UNION BIBLICAL SEMINARY, PUNE

DOCTOR OF THEOLOGY

Assessment Paper – 1

Title: An Appraisal of the Trajectories of the New Testament Hermeneutics

with Special Emphasis to Socio-Narrative Criticism

Name: Anika Sumi

Reg. No: AB509522
Branch: New Testament

Signature of Supervisor: _______________

Name of Supervisor: Dr. George Philip
Date of Submission: 2nd November, 2022

1
 Table of Contents

Table of Contents……………………………………………………………………..….2

1. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………. 4
2. Hermeneutics…………………………………………………………………………4
2.1. Meaning and Definition…………………………………………………………...4
3. Pre-critical Biblical Interpretation…………………………………………………. 5
3.1. Jewish Exegesis in the First Century………………………………………………5
3.2.The Patristic period (AD 100-600)…………………………………………………6
3.2.1. The Alexandrian School of Hermeneutics…………………………………6
3.2.2. The School of Antioch …………………………………………………….8
3.3. The Medieval Period (600-1500)………………………………………………….9
3.4. The Reformation Period (1500-1650)……………………………………………10
3.5. Evaluation………………………………………………………………………..11
4. Development of Historical- Critical Method……………………………………….11
4.1. Textual Criticism………………………………………………………………...13
4.2. Source Criticism…………………………………………………………………14
4.3. Form Criticism………………………………………………………………..….15
4.4. Redaction Criticism……………………………………………………………...16
4.5. Evaluation………………………………………………………………………..18
5. New Literary Criticism……………………………………………………………..19
5.1. Rhetorical Criticism……………………………………………………………...19
5.2. Structuralism Criticism…………………………………………………………..21
5.3. Reader-Response Criticism……………………………………………………... 23
5.4. Evaluation………………………………………………………………………. 23
6. Contextual Hermeneutics in the Study of New Testament……………………….24
6.1. Liberation Hermeneutics………………………………………………………...25
6.2. Feminist Hermeneutics…………………………………………………………..26
6.3. Tribal Hermeneutics……………………………………………………………..28
6.4. Dalit Hermeneutics………………………………………………………………29
6.5. Postcolonial Hermeneutics……………………………………………………..30
6.6. Evaluation………………………………………………………………………..32

2
7. Socio-Narrative Criticism and the New Testament Studies……………………….33
7.1. Social-Scientific Criticism ………………………………………………………33
7.2. Social Scientific Methods……………………………………………………..…36
7.2.1. Honour and Shame………………………………………………………..37
7.2.2. Kinship……………………………………………………………..….… 38
7.2.3. Evaluation……………………………………………………………….. 39
7.3. Narrative Criticism in the New Testament…………………………………… 40
7.3.1. Events and Plot…………………………………………………………... 42
7.3.2. Character……………………………………………………………...… 42
7.3.3. Settings…………………………………………………………………..43
7.3.4. Rhetorical devices……………………………………………………….. 44
7.3.4.1. Irony and Symbolism ………………………………………..…. 44
7.4.4. Evaluation………………………………………………………………. 46
7.4. A Combination of Narrative Criticism and Social-Scientific Criticism in the
New Testament Studies………………………………………………………… 47
7.5. Strength of Socio-Narrative Criticism in the New Testament………………. 47
7.6. Weaknesses of Socio-Narrative Criticism in the New Testament…………… 48
8. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...48
9. Bibliography………………………………………………………………………... 50

3
 An Appraisal of the Trajectories of the New Testament Hermeneutics with Special
Emphasis to Socio-Narrative Criticism

Anika Sumi
D.Th I (New Testament)

1. Introduction
Over the centuries, since the emergence of the early Christianity, there has been different ways
of using hermeneutics in interpreting the texts of the Bible and therefore, different
methodological trends have developed for the interpretation of the Bible. Therefore, this paper
will focus on the methodological issues in the New Testament from the Jewish exegesis to
historical-critical method, new literary criticism and selected contextual hermeneutics with
special emphasis to socio-narrative criticism in the study of the New Testament.
2. Hermeneutics
2.1. Meaning and Definition

The word hermeneutics comes from the Greek verb hermeneuin1 which means to interpret,
explain to find an equivalent term or meaning.2 Theologically it is the discipline of accurate
interpretation.3 Hermeneutics is therefore involves both interpreting or explaining. 4 Ferguson
defines hermeneutics as, “the study of the locus and principles of interpretation when it is
applied to the interpretation of the ancient texts.” In line with this, Carl Braaten defines
hermeneutics as “the science of reflecting on how a word or an event in a past time and culture
and become existentially meaningful in our present situation.” Hermeneutics is therefore
referred to interpreting or explaining.5 Since the early Christian church flourished within the
influential Greek thought and culture, it was important for the early Christians to discover and
apply the correct principles for interpreting Scripture, for which different ways of interpretation

1
Noun form of this verb is ‘Hermes,’ the name given to the Greek god who has responsible for
transmuting what is beyond human understanding into a form that human intelligent can grasp. It was believed
that he discovered language and writings. He was worshipped as the source of literature and eloquence. See,
Bernard Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation (Boston: W.A. Wilde Company, 1956), 11. The verb used of
hermeneuin is mention in the Gospel of Luke in the context where Jesus explained to the two disciples on the
Emmaus road what the scriptures said about him (Lk. 24:27). While the noun hermeneia is mention in Paul’s
writing where he mentions about the gift of interpretation of tongues in 1 Cor. 12:10. See, William W. Klein,
Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Dallas: Word Publishing,
1993), 4.
2
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 4.
3
Ramm, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, 11.
4
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 4.
5
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 4.

4
such as literal, allegorical, analogical and spiritual started.6 Daniel J. Adams argues that
hermeneutics is basic to any understanding of scripture which seeks to seriously understand
the message of the scriptural writers in the light of present day context. 7

3. Pre-critical Biblical Interpretation

The history of biblical interpretation begins at the unknown point in time when the first biblical
traditions were created.8 In line with this, Gerald asserts that “biblical interpretation began in
the period between the testaments.”9 Hence, interpretation of scripture began from the time of
the collection of the Christian writings, differing in school of thought from changing passage
of time and it continues till today.

3.1. Jewish Exegesis in the First Century

Jewish exegesis begins with the work of Ezra who read to the people of Israelites from the
Pentateuch on their return from the Babylonian exile.10 Virkler argues that, “during the exilic
period the Israelites lost their understanding of Hebrew for which Ezra and his helpers
translated the Hebrew text and read it loud in Aramaic, to make the meaning clear.” Thus, it
began the science and art of biblical interpretation.11 At Jesus’ time Jewish Exegesis of the first
century is classified into four types: literal, midrashic, pesher, and allegorical where the literal
method apparently served as the basis for other types of interpretation.12

Jewish interpreters though their exegetical methods differ, they believe in the divine inspiration
of the scriptures. They accepted that the Torah contained the entire truth of God for the
guidance of all humanity. Longenecker asserts that, “Jewish interpreters’ main purpose of
biblical interpretation is to make the words of God meaningful and relevant to the people in

6
Daniel J. Adams, Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Madras: The Christian Literature Society,
1987), 1.
7
Adams, Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction, 2-3.
8
Biblical traditions is used here to mean, any materials, such as laws, stories, sayings, pieces of poetry,
hymns, oracles, etc, that subsequently found their way, after incorporation into larger bodies of material, into the
biblical text as we have at the present. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson, A History of Biblical Interpretation:
The Ancient Period, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2003), 1.
9
Gerald Bray, Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present (Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 77.
10
Nehemiah 8:8: “They (Ezra and the Levites) read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving
the meaning so that the people could understand what was being read.” Henry A. Virkler, Hermeneutics:
Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1981), 48-49.
11
Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, 49.
12
Virkler, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical Interpretation, 49-52.

5
 13
their present situations.” Hence, in the first century A.D. the main purpose of their
interpretation is to make the scripture meaningful and relevant to the people in their present
context.

3.2.The Patristic Period (AD 100-600)

The Patristic Period14 is one of the most important periods in the history of Christian thought.
This period extends from Clement of Rome to Gregory I, who became pope in A.D. 590. It
was in this period that the canon of the New Testament was established. The history of patristic
interpretation falls into three main sub-period and into four schools of thought such as, the
Apostolic fathers, the Alexandrian, the Antiochian and the Western. 15 In this period “allegory”
was dominant tool for biblical interpretation.16 Thus, in this paper we will focus on Alexandrian
and Antiochene school of hermeneutics.17

3.2.1. The Alexandrian School of Hermeneutics (AD 150-400)

The Alexandrian school was found in 180 CE by Pantaenus,18 who was known as the earliest
teacher of the Catechetical school in Alexandria, Egypt. Clement (155-216) taught that all
scriptures speaks in a mysterious language of symbols. According to Clement any passage from
the Bible may have up to five meanings: (a) historical (the stories of the bible), (b) doctrinal,
with moral and theological teachings, (c) prophetic, which includes types and prophecies, (d)
philosophies (allegories in historical persons), (e) mystical (moral and spiritual truths). 19 In his
excessive allegorizing, Clement taught that in the Mosaic prohibitions against eating, swine,
hawks, eagles, and ravens (Leviticus 11:7; 13-19) represents unclean lust for food, injustice,

13
Richard N. Longenecker, Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans
publishing Co., 1995), 19-20.
14
The death of the last apostle, John, ushered in a new era for the Church. It lasted until Gregory I became
pope in A.D. 590. This period is called “Patristic Period,” because it features the contributions of the so-called
Church Fathers-the leaders during the initial four centuries after the apostolic period. See, Klein, Blomberg and
Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 31.
15
Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 104.
16
Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 104.
17
Alexandrians adopted allegorical approach in the third century and the Antiochenes who then
challenged this approach in the fourth century leading towards a shift to the development of biblical scholarship.
See, Frances Young, “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis,” in A History of Biblical Interpretation, edited by
Alan J. Hauser and Daune F. Watson, vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003),
334.
18
A form er Stoic philosopher. Joji Mathew, “The Context, Method and Issues in Selected Biblical,
Classical, Enligtenment and Post Enlightenment Christologies,” Sathri Journal Vol. III, No. 1 (April, 2013): 55.
19
Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth
(Secunderabad: OM Books,1991), 35-36. Also see, Abraham Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics: Methods and
Perspectives (Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2020), 58-59.

6
robbery, and greed,20 the ‘two fish’ in the feeding of the 5000, represent Greek philosophy
(Luke 9:10-17).21 Origen (ca. 185-254) Clement’s successor acclaimed as the founder of
biblical interpreter in the church and the founder of systematic theology.22 Origen pointed out
that, since the Bible is full of enigmas, parables, dark sayings, and moral problems, the meaning
must be found in a deeper level and claims that these problems could be answered by using an
allegorical method.23 Allegory was the interpretative method of Origen. Origen argues that,
just as humans consist of body, soul and spirit, so also the scripture has three-fold meaning-
body as the outside world, soul as believer’s social relationships to others, and the spirit as
one’s relationship with God, oneself and others.24 Thus, for Origen ‘the wise interpreter of
scripture must move from the events of a passage (its literal sense) to find the hidden principles
for Christian living (its moral sense) and its doctrinal truth (its spiritual sense).25

It is believed that Alexandria promoted an allegorical interpretation of scripture.26 The key to

Clement’s hermeneutics is allegory.27 In the school of Alexandria as the number of Jews
increased religiously and culturally, the Jewish community developed the allegorical method
of biblical interpretation under the influence of Greek thought to defend their faith. 28 As such,
the school of Alexandria adopted allegory for the biblical interpretation.

20
Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 36.
21
Miscellenies 6.11.
22
Donald J. Mckim, Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreter (Illinois: InterVarsity Press,
1998), 6.
It includes the existence of days in Genesis 1 before the sun or moon were created, God’s walking in
23

the Garden of Eden, other anthropomorphisms such as the face of God, and moral problems such as Lot’s incest,
Noah’s drunkenness, Jacob’s polygamy and others. See, Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 36.
24
However, the danger in allegorical method is missing out the meaning of the biblical text and giving priority to
the interpreter’s assumption. See, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 34. Also
see, Adams, Biblical Hermeneutics, 19.
25
For instance, Origen interpretation of the sexual relations between Lot and his daughters (Genesis 19:
30-38). According to Origen, the passage has a literal sense (its actually happened). But its moral meaning is that
Lot represents the rational human mind, his wife the flesh inclined to pleasures, and the daughters vainglory and
pride. These three applies as the spiritual meaning (or doctrinal) meaning: Lot represents the OT law, the
daughters represent Jerusalem and Samaria, and the wife represents the Israelites who rebelled in the wilderness.
See, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 34-35.
26
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 35.
27
“Allegory is a principle of interpretation that treats the text as having a less-than straight forward
meaning.” Renthy Keitzar, it refers to saying something different from what one reads in the written source,
allowing a legitimate appropriation of the cultural tradition. Mckim, Historical Handbook of Major Biblical
Interpreters. Renthy Keitzar, “Tribal Perspective in Biblical Hermeneutics today,” “Tribal Perspective in Biblical
Hermeneutics Today,” Indian Journal of Theology 31. 3-4 (July-Dec. 1984): 293.
28
The allegorical method interpreters the text apart from its grammatical and historical meaning where
its main emphasis is placed upon not what the original writer was trying to say but upon what the interpreter wants
the text to say. Adams, Biblical Hermeneutics, 16-17.

7
3.2.2. The School of Antioch

Unlike Alexandrian school, the Antiochene school of hermeneutics give less importance to
allegorical method.29 The Antiochene school of interpretation emphasises on the literal and
historical interpretation called as grammatico-historical interpretation.30 It is believed that
Lucian (ca. 240-312) was the founder of Antiochene school. The two most representatives of
the Antiochene school were Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428 CE) and John Chrysostom
(ca. 347-407). 31 For the Antiochenes, the key to finding the deeper meaning in Scripture was
theoria (Gk. “insight”).32 This tries to perceive both a text’s literal historical facts as well as
the spiritual reality of the text and affirming the historical sense-directly correspond to the
spiritual sense.33 A group of scholars at Antiochene school of Syria with one of the member
Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428) defended the principle of grammatical-historical
interpretation.34 They avoid dogmatic exegesis asserting that an interpretation be justified by a
study of the grammatical and historical context rather than by an appeal to authority. In contrast
to the Alexandrians, the Antiochene believed on the implicit spiritual meaning of a historical
event.35 Hence, the exegetical principles laid the foundation for modern evangelical
hermeneutics.

Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350-428 CE), the Antiochene’s scholar, did not completely reject
Philo and Origen and their use of allegory, but asserted that it must not dominate historical
reality.36 In the New Testament his interpretation is seen in the exposition of the letters of
Paul.37 Another significant figure in the Antiochene school was John Chrysostom (ca. 347-
407). In his interpretation he did not completely neglected allegory but holds that when

29
F.F. Bruce, “The History of New Testament Studies,” in New Testament Interpretation, edited by
Howard Marshall (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1979), 21.
30
Grammatico-historical interpretation is a method in which a text should be interpreted according to the
rules of grammar and the facts of history. Virkler and Ayoyo, Hermeneutics, 53. Louis Berkhof, Principles of
Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950), 21.
31
Two other important scholars during this period were Jerome (340-420) and Augustine (354-430). See,
Keitzar, “Tribal Perspective in Biblical Hermeneutics Today,” 300.
32
For instance, Diodorus (d. 393) in his work entitled “What is the Difference between Theory and
Allegory?” used the word theory to meant the genuine meaning of the text. See, Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation,
37.
33
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 35.
34
That a text should be interpreted according to the rules of grammar and the facts of history.
35
For instance, according to the allegorists (Alexandrians) Abraham’s departure from Haran signifies his
rejection of knowing things by means of the senses; to the Antiochenes Abraham’s departure from Haran
represented an act of trust as he followed God’s call to go from the historical city of Haran to the land of Canaan.
See, Henry H. Virkler and Karelynne Gerber Ayoyo, Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of Biblical
Interpretations, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007), 53-54.
36
Anthony C. Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 111.
37
Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” 26-27.

8
allegorical interpretation is in order the context itself indicates that this is so, and indicates what
form the allegorical interpretation should take.38 In Antiochene school they give more
emphasized on grammatical-historical interpretation yet they did not avoid allegorical method
in the interpretation of the text but it also plays an important role in the school.

3.3. The Medieval Period (600-1500)

The Medieval period39 covers the period from 600- 1540 A.D. According to Renthy, “this
period saw the rise of tradition as the dominant element in biblical hermeneutics.” The lectio
divina which literally means, “spiritual reading,” or “holy reading” is the method of biblical
interpretations practiced in the Monastery. This reading of the Scripture was dominant
40
throughout the Middle Ages. In this period the interpretation of the text was made in the
light of ecclesiastical tradition,41 where the use of catena42 became their primary source and
most medieval catenas were taken from the Latin interpreters such as, Ambrose, Hilary,
Augustine and Jerome. Like the patristic period, the allegorical method became one of the
dominant biblical interpretation in the medieval period.43 The medieval scholars interpreted
the text in four-fold sense; (i) the historical, (ii) the allegorical, (iii) tropological and (iv)
eschatological.44 The historical, allegorical, tropological and eschatological interpretation of
the Scripture was a common practice of interpreting the text and was given importance in the
medieval period.45 The most popular monastic reform of this day Bernard of Clairvaux (ca.

38
Bruce, “The History of New Testament Study,” 26-27.
39
The medieval period falls between two major periods- the Patristic period, dominated by Church
fathers and councils and the new courses chartered by the reformation. Many lived in ignorance of the Bible
during Medieval period, and whatever they knew of it was exclusively from the translation of the Vulgate, and
through the writings of the Fathers. For more details see, Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in The Middle
Ages (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952), 46-66.
40
Jean Leclercq, The Love of Learning and the Desire for God: A Study of Monastic Culture (New York:
Fordham University Press, 1982), 72. According to Bray, lection divina entails; 1. It involved spiritual preparation
before reading the text. The Bible could be properly read only in the attitude of prayer. 2. The reader must be
receptive to the voice of the Holy Spirit, speaking in and through the text. 3. It demanded a close attention to every
detail of the text to get spiritual benefit. 4. It called for a deep appreciation of biblical imagery, Bray, Biblical
Interpretation, 146-147.
41
Gregory the great (540-604), Alcuin (735-804) and Bede (673-745) depended entirely upon the
ecclesiastical tradition and the writings of the Church Fathers for their interpretation of the Bible. See, Keitzar,
“Tribal Perspective in Biblical Hermeneutics Today,” 299.
42
Catena (Latin word for Chain) or chain of interpretations refers to “long collections of interpretive
comments compiled from the commentaries of the Church.” See, Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation, 41.
43
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 38.
44
Keitzar, “Tribal Perspective in Biblical Hermeneutics Today,” 300.
45
Adams, Biblical Hermeneutics, 21.

9
 1090-1153), followed Origen and the Alexandrian allegorical tradition.46 Hence, the
allegorical method was dominant in the medieval period.

3.4. The Reformation Period (1500-1650)

The attempt of translating the Bible into vernacular languages was one of the factors that led
to Reformation, for which some pioneers were John Wycliffe (1328-1384), William Tyndale
(1494-1536), Myles Coverdale (1488-1569), Martin Luther (1483-1546). In this period, sola
scriptura47 was promoted against Church’s dominant allegoric interpretations.48Martin Luther
challenged the traditional understanding of the scripture interpretation and that opened a new
way of biblical studies.49 Hermeneutical transition took place in the reformation period where
the reformers challenged the power of the Catholic Church fathers in strictly handling the Bible.
The invention of the printing press, the translation of the Bible into vernacular language and
legitimizing the right to interpret the Bible.50 Martin Luther and John Calvin was of
Hermeneutics revolution in this period.

During the late Middle ages, the conflict between the traditionalism of the scholastics and the
51
Christian humanists Johann Reuchin (1506) published a Hebrew grammar and the Greek
New Testament (1516) published by Erasmus laid the foundation for the revolution of biblical
52
hermeneutics in this period. Martin Luther laid the principle of sola scriptura as the
foundation of biblical hermeneutics. Luther replaced allegorical method by grammatical,
historical and literal sense into account, demanded faith and spiritual insight in the interpreter
and desire to find Christ everywhere in Scripture for proper interpretation of the text.53 Martin
Luther as the one who led the hermeneutical revolution of the sixteenth century and led
Christian hermeneutics in two ways. First, Luther affirmed that only scripture has divine
authority for Christians. Luther also affirmed that Scripture itself is its own best interpreter.
Second, Luther in rejecting the allegorical method, he affirmed that Scripture had one simple

46
Thiselton, Hermeneutics: An Introduction, 118.
47
Sola Scriptura means “scripture alone.”
48
A. Koteswara Rao, Historical Critical Methods: Types, Nature, Development, and Critique pages 3
[cited 15th September 2022. Online:
https://www.academia.edu/44658564historical_critical_method_Types_Nature_Development_Critique.
49
Joy, Hermeneutics, 11.
50
Adams, Biblical Hermeneutics, 25.
51
According to the humanists, such theology (scholastic theology) offered no spiritual food for hungry
Christian souls. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 40.
52
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 40.
53
Berkofh, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, 26-27.

10
meaning i.e., its historical sense.54 Luther interpretation was Christocentric and Christological
in his whole approach to biblical hermeneutics.55 Luther recognizes the significance of
historical methodology in the interpretation of the scripture. Thus, for Luther the Bible can be
correctly interpreted when it is approached in faith by historical study.56

Like Luther and Aquinas another reformer John Calvin rejected all forms of allegory in favour
of a historical interpretation. He said the Bible contains "all things necessary for salvation."57
These two reformers developed the biblical scholarship, which was relied on tradition and on
the works of church fathers to scientific interpretation, that focuses on the historical context,
grammatical and literal meaning of the text. Their works led to the emergence of a more
scientific method, called historical-critical method.

3.5. Evaluation

Different schools of biblical interpretation help us to understand and identify the original
historical context and meaning of the text. However, it has its both positive and negative side.
For instance, allegory played an important role and was dominant in the Alexandrian and the
Antiochene school of hermeneutics and in the Medieval period. It helps us to understand the
deeper hidden spiritual meaning of the biblical text. However, it neglects the main intention of
the author/ writer behind the text. In the reformation period, Luther replaced allegorical method
by grammatical-historical interpretation of the scripture. It helps the reader to understand the
authors intention behind the text i.e., the original historical context and the literal meaning of
the text.

4. Development of Historical- Critical Method58

The term ‘historical criticism’ and ‘historical-critical method’ refer to approaches which are
concerned with the history of the Bible especially with regard to the history of the text sand the

54
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 40-41.
55
A. Skevington Wood, The Principles of Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 81.
56
Duncan S. Ferguson, Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1986), 163.
57
However, according to Calvin, the text can be read only by those who have faith. Since the authors of
the Bible were merely " clerks " of the Holy Spirit and wrote under dictation that every word of scripture is literally
true.
58
Historical-Criticism and Historical- Critical method refers to the ‘study of any text which conveys any
historical information, to determine what really happened.’ Richard E. Burnett, “Historical Criticism,” in
Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, et al., (Michigan: Baker
Book House Company, 2005), 524.

11
events which the text recounts.59 ‘Historical criticism’ and ‘the historical-critical method’ are
generic terms given to a cluster of related approaches which all focus in some way on the
historical character of the Bible. 60 The historical- critical method of biblical interpretation was
not used in patristic, medieval, or reformation periods of the Church.61 Historical- critical
method seeks to reconstruct the life and thought of biblical times through an objective,
scientific analysis of biblical material.62 The Historical-critical method became a dominant
mode of biblical studies for more than a century.63 In the seventeenth century, the conflict of
ideas between church dogma and the new liberal political philosophy of emergent modern
Europe helped rise of historical criticism of the Bible. Such criticism further prompted in the
eighteenth century to pursue the biblical text to unravel the message of Jesus against the Church
tradition.64 The main focus of the historical-critical method is the historical contexts in which
the texts were originally composed and then redacted, developed and supplemented. It takes its
starting point in understanding any text in its original historical context.65

The most original and authentic form of a text gave rise to textual criticism or ‘lower
criticism.’66 Many biblical texts were not written by one single author, but came into existence
through the combining of the variety of different sources. Therefore, to identify these sources
led to the development of source criticism or ‘higher criticism.’ In the twentieth century another
interpretive approach emerged i.e. the ‘form criticism,’ and ‘redaction criticism.’

59
David R. Law, The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Perplexed (London: T&T Clark, 2012),
5-6.
60
Law, The Historical-Critical Method, 1.
61
Patristic commentators, such as Origen, Augustine, or Jerome, may have used primitive forms of
criticism that at times resemble this method, but the mode of exposition of patristic commentators, was mostly
literal and/or allegorical, at times preoccupied with what has been called the "spiritual" sense of Scripture. See, J.
A. Fitzmyer, “Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life,” Theological Studies 50
(1989): 245.
62
Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 2.
63
Vanlalchhawna Khiangte, “An Analysis of the Recent Development in New Testament Criticism with
Special Focus on Sociological Criticism, Narrative Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism and Feminist Hermeneutics,”
Sathri Journal (September, 2013):33.
64
Roy A. Harrisville and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and Historical
Critical Method from Spinoza to Kasemann (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 2.
65
Bray, Biblical Interpretation, 21.
66
Textual criticism is also called as ‘lower criticism’ because it is a first step for the reader to establish
the original meaning of the text.

12
 4.1. Textual Criticism

Textual criticism becomes one of the foundational basis to study the original texts of the
New Testament manuscripts.67 Baird defines textual criticism as, “textual criticism is the
science and art68 of assessing the transmission of the New Testament text by (1) evaluating
its variations, alterations, and distortions (2) seeking to place the variants within the history
and culture of the early church, both to determine the age, meaning, and likely motivation
of variants and also to extract from them some knowledge of the development and character
of early Christian theology, ecclesiology , and culture.”69 In line with Baird definition, Eldon
Jay Epp also defines “textual criticism is a science and art that assesses the transmission of
the New Testament text and identifies its alterations and distortions.”70 Of all critical
approaches, textual criticism is the oldest of the critical approaches to scripture, dating back
to Origen (A.D. 185-254). As a critical methodology, textual criticism began to use in the
17th and 18th century by the scholars such as, John S. Mill (1645-1707), and others in
England, J.A. Bengel (1687-1752), J.J. Wettstein (1693-1754), J.S. Semler (1725-1791),
and J.J. Griesbach (1745-1812).71 Textual Criticism is sometimes called lower criticism; it
therefore determines the original wording of a document.72 Textual criticism present NT
sources as around 5000 manuscripts and categorized them into Greek manuscripts.73

The goal of textual criticism of the New Testament is to restore the original text of a
document which has perished.74 Textual criticism analyses the transmission of the text of
the New Testament with a view to identifying variations from the original text.75 In line with

67
C.I. David Joy, Hermeneutics: Foundations and New Trends: A Post-Colonial Reading of John 4
(Delhi: ISPCK, 2012), 19.
68
Textual Criticism that not only tries to ascertain the original text but, in the meantime, shed light to the
variants that is occurring throughout the process of copying from the original. Textual Criticism is also an art
because these rules cannot rigidly apply in every situation. See, Paul D. Wegner, A Students Guide to the Textual
Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods & Results (Illinois: Intervarsity, 2006), 24.
69
William Baird, History of New Testament Research: From C.H. Dodd to Hans Dieter Betz, Vol. 3
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013), 241.
70
Eldon J. Epp, “Textual Criticism (NT),” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 6 (N.P: Doubleday Dell
Publishing House, 1992), 413.
71
Richard N. Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Guildford and London: Lutterworth, 1977), 163.
72
J. Harold, Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1995), 1.
73
They are Papyrus manuscripts, uncials, minuscule, version such as Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopic, Old Latin,
etc.; and quotations from the Church Fathers and ancient lectionaries (quotations from scripture used in public
worship and private devotion). See, Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 162.
74
R.C. Briggs, Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues in the
Study of the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973), 30.
75
Daniel J. Harrington, S.J. Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide (Collegeville: The
Liturgical, 1979),12.

