Connie Dawson

CRITICAL BOOK REVIEW

Connie Dawson
Morgan, Robert and John Barton. Biblical Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
The book has 342 (preface, introduction and content - i-viii) pages with an annotated index of over 250
names with bibliography making the text a valuable research tool and resource. Biblical Interpretation
represents the collaborative efforts of Robert Morgan, University Lecturer in Theology and Fellow of
Linacre College, Oxford and John Barton, University of Oxford. The text flows as a seamless and unified
text rather than fragmented chapters by the individual authors.
The title, Biblical Interpretation, well represents the books content which articulates the history of
biblical interpretation over the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Chapter 1: Interpretation and Biblical Interpretation
In this chapter, the author offers a kaleidoscope of factors which can impact the discipline of biblical
interpretation. The Bible is a book which belonging not only to the Christian faith, but is a book also read
and researched by non-believers. It is considered the most influential book in the world which not only
impacts religion but also society. The authors describe seemingly innumerable variables which impact
the enterprise of reading and understanding the biblical text, a few of which are the time, culture, context
gap between the original author and the contemporary reader; the aims and interests which the
contemporary reader approaches the text; and the presupposition and experiences everyone brings to the
interpretative task.
The authors also describe the positive and negative aspects of the gulf that exists between biblical
scholarship and theology. Biblical scholars have literary and biblical goals with little consideration for
the impact of theinterpretation on Bible believers. Theologians on the other hand, are frequently seen as
an appendage to biblical scholarship whose goal is to interpret the religious faith. This gap is believed by
some to be an advantage since the separation prevents confusion and gives biblical scholars the ability to
interpret without concern for their impact on theology. Others say if biblical scholarship is too far
removed from theology it loses its significance (25). On the theological side of the gulf, some believe that
theology and religious faith thrives better without the hindrances of biblical scholarship. Theology tends
to use whatever contemporary methods are available to interpret the text to the faith community, however
most theologians acknowledge the key role of biblical scholarship (26). The ultimate goal is to relate the
ancient text to the religious questions of the modern reader, without doing violence to either (37). It is
apparent from the authors perspective that biblical scholarship and theology are mutually interdependent.
Chapter 2: Criticism and the Death of Scripture
The title of this chapter, Criticism and Death of Scripture, was inspired by Nietzsches famous quote in
The Gay Science in 1883. Regarding the death of God, Nietzsche writes, If not God, then perhaps at
least Holy Scripture . . . is dead; we have slain [her]. The holiest and most powerful that the world has
ever possessed has ebbed its blood away beneath our knives . . . (60).
In chapter two, Morgan and Barton focus on three key figures which were instrumental in traditional
views of the integrity of the Scriptures.
In 1835, David Friedrich Strauss (1808-74), then a junior lecturer at Tbingen University in southern
Germany authored a book titled, The Life of Jesus, and which became a massive assault upon the central

Connie Dawson

tenants of Christianity (44). Believing that he was vindicating true religion in an age of modern science,
Strauss sought to reveal that the Gospels were only for the purpose of illustration. They were not
historical, all the miracles of the Bible were myths, and thus by separating the Christ of faith from the
Jesus of history, Strauss set in motion the destruction of the traditional view of the Bible (52). While
Strausss proposal met resistance from the traditional Christian sector, his understanding of the task of
theology drew attention making him almost a symbolic figure in modern biblical interpretation (50).
The work of H.S. Reimarus (1694-1768), a deist who believed in God but denied revelation, miracles, or
other supernatural interventions, predates Strauss by about six decades, but his insights are recognized by
Schweitzer and later refined by Strauss (53). Reimarus is best known for his writings on the nonsupernatural, historical account of Christian origin which was published in part anonymously by Lessing
who was a key German figure in the Enlightenment (53). His goal was to reach the intellectual minds of
the Enlightenment by replacing traditional Christian revelation and miracles with rational, nonsupernatural religion (54). While Strauss goal was to improve the biblical interpretation for modern
Christians, Reimarus denied the reality of all non-rational material. He denied the resurrection of Jesus,
the Christian understanding of the Kingdom of God, and the divinity of the term Son of God (55). By
denying the miraculous and prophetic nature of the Gospels, Reimarus destroyed the two truth claims of
Christian theology. As the authors point out, a new era was slowly dawning in which the Bible was
becoming a battle ground for rational debate and Christianity was faced with the decision whether to
retreat into a ghetto or engage in reasoned argument (56).
Bishop John William Colenso (1814-83) was not a German rationalist but a missionary, who after being
confronted by his Zulu converts believed it would be unethical to teach what he himself could no longer
believethe literal reality of the Old Testament stories. In his seven volume work on The Mosaic
Authorship of the Pentateuch, Colenso revealed the credibility gap that was evident between the
biblical texts and what educated people in fact believed (58) and therefore affirmed to the Enlightened
readers of his day that the biblical stories could not be taken literally (59).
Chapter 3: History and the Growth of Knowledge
Chapter three provided an introduction and overview of contributions of the significant theologians and
biblical historians in the middle to latter half of the 1800s.
The works of Strauss (above), Wilhelm Vatke (1806-83), and Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792-1860) are
considered to be landmarks in the history of theology (62). All three made major contributions to history,
were theologians prior to becoming critical historians, were stimulated by Hagals philosophy, and each
used historical methods to undermine the supernatural in the biblical text (63, 68). Strauss laid the early
foundation for form criticism which was further developed in the twentieth century (66) and is credited
with totally destroying the traditional view that all four Gospels are historically reliable (64). His book
The Life of Jesus Critically Examined provoked an intense investigation into the Gospels because of the
issues he raised regarding the synoptic problem. While Strauss maintained that Matthew was the earliest
Gospel, C.H. Weisse (1801-66) and C.G. Wilke (1786-1854), in response to Strauss, argued that both
Matthew and Luke shared a hyphothetical Q source. The roots of Source criticism with the hypothetical Q
source which now dominates the liberal theological agenda can also be traced back to the early works of
Strauss.
Vatke, in his masterpiece, Biblical Theology: The Religion of the Old Testament, posited that the writings
of the prophets were prior to the compositions of the Pentateuch (63). Vatkes revelation was not widely
accepted in his day because his ideas were ahead of his time (68) and because his theory was attached
to Hegelianism which was a falling philosophical star (79).

