. In this perspective, resurrection meant a return to a body identical to the present body, which is mortal/corruptible and characterized by vice/sin.
    Thirdly, the creed is systematically analyzed on both the theological and historical levels. On the theological level, it will be demonstrated that the mystical union of Christians with Christ is presupposed and that the notion probably goes back to the tradition present in 1 Corinthians 11:23-25. Furthermore, Isaiah 53, Hosea 6:2 and Genesis 22:4 are presented as the primary texts used to develop this ancient tradition. Finally, it is argued that three founding events, namely, the death, the burial and the appearances of Christ, are to be considered historical. The author does not take a position on the historicity of the resurrection, considering that it is an explanatory fact and not an observed fact. This question would require another methodology which goes beyond the scope of this thesis.

A paper delivered at the winter meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study, Birmingham, 4-6 January 2006. This formed the basis for a later paper, 'The limits of form criticism in the study of literature, with reflections on Psalm 34', but is itself a longer and more detailed examination of the topic.

Abstract: Increasingly, form criticism is being called on to serve as an interpretative, literary-critical tool, rather than as the essentially diachronic, historical method which it was originally designed to be. It is true that many of the presuppositions which informed early form criticism have been brought into question, especially with regard to assumptions about the relationship between oral and written materials. The approach has also faced practical difficulties, both in terms of faulty application and, more fundamentally, in dealing with the transfer of forms to secondary contexts. As an approach to historical questions, however, there is a theoretical legitimacy in the form-critical emphasis on extracting and delineating ‘basic forms’, even if it offers informed speculation more often than secure data. When transferred to the literary-critical sphere, however, this approach aligns form criticism with classic, Aristotelian assumptions, the serious limitations of which have long been recognised by literary theorists. The re-application of form criticism in this way involves a confusion of aims and categories which does few favours either to form criticism or to any serious study of genre and convention in the biblical texts.

In addressing the topic of how the gospels were written, this essay introduces the so-called Synoptic Problem, and Source, Traditio-Form and Redaction Criticism. The principal methodological issues and results of these disciplines are introduced, before a brief critique of them is offered from an evangelical perspective. An attempt is made to grapple with the implications of a high view of Scripture for the practice of these Higher Critical disciplines.