13
 this, Neville states that, “New Testament from the beginning was a collection of documents,
most of which circulated widely almost from the first; there were then many copied and
many opportunities for error and intentional change.”76 Textual Criticism has begun to
develop after the first Greek New Testament was printed in Spain in 1514 and published by
Desiderius and Erasmus in 1516.77 A Roman catholic scholar by the name Richard Simon
(1638-1712) applied the textual criticism of the New Testament as he addressed the problem
of identifying the original form of the New Testament i.e. by comparing variant manuscripts
of the New Testament and by studying the comments of the Church Fathers of the biblical
text.78 Thus, Textual criticism aims to explore the relationships between the various
manuscripts of the New Testament and attempts to determine the original wording of the
text by comparing and evaluating the readings in the existing manuscripts.79

4.2. Source Criticism80

Source criticism deals with the sources and materials used by the authors of the New
Testament,81 and it seeks to identify earlier traditions and documents within a text.82 Source
criticism made a special focus upon the Pentateuch and to the first three books of the New
Testament (the synoptic Gospels). 83 Law lists the principles of source criticism such as (1)
the identification of sources- comparison of the parallel text, contradictions within the text,
interruptions in the flow of narration, duplications and repetitions, variations in
style/vocabularies/ theology (2) establishment relationship among sources like
improvement of style of writing, amplifications, clarifications, omissions and the
construction of a hypothesis.84 Tate states that, source criticism though applied to all the

76
J. Neville Birdsall, “Textual Criticism (New Testament),” DBI: 681-684.
77
Law Claims that, Erasmus and other early editors of the Greek New Testament such as Stephanus
(1503-1559) and Theodore Beza (1519-1603), however, had not yet developed a method for deciding between
variant readings. Law continue to claims that, the evident of the awareness of textual criticism was found in
Spinoza’s discussion of the interpretation of scripture in his Tractatus Theologico-Politicus. See, Law, The
Historical-Critical Method, 89.
78
After Simon, many scholars came up for the development of textual criticism such as, John Mill (1645-
1707-the text of the New Testament which Mill published was the textus receptus), Johann Albrecht Bengel (1687-
1752), Johann Jakob Wettstein (1693-1754), Johann Jakob Griesbach (1745-1812), Karl Lachmann (1793-1851)
and Constantin Von Tischendorf (1815-1874). See, Law, The Historical-Critical Method, 89-91.
79
S.J. Interpreting the New Testament, 12.
80
Sometimes source criticism is also called as ‘Literary Criticism’ or ‘Higher Criticism.’
81
Joy, Hermeneutics: Foundations and New Trends, 22.
82
W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, 3rd ed. (Massachusetts:
Hendrickson, publisher, Inc., 2008), 74.
83
Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 99.
84
Law, The Historical-Critical Method, 124-130.

14
 writings of the New Testament, its primary focus is upon the Synoptic Gospels.85 This focus
is twofold: a concern for the relationship between two or more texts that suggests some kind
of dependence, and the discovery of the sources within a single text. In the twentieth century,
B.H. Streeter popularized in the English-speaking world a solution to the relationship
between the Synoptic Gospels with the hypothesis of Markan priority which was a source
for both Matthew and Luke. It also claims that Matthew and Luke made use of another
source known as Q and that Matthew and Luke each had sources known as M and L source
respectively. 86

Source criticism is also concerned with identifying lost sources within the text. Thus, the rise
of source criticism contributed tremendously towards the biblical scholarship in uncovering
the history behind the Gospels. 87

4.3. Form Criticism

Form Criticism is originally termed as Formgeschichte.88 In the New Testament studies, Form
criticism primarily studies on the oral tradition behind the texts of the New Testament,
particularly the Gospels.89 According to Travis, Form criticism aims to classify the various
New Testament books according to their literary genre and to analyse the smaller units of
traditional material according to the “form” or “shape” they have assumed during the oral pre-
literary period.90 Form-critical methods were first applied systematically to the Gospels by
three German scholars namely K.L. Schmidt, M. Dibelius and R. Bultmann.91 The Synoptic
Gospels considered to be a collection of ‘popular’ of ‘folk’ literatures rather than literary works

85
Though source criticism primarily centres on the source of the Synoptic Gospels, it has also been
applied to other sections of the New Testament as well such as in Acts, 2 Corinthians and 2 Peter. Khiangte, “An
Analysis of the Recent Development in New Testament Criticism with Special Focus on Sociological Criticism,
Rhetorical Criticism and Feminist Hermeneutics,” 34.
86
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 77.
87
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 77.
88
The term Form Criticism is translated from the German word Formgeschichte which literally means
the “history of form.” Since geschichte means “history,” Form criticism is also concerned with the history of the
individual forms, in which the forms were transmitted and adapted. Therefore, sometimes it is called as “tradition
criticism.” It first appeared in Martin Dibelius’ work, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums. See, Soulen,
Handbook of Biblical Criticism, 62. Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 278.
89
Form criticism assumes that the traditional forms were mainly created and shaped by the Christian
community and that the authors of the gospels were primarily collectors or editors of these traditional units.
Khiangte, “An Analysis of the Recent Development in New Testament Criticism with Special Focus on
Sociological Criticism, Rhetorical Criticism and Feminist Hermeneutics,” 34.
90
Stephen H. Travis, “Form Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles and
Methods, edited by I. Howard (Marshall; Exeter: The Paternoster, 1977), 153.
91
Christopher Tucket, Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation (London: SPCK, 1992),
78.

15
in the classical sense.92 According to Dibelius, the evangelists “are not only the authors but
they are also collectors, vehicles of tradition, and editors.”93 The oral tradition was a common
practice among the Christians between the time of Jesus’ ministry and the writing of the
Gospels, during this oral period the traditions about Jesus circulated as independent units.

Form Criticism sought to get behind the written sources in order to describe the characteristics
of existing forms in the New Testament and it attempts to investigate how those ‘forms’ or
‘shape’ emerged in the history of the oral transmission of the church. 94 Form critics are not
only concerned with the forms, sources and literary, but also sociological as each literary form
has its origin in a life situation (Sitz im Leben).95

4.4. Redaction Criticism96

Redaction criticism97 propose that the evangelists were not mere “compilers,” “scissors and
paste,” or “editors,” or “collectors” of the different traditions into a single document but rather

92
Form criticism are the collection of (i) paradigms (Mark 3:31-35; Mk. 2:1-12, 18-22, 23-28; 3:1-5, 20-
30; 10:13-16; 12:13-17; 14:3-9 etc) (Dibelius) or Apophthegms (Bultmann) or Pronouncement (Taylor). (ii)
Miracle stories or Tales (Bultmann, Taylor and Dibelius). The stories were subdivided into (a) exorcisms e.g. Mk.
5:1-20; 9:14-29 (b) other healing miracles e.g. Mk. 1:40-45; 5:21-43 (c) nature miracles e.g. Mk. 4:35-41; 6:35-
44, 45-52. Travis claims that, these miracle stories were used especially in a Hellenistic setting to demonstrate
Jesus’ superiority over rival gods and miracle-workers. Bultmann also calls these narratives as “miracle-stories.”
(iii) Legends or Historical Stories (Dibelius, Bultmann and Taylor) meant it is a “religious narrative of a saintly
man,” who is exalted as a great figure and presented as an examples to follow (e.g. Luke 2:41-49; 4:29f), Peter
(e.g. Mt. 14:28-33; 16:13-23). Bultmann include ‘Myths’ in the form of Legends (the baptismal miracle Mk. 1:9-
11), (the temptations Matthew 4:1-11) and (the transfiguration Mk. 9:2-8). (iv) Exhortations (Dibelius) the
Sayings of Jesus refer to independent teaching material in the Gospels such as logia or wisdom or sayings (Lk
10:7), prophetic and apocalyptic sayings (Lk 10:23-24), legal saying (Mk 7:15), ‘I’ sayings (Mk 5:17) and the
parabolic teachings of Jesus. Though it is known as Form criticism, it addresses a number of areas wider and
broader than commonly perceived. It deals with the literary and historical details of the text. See, Joy,
Hermeneutics: Foundations and New Trends, 25. Travis, “Form Criticism,”155-157. See, E. Basil Redlich, Form
Criticism: Its Value and Limitations (London: Duckworth, 1948), 28-31.
93
Travis, “Form Criticism,”153.
94
Darrell L. Bock, “Form Criticism,” in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, edited by David
Alan Back and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 176.
95
John J. Collin, “Form Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels: A Summary Study and Criticism,”
Theological Studies 2.3 (1941): 389.
96
Sometimes Redaction Criticism is also called as “Composition Criticism,” or “Editorial Criticism.”
Abraham Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics: Methods and Perspective (Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithi, 2020),
90.
97
Redaction Criticism emerged in Germany after the Second World War. Redaction Criticism came to
the fore front in the Biblical studies with the work of Gunther Bornkamm on his article Tradition and
Interpretation in Matthew in 1948. However, it is believed that the first major work involved in Redaction
Criticism was Hans Conzelmann’s The Theology of St. Luke which appeared in 1954. The second contributor to
the Redactional study was Willi Marxsen Mark the Evangelists in 1969. These three scholars were later succeeded
by others in redactional-critical studies of the Synoptic Gospels. Bornkamm by Gerhard Barth and H.J. Held for
Matthew. Marxsen by J.M. Robinson and E. Best for Mark Conzelmann by H. Flender for Luke. Later, J.L.
Martyn, B. Lindars and W. Nicol started to apply redaction criticism to the study of John’s Gospel. See, Edgar V.
Mcknight, “Form and Redaction Criticism,” in The New Testament and Its Modern Interpreters, edited by Eldon
Jay Epp and George W. MacRae (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 153-155. Also see, Stephen S. Smalley,

16
it was realized that the evangelists had been far more creative and theologically active in what
they had done. Hence, the evangelists are regarded as theologians and writers rather than
‘compilers.’ This work of adapting the traditions that were available to an evangelists has come
to be known as ‘redaction’ and the whole method of analysing the way in which the evangelists
have creatively used their traditions is known as ‘redaction criticism.’98 Norman Perinn states
that, “ Redaction Criticism is concerned with the theological motivation of an author as this is
revealed in the collection, arrangement, editing and modification of traditional material, and in
the composition of new material or the creation of new forms within the tradition of early
Christianity.” Joy asserts that, redaction criticism offered a new horizon i.e., ‘to study the
meaning of the texts.’99

Redaction criticism seeks to discern the theologies and intentions of the evangelists themselves
by observing the manner in which they edited their sources and arranged the individual units
of the traditions.100 Smalley asserts that, “redaction criticism analyses how the sources are
joined together, the summaries, modifications, insertions and omissions made, and the
selection and arrangement of the material. It also considers the evangelist’s vocabularies and
evangelist’s theological standpoint.” 101 Redaction criticism looks at the Gospels as complete
documents, and sees the evangelists as individual theologians or authors.102 Redaction criticism
with the insights or help of form criticism help us to understand the nature and function of the
communities behind the text.103 It also help us to see precisely how the evangelists handled
their sources, with or without shaping them.104 Kistemaker asserts that, redaction criticism
leads us to the life-setting of Jesus in the Gospels and life setting of the early Church as well
as it leads us to the life-setting in the theological purpose of the evangelists/ authors.105
Redaction criticism enables us to identify how the biblical writers of the texts handled their
sources and why they wrote their texts.106 Unlike form criticism redaction criticism gives
attention to the author’s intended meaning.

“Redaction Criticism,” in Marshall New Testament Interpretation, edited by I. Howard Marshall (Exeter: The
Paternoster Press, 1979), 183-184.
98
See, Tuckett, Reading the New testament: Methods of Interpretation, 116. Also see, Philip, Biblical
Hermeneutics, 91.
99
Joy, Hermeneutics, 27.
100
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 2.
101
Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,”184-185.
102
Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,”182.
103
Joy, Hermeneutics, 27.
104
Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,” 192.
105
Simon Kistemaker, The Gospels in Current Study (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972), 55.
106
Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,” 192.

17
4.5. Evaluation

Textual criticism helps us to explore the various manuscripts of the New Testament text. It
establishes the most reliable, authentic and original text of the Bible.107 It is a developing and
revolutionize method because of the discovery of manuscripts and other textual evidences.
However, it has its limitations too. It is a difficult task to reconstruct the original texts of the
New Testament manuscript as the autographs had already been lost. Thus, there can be no
universal valid method as the criteria could result different conclusions when applied to the
same text. The approaches applied are all hypothetical and are not very helpful in determining
the original wording of the texts.

Source criticism helps us to study how the author has modified and adapted his sources to suit
his theological needs and those of the community for which he was writing as well as it shows
us the theology of the authors and the character of the community of which he was a member.108
However, source criticism overlooked oral traditions, forms and redaction traces which cannot
be simply ignored in the biblical criticism.

Form criticism enables us to identify different literary forms in the New Testament writings
specially in the gospel texts. It has drawn valuable attention to the question of the Sitz im Leben
in the life of Jesus and the life of evangelists to bring out the relevant meaning of the text.
However, on the negative side, form criticism fails to give much attention about how the
traditions of Jesus arose and they developed as it concentrates to reconstruct the development
of the form in which the Gospel was proclaimed orally.

Redaction criticism helps us understand the nature and function of the communities behind the
text.109 It enable us to identify the theology and the contribution of the biblical writers to the
text, how they handled their sources and why they wrote their texts.110 On the negative side,
redaction criticism treats the texts as sources for historical knowledge, but fails to see them as
works of literature.

107
D.C. Parker, An Introduction to the New Testament manuscripts and Their Texts (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008), 1.
108
Law, Historical-Critical Method, 138.
109
Joy, Hermeneutics, 27.
110
Smalley, “Redaction Criticism,” 192.

