Structuralism in Biblical Interpretation and Theology

STRUCTURALISM IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION AND THEOLOGY NOTHING IS MORE characteristic 0£ contemporary biblical interpretation than the emergence of new methodologies designed to open new arenas for research . As interpreters have adopted new approaches, they have become increasingly self-conscious about the methods and presuppositions at work in the analyses they undertake. A symptom of this self-consciousness in American biblical interpretation has been the publication, by Fortress Press in Philadelphia, of a series entitled Guides to Biblical Scholarship. At first the perimeters of the series appeared to be clear cut. The dominant methods were ready at hand: textual criticism, literary (source) criticism, form criticism, and redaction (composition) criticism.1 But when Beardslee and Habel wrote the books on literary criticism, when Tucker wrote the book on Old Testament form criticism, and when Perrin wrote the book on New Testament redaction criticism, they found themselves defining the literary nature of the biblical materials in broader terms than the traditional practitioners of biblical literary-historical criticism. The shift in these books indicates that the cultural context of interpretation is on the move. Interpreters are remolding literary-historical methods on the basis of new perceptions in the culture. The author of a recent issue in the NT section of 1 The editor of the Old Testament contributions is Gene M. Tucker; the New Testament, Dan 0. Via, Jr. The series., through most of 1976, contained the following books: Ralph W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the OT (1974); Norman Habel, Literary Criticism of the OT (1971); William A. Beardslee, Literary· Criticism of the NT (1970); Gene M. Tucker, Form Criticism of the OT (1971); Walter E. Rast, Tradition History and the OT (197~); Edgar V. McKnight, What is Form Criticism? (1969); William G. Doty,, Letters in Primitive Christianity (1973); Norman Perrin, What is Redaction Criticism (1969); J. Maxwell Miller, The OT and the Historian (1976); Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method (1975). 349 350 VERNON K. ROBBINS the series asserts that interpreters must recognize the new cultural setting for interpretation and refashion methodology to accommodate the new perceptions. The new method is " structural exegesis," and the author of the book claims that " the very introduction of structural methods in exegesis implies a shift in the exegete's preunderstanding of the biblical text." 2 By now it is evident that a revolution, in the sense of T. S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is occurring in the field of biblical study.3 During this kind of revolution V'arious groups and interpreters emerge with distinctive forms of the new methodology.4 It is necessary for such variety to emerge, since various combinations of analysis and synthesis constitute any mature area of study. This situation, however, makes every explanation of the transition run the risk of being an oversimplification. This article explores implications of structural exegesis for biblical interpretation and theology during the last quarter of the twentieth century. The author presupposes that future methods will employ certain kinds of structural techniques of analysis and synthesis, though it is a matter of debate whether structural techniques will dominate the field or be incorporated with other techniques. Since structural study is invading virtually every area of study,5 it is impossible to cover even a majority of areas which relate to biblical interpretation and 2 Daniel Patte, What is Structural Exegesis? (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), p. 1. This study has heen expanded as Structural Exegesis: From Theory to, Practice (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978) with a French parallel, Pour une Exegese Structurale (Paris: Seuil, 1978) . 3 This work is part of a series entitled "International Encyclopedia of Unified Science," Vol. !'!, No. !'! (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1970). The nature of scientific revolutions is discussed, pp. 9!'!-173. Though references to this book are "in the air" in discussions of methodology, J. D. Crossan referred explicitly to this book, and outlined the nature of the "revolution " in biblical studies as he sees it, at a meeting of the Chicago Society of Biblical Research, February 19, 1977. 4 Ibid., p. 76. He further indicates, p. 1, that there must he a long fermentation period where two major disciplines compete. 5 An excellent collection of essays which shows the broad spectrum of...