This thesis is a literary analysis of minor secondary characters in the Elisha narratives (2 Kings 2-8). I define a minor secondary character as one that appears once or twice in this corpus and either plays a minor role or a leading role in a short story (seven verses or less). The great and diverse cast in the Elisha stories feature many common Israelites and foreigners, besides kings, high  officials and the prophet himself. I contend that the narrative function of minor secondary characters is not only to provide indirect characterization for major characters, but also to express central themes of the Elisha narratives.
The prominence of minor secondary characters in the Elisha narratives reflects both on the particular historical context of the stories and the unique calling of Elisha ben Shaphat. In my introductory chapter, I offer a survey of recent scholarship on the Elisha story-cycle (1.1). First, I summarize the recent history of social-scientific analyses of these stories, which aim to reconstruct the social, economic and religious atmosphere of the Kingdom of Northern Israel (KNI) during the Omride dynasty. I draw on social-scientific criticism since it applies modern social theory to textual analysis with selective use of material evidence to establish the social context of the biblical text, while cautioning against its tendency toward generalization. During this period, the KNI endured unprecedented changes, transitioning from a tribal society to a centralized monarchy. Israelite peasants encountered extraordinary social pressures owing to the great economic, political and religious changes initiated by the Omrides in the KNI. The introduction of Phoenician cults endangered traditional worship of YHWH. The development of agriculture from subsistence farming on tribal plots to commercial latifundia to produce cash-crops for export threatened traditional social structures and transformed peasant land-owners into tenant farmers. Militarization to protect domestic interests introduced further competition for precious land and production resources. The Omrides' international and cosmopolitan outlook benefitted the royal house and nobles that aligned themselves with these new policies but left many others in extremis. I then turn to a history of the literary study of the Elisha narratives, including form critical and literary-aesthetic scholarship. I show how scholars of both schools have endeavored to establish the genre of these stories as foundational for understanding its meaning. Recent scholarship has proposed vastly different genre categories, including general and specific, genre labels. My survey demonstrates that genre analysis, in its tendency to establish the “correct” genre, unnecessarily limits the multivalence of the Elisha stories.
Following this survey, I open a case for the study of minor secondary characters in the Elisha narratives (1.2). The character of Elisha is primarily understood through his actions. Unlike his predecessor Elijah who contended with Ahab and the people of Israel for the sole worship of YHWH, Elisha is not distinguished by a correspondingly discernible divine message. This gap casts a shadow of ambiguity on the character of Elisha, despite his prominence in the book of Kings. Consequently, several scholars have attempted to fill this gap by interpreting his portrayal as negative. However, Elisha is consistently portrayed as available and helpful, and he is almost always portrayed in the company of others. Many of these “others” include minor secondary characters, representing common Israelites, who relate to Elisha as one who can solve various problems. Recent literary-aesthetic scholarship reveals that within the realm of biblical storytelling, minor characters are not intrinsically important, often functioning as an accessory to the plot. When they are important, their literary function is usually indirect characterization of the major characters. However, minor secondary characters in the Elisha narratives are distinctive in several ways that merit examination.
In my next section (1.3), I establish my thesis. I briefly discuss a recent trend in New Testament scholarship to recognize that minor characters are instrumental to the expression of key themes of the gospels. Similarly, I propose that minor secondary characters are key message-bearers in the Elisha story-cycle. The stories ascribe worth and importance to ordinary folk, counter-culturally, during a period in Israel's history when they were severely marginalized. Though they wield neither royal nor prophetic authority, they contribute positively and significantly to the outcome of the Elisha narratives and to the accomplishment of divine purposes therein.
In the following section, I discuss my methodology (1.4). I discuss the difference between generic realism and generic conceptualism as defined by Kenton Sparks, which provides a theoretical framework to the classification methodology I employ. I aim to classify types of minor secondary characters and analyze their role through comparison and contrast with stories within the Elisha corpus and without. The classification of literature or genre analysis is understood to be utilitarian, subject to the research aims of the scholar, not a universal or absolute taxonomy. As such, the literary categories I define are intended for the analysis of minor secondary characters in the Elisha story-cycle. They are “handles” to facilitate intertextual comparison and contrast. In analyzing similarities between minor secondary characters, common motifs and broad themes emerge. In elucidating their differences, the unique message of each story is afforded focus. Each chapter groups minor secondary characters together according to a specified function within the narrative and seeks to determine their literary role and corresponding theological theme. In each of these chapters, narrative elements of characterization and thematic considerations will be explored.
Chapter 2 analyzes characters who approach Elisha directly seeking a solution for a specific problem. I establish the category “Direct Appeal Miracle Stories” as one in which a secondary character approaches the prophet, who solves their problem by working a miracle. These stories have a similar literary structure that proceeds from the Presentation of the Problem (by the minor character) to the Presentation of a Solution (by Elisha) to the Resolution (cooperation of both Elisha and the minor character). Common elements of the working of the miracle in these stories include obedience of the secondary character, usage of physical material, prophetic action, and oracle/fulfillment formula in the name of YHWH. Not every element is present in the miracle of every story. As I show, the absence or presence of certain elements elucidates the unique situation of the story and bears thematic relevance.
Chapter 3 analyzes characters who appear abruptly and very briefly (typically only one verse) to dispense advice, which, when followed by a floundering leader, results in the successful outcome of the story. In these stories servants are the unsung heroes. Rarely in biblical literature are servants afforded such a pivotal role. I call such characters “Agents of Prophetic Referral,” since each one refers his or her master to the person or activity of Elisha. As opposed to the ordinary folk in the “Direct Appeal Miracle Stories,” kings and officials require the assistance of their sagacious servants. The employment of such characters subtly critiques the ruling class. These servants highlight the critical theme of submission in the Elisha story-cycle by offering their advice forcefully while avoiding insubordination. While their advice displays mundane wisdom, the execution of their advice achieves results that accomplish divine purposes for Israel and the surrounding nations. These characters demonstrate that divine providence is accomplished through ordinary people, as well as prophets and kings. Ultimately, kings, prophets, and servants all serve YHWH, and to faithfully discharge their duties demands submission to God's authority.
Chapter 4 analyzes characters who reveal a surprising element in the stories. I call such characters “Surprise Agents” because the reader discovers the surprise concurrently with and through the perspective of the character. In each case, the Surprise Agent reveals unexpected and relevant facts that change the course of the plot, and draws attention to thematic elements that accompany the plot twist. While major characters can similarly reveal a surprise, such a literary device is employed to draw attention to a previously undisclosed deficit in that character. Minor secondary characters, on the other hand, draw attention to the central moral theme the author wishes to convey, as they do elsewhere in the Elisha story-cycle.
Some of these key theological themes include the following. Despite the taxing policies imposed by the Omrides, YHWH has not abandoned his people but is actively working through his prophet Elisha to deliver and preserve his people. Despite the stratification of Israelite society, YHWH has not consigned his people to suffer as victims, but through the working of Elisha's miracles has assigned them an active role in national deliverance. Minor characters portray ordinary people as empowered and empowering. They do not wield prophetic or royal power, but they can participate in the miracles through their active obedience and contribute to the welfare of the kingdom by dispensing timely insights to their leaders. Relative to their cursory appearance in each story, their impact on its outcome is prodigious.

