A Brief Guide to New Testament Interpretation: History, Methods, and Practical Examples by Roy A. Harrisville

This single volume introduces the reader to the most important methods of biblical criticism by giving equal time to historical and literary approaches. Each chapter addresses five sets of issues: (1) definition of the method, important terms and concepts, the history of its development, assumptions made about the relationship of text and history, and prospects for the future; (2) the method in relation to others discussed in this book; (3) the method in action, with reference to a particular text in either Genesis or Luke-Acts; (4) the drawbacks of the method; and (5) suggested reading for those who wish to study further. Chapter topics include reading the Bible historically, by J. Maxwell Miller; source criticism, by Pauline Viviano; tradition-historical criticism, by Robert A. Di Vito; form criticism, by Martin J. Buss; redaction criticism, by Gail Paterson Corrington; social-scientific criticism, by Dale B. Martin; canonical criticism, by Mary C. Callaway; rhetorical criticism, by Yehoshua Gitay; structural criticism, by Daniel Patte; narrative criticism, by David M. Gunn; reader-response criticism, by Edgar V. McKnight; the poststructuralist approach, by William A. Beardslee; and feminist criticism, by Danna Nolan Fewell.

The study of the New Testament and early Christian texts has undergone major shifts in recent years. Discussion of such shifts has often focused on the “linguistic turn” and “poststructuralist” approaches that paved the way for scholars in the late 1970s and 1980s to reshape the interpretative landscape. Postcolonial, feminist, queer, gender-critical, and similarly inclined New Testament hermeneutical endeavors arose out of these earlier interpretive shifts. While these shifts are critically important for any understanding of the direction of New Testament research since the 1980s, this entry focuses on more recent developments in the field: those emergent approaches that might, in some respects, be viewed as responses and even reactions to some of the post-linguistic-turn methodologies. The context for these emergent trends in New Testament scholarship can be linked to major shifts in higher education in the first decade of the 2000s, which witnessed an increasing accent on interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary interactions with subject matter (including an encouraging of cross-disciplinary engagements between the humanities and social sciences). For example, the rise of cognitive science, particularly its application in the social sciences and even in some humanities disciplines, has been a major influence. Further, the increasing emphasis on secularism in the academy, as well the discipline of philosophy undergoing a “turn to religion,” has also played major roles in the formulation of newer approaches. Other major influences are the entrenchment of media studies departments and, not in small part, the shifts that have taken place in higher education with the ascendancy of the “millennial” and “Gen Z” generations of undergraduate students. One of the major shifts in these newer approaches is that the Bible as cultural artifact is engaged in terms of its reception in diverse historical and social contexts, including an increasing interest in media, cinematic and otherwise. Likewise, the present sociohistorical moment is one in which interpreters must contend with the legacies of war and empire as well as the continuing dominance of empiricist ways of knowing. While social-scientific methods are still of value, these are increasingly merged with other modes of investigation, such as rhetorical criticism and social-location theory. The application of cognitive psychology and a turn to trauma and affect have just begun to make a substantive mark on the direction of New Testament interpretation. Similarly, while it remains to be seen what the long-term legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic will be in relation to global New Testament studies, it is clear that, at least in the United States, a post-neoliberal, post-“truth,” and possibly post-democratic political and economic situation, coupled with attacks on education and a national confrontation and reckoning with histories and ideologies of racial and other myriad injustices, leaves all humanities fields vulnerable and at a critical juncture. The study of the New Testament is not exempt. Whether and how New Testament scholars will continue to contend with the methodologically narrow questions and issues raised by theological and historical reconstruction and exegesis remains to be seen. Overall, then, any serious study of the New Testament in its current context needs to be attentive to these emergent approaches and the disciplinary shifts in inquiry that have resulted in live and often-unsettling questions that push against perceived and persistent disciplinary boundaries.