Connie Dawson

Baur followed in the footsteps of Reimarus and Strauss to become known among conservative Christians
as the theologian who replaced the traditional supernaturalist account of Christianity with a nonsupernatural account (65). His tendency criticism undermined the doctrinal unity of the New
Testament by affirming that if the original authors had different theologies, then the New Testament
could not be a unified dogmatic structure (66). He also undermined the authorship of Paul and gave
priority of the epistles over historical narratives (72). Whereas Strauss was the forerunner of form
criticism, the later development of redaction criticism can be attributed to the work of Baur (66). Baur
believed history was theology because historians could detect God and utilize their reason to understand
the Christian faith in history rather than the reliability of the Bible (65). This raised the question if it is
possible to combine historical reconstruction and theological interpretation (74). In the opinion of
some, a synthesis of the two was a dangerous endeavor, and the result has been the drifting apart of the
twin disciplines of biblical scholarship and theological interpretation (69).
Julius Wellhausen (1844-1918) was considered to be one of the giants of 19 th century biblical criticism
(93). Wellhausens critical expertise was in the Hebrew Bible and is noted for creating a major paradigm
shift with his claims that the Law was written after the prophets and therefore Moses could not have
written the Pentateuch (86). The implication is that the Priestly document (P) and the concept of
transcendent monotheism was unknown to Judaism until after the Exile (82). While Wellhausens
methods were historical and literary the implication of his thesis was deeply theological (82).
Chapter 4: History of Religions and History of Traditions
The story of the traditions moved forward as the new generation of scholars and successors of Strauss,
Vatke, Baur, and Wellhausen took their positions in the early 1900s spotlight.
Herman Gunkel (1862-1932), a younger contemporary of Wellhausen began to identify the role of
experience in the communities in the ancient world and the tales (especially the stories of the
patriarchs) handed down by authors which were then compiled in document form. Gunkels goal was
not to evaluate historical reality. For him the Old Testament stories were legend or myths; rather his
purpose was to understand the religious faith which was revealed in these stories. For Gunkel, the
Pentateuch was not a matter of four source documents as expressed by Wellhausen but instead should be
seen as a process (97). It became clear to Gunkel that it was necessary to first study the history of the
traditions in the literature before one could understand the history of biblical religion (124-5). This theory
earned him the title of the father of form criticism. Gerhard von Rad (1901-71) embraced Gunkels thesis
and developed a history of Israels oral traditions which evolved into an understanding of the Old
Testament that posited that the history of traditions is more important than the history of events (98-99,
102).
Rudolph Bultmann (1884-1974) used a method similar to Gunkels form criticism and applied it the New
Testament Gospels. Bultmann distinguished between the Jesus of history and the person of Jesus
witnessed in the Christian faith (or preaching) and therefore attempted to removed the myths in the
Gospels. Bultmanns goal was to make Christianity more appealing to the scientific modern world, and in
so doing, he continued what Strauss began in undermining the validity of the Gospels.

o Did Barton say this, or did you?