The present study aims to contribute to the quest for the origins of belief in the eschatological figure of the Sufyānī, a matter of hot debate since the late nineteenth century. To this end, three different bodies of evidence are produced and analysed: reports indicating that the Sufyānī was, indeed, thought of as a redemptive personality in some Syrian quarters, traditions on him in the Muslim endtimes literature that contain an ex eventu pronouncement, and reports concerning the propaganda activities of the first Sufyānī claimant, Abū Muḥammad Ziyād ibn ʿAbd Allāh ibn Yazīd ‘al-Sufyānī’, in the historical record. Making use of hitherto unavailable sources and looking afresh at the rest, it is argued that the myth of the Sufyānī emerged during the counterrevolutionary revolt of Abū Muḥammad al-Sufyānī in 132 AH, with vague residues of it traceable to his earlier military activities, against the Umayyad caliph Yazīd III, in 126 AH.

While scholars identify God, the psalmist, and others as key subjects within individual complaint psalms, they do not consistently differentiate between words spoken to and third person descriptions about them. Through a number of case studies, this work shows that paying increased attention to shifts of address from one audience to another moves these psalms from being seen as “prayers to God” to speech addressing both a divine and human audience.

In doing so, this work challenges the commonly assumed compatibility of critical approaches to emphasize the profound divergence among them. It demonstrates that various approaches scholars employ affect the external limits, internal divisions, and overall understanding of the psalms being studied. Rather than steps in a unified biblical exegetical method, different criticisms create significantly different texts, place them within divergent contexts, and interpret them in light of diverse understandings of authorship.

In effect, biblical criticisms represent divergent methodological matrices that precede rather than proceed from the text.

Despite this variety, different approaches may be employed cooperatively towards a specific goal; indeed, this work demonstrates the potential synergy involved in methodological cross-pollination.
.

Expanding on previous work, this chapter shows the close connection between Deut 13 and the Neo-Assyrian treaty tradition. It shows how the “canon-formula” of Deut 13:1 belongs in its context and does not represent a secondary addition, as many scholars have recently claimed. Contrary to what is widely held, Deut 4:2 reworks Deut 13:1, rather than serving as its literary source. The increasing tendency of many scholars to construct a “covenant theology” stratum in the legal corpus, dated to the post-exilic period and regarded as a secondary legalizing development from an assumed non-nomistic, pre-exilic Israelite religion is challenged. The important recent discovery of a display copy of a version of Esarhaddon’s loyalty oath in the temple cella at Tel Tayinat is discussed extensively.