This collection of John Barton's work engages with current concern over the biblical canon, in both historical and theological aspects; with literary reading of the Bible and current literary theory as it bears on biblical studies; and with the theological reading and use of the biblical text. John Barton's distinctive writing reflects a commitment to a 'liberal' approach to the Bible, which places a high value on traditional biblical criticism and also seeks to show how evocative and full of insight the biblical texts are and how they can contribute to modern theological concerns. This invaluable selection of published writings by one of the leading authorities on biblical text and canon, also includes new essays and editorial introductions from the author. Contents General introduction; Part I Canon: Introduction; 'The law and the prophets'. Who are the prophets?; The canonical meaning of the Book of the 12; Canon and Old Testament interpretation; Canonical approaches ancient and modern; Unity and diversity in the Biblical canon; Marcion revisited; Old Testament or Hebrew Bible? Part 2 Literature: Introduction; Classifying Biblical criticism; Reading the Bible as literature: 2 questions for Biblical critics; Historical criticism and literary interpretation: is there any common ground?; What is a book? modern exegesis and the literary conventions of ancient Israel; Should Old Testament study be more theological?; The future of Old Testament study; Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Israel: influences and effects; Intertextuality and the 'final form' of the text; The final form of the text; Thinking about reader-response criticism; On Biblical commentaries. Part 3 Theology: Introduction; Gerhard von Rad on the world-view of early Israel; Preparation in history for Christ; History and rhetoric in the prophets; The Messiah in Old Testament theology; Covenant in Old Testament theology; The day of Yahweh in the minor prophets; Index.

Reviewed by: The Story of Jesus: A Mosaic by Roy A. Harrisville Troy M. Troftgruben The Story of Jesus: A Mosaic. By Roy A. Harrisville. Foreword by Mark C. Mattes. Eugene, Oregon: Resource, 2020. xx + 229 pp. To Lutheran scholars, Roy A. Harrisville needs no introduction. Professor Emeritus at Luther Seminary and author of many books, Harrisville's scholarly career has been devoted not only to New Testament interpretation in general, but also to the significance of Jesus more specifically. He has particularly reflected on the advantages and limitations of scientific methods such as the historical-critical method for arriving at clearer understandings of Jesus of Nazareth. He culminates a lifetime of work in a concise portrait of Jesus—a "mosaic"—in a book that is at once biographical, theological, confessional, and poetic. Harrisville writes this book because "despite the decline … of mainline Christian denominations, the fascination with Jesus of Nazareth is still existent, particularly among the youth" (xvii). The book takes its cues from the four New Testament Gospels, since Harrisville finds their witness credible, despite the challenges of skeptics. After the Introduction, the book has five parts, four of which progress chronologically through Jesus' life: Beginnings, Beginnings of Jesus' Ministry, Schooling the Disciples, The Passion, and Summary. In each section, Harrisville discusses the significance of Jesus' ministry as it is collectively portrayed in the New Testament Gospels. In these discussions, Harrisville routinely begins with traditions deemed [End Page 193] the earliest, making Mark's Gospel the most consistent starting point. But the book considers traditions from other Evangelists no less, and without diminishing their contributions. Throughout, Harrisville demonstrates broad awareness of parallels from Jewish and Greco-Roman literature, enriching the discussion. Although he surveys the gamut of Jesus material in the Gospels, the areas most substantively discussed are miracles (35–52), parables (53–73), conflict with religious leaders and others (79–110), discipleship matters (117–39), and the Passion narrative (149–89). The book reads like a hybrid that is part New Testament commentary, part historical-critical reconstruction, and part theological assessment or confession of faith. A regular dialogue partner, it seems, are historical-critical assessments that are more confident in scientific reconstruction and skeptical of the miraculous. An example is the section on miracles (35–52), which concludes: "We are left with the alternative that the exorcisms are to be set down to the legendary or mythical, or are to be believed as having actually occurred" (34). The book is more positivist regarding what may be known about the "inner life" or "psychic states" of Jesus, for which Harrisville finds Mark's Gospel the richest in material (143–48). The book ends with "A Final Reflection on the Resurrection of Jesus" (200–03), in which Harrisville incorporates insights from authors as varied as Martin Luther, William Blake, and C.S. Lewis. Regarding the resurrection, Harrisville confesses: "Human thought is a mendicant, a beggar. Its object does not need me to be, to be there; it is a given, a gift, an act of grace" (202). This book envisions an audience of college or seminary readers (xiii). Certainly, the more familiar readers are with New Testament scholarship from the last century, the richer the book will be. Even so, invested novices will find this book enlightening and thought-provoking, as well as enjoyable due to the turns of phrases playfully inserted throughout (for example, "The narrative of Jesus' stilling the storm… may appear to some as absurd as a purple cow" 45). Although minor misspellings occur, they do not diminish the clarity and profundity of the book's substance. The Story of Jesus is a concise compendium of Harrisville's teaching, historical-critical reflection, and theological discernment about the significance of Jesus [End Page 194] for today. It is at once enjoyable and profoundly instructive, from someone who has greatly influenced the conversations of New Testament theology to this day. Troy M. Troftgruben Wartburg Theological Seminary Dubuque, Iowa Copyright © 2023 Johns Hopkins University Press and Lutheran Quarterly, Inc.