18
5. New Literary Criticism

The need for a more literary approach to the Gospels arose in 1969 by William A.
Beardslee. Literary critics like Hans Frei in 1974 claimed that the historical-critical method
111
fail to take seriously the narrative characters of the Gospels into account. Biblical
scholars in this field of study are greatly influenced by the secular literary theories. Biblical
scholars for such approach came to emergence and develop a new way of interpretation
called ‘new literary method.’112 It tries to find out the arrangement of the parts, plot
movement, the activity of the characters involved, the images and exclamations of the
author the human encounter and the outcomes, the structure of the story, the narrative the
order of the story, the thematic meaning of the story embodied, the meaning of the images,
113
metaphors and illusions. It also tries to focus in analysing the usage of language in a
text. Here, a critic looks at the possible ways of sentence changes that the author might
have done in a text such as addition, omission, substitution and transportation.114 There are
four important methods of new literary criticism. They are narrative criticism,
structuralism, rhetorical criticism and reader-response criticism. However, we will deal
narrative criticism in the later part of the paper.

5.1. Rhetorical Criticism

George Kennedy defines rhetoric as, “Rhetoric is that quality in discourse by which a speaker
or researcher seeks to accomplish his/her purpose. Choice and arrangement of words are one
of the techniques employed, but what is known in rhetorical theory as “invention”- the
treatment of the subject matter, the use of evidence, the argumentation, and the control of

111
Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University, 1974), 13-14.
112
The word ‘new’ in order to differentiate the ‘literary criticism’ that covers the area of questions of
authors, date, audience, place of origin, sources etc. It had been developed lately on the basis of new and
formalistic criticism that has its roots in literary circles in 1930s-1940s. Peter W. Macky, “The Coming
Revolution: The New Literary Approach to New Testament Interpretation,” in A Guide to Contemporary
Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical Interpretation, edited by Donald K. McKim (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1986), 267.
113
Macky, “The Coming Revolution: The New Literary Approach to New Testament Interpretation,”
268.
114
G. B. Caird, The Language and Imagery of the Bible (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980); Aída
Besançon Spencer, Paul’s Literary Style: A Stylistic and Historical Comparison of II Corinthians 11:16- 12:13,
Romans 8:9-39, and Philippians 3:2-4:13 (ETSM; Winnowa Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984), 94.

19
emotion-is often of greater importance and is central to rhetorical theory as understood by
Greeks and Romans.115

As the word ‘rhetoric’ is used in the biblical studies, it tries to understand the biblical authors’
messages, how they constructed and intended their texts to function, and how the readers were
likely to have perceived and responded to the texts.116 Rhetorical Criticism focuses on the
communication between an author and a reader by analyzing the strategies an author employs
to influence a reader’s view or shape a reader’s response. In other words, it focuses on the
interactions between the author, the text, and the audience. Thus, rhetorical criticism is not only
interested in what the text is but in what it does as well.117 It belongs to pragmatic type of
criticism as it basically attempt to answer the questions on how a literary work achieves
particular effect on its reader.118 Rhetorical criticism is an art.119 Aristotle defines rhetoric as
“the art of discovering the best possible means of persuasion in regard to any subject
whatever.”120 Rhetorical criticism is a collection of critical approaches, it share two
assumptions: that, although imperfect, language is adequate to communicate human intentions
and that a communicate act includes an intentional use of language, a response, and a rhetorical
situation. According to David Goodwin, modern rhetorical criticism is of three types they are
(i) traditional (neo-Aristotelian) criticism121 (ii) transitional type122 and (iii) contemporary
rhetorical critics.123 Thus, in rhetorical criticism, more importance is given to know about the

115
George Kennedy, New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism, (Chapel Hill: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1984), 3.
116
Here, ‘rhetoric’ is an art using spoken and written discourse according to the accepted rules and
technique to inform, persuade, motivate an audience or the reader according to the agenda of the speaker or writer.
Duane F. Watson, “Rhetorical Criticism,” in Blackwell Companion to the New Testament, edited by David E.
Aune (Oxford: Blackwell, 2010), 166.
117
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 286.
118
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 14.
119
Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics: Methods and Perspectives, 179.
120
Martin Kessler, “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism,” in Art and Meaning: Rhetoric
in Biblical Literature, edited by David J.A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan J. Hauser (Sheffield: JSOT, 1982),
2.
121
Neo-Aristotelian criticism focuses on intentionally persuasive discourse, both written and oral and
how his/her time shapes the discourse. It analyse traditional genres such as public addresses, and examine the
communicator’s strategies, selection and arrangement of materials, as well as the structure of the argument. Neo-
Aristotelian rhetorical criticism examines a discourse in terms of its rhetorical unit, rhetorical situation, and the
arrangement of materials.
122
Transitional type of rhetorical criticism interest in the speaker/ author and the original audience
response. It offers a transactional model in which the function of criticism is to examine the transactions between
the rhetorical situation, the rhetorical strategies, and the rhetorical effects.
123
Contemporary rhetorical critics assume that a single rhetorical method is possible and understood
rhetorical criticism as the product (discourse), the process (speaker/ author intention) and the effect (audience
response). Hence, they look the text as a community event. See, Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 286-287.

20
circumstances of a work’s intended audience and to examine the persons, events, objects and
relations that determine that response.124

5.2. Structuralism

Structuralism developed in France during the 1950s and 1960s. It attempts to analyse literature
from the standpoint of modern linguistic theory.125 Structuralism is a method of analyzing data
that arose in several disciplines within the humanities and social-sciences-most notably
anthropology, sociology, and linguistics as well as in the study of literature. Its name derives
from its analysis of “deep” structures inherent in human cultures and language that remain
despite immense diversity of “surface” structures.126 New Testament structuralists analyses the
structure of a narrative, and it “clarifies what ‘happens’ in the text.”127 The main area of interest
of New Testament Structuralist is on Parables.128

The two forms of structuralism that have been applied to biblical texts are “actantial
analysis,”129 pioneered by the French Linguist A.J. Greimas, and “paradigmatic analysis,”130
given more impetus by the French anthropologists, Claude Levi-Strauss.131 As a school of
literary criticism, structuralism goal is to understand how literature works.132 As literature has
more than one meaning therefore, the meaning of a text is found within the deep structures of
the text rather than in the intentions of the author or in the perceptions of the reader, who also

124
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 15.
125
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 12.
126
Here, “deep structures” refer to the underlying functions, motives, and interaction among the main
characters and objects in a narrative, and, most notably, the types of oppositions and their resolutions that develop
as the text unfolds. And the “surface structures” includes; plot, theme, motifs, characterization in prose; and meter,
rhyme, parallelism in poetry. See, Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 428.
127
Longman III, T. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987),
37.
128
Stancil, B. “Structuralism,” in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, edited by David Alan
Black and David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 320.
129
Actantial analysis of narrative affirms that almost all stories, to have any kind of full-fledged plot,
disclose six major components, called actants, that is, characters or objects that develop the essential action of the
story. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 429.
130
Paradigmatic analysis focuses on a paradigm of oppositions. It advocates believe that the core message
of a narrative lies in pairs of opposites and the ways in which they are mediated or resolved. Levi-Strauss asserted
that all religious myths represent attempts to mediate opposition. It has been employed in different commentaries
on biblical books focussing on the explicit and implicit oppositions in every passage, and deducing primary
theological content from the resolution or irresolution of those oppositions. Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard,
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 431.
131
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 429.
132
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 13.

21
may not fully understand the grammar of literature. Biblical scholars have used structuralism
to elucidate the literary character of certain writings and their theological implications.133

Structuralism originated with the linguistics of Ferdinand de Sausuree, which is built on the
number of axioms. Firstly, the distinction between parole134 and langue135. Secondly,
distinction between synchronic and diachronic method and finally the distinction between two
sorts of relation in which linguistic elements stand to each other: ‘the syntagmatic relations
between the ordered elements that make up a sentence, and the paradigmatic relations between
a given element and all the elements that could be substituted for it in the same sentence.
Sausure works at the level of the sentence.’136

It seeks to find the meaning that is dwelled within the words and sentences of a text which acts
as the medium to express an author’s or community’s intentions. The main intention is to find
how language works in a text, not what meaning it contains but how it makes meaning.137 Thus,
structuralism lies its interest in the final form of the text.138

In other words, Structuralism tries to understand the structures of New Testament texts to
reveal the meaning of the text which is beyond the conscious intent of the author. Therefore,
“the meaning of a text is found within the deep structures of the text rather than in the intentions
of the author or in the perceptions of the reader.” Hence, the task of structuralists is to analyse
the structure, that is, the text’s communicative strategy, to understand the meaning of the text
in a way which, even the author did not intend.139

133
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 13.
134
Parole is any particular piece of language, typically the sentence. See, George Aichele et al., The
Postmodern Bible: The Bible and Culture Collective (London: Yale University Press, 1995), 76. Daniel Patte’s
analysis on the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30-35) uses Greimas’ actantial model. By identifying six
actants from the parable, Patte, attempts to interpret the meaning of the story based on the oppositional functions
of the actants in the story. Daniel Patte, “An Analysis of Narrative Structure and the Good Samaritan,” Semeia 2
(1974), 1-26; What is Structural Exegesis? 41-50.
135
Langue, according to Saussure, is the socially ordered aspect of speech, or the sum of word images
stored in the minds of all individuals who speak the same language. David C. Greenwood, Structuralism and the
Biblical Text (Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985), 14.
136
Aichele, The Postmodern Bible, 76-77.
137
Holladay, “Contemporary Methods of Reading the Bible,” 142.
138
See, Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae, S.J, The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters
(Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar Press, 1989), 180; Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 293.
139
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 13.

22
5.3. Reader-Response Criticism

Reader-Response criticism has developed in the field of literary criticism since the late 1960s.
It is a recent development in the NT studies focusing on the role of the readers for
interpretation.140 In reader-response criticism, meaning is produced through the interaction
between a text and a reader and define literary ‘work’ as the product of the interaction between
a literary ‘text’ and a reader.141 Kevin J. Vanhoozer states that, “Meaning is actualized not by
the author at the point of the text’s conception but busy the reader at the point of the text’s
reception.”142 It is the reader who produces the meaning of a text, and thereby meaning does
not lie in the text but in the reader.143

In biblical studies, the reader-response criticism can be divided into two form of approaches-
first, conservative reader-response (readers with the text). According to Green, “they
acknowledge the role of the reader in the process of making meaning but focusing on the
dynamics and direction of the text.”144 Second, radical reader-response (readers over the text).
According to Green, “they emphasize the ideology or position of the reader rather than that of
a text.”145 For this approach, the text itself has no universal and correct meaning but the reader
in accord with his/her identity by transforming the content creates the meaning of the text.146
Thus, the interaction between the text and the reader is the central focus of this approach.

5.4. Evaluation

New literary approaches to the New Testament are greatly influenced by the secular literary
theories.147 Rhetorical criticism as a pragmatic approach attempts to understand the rhetoric of
the text in relation to the social situation of the original audience. It aims to reconstruct the

140
Rudolf Bultmann first brought out the importance of the role of the reader in NT interpretation. See,
Rudolf Bultmann, “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” in Existence and Faith, edited by Schubert M.
Ogden; New York: Living Age, 1960), 289-296.
141
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 229.
142
K.J. Vanhoozer “The Reader in New Testament Interpretation,” in Hearing the New Testament:
Strategies for Interpretation, edited by Joel B. Green (Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995), 301.
143
Longman III, Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation, 38.
144
Here, its aim is to let the author and the text manipulates the reader so that he/she gradually comes to
experience and adopt the ideology (worldview) of the text. See, J.B. Green, Hearing the New Testament:
Strategies for Interpretation (Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 1995), 307.
145
Radical reader response criticism of the Bible is a reader liberative reading of the text by keeping the
reader’s context and the prevailing social issues in mind. They are contextual in nature. Green, Hearing the New
Testament,307; Ruth Anne Reese, Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text, and the Author in Constructs of Power &
Desire (Leiden: Boston, 2000), 18-19.
146
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 17.
147
Macky, “The Coming Revolution: The New Literary Approach to New Testament Interpretation,”
267.

23
 148
historical situation of the audience through the rhetoric. However, the main weakness of
using this approach in studying New Testament is the lack of agreement between different
types within rhetorical criticism.

Structuralists approaches to New Testament is a text centered method that greatly influenced
by secular structuralism particularly in the analysis of deep structure, binary oppositions,
synchronic relationships, and prose analysis.149 One of the strengths of structuralism is its
attempt to discover meanings that can be found only by analyzing the deep structure of a text.
However, on the negative side, structuralist approaches to the New Testament ignore the
historical-critical method and it stresses the final form of the text.

One of the strengths of reader-response criticism is its emphasis on the important role of the
reader to discern the meaning of the text. It gives a reader freedom to interpret the text in
accordance with one’s own context, it gives room for different interpretations that are
sometimes overlapping, and sometimes conflicting with each other. There is also a danger of
misinterpretation. However, on the negative side, its main weakness lies in its relativism.150 It
neglects the historical realities, the socio-political setting of the text.

Thus, Historical-critical method such as, textual, source, form and redaction criticism bring the
facts behind the texts as accurate as possible with the theological motivations of Biblical
authors. This method helps the interpreter, to assert the historical facts behind the texts, to
connect the text to the context of its authors and to the present context systematically. However,
despite its significance in asserting the facts behind the text, new trend of contextual
hermeneutics comes into the front of biblical interpretation due to the dissatisfaction over the
traditional, historical and literary approaches, to make New Testament relevant to the present
realities.

6. Contextual Hermeneutics in the New Testament Studies

The increasing dissatisfaction over the traditional, historical and literary approaches, the new
trend of contextual hermeneutics comes into the front of biblical interpretation. It is identified
as a shift or a transition of New Testament interpretation from uncritical to
philosophical/historical, then to sociological context, literature and ultimately, historicity to

148
Lloyd Bitzer, “The Rhetorical Situation,” PhilRhet 1 (1968): 5-6.
149
Stancil, “Structuralism,”334.
150
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 440.