Keywords:

Kanonformel, Bundestheologische Redaktion, Bundestheologie, Tel Tayinat, Esarhaddon, VTE, Treueid, Asarhaddon, Dtn 13,1; Dtn 4,2; Juha Pakkala; Eckart Otto; Erbefolgevertrag; Dtn 28; neuassyrischen; neuassyrien; Deuteronomium; Gesetzeskorpus; Loyalitätseid; Timo Veijola; Intertextualität; Julius Wellhausen; „Seidels Gesetz“; Vergesetz¬lichung; Verbindung zwischen Religion und Gesetz; tuppi adê; Tempelrolle; Bund; canon formula; covenant theology redaction, Seidel’s Law; Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon; Deut 13:1; Deut 4:2; Neo-Assyria; legal corpus; intertextuality; Seidel’s Law; Temple Scroll; relation between law and religion; covenant; treaty.

To view magic (along with scholars such as Schmidt and Nihan) as an initially-accepted-but-later-prohibited activity in Israel is to impose an undue burden on the text of Scripture.  Rather than decompose the Pentateuch into hypothetical sources and read Exod. 22.18 in light of them, I here seek to view the Pentateuch as a single literary unit (as Jesus does), substantially authored by Moses.  Moses’s prohibition of female sorcery in the Covenant Code is not a late addition to a pre-existent corpus;  it is more likely to be a prohibition intended to prevent the formation of a particular kind of Egypt-born magic in the course of Israel’s years in the wilderness.

A summary and critical analysis of Hans Conzelmann's life and contributions to the study of Luke-Acts. This chapter particularly focuses on Conzelmann's contributions in the areas of theology (Luke as a theologian) and methodology (redaction criticism). This chapter is posted with permission from the publisher.
www.kregel.com/stanley-e-porter/luke-acts-in-modern-interpretation/

Hinführung zur Methode Wieso sollten Sie Ihre Bewerbung um ein Stipendium lieber nicht aus einzelnen Buchstaben zusammenstückeln, die Sie aus der Tageszeitung ausgeschnitten haben? Richtig: Weil sonst die Gefahr bestünde, dass Ihr Schreiben für einen Erpresserbrief gehalten würde anstatt für einen seriösen Antrag. Und das wollen Sie ja nicht, oder?1 Die Erkenntnis, dass die Form und der Inhalt von Texten aufeinander bezogen sind, hat sich auch in der Bibelwissenschaft längst durchgesetzt, und zwar spätestens seit dem beginnenden 20. Jahrhundert. Mit der Literarkritik verfügte die biblische Wissenschaft zu dieser Zeit über ein leistungsfähiges Instrument, das ihr erlaubte, Thesen über die Entstehung der biblischen Schriften aufzustellen, die auf breiter Linie zu überzeugen vermochten. Hypothesen wie die Zwei-Quellen-Theorie (→ Synoptischer Vergleich) oder die Quellenscheidung im Pentateuch (→ Literarkritik) machten es plausibel, dass die Texte der Bibel bereits auf eine schriftliche Vorgeschichte zurückblickten. Wie so oft brachte der damalige methodische Fortschritt aber auch wieder neue Probleme mit sich; der veränderte Blickwinkel öffnete den Horizont für veränderte Fragen. Wenn sich in der Vorgeschichte der biblischen Texte nach allgemeiner Überzeugung nun schriftliche Quellen nachweisen ließen, musste konsequenterweise auch die nächste Frage gestellt werden: Was passierte denn vor der Schriftlichkeit? Dass die biblischen Texte nicht einfach der reinen Fantasie derer entsprungen sind, die sie schließlich aufgeschrieben haben, darüber herrschte ein breiter Konsens. Nun stand die Frage im Raum, wie sich methodisch abgesicherte Aussagen über die mündliche Vorgeschichte der Texte treffen lassen.2 Genau diesem Problem widmet sich seither die Formgeschichte als Gattungskritik.