New Testament Interpretation through Rhetorical Criticism provides readers of the Bible with an important tool for understanding the Scriptures. Based on the theory and practice of Greek rhetoric in the New Testament, George Kennedy's approach acknowledges that New Testament writers wrote to persuade an audience of the truth of their messages. These writers employed rhetorical conventions that were widely known and imitated in the society of the times. Sometimes confirming but often challenging common interpretations of texts, this is the first systematic study of the rhetorical composition of the New Testament. As a complement to form criticism, historical criticism, and other methods of biblical analysis, rhetorical criticism focuses on the text as we have it and seeks to discover the basis of its powerful appeal and the intent of its authors. Kennedy shows that biblical writers employed both external modes of persuasion, such as scriptural authority, the evidence of miracles, and the testimony of witnesses, and internal methods, such as ethos (authority and character of the speaker), pathos (emotional appeal to the audience), and logos (deductive and inductive argument in the text). In the opening chapter Kennedy presents a survey of how rhetoric was taught in the New Testament period and outlines a rigorous method of rhetorical criticism that involves a series of steps. He provides in succeeding chapters examples of rhetorical analysis, looking closely at the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus' farewell to the disciples in John's Gospel, the distinctive rhetoric of Jesus, the speeches in Acts, and the approach of Saint Paul in Second Corinthians, Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans.

Presidential Address Brian K. Blount Good evening, colleagues, and especially to you, Brian. It is indeed a special honor and pleasure to introduce you to the members of this illustrious guild. I was fortunate to read a blog by your brother, Jeffrey Blount, himself an award-winning author and television director. His blog, titled "The First of His Kind," was about you: how your father, a farmer, and mother, a kindergarten teacher, worked hard to give you and your brothers the higher education that had eluded them in the segregated South and the segregated public schools of Philadelphia. How your brother at eighteen was sitting with your mother, father, and oldest brother on the campus of the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. How it was the spring of 1978. How he and your family were the only black people among whites in an elegant and historic room at the College. How your brother felt ashamed and intimidated when a white woman kept stealing disbelieving and angry glances at him and your family. How she was perhaps thinking that your brother was one of the help or that your mother was a "mammy" for one of the white honorees of the Phi Beta Kappa Society who were being awarded that day. How, dating back to 1776, Phi Beta Kappa was the oldest and most prestigious academic honor society in the United States. How you, Brian, were the first to lead these honoree graduates forth, the only black William and Mary graduate awarded in that room that day. How one of the Phi Beta Kappa officers told the assembly, "We want you to know that Brian is the first of his kind in the history of the college to receive this honor." The first of his kind… The first of his kind… How even though this officer awkwardly did not seem to know how to refer to you and your family, you all were regarded as intellectual equals. How for your brother Jeffrey this occasion was a transformative experience at the age of eighteen, stirring within him the confidence to continue his own dreams of success in college and beyond. How you yourself, Brian, graduating with a double major in religion and psychology and as a Phi Beta Kappa honoree, continued on and did not look back. And what a journey [End Page 3] it was! You were ordained in 1980 in the Baptist Church but were called to the Presbyterian Church in 1982, where you have been ever since. Also in 1982, you received your Master of Divinity degree in New Testament Studies at Princeton Theological Seminary. You received your PhD in New Testament from Emory University in 1992, and from there you entered into various stages of professorship at Princeton Theological Seminary, ultimately becoming the Richard J. Dearborn Professor of New Testament Interpretation at PTS in 2004. In 2007 you embarked on a new phase of your professional journey by becoming the President and Professor of New Testament in the Walter W. Moore and Charles E. S. Kraemer Presidential Chairs of Union Presbyterian Seminary in Richmond, Virginia, and Charlotte, North Carolina. Recognition of your gifts has graced your professional career. You received a fellowship from the Lilly Foundation in 2003, a Distinguished Alumnus Award in 2004 from the Graduate Division of Religion at Emory University, an honorary doctorate of Humane Letters from Presbyterian College in 2010, another honorary doctorate from Hampden-Sydney College in 2011, and just this year another Distinguished Alumnus Award from Princeton Theological Seminary. Brian, you have become a world-renowned biblical scholar with twelve books to your credit along with many essay contributions. What impressed me most while reading your academic works was that you infused your scholarship with your deep pastoral commitments to and advocacy for the African American church. Indeed, your commentary on the book of Revelation was named by the Academy of Parish Clergy as the best reference book of 2009.1 Your Invasion of the Dead: Reading Resurrection through the Lens of Apocalyptic Eschatology was included in the Academy of Parish Clergy's Top Ten Books for 2014.2 Canvassing your former students, I received enthusiastic reports from those...