Chapter 5: Theology and the Social Sciences
The authors identify the hermeneutical problem as that of trying to bridge the historical gap between
the biblical writer and the ancient world with the modern world and beliefs (134-5). This chapter looked
at how the social sciences today have proven beneficial in overcoming this distance. In the 1960s,

Connie Dawson

secular universities established departments of religion which forced biblical scholars to interact with
professors of literature, ancient history, and social sciences. As a consequence, new venues of
collaborative exploration were opened (138). It was quickly realized that sociology and anthropology
dealt with issues of biography and history which could help biblical scholarship gain a better
understanding of the sociological issues within the biblical text. Therefore, the incorporation of sociology,
the social sciences, as well as psychology and anthropology became a part of the interpretative enterprise.
It is also recognized that biblical scholars and theologians operate from two different paradigms. Biblical
scholars use historical methods to draw historical conclusions. Theologians accept the work of biblical
scholars and make application of the biblical text for modern Christians. While these two are necessarily
interdependent, they must also be separate. The authors write, A theology which allowed itself to be
directed by the discoveries of biblical scholarship alone would be starved of fresh air and suffocate
(136). All of this overlapping between history, social sciences, and theology has given rise to new areas of
theology such as Latin-American liberation theology and feminist theology (157).
Chapter 6: Theology, History, and Literature
Throughout the preceding chapters, there has been an underlying theme which holds in tension the
relationship between rational methods used to understand biblical writings and the religious interests
which motivates the seekers of truth and actually challenges the fabric of traditional belief (168). In
chapter 6, the authors explore the essential balance between faith (religious interests) and reason (rational
methods) as they interface with the disciplines of history, theology, and literature. The biblical
interpretation enterprise in a secularized culture which utilizes rational methods is ill equipped to speak of
God in the same manner as believers; therefore, a gap has been created. The task of theological
interpretation (the preferred term of the authors) is to bridge this gap by holding in tension faith and
reason (174).
While linguistic studies remain the foundational approach to biblical studies, the question becomes
whether the interpretative process is best framed in a historical or literary context (170). Historians study
the biblical text with historical goals in mind and place value on the Bible for the information which lies
behind the literary content. Historians uncover the past but they are ill equipped to speak of God (185).
On the positive side, historical and exegetical methods provide the necessary controls that prohibit
arbitrary interpretations thus limiting multiple meanings. But if the theologian is restricted exclusively to
historical exegesis, theology would succumb to biblical conservatism (182). Theologians have gravitated
toward literary methods as a means to be loosed from the stranglehold of historical scholarship and
given the hermeneutical opportunity to breathe (180). The authors write, If purely historical
scholarship were ever to become a substitute for theological reflection on the Bible, Christianity and
Judaism would cease to exist as living faiths (179).
To study the Bible as literature has helped to bridge the gap between academic studies and the believers
use of the Bible as well as placing the sacred text back into the hands of the common reader (180). But
on the flip-side, studying the Bible as literature has also accelerated the secularization of biblical
scholarship (168). The role of the theologian is to take the information derived from the rational methods
which is unable to speak of transcendence and interpret the truth about God to contemporary believers
(186).
Chapter 7: Literary Study of the Bible
Up until the 1920s, English literature taught in the universities was dominated by an emphasis on history
and philosophy, but about this time a shift occurred which set literature free of the historical model. This
strong reaction against the historical model lasted until the 1960s when a variety of approaches came into
vogue. In like manner, from the 1880s to the present day, history has dominated the biblical scholars

Connie Dawson

investigation of the biblical text until the biblical scholars began to adopt the New Criticism which
embraced a literary frame of reference.
Chapter 8: Conclusion: Interpretation and the Life of Scripture
This chapter provides an overview of each chapter and a summary of their conclusions. For Morgan
and Barton, the Bible has no life of its own apart from the reader. They write, It [the
Bible] lives only as an electric wire is alive. It originates elsewhere: in a human author (269). They
also offer what they believe to be a corrective of the use of the term the Word of the Lord as it refers to
the Bible. While this (the Bible as the Word of God) may be true, they suggest it is not a literal statement
and to imply such is to perpetuate misunderstandings and encourage bibliolatry (272). The authors
acknowledge that rational investigation has eroded the authority of the Scriptures and this poses a
problem for the religious community which possessing the need for an effective scriptural resource and
the freedom to read it truthfully in a hostile intellectual climate (273). The authors affirm that they have
emphasized neither historical research nor historical interpretation but rather that theological
interpretations of the Bible are also legitimate and necessary for the life of the religious community
(274). A major emphasis throughout the book has been that everyone who engages in reading the Bible is
involved in theological interpretation whether they know it or not (274).
Reaction to the Book:
Biblical Interpretation is a scholarly work written to scholars. Although this text is considered an
introduction to the methods and history of biblical interpretation, the authors make the assumption that
the reader has a knowledge beyond the basics. The text seemed to be so densely packed that each chapter
could be expanded into a book and each paragraph into a chapter. The sheer depth and width of the
information made the book a slow and arduous read.
On the positive side however, the book is an invaluable resource for any serious biblical scholar and is
worth the effort of a thorough read (and re-read). The authors provide an excellent historical overview of
biblical interpretation as well as the methods utilized by contemporary biblical scholars. The text gives
the reader the understanding of how the disciplines of biblical studies, history, theology, literature, and
social sciences are held in tension (with positive and negative factors) employed in the interpretative
enterprise.