The purpose of this article is to investigate the way that Jesus’ sense of humor would have functioned in a first-century Galilean political and religious context. Drawing on both rhetorical and social-scientific criticisms, as well as form-critical reconstructions of the sayings of Jesus, it explores the possibility that neuro-linguistic research into the phenomenon of linguistic genius may shed some light on the historical Jesus. It therefore proposes that many of the sayings of Jesus which have traditionally been taken ‘‘seriously’’ might be better understood as humorous subversions of oppressive discourses by a Galilean peasant with a wicked sense of humor.

This book contributes to the theory and practice of Biblical interpretation by engaging in an interpretation of Psalm 24 inspired by a particular understanding of Brevard Childs' "canonical approach": an understanding centred on the concept of "theological substance." Sumpter shows how the literary, historical, and theological dimensions of Psalm 24 cohere into a single vision by reading the text according to the a dialectic between "witness" and "reality." An initial "synchronic" analysis of the psalm's poetic structure is then related to a "diachronic" reconstruction of the tradition history that lead to the final form. The question is then posed concerning the primary forces at work in this history of composition, a question which leads to reflection on the Trinity, first in se and then pro nobis. This latter dimension takes us back to the text, as its "Davidic" nature is further analysed in relation to the books of Samuel, the Psalter, and Isaiah. Finally, a contemporary actualization of the Psalm by Eberhard Jüngel is compared to its interpretation in Patristic exegesis in order to probe deeper into the mysterious subject matter of the text.

After briefly rehearsing the first-century debate over Samaritan Israelism (SI), including favourable Tannaitic views, this paper shows that Jesus in the Samaritan parable teaches that covenantally loyal Samaritans are Israelites eligible for inclusion in his coming messianic age. Several points reveal this position.
The parabolic teaching occurs within the Lukan thematic context of fulfilling prophesied messianic reunification (MR), reuniting both northern and southern Israelite kingdoms under a scion of David. The immediately preceding co-text of the parable relates eschatological kingdom proclamation in Samaria and an announcement by the royal Son of God (Luke 10:22; cf. 1:32–35, etc.) of the arrival of that which “many prophets and kings” awaited (10:24), which includes MR into kingdom unity (Isa 11:1; Jer 23:5–6; 33:14–17; 2 Chr 30; 35, etc.). The parable evidences a description of the word “neighbour,” which, within this context of Lev 19:17–18, is defined as a “fellow Israelite”; thus, when Jesus describes the one who proved to be a Torah-obedient neighbour of the Judaean victim as a Samaritan, he is portraying a reuniting of Israelites divided across national, ethnic, and sectarian boundaries. The form of the parable adopts the well-known triadic structure of “Priest-Levite-Israelite,” and Jesus places the Samaritan in the position of the Israelite. Jesus endorses the Chronicler’s pan-Israelite ideology embracing SI, reflecting the Lukan eschatological MR theme, in his intertextual use of 2 Chr 28:15 as a source for 10:33–34. Use of the tripartite collocation ποιεῖν + ἔλεος + μετά (from the Hebrew עשׂה חסד עמ) in 10:37a defines the Samaritan as one who observes covenantally loyal ḥesedism, not generic humanistic mercy.
This recognition of Jesus’s position in the parable coheres with later representation of the northern kingdom by its Samaritan inheritors in the 2-stage resurrection of Israel (Acts 2 and 8) fulfilling Ezek 37. The parable’s SI and MR also produce a more comprehensively coherent reading of the rebuilding of the σκηνὴν Δαυὶδ (Acts 15:16) than the influential Bauckham, “James and the Gentiles (Acts 15.13-21)” (1996).
When properly recognizing the Ḥesedic Samaritan’s parabolic teaching, it becomes clear that Luke-Acts views Samaritans as representatives of the northern kingdom inheriting the covenant promises of messianic renewal along with southern Israelite Judaeans.