Qumran, Early Judaism, and New Testament Interpretation

Reviewed by: Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods Kenton L. Sparks Studying the Ancient Israelites: A Guide to Sources and Methods, by Victor H. Matthews. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic; Nottingham, UK.: Apollos, 2007. 232 pp. $21.99. How can students new to the study of Ancient Israel conveniently acquire a foundational competence in the discipline? This is a problem that every instructor of ancient Israelite culture and literature has asked explicitly or pondered implicitly. One part of the solution is now this modest book from the pen of Victor Matthews, which surveys a broad range of basic facts, modern and ancient sources, and theoretical issues related to the study of Israel and the Hebrew Bible. Topics covered include historical geography (Chapter 1), archaeology (Chapter 2), literary study of the Hebrew Bible (Chapter 3), social scientific methods (Chapter 4), and Israelite history and historiography (Chapter 5). Let us consider each chapter in turn. Regarding geography, Matthews provides an overview of the various regions and geographical features in Israel, as well as an introduction to ecological factors like climate and water sources. Trade routes, political entities, and major cities and towns in the region are also described. In chapter two, on archaeology, Matthews colorfully describes the actual process of planning and carrying out an archaeological dig and helps readers understand the logic of ceramic typologies and their use in dating archaeological strata. The chapter also includes a brief discussion of Israelite architecture—both rural and urban—and of ancient textual finds that enlighten our reconstruction of ancient [End Page 183] Israelite society and our reading of its texts. Chapter three turns to the Hebrew Bible itself, focusing on the interpretive methods employed by modern scholars in their study of the Bible. On the menu are literary criticism, folklore studies, textual criticism, source criticism, form criticism, tradition criticism, narrative criticism, structural criticism, rhetorical criticism, reader-response criticism, canonical criticism, and ideological criticism (including feminist criticism). In the course of the discussion, readers are further introduced to various points of debate and discussion in the discipline, such as the vigorous dispute between "minimalists" and "maximalists" about the Bible's value as a historical source. The chapter on social sciences will probably be the densest for uninitiated readers. An assortment of sociological concepts and terms are introduced here, including ritual, liminality, socially shared cognition, emic/ etic distinctions, sociological models (e.g., Radcliffe-Brown's "structural-functionalist" approach), endogamy and exogamy, patrilineal/agnatic descent, and patron/client relationships. The final chapter on history and historiography is less theoretical, excepting the introduction to Charles Pierce's "semiotics of history." The balance of the chapter orients readers to the nature of the ancient sources available for reconstructing history. The scant but telling evidence for Israelite archives is supplemented by the Old Babylonian evidence from Mari, where thousands of contracts, receipts, and letters illustrate the kinds of materials that ancient Israelite historians may have used as sources for their work. The historical value of the Israelite historical narratives is then tested by a comparison of those narratives with archaeological sources and texts from elsewhere in the ancient Near East. This exercise, which compares the Neo-Assyrian and biblical accounts of Sennacherib's attack on Judah in 701 BCE, reveals that the biblical texts are tolerably close to events that actually took place at the time. But in both the Neo-Assyrian and biblical stories one notices the subtle ways in which political ideology shaped and distorted the historical presentation. Though Hezekiah was soundly defeated by Assyria, his version of the history accentuated the fact that Jerusalem was not sacked; conversely, in the Assyrian version Sennacherib claims to have trapped Hezekiah in Jerusalem "like a bird in a cage," which sounds like a victory but actually implies that the Assyrian siege of the city failed. Matthews often illustrates the theoretical discussion of his chapters by applying it to test cases from the history and literature of ancient Israel. So, for instance, chapter one applies the insights of historical geography to the story of Absalom's revolt in 2 Samuel 15–17. Similarly in Chapter 5, the methodological discussion of historiography is elucidated by applying that discussion...