24
history of the people.151 The gap between the first century and the present day marks the
difference in the context to which the texts were written. Therefore, it enable the interpreters
to bridge the gap between these two eras this approach give much emphasis on the local culture,
identity and contextual issues with the motif of equality, justice and peace to achieve the goal
of liberation to the downtrodden people from materialistic as well as social, cultural and
religious perspectives.152

6.1. Liberation Hermeneutics

It was in mid-1960s that liberation interpretation emerged in Latin America as a revolutionary

theological movement with the concern for the poor in the context of their class struggle, which
existed among the majority workers and the minority owners on the basis of Jesus’ view of the
poor.153 After Latin American independence, in the first two decades of the nineteenth century
the biblical interpretation had less concern about social injustice or political issues. In this
situation some of the Latin priests like Gustavo Gutierrez, Leonard Boff, Juan Louis Segundo,
José Míques Bonino and others came up to address social issue and began to articulate
liberation theology, and that has been spread in the other parts of the world, particularly in the
Third World countries.154According to Joy, “liberation hermeneutics is one of the ways through
which one can enter into the world of biblical hermeneutics.”155

Liberation hermeneutics raises two concerns in identifying ‘Class in the Bible.’ It raises (i) a
sociological concern that analyses on the impact of biblical narrative in terms of class and class
struggle. It raises (ii) a hermeneutical concern that focuses on the link of one’s class culture
with one’s reading of the biblical text.156 Liberation hermeneutics is the hermeneutics of God’s
liberative relationship with the poor and the oppressed people in the world. Its main purpose is
to formulate and discover ways and means of participation in the process of liberation. 157 It
offers alternative re-interpretations of biblical texts from the standpoint of a particular context

151
D. Sam Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,”
in Bible and Hermeneutics, edited by C.I. David Joy (Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya Samithy, 2010), 164.
152
Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,” 164.
153
Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,” 165.
154
Anthony C. Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming
Biblical Reading (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan, 1992), 411.
155
Joy, Hermeneutics: Foundations and New Trends, 36.
156
George M. Soares-Prabhu, “Class in the Bible: The Biblical Poor a Social Class?” in Voices from the
Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1991),148.
157
Abraham P. Athyal, “Liberative Insights into the New Testament: Some Exegetical Reflections,” in
Frontiers of Dalit Theology, edited by V. Devasahayam (Gurukul: ISPCK, 1997), 321.

25
 158
of experience and action. In regard to the reading of the Bible Muthuraj points out three
characteristics. Firstly, the liberation hermeneutics gives priority to application rather than
explanation.159 Secondly, it seeks to discover and activate the transforming power of biblical
texts. Thirdly, it stresses the social context of the message. It places each text into the present
historical context.160 The main emphasis in biblical liberation hermeneutics concentrates on
social relations in which “a preferential of the poor” lies central. The primary concern of
biblical liberation hermeneutics is “the poor, the exploited classes, the marginalized races, and
all the despised cultures.”161 Hence, liberation hermeneutics focuses on the contextual
problems of the people and insists the reading of the text from the perspective of the poor and
oppressed over against the dominant oppressors.162

6.2. Feminist Hermeneutics

Herbetin Auclert is credited as the first person to use the word ‘Feminism’ in 1882 associating
it with the struggle of women in gaining political rights.163 Women in the 1830s and 1840s in
America saw the need for different understandings of biblical material. Despite varieties of
different methodological trends developed for the interpretation of the Bible, the feminist
critics proceed with the understanding that “all the biblical texts were written in the contexts
of patriarchal cultures and have been subsequently translated and interpreted within patriarchal
cultures.” 164 Sarah Grimke challenged the bias interpretation of the Bible and called for new
feminist scholarship in 1837.165 Towards the end of 19th century, under the leadership of
Elizabeth Cady Stanton feminist critical assessment of the biblical text as sexist began.166 In
the patriarchal contexts where women are considered as inferior beings, the feminist shaped
their interpretation seeking to depatriarchalize not only the biblical texts but also theological
traditions and systems that are based upon patriarchal interpretations of the patriarchal texts.167

158
Thiselton, New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of Transforming Biblical
Reading, 210.
159
It reads the Bible as the book of Life and not as a book of strange stories.
160
S. Muthuraj, “The Bible and Postliberal Theologies,” Bangalore Theological Forum 40 (2008): 36.
161
Gerald West, “Liberation Hermeneutics,” Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Biblical Interpretation 1: 508.
162
K. Lallawmzuala, “Issues in Biblical Interpretation: Towards a Tribal Biblical Hermeneutics,” in
Biblical Reading from the Northeast India Context, edited by Takatemjen; Mokokchung (Clark Theological
College for NEISBS, 2014), 1-16.
163
Atula Ao, “Feminist Hermeneutics: A New Methodological Reflections,” in Contextual Theologies,
Methods and Perspectives, edited by Wati Longchar (Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2014), 241.
164
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 237.
165
Barbara Brown Zikmund, “Feminist Consciousness in Historical Perspectives,” in Feminist
Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Letty M. Russell (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1985), 21-29.
166
Longchar, Contextual Theologies, 241.
167
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 237.

26
Trible asserts that, the Bible abounds in male imagery and language in patriarchal culture for
which the feminists focus on documenting the case against women.168 In line with this
approach, Sunita Noronha asserts that feminist re-reading of the scriptures follows the method
of “reclaiming the text” in the form of reinterpreting texts that have been either forgotten or
distorted by male interpretation.169

Several other approaches to feminist Biblical interpretation are loyalist approach. This
approach seeks to read the text in a way that liberates women and marginalized people.
According to Fiorenza, revisionist approach that seeks to recover forgotten traditions about
women and also challenges the androcentric interpretation that cover up the original meaning
of the biblical text. The Liberationist approach that claims for both women and other
marginalized people who are to be valued as such.170 The feminist critical theology of
liberation developed a multidimensional model of biblical interpretation that focuses not only
the historical-political settings but also give more emphasis to the intersection and interplay of
biblical texts.171 Fiorenza on Feminist critical biblical interpretation employed various
hermeneutical principles. It includes: (i) Hermeneutics of experience (ii) Hermeneutics of
Suspicion (iii) Hermeneutics of critical evaluation (iv) Hermeneutics of proclamation (v)
Hermeneutics of remembrance and historical reconstruction (vi) Hermeneutics of creative
ritualization.172 However, despite of various emerging field of feminist biblical interpretation,
Kwok Pui-lan argues that feminist interpretation of the Bible is dominated by Euro- American
and it is Euro-American centric that in recovering the suppressed voice or hidden history of the
Women in the Bible, many have not paid much attention towards women in biblical times who
were divided by race, class, religion and culture, just as women are today. She continues to
argue that, since it is influenced by their social and cultural background, feminist interpretation
is also coloured by their construction of female identity, which cannot be representative of all
women.173 The various forms of feminist hermeneutics can be categorised into three forms of

168
Phyllis Trible, “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies,” in Feminist Theology: A Reader, edited
Ann Loades (Great Britian: SPCK, 1990), 23.
169
Sunita Noronha, “How to Re-read the Bible,” in Envisioning a New Heaven and a New Earth, edited
by Lalrinawmi Ralte et al., (Nagpur: NCCI, 1998), 1.
170
Lalnghak Thumai, “Why Re-read the Bible?” in Envisioning a New Heaven and a New Earth, edited
by Lalrinawmi Ralte et al., (Nagpur: NCCI, 1998), 9-10.
171
Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, “The Will to Choose or to Reject: Continuing our Critical Work,” in
Feminist Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Letty M. Russell (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd., 1985), 130.
172
See, Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation
(Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001); Longchar, Contextual Theologies; Fiorenza, “The Will to Choose or to Reject:
Continuing our Critical Work.”
173
The term “feminism” was viewed by some as a liberation movement by White North American and
European. This has led black American women to use the term “womanist.”

27
feminist approaches.174 (i) the radical form (Mary Daly) (ii) the neo-orthodox form and (iii) the
critical form of hermeneutics. 175According to Vanlalghaka, feminist hermeneutics helps us to
detect the presence and significance of women in scripture, and to “unmask and correct” certain
176
faulty interpretations that justified male domination. Thus, feminist hermeneutics give us
innovative ways of reading Scriptures to meet the needs of this present age.

6.3. Tribal Hermeneutics

The tribals177 in India are considered to be the victims of alienation, oppression and
exploitation. The tribal interpretation of the New Testament begins from their experiences of
both their religion and their survival issue due to exploitation of land and culture. 178 Keitzar
states that, “the interpretation of the Bible among the tribals in India requires tribal
perspective.” In line with this, Maisuangdibou argues that, “tribals possessed their own
interpretational models for understanding different literary works such as storytelling,
community-based interpretation, and land centred reading; however, they are not
systematised.”179 Wati Longchar argues that, for the tribals the Supreme being created the land
and it belongs to him as is the starting point of tribal theology. Land, landscapes, rivers, forests,
hills, mountains, nature, agriculture, plants and animals, other natural things and entire cosmic
180
universe are inseparably related to tribal identity. In line with this, Longchar argues that

174
The other significant groups prevalent among the feminist are: Marxist feminist, black and lesbian
feminists, eco-feminists, cultural feminists, I (individual) feminists. Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual
Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,”172.
175
It accepts the authority of the Bible as a potentially of service for the liberation of the oppressed and
women. The neo-orthodox form accepts the Bible as prophetic and that it takes it side on behalf of the oppressed
women. The critical form assumes that there would be equality between men and women in the early Christian
settings, but this has been concealed in the New testament writing due to the gradual dominance of patriarchy and
androcentrism. The Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” n.p. [cited
19th Sep. 2022]. Online: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp1.htm.
176
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” n.p.
177
The tribals in India are found in six major geographical locations - North Central India, North-East
India, South-Eastern India, South India, North-West India, and Western India. There are 422 tribes and sub tribes
speaking different languages and dialects in India. They are known as communities such as: vanyajati (castes of
the forest), vanvasi (inhabitants of the forest), Pahari (hill-dwellers), adimjati (original dwellers), Adivasi (first
settlers), Janjati (folk people), anuschit janjati (scheduled tribe), etc. Among the North-East tribals the major
groups are identified as: Nagas, Khasis, Jaintias, Mozos, Garos, Kukis, Mikirs, Mishings, Rabhas, Daflas, Adis,
etc. Cf. Mathew George Kariapuram, Tribal Hermeneutics for a Contextual Theology (Shillong: Don Bosco
Centre for Indigenous Cultures, Sacred Heart Theological College, 1999), 50-51; Christopher, “Revisiting the
Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,” 170.
178
Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,” 169.
179
There are four essential dimensions to keep in mind while interpreting models for understanding
different literary works (i) the communities and their whole contexts, (ii) authors, mostly anonymous, and the
readers, (iii) art of story telling and memory, and (iv) present socio-political experiences of the tribal people. See,
M. Maisuangdibou, Tribal Literature Theology & Methodology: Reading Folklore for Developing Tribal
Theological Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism (Delhi: Christian World Imprints, 2022), 274.
180
A. Wati Longchar, “A Critique of the Christian Theology of Creation,” in Doing Theology with Tribal
Resources: Context and Perspective, edited by A. Wati Longchar and Larry E. Davies (Jorhat: Tribal Study

28
“the Bible is the book of the tribal people. It speaks of people’s relationship in society,
cultivation, animals, nature and encounter with the Divine power in their search for
liberation.”181 Thanzauva opines that, the tribal people read the Bible in the context of
alienation from their land and culture to reinterpret the text to address their problems that they
encounter in their lives.182 Zhodi Angami purposes three key elements in tribal biblical
interpretation: they are (i) decolonizing the Bible (ii) espousing a marginal perspective (iii)
reading with new eyes.183 Hence, the tribal hermeneutics helps the tribal people to read the text
with new eyes to relate with the context.

6.4. Dalit Hermeneutics184

Dalit interpretation of the New Testament emerged in India to challenge the dehumanization,
and to establish equality, dignity, rights, freedom and the community ideology. 185 Dalit are
described by the terms oppressed, broken, subordinated, crushed, split etc. They are called
‘untouchables,’ ‘harijans,’ or ‘backward classes.’186 The term dalit is known for the outcaste
people, on the basis of caste distinction. This term for the dalits has become an expression of
hope in recovering their past identity.187 Monica Melanchthon asserts that, ‘Dalit hermeneutics
is an authentic attempt to interpret the scripture and understand the concept of God from Dalit’s
situation with a vision and goal to transform and to create alternative consciousness of equality,
justice and freedom.’188 The reality of Dalits is taken as the hermeneutical starting point for
reading Scripture for liberation.189 In line with this, Philip citing Mesters, remarks that the
principal hermeneutical task of Dalit reading is not to interpret the Bible, but to interpret life

Centre, Eastern Theological College, 1999), 60-76. Maisuangdibou, Tribal Literature Theology & Methodology,
274.
181
A. Wati Longchar, "Tribal Identity and Theology,” in Rethinking Theology in India: Christianity in
the Twenty First Century, edited by James Massey and T.K. John (Delhi: Manohar Publishers and Distributors,
2013), 105-119.
182
K. Thanzauva, “Issues in Tribal Theology,” in Tribal Theology: A Reader, edited by Shimreingam
Shimray (Jorhat: Eastern Theological College, 2003), 17.
183
Zhodi Angami, “Looking at Jesus from a Tribal Optic,” in Bible Reading from the Northeast India Context,
edited by Takatemjen (Mokokchung: Clark Theological College, 2014), 17.
184
The Biblical root of the word ‘Dalit’ is dall. The word dall is a verb meaning to hang down, to be
languid, be weakened, be low, be feeble. Examples are: Psalms 116:6, 142:7. As an adjective form the word dall
has been translated in English as low, weak or poor. For further details see, James Massey, Dalit Theology:
History, Context, Text and Whole Salvation (Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2014), 18-20.
185
Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretation of the New Testament in India Today,” 168.
186
Monica Jyotsna Melanchton, “Dalits, Bible, and Method,” in Voices from the Margins: Interpreting
the Bible in the Third World, edited by R.S. Sugirtharajah (New York: Orbis Books, 2016), 115.
187
James Massey, Dalits in India: Religion as a Source of Bondage or Liberation with Special Reference
to Christians (New Delhi: Manohar Publishers & Distributors, 2009), 16.
188
Monica Jyotsna Melanchthon, “Dalits, Bible and Method,” n.p. SBL Forum,
https://www.sblsite.org/publications/article.aspx?Articled=459. Accessed on 4th October 2022.
189
Melanchton, “Dalits, Bible, and Method,” 122.