To date there have only been a few examinations of the psalms in terms of communication analysis. This article will illustrate the fruitfulness of such an approach by analysing Ps 12 according to it. First it will be demonstrated that the psalm consists of a series of speeches that occur in a liturgical sequence. It opens and closes with intercessory prayer, which forms a frame around a divine oracle in the centre. This oracle is itself further embedded in two instances of human address speech. The speaker functions as a “mediator” on behalf of a persecuted group. He presents their concerns to God in prayer, communicates God’s response back to them, and also communicates messages to them. The closest parallel to such a sequence can be found in the prophets (Habakkuk); as such Ps 12 is reminiscent of “cult prophecy.”

To pick over a prophetic text in search of familiar quotations or " gospel gems " is one thing. To open oneself up to it and hear it on its own terms can be quite another. The challenges that prophetic texts present go well beyond an occasional obscure geographical or historical reference or section of difficult Hebrew. Readers accustomed to texts in which it is always obvious who is speaking to whom about what, and that feature a clear beginning, middle, and end, can find large swaths of the Old Testament prophets extremely frustrating. " How can anyone read this book? " one reader reacted after her first foray into Jeremiah, 1 and at times it's hard not to sympathize. In this slim little book, James Nogalski—professor of religion at Baylor University—tries to distill an enormous amount of scholarship into a simple, practical set of tools for making sense of prophetic texts. His suggested method for unit delineation is bound to help a reader who has trouble finding coherence in the prophets, since a reader like this is almost certainly trying too hard and needs to learn how a text signals that it has simply moved on to talking about something else. Nogalski's treatment of parallelism provides a practical approach to text analysis that will not only sensitize readers to the prophets' amazing literary artistry; it draws a straight line from the way a text has been put together to what it means. Nogalski's approach to genre analysis might be this book's strongest feature. To illustrate the subject's importance, he notes how a message that begins " Dearly beloved… " or " Hi! I can't take your call right now… " creates a set of expectations that cultural insiders grasp and respond to intuitively. It takes work for readers as far removed as we are from ancient Israel to recognize prophetic genres and the expectations they would have created, but Nogalski shows how rewarding the work can be. As insightful and useful as this chapter is, it might sound trite and condescending to label it " Claus Westermann for Dummies. " On the other hand, it might aptly describe Nogalski's purpose, one at which he admirably succeeds. Many of Nogalski's tools were not developed for purposes of exegesis as it is practiced in our circles, but for purposes of historical criticism—with which Nogalski is clearly in sympathy. This does not, however, diminish the usefulness of this book for non-critically oriented readers. Such readers might also be given pause by at least two other features of this book. One is Nogalski's discussion of messianic prophecy. A caution against dragging messianic significance into prophetic texts where it isn't there is in place, but to warn Christians against reading the Old Testament in the light of the New is another matter. In addition, there is the concluding discussion of how to apply the prophets' message to a modern Christian congregation. Much of this is highly insightful, such as Nogalski's warnings against a preacher donning the prophet's mantle without directing the prophet's word to himself first, or treating the entire exercise as a history lesson in which the congregation is invited to heap scorn on biblical Israel. On the 1 Kathleen O'Connor, Jeremiah: Pain and Promise (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012), 29.

In this essay I analyse the usual (mis)use(s) of the criteria of historical authenticity in historical Jesus research. Whereas the general appeal to the criteria has pursued at least a semblance of objectivity in historical-critical research, in practice the criteria have provided useful and clearly identifi able windows into how scholars have conceived the task(s) of historical reconstruction (i.e., their particular subjectivity). After surveying the relevant literature, I question the analytical concepts authentic and inauthentic as schemata orientating historical reconstruction. We should recognize and employ the criteria as tools that facilitate and aff ect the interpretation of historical traditions rather than (merely) their authenticity .