Rhetorical criticism in Old Testament studies—indeed, in biblical studies in general—had its origins in a self-conscious way in 1968, when James Muilenburg issued his now-famous call to go beyond form criticism and focus upon the unique features of a text. Since then, biblical rhetorical criticisms have flourished. However, in Old Testament studies, rhetorical criticism has tended to be primarily a literary concern, with emphasis upon stylistics. Classical and contemporary rhetorical criticisms are very different, however. These focus particularly upon the suasive aspects of spoken discourse. This paper reviews the history of rhetorical criticism in Old Testament studies and in the field of speech and rhetoric, comparing and contrasting approaches. It then issues a call to biblical scholars to practice a truly "rhetorical" criticism, based upon speech and persuasion.

Rhetorical criticism in Old Testament studies—indeed, in biblical studies in general—had its origins in a self-conscious way in 1968, when James Muilenburg issued his now-famous call to go beyond form criticism and focus upon the unique features of a text. Since then, biblical rhetorical criticisms have flourished. However, in Old Testament studies, rhetorical criticism has tended to be primarily a literary concern, with emphasis upon stylistics. Classical and contemporary rhetorical criticisms are very different, however. These focus particularly upon the suasive aspects of spoken discourse. This paper reviews the history of rhetorical criticism in Old Testament studies and in the field of speech and rhetoric, comparing and contrasting approaches. It then issues a call to biblical scholars to practice a truly "rhetorical" criticism, based upon speech and persuasion.

My task, as I see it, is extremely complex. I have been asked to discuss a number of topics that should press us to consider the impact of global and Christian transformations upon the future of feminist New Testament studies. The list of topics include the following: discuss my perspective on global and Christian transformations in the next half century from my cultural context; address how my scholarship has been local and how it has been influenced by an awareness of global concerns of and about women; envision the future direction of African American Christianity; assess the connections that African American Christianity will have or further develop with the churches of the southern hemisphere, especially Africa and other areas of the diaspora; identify the challenges feminist scholarship will face over the next 50 years in the face of projected global transformations; and consider how it will continue to have a positive impact on the lives of women globally. In addition, I have been asked to describe the nature of my own work in feminist New Testament studies by discussing some of the findings from my research dealing with motifs about “blackness” and ethnic difference in early Christian writings. Clearly, each of these topics could easily comprise an essay of its own; but the task of weaving them together for the purpose of assessing the future of global feminist New Testament studies, though complex, is a very welcome task.