29
with the help of the Bible.190 The Bible is the only valuable thing in most Dalit’s homes in
villages.191 Therefore, in Dalit reading of the Bible, the Bible holds the central place in the lives
of the Dalits.192 Dalit hermeneutic give concerns to both the context and the text which is
known as the two eyes of Dalit hermeneutics i.e. the “eye behind” and the “eye before.” Hence,
Dalit hermeneutics is defined “as a process of creative interaction and dialectical tension
between what is seen by the two eyes, the world of a text or an event and the horizon of the
interpreter through which a new world of meaning is brought into being.” 193 Dalit interpreters
read the text from the perspective of liberation. Nirmal compares dalit experience with Jesus’
dalitness, which is symbolized by the cross, where Jesus was broken and crushed crying aloud,
“My God, my god, why hast thou forsaken me? such feeling of rejection is at the heart of dalit
experiences and dalit consciousness and out of that experience emerged the Dalit interpretation
of the New Testament in order to lift up the marginalized.194
6.5. Postcolonial Hermeneutics

Postcolonial criticism195 or Post colonialism is a literary approach that gives the colonized
people for whom it was born.196 Postcolonial theory has emerged from an “interdisciplinary
area of study which is concerned with the historical, political, philosophical, social, cultural
and aesthetic structures of colonial domination and resistance. It refers to a way of reading,
theorizing, interpreting and investigating colonial oppression and its legacy that is informed by
an oppositional ethical agenda .”197 The Post-colonial study began its career by investigating

190
Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics, 229.
191
V. Devesahayam, Frontiers of Dalit Theology (Gurukul: ISPCK, 1997), 4.
192
Joshua Samuel, “Re-Contextualizing Dalit Hermeneutics: Exploring Hermeneutical Parameters for a
Changing Community,” in Liberation Hermeneutics in the Indian Interpretation of the Bible, edited by Bangalore:
SBSI and Christava Sahitya Samithy, Tiruvalla), 98.
193
The “eye behind” emphasize on the past history, people and situations that shaped the text and the
“eye before” emphasize on the present day reality and challenges of the Dalit communities. For further details,
see Melanchton, “Dalits, Bible, and Method,” 121.
194
Christopher, “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India Today,” 168.
195
It is emerged as an intellectual response to Western imperialism since 1970s. It claims that it emerges
with the work of Edward Said’s book, Orientalism in 1978. Edward Said, in his book, Culture and Imperialism,
argues that due to the powerful presence and influence of the empire the native culture and religion became hybrid.
It developed out of the third-world struggles for independence from colonial power and was influenced by the
American civil right movements of the 1950s and 1960s. It emerged as a way of engaging with textual, historical
and cultural articulations of societies disturbed and transformed by the historical reality of colonial presence. R.S.
Sugirtharajah, The Post-Colonial Biblical Reader (Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 7. Joy, Hermeneutics:
Foundation and New Trend: A Postcolonial Reading of John 4, 42. Tate, Interpreting the Bible: A Handbook of
Terms and Methods, 270. R.S. Sugirtharajah, Postcolonial Criticism and Biblical Interpretation (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2002), 11.
196
S. Temjen Imchen, “Recent Trends in the Old Testament Interpretation: Social-Scientific Approach
and the New Literary Criticism,” Sathri Journal vol 5 (December 2011): 126.
197
Imchen, “Recent Trends in the Old Testament Interpretation: Social-Scientific Approach and the New
Literary Criticism,” 127.

30
the modern colonization, which started with the European conquest of overseas countries in
the sixteenth century and culminated in the nineteenth century.198 Post-colonial critical
approaches first made their mark in the humanities, especially in English literature departments
in the 1980s mainly in British and America. This theory developed from a variety of sources,
critical traditions, and historical experiences such as anti-colonial resistance writings,
Marxism, feminism, psychoanalysis and poststructuralism.199 Sugirtharajah asserts that, ‘the
entry of literary or narrative criticism and social-science criticism in biblical studies in the
1980s paved the way for postcolonial biblical criticism.” He continues to states that, “the
absence of a colonial focus in literary criticism, social-science criticism and liberation
hermeneutics provided the space for postcolonial biblical criticism to enter the field.”200
McLeod states that, in the 1990s Postcolonialism has become increasingly busy and
academically fashionable.201 however, Postcolonial biblical criticism first made its appearance
in biblical studies in the 1990s.202

This approach challenged the way the texts and knowledge were produced and interpreted.203
For Joy, “it is a critical and reflective reading strategy based on particular ideological and
theological positions.” 204 The primary aim of postcolonial biblical criticism is to situate empire
and imperial concerns at the centre of the Bible and biblical studies.205 It emphasizes on how
the biblical interpreters in their exegetical works, philosophical studies, and commentaries on
biblical books represent the empire.206 A basic assumptions of postcolonial critics is that, “the
dominating culture wrote the literature and decided what literature was canonized. This

198
R.S. Sugirtharajah, “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation,” Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Biblical
Interpretation 2: 123-132.
199
R.S. Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice (Chichester:
Willey-Blackwell, 2012), 11.
200
Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice, 43-45.
201
John Macleod, Beginning Postcolonialism (Delhi: Viva Books Private Limited, 2011), 29.
202
Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice, 42.
203
The Bible and its biblical interpretation were examined on two accounts: (a) most of the biblical
narratives came out of various ancient colonial contexts and colonial tendencies were embedded in them and (b)
the bible and biblical interpretation played a pivotal role in modern colonialism. Sugirtharajah, Exploring
Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice, 42.
204
Joy, Hermeneutics, 40.
205
First, it has brought to attention the importance of biblical empires- Assyrian, Egyptian, Persian,
Greek, and Roman -central to many biblical books and providing the social, cultural, and political framework.
Second, postcolonial biblical criticism is vigilant about representation and asks how biblical interpreters in their
exegetical works, philosophical studies, and commentaries on biblical books represent the empire. Third, post
colonial biblical criticism has embarked upon retrieval hermeneutics. Three tasks can be identified here: the first
is to retrieve sidelined, silenced, written-out, and often maligned biblical figures and biblical incidents and restore
their dignity and authenticity. For further details see, Sugirtharajah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism:
History, Method, Practice, 46-51.
206
Sugirtharagah, Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism, 47.

31
literature, even the language that was used, affected the society by propagating the
differentiation and subsequent oppression of the colonized.”207 The postcolonial readings of
the Bible analyse the ways the Bible has been used in the colonial discourse and offer concrete
examples of reading strategies from the marginalised communities.208 Hence, postcolonialism
in the interpretation of the New Testament, interpret the texts from below i.e, from the
perspective of those who are victimized by colonization.209

6.6. Evaluation

The increasing dissatisfaction over the traditional, historical and literary approaches prompted
the new trend of contextual hermeneutics in Biblical interpretation. However, it has both
strengths and weaknesses in the interpretation of the text. One of the strengths of liberation
hermeneutics is it makes the biblical studies relevant in today’s context, where socio-economic
and political injustices have been experienced. However, this approach has its limitations as it
reads the text in a limited way focusing on some texts while others are neglected. In doing this
it looks the Bible only from the perspective of the poor, unprivileged and marginalised and
does not bring out the whole picture of the biblical message.

Feminist hermeneutics help us to bring out the significance of women in scripture, to unmask
and correct certain faulty interpretations that justified male the domination of women, to have
consciousness of mutuality and equality between men and women in the family, society and
other areas and gives us fresh and innovative ways of reading Scriptures and meeting the needs
of this present day.210 However, one of the main weaknesses of feminist hermeneutics in the
interpretation of the text is they fail to do justice to the texts of the Bible. It takes experience
rather than Scripture as the starting point of doing theology. 211

Dalit hermeneutics challenges the existential reading of the Bible and attempts a new reading
of the Bible by bringing out the social realities of the Dalits in India. 212 However, one of the
weaknesses of Dalit hermeneutics in the interpretation of the text is it does not show justice to

207
Randolph Tate, Interpreting the Bible: A Handbook of Terms and Methods (Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers,2006). 271.
208
Kwok-Pui-lan, “Response of the Semeia Volume on Postcolonial Criticism,” Semeia 75 (1996): 211-
217.
209
Joy, Bible and Hermeneutics, 174.
210
The Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,” n.p. Atula Ao,
“Feminist Hermeneutics: A New Methodological Reflections,” 250.
211
Natalie K. Watson, Feminist Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 59.
212
Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics, 228.

32
the NT texts. In other words, this approach does not take into account the historical and
theological significance of the various texts. At the same time, this approach is also subjective
and selective in its perspective to satisfy the Dalits i.e., for the self-identity. 213

One of the strengths of post-colonial criticism is its plurality and interdisciplinary in nature as
it is a conflation of different approaches to interpret the text. On the other hand, its plurality
and interdisciplinary can be its weakness as it can create complexities and fluidity in the biblical
interpretation.

7. Socio-Narrative Criticism and the New Testament Studies

Socio-narrative criticism is one of the recent developments in New Testament interpretation.

Over the past twenty years, a small handful of scholars214 have been combined these
perspectives, which is called a socio-narrative approach.215 It is an integrated approach that
emerges from social-scientific criticism and narrative criticism.216 Unlike the historical critical
method, socio-narrative criticism enables the biblical narratives to speak to contemporary
situation by bridging the gap between the author and the reader.217 However, in this paper, I
will be dealt social-scientific criticism and narrative criticism separately and in the later part I
will bring out the benefits of combination of both approach in the study of NT texts followed
by its strength and weaknesses. Let us briefly look at these two approaches.

7.1. Social -Scientific Criticism

In the recent past, sociological criticism emerged to understand the social and cultural
dimensions of the text and plays an important role in the biblical studies.218 John G. Gager and
Gerd Theissen are the two leading prominent figures in the use of sociological insights for the
study of the New Testament. The term ‘sociological criticism’ was used prior to the usage of
the term ‘social-scientific criticism.’ John H. Elliot describes the approach as sociological
exegesis/criticism in his book, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter:
Is Situation and Strategy (1981). But in his book What is Social-Scientific Criticism? (1993),

213
Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics, 230.
214
Peterson 1980, 1985; Elliot 1987, 1991.
215
For instance, Peterson (1985) integrated “Contemporary literary and sociological capabilities into the
traditional philological base of the historical-critical method” in his work of Philemon.
216
Tekalign Duguma Negewo, “Identity Formation and the Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-narrative
Reading,” unpublished thesis, Stellenbosch University 2021.
217
B.J. Syiemlieh, God’s Favourite: A Socio- Narrative Analysis of the Characters in the Lukan Infancy
Narratives (Luke 1:5-2: 52) (Delhi: ISPCK, 2005), 10.
218
Joy, Hermeneutics, 29.

33
he uses the term ‘social-scientific criticism.’ For Elliott, the social-scientific criticism is the
sub-discipline of the exegetical enterprise that complements the other sub-disciplines of
historical-critical method.219 Elliott states Social-scientific criticism as “Social-scientific
Criticism of the Bible is that phase of the exegetical task which analyzes the social and cultural
dimensions of the text and of its environmental context through the utilization of the
perspectives, theory, models, and research of the social sciences. As a component of the
historical-critical method of exegesis, Social-scientific Criticism investigates biblical texts as
meaningful configurations of language intended to communicate between composers and
audiences.”220 It is a sub-discipline in NT interpretation that focuses on the geographic,
economic, social, political, historical, domestic and religious contexts in which the authors and
audiences reflected in the NT text. This method provides the appropriate cultural and social
settings to read and interpret the biblical texts in their own terms and cultural distinctions. It
helps the modern readers to bridge the cultural gap that separates them from the authors and
audiences of the biblical times.221

Social-scientific criticism seeks to understand texts in their social, cultural, historical, and
literary contexts in order to understand the social institutions, the cultural values, and the norms
of the particular era.222 The social-scientific study of the New Testament did not appear ex
nihilo or not a new or independent methodological paradigm. It complements the other sub-
discipline s of the historical-critical method, by bringing social scientific scrutiny to bear both
on texts and on their geographical, historical, economic, social, political, and cultural
contexts.223 Social-scientific criticism is one of the latecomers to biblical studies as an
224
interpretive approach. The social scientific study of the New Testament depends upon the
models and methods from the social sciences.225 The New Testament writings refer to social

219
John H. Elliot, “Social-Scientific Criticism, Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil eye accusation at
Galatia as illustration of the method,” www.scielo.org.za/pdf/hts/v67n1/a18v67n1.pdf. Page 1 Accessed on 11th
September 2022
220
Elliot, “Social-Scientific Criticism, Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil eye accusation at Galatia as
illustration of the method,” 1.
221
Dietmar Neufeld, “New Testament,” Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Biblical Interpretation 2: 300.
222
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 78.
223
John H. Elliot, “Social-Scientific Criticism, Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil eye accusation at
Galatia as illustration of the method.” www.scielo.org.za/pdf/hts/v67n1/a18v67n1.pdf. Page 1 Accessed on 22nd
September, 10:01 a.m 2022.
224
Normann K. Gottwald, “Social-Sciences,” Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Biblical Interpretation 2:
292.
225
The social sciences include broad areas, it includes the following disciplines: anthropology,
geography, history, law, political science, sociology and statistics. Hence, these models and methods have been
adapted and modified by the NT scholar in order to deal with written texts. For more details see, David M. May,
Social Scientific Criticism of the New Testament: A Bibliography (Georgia: Mercer University Press, 1991), 23.

34
relations, social groups and organizations, social institutions and events, political rule, and
patterns and codes of social behaviour. In addition to this, historical critics have shown a keen
interest in social history, in developments and changes over time in the social organization of
the biblical communities, their varying relations to the larger society, and in biblical
communities, their varying relations the larger society itself of which the biblical communities
were a small and generally vulnerable minority.226 In line with this, Desilva states that, “social-
scientific criticism is part of the larger enterprise of exegesis, bringing the perspectives, models,
questions, and tools of sociological research to bear on the New Testament texts and the real
world of the Christians who composed and read them.”227

Mulholland proposes five principles in the utilization of social scientific criticism in the New
Testament interpretation.228 First, the study of the social setting of the New Testament.229
Second, systematic investigation in order to draw the full description of the sociological
dynamics of the New Testament world through an understanding of interactions between the
various social structures. Third, to define and analyse the ways in which groups and individuals
exist and function using sociological models.230 Fourth, the text of the New Testament must be
studied within the sociological matrix of the Christian communities in the Roman world of the
first century. Fifth, a distinction must be maintained between the sociological horizon of the
interpreter and that of the text throughout the process. These principles may help the interpreter
to enter into the social matrix of text, and also to draw out the meaning of the text within that
life-matrix and its significance for Christian discipleship in our own matrix of experience. 231
Hence, the development of social-scientific criticism in the interpretation of the New Testament
helps to understand and analyse the text and the social milieu of the time of its formation.