Draft of an article that has now appeared in Mark Sneed (ed.), Was There a Wisdom Tradition? New Prospects in Israelite Wisdom Studies (SBL: Atlanta, 2015), 161-77.
Although it has not dominated the study of wisdom literature to the same extent as other parts of the Hebrew Bible, form criticism has played a significant role in the classification and understanding of wisdom texts, and in recent years scholars have often also employed  ideas about specific literary genres (Royal Instructions, Fictional Autobiographies and others). This article sets out to question some of the assumptions that underpin such approaches, and to examine their limitations. In particular, it will point out the deficiencies of any attempt to understand genres in terms of fixed compositional types, and the difficulties involved both in identifying genres and in comprehending the significance of generic allusions. More positively, though, it will argue that a proper understanding of genre can help us better to understand the relationships between the wisdom books, and between the wisdom books and other literature.

Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (1768–1834) is often referred to as the father of modern theology and thus not only the originator of new theol- ogy, but of a new era. Mariña ranks him with calvin, Aquinas, and Augustine. The claim that he is the father of modern liberalism is certainly justified, but too simplistic. Unlike luther, Schleiermacher consciously endeavored to revolutionize the area of theology. He had a total reconstruction of christian theology in mind.

Schleiermacher’s importance within the field of new testament research is, however, often overlooked. This topic will be the main focus in our treatment of Schleiermacher, accounting for and discussing his Introduction to the New Testament, The Life of Jesus, and his Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, Schleiermacher’s primary exegetical work on that Gospel. Below, an initial overview of Schleiermacher’s life is given; a short section introduces some principal characteristics of his theological outlook; then, as mentioned, the bulk of the article focuses on Schleiermacher’s new testament research. In my concluding remarks an evaluation of friedrich Schleier- macher’s contributions is attempted.

In this work, JiSeong James Kwon examines a variety of scholarly arguments concerning the distinctive literary and historical relationship between the book of Job and the second part of the book of Isaiah (Isaiah 40–55), so-called Deutero-Isaiah. The general methodology in a comparative study between biblical texts has been the author-oriented approach which traces the complex interrelationships between corresponding texts, considering many verbal and thematic similarities, but this approach often arises from the misleading concepts of literary dependence from an early source to a later one. In this book, the author argues that scribes were writers of biblical materials and belonged to a group of the literate elite in Judahite society, and that resemblances between the two books result from the production of a scribal culture. This view may shed a light on traditional researches influenced by form-criticism, which divides the literate groups in Israelite society into different professional groups—priests, sages, and prophets. The proposed approach of the scribal culture has also resulted in a different way of interpreting the association with ancient Near Eastern literature which is supposed to be closely related to the two books. Similarities with non-Israelite sources have been suggested by scholars as unequivocal evidence of literary dependence or influence, but a careful examination of those extra-biblical compositions possibly affirms that scribes would have a broad awareness of other ancient texts. Finally, shared ideas and interests between the two books do offer insights into the theological views of the scribes in the Persian period. We may see the historical development of scribal ideas by comparing the two books with other biblical texts and by confirming the diversity and discrepancy within them.

A parody paper, applying Martin Dibelius' Form Criticism to his own works, discovering a reconstructed history of German Higher Criticism along the way.

I uploaded it here because a) I can't see it being publishable work anywhere, and b) people occasionally ask me about it.

I apologize for the writing style: it is not only dealing with the content and method of Martin Dibelius, but does so in his own voice.

This detailed treatment of the Confessions of Jeremiah utilizes both form criticism and source criticism.  It endeavours to establish the provenance and focus of the Confessions by asking if the "I" of the Confessions is Jeremiah or represents Israel.  A history of the extensive research on the Confessions is provided followed by an evaluation of the "form" of the Confessions (lawsuit or lament?).  The distinctive features of the poetic and prose sections of Jeremiah are also examined with a view of assessing with which material the Confessions have greater affinity.  Lastly, an attempt is made to explore the role and function of the Confessions within the book of Jeremiah.

This work has now been published by Lambert Academic Publishing.