Is There a Redactor in the House? Two Views on Biblical Authorship William S. Morrow (bio) Raymond F. Person . The Deuteronomic School: History, Social Setting, and Literature. Society of Biblical Literature Studies in Biblical Literature2. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2002. Pp. x + 175. John Van Seters . A Law Book for the Diaspora: Revision in the Study of the Covenant Code. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. xii + 236. It is not long before a student introduced to the critical study of the Bible encounters the shadowy figure of the "redactor." Ubiquitous and anonymous, apparently the redactor is capable of everything from a small change in wording to the organization of whole books. The authors of both monographs reviewed here question common presuppositions about the activity of biblical redactors. The study of such literary activity is called "redaction criticism," although the connotations of the term "redaction" have changed over time. Originally, redaction referred to editorial processes related to preparing received texts for publication. As applied to the Pentateuch, for example, redaction criticism was once concerned with distinguishing the original documentary sources from editorial revisions that had combined them into their final form. Latterly, redaction has been used to indicate a wide range of revisional activities, in some cases virtually synonymous with authorship. 1If there is a common thread between the earlier meaning of the term and later developments, it consists in the belief that the result of redactional activity is the production of a particular text. Redaction criticism remains interested in discerning evidence that the text transmitted is a revision of an earlier document. [End Page 113] The works of Person and Van Seters raise significant questions about connections between authorship and redaction. In different ways, both challenge what they consider to be improper projections of modern practices onto ancient book-making. Person claims that the concept of authorship is actually unhelpful in describing the development of the Deuteronomistic History (DtrH). Van Seters denies the necessity of using redaction criticism to discern a history of composition in the law code found in Ex 20.23–23.33, the so-called Covenant Code (CC). In 1943, the German biblical scholar Martin Noth proposed that a single writer (to some extent relying on preexisting sources) composed a work of historiography comprising Joshua–2 Kings that was dependent on the theology and rhetoric of Deuteronomy: the DtrH. He believed the author of the DtrH produced this monumental opus in the exilic period of biblical history. Noth's own scholarship presupposed critical discussions about the composition of the books of Joshua–2 Kings that had taken place since the nineteenth century. At that time, scholars had already noted that the books of the former prophets showed significant use of phraseology and theology that resonated with the book of Deuteronomy. 2 Since Noth's time, the DtrH hypothesis has been subject to two significant modifications. Following the work of Harvard-based Frank Moore Cross, many scholars believe that a first edition (or block) was composed in the late preexilic period with a second completed during the exile. Another influential view, associated with Rudolf Smend of Göttingen, thinks that redaction criticism can expose three or more different layers (or strata) of the DtrH composed during the exilic and postexilic periods. The brief sketch above, of course, paints a picture of postwar scholarship with a very broad brush. In fact, intensive work on the DtrH in the last decade has raised searching questions about the validity of either the block model or the strata model. Some have even gone so far as to question the existence of the DtrH altogether. But, typically, the scholars concerned have used techniques of redaction criticism to obtain their results. 3 A major point of Person's book is to raise serious questions about the competence of redaction criticism to discern different versions of the [End Page 114]DtrH. Person eschews the common distinction between "deuteronomic" and "deuteronomistic" styles in favor of the adjective "deuteronomic." One reason for simplifying the terminology is that the distinction suggests a unitary movement of influence from Deuteronomy to the DtrH, when influences probably ran both ways (p. 6). Behind this judgment is also...

This book provides readers of the Bible with an important tool for understanding the Scriptures. Based on the theory and practice of Greek rhetoric in the New Testament, the book's approach acknowledges that New Testament writers wrote to persuade an audience of the truth of their messages. These writers employed rhetorical conventions that were widely known and imitated in the society of the times. Sometimes confirming but often challenging common interpretations of texts, this is a systematic study of the rhetorical composition of the New Testament. As a complement to form criticism, historical criticism, and other methods of biblical analysis, rhetorical criticism focuses on the text as we have it, and seeks to discover the basis of its powerful appeal and the intent of its authors. The book shows that biblical writers employed both "external" modes of persuasion, such as scriptural authority, the evidence of miracles, and the testimony of witnesses, and "internal" methods, such as ethos (authority and character of the speaker), pathos (emotional appeal to the audience), and logos (deductive and inductive argument in the text). The first chapter presents a survey of how rhetoric was taught in the New Testament period and outlines a rigorous method of rhetorical criticism that involves a series of steps. The book provides in succeeding chapters examples of rhetorical analysis, including close looks at the Sermon on the Mount, the Sermon on the Plain, Jesus's farewell to the disciples in John's Gospel, and the distinctive rhetoric of Jesus.

Many have undertaken to write a comprehensive account of the development of feminist biblical criticism generally and of feminist New Testament studies in particular. In this chapter, it seemed good to me, having followed these things closely from the beginning, to give an account of how this particular hermeneutical approach has been manifest in Matthean studies. Similarly, however, to the way in which the Lucan “orderly account” (Luke 1:1) remained in dialogue with many other undertakings, so too will this exploration of what is unique to Matthean feminist interpretation have as its dialogue partner the past twenty-five years of feminist New Testament and Gospel criticism.

Biblical scholars and theologians have sometimes suggested that the concept of story or narration may be used to avoid or even resolve certain long-standing problems in theology. The context of such a suggestion appears to be not only the gradual filtering of ideas from the social sciences into theological awareness but also a much improved understanding of the nature and transmission of the biblical traditions. For instance, literary criticism had tried to tell the story of the making of the Bible as a story of writing and editing. With its analytic interest, form criticism penetrated deeper, concentrating on the crucial role of oral tradition and on the power of communities to shape certain forms. Depending on these prior analytical activities, tradition criticism (or ‘redaction criticism’ in New Testament studies) felt free to seek larger unities in the material before it. That is, whereas form criticism's interest lay in describing separately the variety of ‘;scenes’ that later took their respective places in the story, tradition criticism concentrated on telling the whole story of the making of the Bible.2