226
John, H. Elliot, What is Social-Scientific Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 10.
227
David A. deSilva, “Embodying the Word: Social-Scientific Interpretation of the New Testament,” in
the Face of New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research, edited by ScotMcKnight and Grant R. Osborne
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004), 118.
228
M. Robert Mulholland, Jr., “Sociological criticism,” in New Testament Criticism and Interpretation,
edited by David Allan Black & David S. Dockery (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 303-304.
229
It seeks to define the political, economic, cultural, religious, social, educational, and communal
structures of the New Testament period, with the help of textual, archaeological, and inscriptional evidence.
230
These models will help to analyse the relationships between individuals, the relationships between
individuals and groups, the relationships between groups, the structures of groups and the social stratification of
the culture.
231
Mulholland, Jr., “Sociological criticism,” 304.

35
7.2. Social Scientific Method

There are four categories /approaches in social scientific study of the New Testament include:
social description, social history, sociology of knowledge, and the use of models from the social
sciences. 232
deSilva states that, “social scientific approach involves the investigation of the
social world of the early Christianity and emphasises on the exegetical analysis of the texts and
the ways in which the theory and models of social sciences are employed in the interpretation
of the texts.” In line with this, for sociological interpretation of religious traditions Gerd
Theissen brought out three methods for getting sociological relevant data from religious
traditions: (i) the constructive method (ii) the analytic method and (iii) the comparative
method.233 Social-Scientific Criticism studies the text as both a reflection and response to the
social and cultural milieu in which the text was produced. Its aim is to determine the meaning(s)
explicit and implicit in the text, meanings made possible and shaped by the social and cultural
234
systems inhabited by both authors and intended audiences. Bruce J. Malina asserts that,
“Social sciences are based upon models of how the world of human interaction works and why
it works that way.” 235 Malina identifies three types of social science models to understand the
social/ human interaction. These three are called the structural functionalist, the conflict and
the symbolic models.236 Structural functionalists model focuses on social order and
harmony.237 This model assumes that every society is a relatively persistent, stable structure
as well as well integrated structure of elements as every element in society has a function and
a purpose that renders to the maintenance of society as a whole, integral system. This model is

232
The social description draws the information about the ancient world such as literature, archaeology,
inscriptions, art and coins. This information was gathered, analysed, and organised from the description of every
aspect of the social environment of the New Testament in its original setting. The social history approach examines
the impact of Greco-Roman culture in the social developments and movements of the early Christians. A Social-
historical approach aims to reconstruct the past. Sociology of knowledge examines/identifies particular cultural
groups and their organisation and interpret experiences within society. Models from the social sciences involve
the study of a number of similar cultures and examine issues such as rituals, kinship relations, purity pollutions
taboos, and economic systems. Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 80.
233
The constructive method depends on direct disclosure of the Sitz im Leben. The analytic method, that
is inferences drawn from the historical events, social norms or religious symbols. The comparative method, that
is comparison of primitive Christianity source with the texts which do not deal with early Christian groups. See,
Gerd Theissen, The Social Setting of Early Christianity, ed. John H. Schutz (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1982), 177-
195.
234
Philip, Biblical Hermeneutics, 111.
235
Bruce J. Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” in The Bible and Liberation:
Political and Social Hermeneutic, edited by Norman K. Gottwald (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983), 15.
236
Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” 16.
237
According to this model, the society is held together by core values which get realized in human living
by means of social arrangements or social institutions. Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,”
16.

36
useful for discovering what sort of structures or patterns of behaviour are typical of a society.238
The conflict models analyses on the social struggle and change. 239 This model analyses social
system in terms of various groups which have differing goals and interests, and use coercive
tactics on each other to get their own goals realized as well as each of the various groups
protects the distinctive interest of its members, and relation between various groups include
disagreement, strain, conflict and force as well as consensus and cooperation. This model
analyses the biblical texts by finding out what elements or factors interfere with the normal
process of change and what sorts of conflicts typify the behaviour described in various biblical
240
books/texts. Finally, the symbolic model analyses on the social behaviour. this model
assumes that human interactions are symbolic interactions and determine symbolic roles that
situate symbolic roles that situate people relative to others and giving social definition and
status. This model helps the biblical interpreters to seek out what roles, significant symbols,
gestures and definitions of situation are expressed or implied in the texts. These models are
developed for understanding the social interaction of the early Christians.241

Hence, social-scientific criticism focuses on the models such as honour and shame, purity and
pollution, patronage and clientism and kinship to analyse and to understand the early Christians
in the interpretation of the text. However, because of the limitation of time and space, two of
the models will be brought out in detail i.e. honour and shame and kinship.

7.2.1. Honour and Shame

Honor is a social construct which stands for the worth, value, prestige and reputation in the
eyes of public. Juliet Pitt-Rivers argues that, “is the value of a person in his own eyes, but also
in the eyes of his society.”242 In line with this, Bruce Malina and Jerome Neyrey define honor
as "the positive value of a person in his or her own eyes besides the positive appreciation of
that person in the eyes of his or her social group." They continue to states that, "In this
perspective honor is a claim to positive worth along with the social acknowledgment of that
worth by others." 243While shame is the absence of the honour, that is, the loss of respect, regard,

238
Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” 16-17.
239
Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” 11.
240
Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” 17.
241
Malina, “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation,” 18.
242
Kojo Okyere and Gifty Effah Darko, “Honour and Shame in the Context of Agricultural Work in
Ancient Israel: The Case of Proverbs 10:5,” Theoforum 49 (2019), 78.
243
Joseph H. Hellerman, “Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11: 27-33 and Mediterranean
Notions of Honor and Shame,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43/2 (June 2000): 214.

37
worth and value in public eyes.244 Moxnes asserts that, “honor and shame are the expressions
of social and cultural relations. They change with various cultures and within cultures
according to sex, class, status, geographic location, and so on.” This model of honor and shame
help us to understand the societies based on families, clans and lineages. 245 In the
Mediterranean society, honor and shame played an important role in public life. In the New
Testament studies the model of honor and shame help us in recognizing passages 246 where
honor and shame play an important role.247 The British social anthropologists Julian Pitt-Rivers
in the 1960s established in understanding the Mediterranean studies of honor and shame. Since
honor and shame were discovered as an important part of culture in the 1960s, much of
scholarly discussion developed on the relationship between honor and shame and various social
realities, including gender relations and other power relations where female scholars focused
more on gender relation in terms of honor and shame from the perspective of women.248

Honor is fundamentally understood as the public recognition of one’s social standing. It comes
in one of two ways. One’s basic honor level, termed as ascribed honor. 249 By contrast, honor
conferred on the basis of virtuous deeds is called acquired or achieved honor.250

7.2.2. Kinship

The term “kinship” refers to the system of relationships through birth and marriage and forms
one of the foundational social domains besides, politics, economics and religion that social
scientists analyse. It presents two basic social functions i.e. group formation which includes
production, reproduction and child rearing, protection, worship, belonging, patronage and play,
and inheritance which is not only limited to as receiving money but also that inheritance of
status from one’s family (Matthew 13:54-57; Mark 6:3; John 7:40-44) and land for peasants.
Another basic level of kinship is the household which is considered as the unit of identity,

244
Jerome H. Neyrey, Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew (Louisville: Westminster John Knox
Press, 1998), 15.
245
Family is the central unit of social organization and beyond the lineage or clan. A person is always as
part of a group, responsible for the honor of the group and also protected by it. Halvor Moxnes, “Honor and
Shame,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh;
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1996), 19- 40.
246
For instance, Honor and Shame in Luke 13:10-17.
247
Moxnes, “Honor and Shame,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 26-27.
248
Moxnes, “Honor and Shame,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, 26.
249
Ascribed honor includes high birth, wealth, grand house, legal status, and expensive clothes, proper
education, accent, words and the like. See, Neufeld, “New Testament,” 307.
250
Achieved honor refers to the reputation and fame in individual earns by his own merits such as military
exploits, athletic games, aesthetic competition in drama and poetry and the like. See, Neyrey, Honor and Shame
in the Gospel of Matthew, 16.

38
solidarity and status.251 DeSilva asserts that, the Greco-Roman and the Jewish communities
believed that “kinship relations should be characterized by harmony, agreement, and unity.”252
In traditional societies, marriage take place as a social contract negotiated between families
with regard to economic, religious and political implications up to the extent of sexuality,
relationship and reproduction. Marriage acts as binding together families, while divorce acts as
opposite of it affecting the honor of the families.

7.2.3. Evaluation

Social-scientific Criticism as an important recent development in New Testament criticism has

offered a broader framework of interpretation in the study of New Testament texts. However,
like any other approaches, it has both strength and weaknesses. Besides, the broader framework
of interpretation in the study of New Testament texts, social scientific models presents the
undeniable danger of reductionism and anachronism.253 Since New Testament is not written as
a sociological perspective, it cannot give answer to all the questions raised by people
concerning the Bible and its interpretation.

Social-scientific criticism in the biblical interpretation helps to distinguish between one’s own
sociological matrix and that of the New Testament. SSC not only supplements the historical
critical method but it complements the other subdisciplines of the historical critical method
such as: textual criticism, literary criticism, rhetorical criticism and the like are all designed to
analyse specific features of the biblical texts.254 It also helps to identify the sociological matrix
of the New Testament world and the life and activities of the Christian communities within that
world for proper understanding of the New Testament texts.255 Thus, this method helps in
relating the text with the present context through its various models in identifying the social
position and role of the gender or group in religious and social aspect by drawing out relevant
meaning from the text to the present day context.

251
K.C. Hanson, “Kinship,” in The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation, edited by Richard
L. Rohrbaugh (Edingburgh: T&T Clark, 1992), 62.
252
D.A. DeSilva, An Introduction to the New Testaments: Contexts, Methods and Ministry Formation
(N.P: IVP Academic, 2004), 139.
253
In reductionism the models tend to reduce all theology to sociology or anthropology which has
resulted in the minimization of the truth claims of religious statements and religious expressions. In anachronism
utilizing a modern model to study an ancient culture poses the dangers of falsehood and imposition. See, W.R.
Herzog II, “Sociological Approaches to the Gospels,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, edited by Joel B.
Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 766.
254
Elliot, “Social-Scientific Criticism, Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil eye accusation at Galatia as
illustration of the method,” 1.
255
Mulholland, Jr., “Sociological Criticism,” 306.

39
7.3. Narrative Criticism in the New Testament

Narrative criticism256 is one of the new literary approaches that has developed in the NT studies
in 1980s as a reaction towards historical critical approaches. Literary critics like Hans Frei in
1974 claimed that the major failure of the historical critical approaches is their negligence to
see the narrative character of the Gospels into account.257 Narrative criticism is a development
within biblical scholarship, that adapts literary created by non-biblical literary critics and
applies them to biblical narratives.258 According to James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism
focuses on how the biblical literature works as literature. The “what” of a text (its content) and
the “how” of a text (its rhetoric and structure) are analysed as a complete tapestry, an organic
whole. He continues to state that, “Narrative Criticism is a shift away from traditional
historical- critical methods to the way a text communicates meaning as a self-contained unit, a
literary artefact, an individual whole.” It focuses on the narrative features of a text in its finished
form.259 Narrative critics consider that there are four elements in a narrative. It includes the
narrator,260 narratee,261 the implied author and the implied reader and story262 and discourse263
264
of the narrative. Thus, Narrative Criticism is a complex process that focuses on analysing
the basic elements of both story and discourse. So, narrative critics emphasize on analyzing

256
The term “narrative criticism” was first used by David Rhoads in his article “Narrative Criticism and
the Gospel of Mark,” the Journal of the American Academy of Religion 50 (1982), 412. The early development
of narrative criticism is found in the works of Stephen D. Moore, Literary Criticism and the Gospels (New Haven:
Yale University, 1989); Robert Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic Books, 1981); Mark Allan
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?; Elizabeth Struthers Malbon, “Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story
Mean,” in Mark &Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies, edited by Janice Capel Anderson and Stephen D.
Moore (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992); David Rhoads and K. Syreeni, eds., Characterization in the Gospels:
Reconceiving Narrative Criticism (JSNTS 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999); Daniel Marguerat and
Yvan Bourquin, How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to Narrative Criticism (London: SCM, 1999); David
Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie, Mark as Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel, 2nd ed
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999); James L. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Baker Academic, 2005).
257
Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative: A Study of Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century
Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University, 1974), 13-14.
258
Mark Allan Powell, “Narrative Criticism,” in Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for
Interpretation, edited byJoel B. Green; Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995), 239-255.
259
Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 18-19.
260
The narrator is the voice that tell the story, who introduces characters, determines when they should
speak and silent. S/he mediates between the world of the narrative and audience. Powell, What is Narrative
Criticism? 25-26.
261
Narratee is the counterpart of narrator and it refers to the person to whom the story is told. Chatman,
S. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1978), 151.
262
Story refers to the narrative content. The basic elements found in a story are events and plot, setting
and characters. Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 23.
263
Discourse refers to “the rhetoric of the narrative, how the story is told.” Powell, What is Narrative
Criticism? 23.

40
“the ‘what’ (its content) and ‘how’ (its rhetoric and structure) of a text” as a one whole unit.265
Narrative criticism is similar to structuralist approach as both believe on the self sufficiency of
a literary text and considers the text as the focus for interpretation. In other words, it is a text
centred approach.266 The narrative analyses include, events,267 characterization,268 settings,269
repetition,270 framing of thought,271 point of view and the like. 272 However, Narrative Criticism
focuses not only on traditional narrative elements such as plot, setting, and characterization but
also the role of the reader.273 Narrative Criticism concerns on questions; how does a narrative
begin? How does it end?

