|
Literary Criticism and Historiography |
||
| The above discussion is not meant to suggest that other academic disciplines should not be used in the study of religion. On the contrary, the academic study of religion is a broad-based, multi-disciplinary undertaking. Just as an actor must use his knowledge of history, psychology, etc. to understand and portray a character, the scholar of religion must use the fields of many disciplines to understand and portray religion. A few of these disciplines should be mentioned | ||
|
LITERARY CRITICISM Since many religious traditions have sacred writings, literary analysis is an important tool for scholars of religion. Literary analysis of sacred texts can be divided into several sub-disciplines: |
||
| A. Textual Criticism tries to determine the
most original version of a text. All
ancient texts were copied by hand.
During copying, changes could be made to the text.
On the one hand, some changes were accidental: the scribe simply
misread a word or made and honest mistake. On the other hand, some
changes may have been intentional to try to produce a reading that
made more sense (at least to the copyist). The textual critic compares
different readings of the same text, evaluates them, tries to explain
the differences and attempts to determine the most “original”
readings.
|
|
|
|
B. Documentary/Source Criticism tries to determine if the work is a composite work; that is, does the entire book come from one author or one period of time? A well known conclusion of source criticism work is that the book of Isaiah in the Hebrew scriptures may be from different authors in different times. Most scholars agree that chapters 1-39 come from the 8th Century BCE while chapters 40-55 reflect events of the 6th century BCE. |
||
|
C. Form Criticism seeks to discern the form or genre of a text. Is a text a hymn, a poem, a prayer or a narrative? Determining the form of a text is important to understanding its social context: was it used in worship, in private meditation, in creating a history, a court of law, as an explanation for a phenomenon, etc.? |
||
|
D. Redaction Criticism : If a text is made up of different sources, who put them together and why? In other words, redaction criticism seeks to discover the purpose of the editor(s) of a text. What was their purpose in putting the material together in a particular manner? For example, why are there three Gospels that apparently tell the same stories from a common source? These three Gospels are known as the synoptic Gospels; synoptic is from Greek, meaning "seen together." The answer is that each Gospel writer is editing material for his own purpose: Matthew is writing for a predominantly Jewish audience; Luke is writing for a Roman audience and Mark may be addressing an early Christian community facing persecution. The purpose determines how each writer/editor weaves the material together
|
||
|
E. Reader Response analysis focuses on the interaction between the text and the reader. What the original author intended and what a reader understands may be quite different. A reader’s response may be determined by a wide variety of factors: biases, culture, presuppositions, historical setting, etc. How is it that two people can read the same text and have quite different reactions to that text? In the ante-bellum South, the Bible was used by whites to argue that slavery was not only justified, it was divinely sanctioned – mandated by God’s Word. At the same time, slaves who heard the stories in the Bible heard a message of freedom and liberation. The responses are determined by the reader’s situation. On a more personal level, you might ask, “What feelings, thoughts, ideas does the text elicit from me?” Why? Is that what the author intended? Reader response recognizes that we are always in dialog with the text, that it is dynamic and alive rather than static; it will mean different things to different people in different times. |
||