Thus, the aim of Narrative criticism is “to read the text as the implied reader.” 274 It does not
interpret the books from the perspectives of the text’s actual, original audience, rather the goal
is to read the text from the implied reader point of view275 and focus on its final form and to
analyze using literary methods.276 The goal is to understand ‘the gospel as a narrative text: what
it is and how it works.’277 Therefore, let us look at the elements of story and rhetorical devices

265
Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 18.
266
Vern S. Poythress, “Structuralism and Biblical Studies,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 21 (1978): 237.
267
The events are “the incidents or happenings that occur within a story, and a story cannot exist without
them.” Mark Allan Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 35. The same events can
be related each other in different ways to form different narratives by the use of rhetorical techniques (suspense,
irony, symbolism), order, duration, frequency and casual connections of the events. Mark Allan Powell, “Literary
Approaches and the Gospel of Matthew,” in Methods for Matthew, edited by Mark Allan Powell (Cambridge:
CUP, 2009), 44-82.
268
Characters are “the actors in a story, the ones who carry out the various activities that compromise
the plot.” Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 51. Characters can be described in different ways especially by
traits (“persistent personal qualities that describe the character involved”), and point of view (refers to “the norms,
values, and general world view that govern the way a character looks at things and renders judgments upon them”).
Powell, “Literary Approaches,” 48-49.
269
The setting of a story is where “narrative action takes place” that covers the spatial, temporal and
social aspects of the environment of the characters. It basically represents “when, where, and how the action
occurs.” Resseguie has given six types of settings in a narrative—topographical, architectural, props, temporal,
social and cultural, and religious settings. Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 94. Powell,
“Literary Approaches,” 51.
270
Repetition is a rhetorical figure that refers to a repeated occurrence of words, phrases or concepts in
a narrative. It is primarily used to add value and bring clarity of what the narrator intends to tell to the reader.
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 32; Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 60.
271
Figures of thought or tropes refer to the usage of language in a symbolic way. Some figures of
thought that are commonly used in a narrative are hyperbole, simile, metaphor, paradox, synecdoche, metonymy,
understatement, double meaning, misunderstanding, and carnivalesque. For detail explanation of these devices
see, Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 61.
272
Klein, Blomberg and Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 65.
273
Tate, Biblical Interpretation, 335.
274
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 20.
275
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 19-20.
276
Arren Bennet Lawrence, “Narrative Criticism,” in Approaches to the New Testament: A Handbook
for Students and Pastors, edited by Arren Bennet Lawrence (Bangalore: SAAICS, 2018), 107.
277
Culpepper, Anatomy of the Fourth Gospel, 5.

41
7.3.1. Events and Plot

Events refers to the incidents that are narrated in a story. According to Powell, there are two
types of events, Kernels and Satellites.278 Gerard Genette asserts that, the events must be
analyzed in relation to order, duration, and frequency of events.279 In a narrative, one event can
cause another event to happen or at least makes possible for the following events to happen.
Such arrangement of events or actions into a structured form in a narrative is plot of a
narrative.280 The plot includes the story’s beginning, a sequence of events that build to the
climax, and the ending. Narrative critics focus on the unity of action; a beginning, a middle and
an ending.281 Plot-structure of a narrative employs some elements to establish the logical
282
development of the plot and the intended effects of a narrative upon its reader. They are
conflict (agōn), verbal abuse (flyting), crisis or reversal (peripeteia), suffering (pathos),
recognition (anagnōrisis), and resolution (dénouement).283 Hence, narrative critics seek to
analyse the elements of the plot to understand the effects and the response intended upon the
reader.

7.3.2. Characters

Characters refer to the actors constructed by the implied author in a narrative.284 In line with
this, according to Mark Allan Powell, “characters are constructs of the implied author, created
to fulfil a particular role in the story.”285 Characterization refers to authors’ technique used by
the implied author to bring characters to life in a narrative by telling and showing 286 them
through (i) what they say and how they say, (ii) what they do and (iii) how other characters

278
Kernels signify those events which are very much essential in the story which removal from the story
disturbed the logic of the story. Satellites refer to insignificant events which can be removed from the story without
affecting the logic of the story. See, Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?, 36.
279
Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse. An essay in Method, translated by Jane E. Lewin (Ithaca:
Cornell University, 1980), 33.
280
Johnson Thomaskutty, Dialogue in the Book of Signs: A Polyvalent Analysis of John 1:19-12:50
(Leiden: Brill, 2015), 456.
281
Cynthia Long Westfall, “Narrative Criticism,” in Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation,
edited by Stanley E. Porter; New York: Rutledge, 2007), 237.
282
7 N. Friedman, “Forms of the Plot,” in The Theory of the Novel, edited by Philip Stevick; New York:
1967), 150.
283
Thomaskutty, Dialogue in the Book of Signs, 459-460.
284
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 51.
285
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 196.
286
Two narrative techniques of characterization are showing and telling. In showing, ‘the author presents
the characters talking and acting and leaves the reader to infer the motives and dispositions that lie behind what
they say and do.’ In telling, which is also called direct presentation. Here, the narrator comment directly on a
character in order to let the reader to notice or make an evaluation of a character. See, James L. Resseguie, “A
Narrative Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel,” in Characters and Characterization in the Gospel of John,
edited by Christopher W. Skinner (New Delhi: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 11-12.

42
perceive them or react to them.287 The characters are brought to life for the reader by the implied
author through narrated words and actions i.e. by telling and showing. For instance, in the
Gospel of John, the narrator tells the reader about the motives of Judas and shows Judas’ lack
of understanding of devotion to Jesus by criticizing Mary of Bethany in John 12:1-8.288

Narrative critics consider that characters in the biblical narrative are employed by the authors
“to communicate their point of view to the readers” and to instruct or guide the readers to
identify with some characters and dissociate with others.289 Many scholars regards the biblical
narratives as nonfictional in nature and characters and events portrayed in the narratives are
referring to real historical figures and events. Therefore, narrative critics suggest the need for
a form of historical critical narrative criticism for character analysis. 290 Though scholars like
John A. Darr, Joel F. Williams and Ling Cheng etc done analysis on character, Bennema
provides a theory on Character analysis based on historical-narrative criticism. His theory
consists of three aspects. First, character in text and context.291 Second, analysis and
classification of characters.292 Third, evaluation of characters in relation to author’s point of
view and the plot.293

7.3.3. Settings

Settings in a narrative provides context in which the actions of the characters are performed.
They designate when, where, and how the action occurs. Settings in a narrative provides a
various functions. According to Powell, though settings in a narrative, at some point, simply
suggest background details, in most of the time they may be symbolic, they may reveal
characters, determine conflict in a narrative or provide structure of the story. Chatman notes

287
David Rhoads, “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark,” The Journal of the American Academy
of Religion L/3: 417.
288
Resseguie, “A Narrative Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel,” 12.
289
Cornellis Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2014),
1.
290
Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative, 66-67.
291
Bennema asserts that, the reader must reconstruct the characters primarily from the information
provided in the text without neglecting the socio-historical context of the first-century Greco-Roman world which
the author “presumes his reader has access to.” So, he talks about “a plausible historically informed reader” who
has good knowledge of the social context of the NT and whose knowledge of a certain character in a narrative
derives primarily from the text. For further details see, Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament
Narrative, 62-72.
292
Bennema classified the characters into two categories; “flat” and “round,” introduced by Forster in
1927.
293
Bennema, A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative, 62. Three main effects usually come
out from the reader towards different characters in relation to the identifications made by the reader with particular
character in the narrative. They are—empathy, sympathy, and antipathy. See, Powell, What is Narrative
Criticism?, 56-57

43
that, the settings is “to contribute to the mood of the narrative.” 294 Resseguie suggest that there
are seven types of setting in a narrative-geographical, topographical, architectural, social or
cultural, political, temporal and props settings.295 In a narrative, different settings provide
different effects on the reader.296 For instance, In John 13:30, Judas went out at night to
religious leaders to conspire against Jesus. The night here may suggest that he uses the darkness
of the time to perform his action of darkness.297 For narrative critics, settings in a narrative play
an important role in understanding the meaning of a narrative.

7.3.4. Rhetorical devices

There are various rhetorical devices employed by the New Testament authors. Some of the
examples are repetition, metaphors, similes, irony and symbolism. However, because of
limitation of time and space, two of the important rhetorical devices in the New Testament will
be analysed.

7.3.4.1. Irony and Symbolism

Irony and symbolism are important rhetorical devices used by the implied author to inspire and
guide the reader to look beyond the literal sense of a text to an alternative meaning to determine
the author’s intended meaning.298 Some of the symbolism include; simile, metaphor,
misunderstanding, symbols and images.299 Powell quoted from Culpepper that symbolism as
“implicit commentary and directional signals” for the implied reader.300 Narrative critics
consider that to understand symbolism, the implied reader must understand several things like
animals,301 numbers, actions or events- a woman’s anointing of Jesus signifies his preparation
for burial (Mark 14:3-9) are used in a symbolic way. According to Culpepper there are four
categories of symbols they are:302

i. Archetypal symbols (e.g. light and darkness). For instance, this kind of symbols
perverts throughout the Gospel of John (John 3:19)

294
See, Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 70. S. Chatman, Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure
in Fiction and Film (Ithaca: Cornell University, 1978), 141.
295
For further details see, Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 94.
296
For instance, Nicodemus coming to Jesus at night in John 3:2 can be considered as symbolic as it
suggests that he is afraid of the religious leaders to see him approaching Jesus.
297
Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament,109
298
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 27.
299
Resseguie, “A Narrative Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel,” 6.
300
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?, 29.
301
Such as doves, pigs, serpents, or lambs.
302
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 29.

44
 ii. Symbols of ancestral vitality (images of the Old Testament; the wilderness as a
place of testing)
iii. Symbols created by the implied author (the withered fig tree as a symbol of Israel’s
absolete temple cult)
iv. Symbols of cultural range (e.g., meaning derive from the social and historical
context of the real author)

According to Peter Lang, the implied author narrates symbolism in Gospel of John in a positive
technique by which various elements and events indicate the presence of great realities. For
example, light, water, bread and wind are common and day-to-day elements of life. However,
the narrator uses an earthly symbol to direct the mind of the reader to a divine reality.303

Irony is ‘a mode of discourse for conveying meanings different form-and opposite to the
professed or ostensible ones.’ 304 Douglas Colin Muecke identifies three features of irony. First,
irony depends on a double-layered or two-story phenomenon for success. Second, the ironists
exploit a contradiction, incongruity, or incompatibility between the two levels. Third, irony
plays upon the innocence of a character or victim. By following the irony in a narrative, the
reader is enabled to act in oneness with the author and understands the meaning of the
narrative.305 Narrative critics identify two types of irony they are; verbal irony and situational
irony. In verbal irony the speaker intentionally says one thing, but means another. On the other
hand, in situational irony, the speaker is the victim as he/she is not aware of the contrary
between what he thought to be true and what the implied author and reader understand to be
true.306 Booth suggest four steps of irony to be determined by the reader. First, it rejects the
literal meaning of the words by following the clues given in the narrative. Second, the reader
tries for alternative meanings. Third, the reader evaluates meanings in terms of what he/she

303
For instance, the event at Cana is referred to as a sign (2:11), and the cleansing of the Temple appears
to be as symbolic action (2:13-22). For more details see, Peter Lang, Jesus and Nicodemus: A Literary and
Narrative Exegesis of Jn. 2, 23-3, 36 (Berlin: European University Studies, 2000), 20.
304
Resseguie, “A Narrative-Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel,” 6. For an introduction on irony in
the New Testament see, Paul Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985); Stephen H. Smith, A
Lion with Wings: A Narrative-Critical Approach to Mark’s Gospel (BS 38; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996);
Jerry Camery-Hoggatt, Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext (SNTSMS 72; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1992.
305
Duke, Irony in the Fourth Gospel, 38. D. C. Mueke, The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen, 1969),
19-20.
306
Powell, What is Narrative Criticism? 30. D. C. Mueke, The Compass of Irony (London: Methuen,
1969), 19-20; Resseguie, Narrative Criticism of the New Testament, 68.

45
assumes to be the implied author’s point of view. Fourth, the reader brings out the meaning
based on the assumed intentions of the author. 307

Paul often used irony rhetorically in his arguments. Paul uses the irony in I Corinthians 1:8-
25 of reversal to contrast between worldly values and Christian values. Paul uses of irony are
mainly for a rhetorical purpose i.e., to address the issues in the Church.308 In the four Gospels,
both Jesus and the Evangelists (or the narrators) often used irony.309 Hence, the narrative critics
analyse such rhetorical devices in a narrative to understand the actual meaning that the implied
authors wants the reader to know.

7.4.4. Evaluation

Narrative criticism is one of the approaches of new literary criticism that focuses more on the
narrative features of a text in its final form. Though it may not always be helpful in answering
all the questions raised by people concerning the Bible and its interpretation, it able to add
some new insights in understanding the meaning of the Bible. It has been used for analyzing
and interpreting the literary features of biblical narratives that cannot be achieved by other
methodological tools of the New Testament and adds new insights in understanding and
determining the meaning of a text. One of the main strengths of Narrative Criticism is, it looks
at the text as the final product of the biblical text as a complete whole that attracts biblical
scholars to employ this hermeneutical tool in the New Testament studies. However, it does not
completely neglect the importance of socio-historical events behind the text. NC enables us to
engage with the story and to reflect it into our own situation, and thus enables the text to
challenge the modern reader. On the negative side, one of the main weaknesses of Narrative
Criticism is its ignorance of the social context.

307
For detail explanation see, Powell, What is Narrative Criticism?, 31. W.C. Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony
(London: University of Chicago, 1971), 47-90.
308
Karl A. Plank, Paul and the Irony of Affliction, The Society of Biblical Semeia Studies (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1987), 48–52.
309
Elton Trueblood, The Humor of Christ (New York: Harper & Row, 1964), 58. The Gospel of John is
well known for its ironies. Andreas J. Kostenberger in his work A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The
Word, the Christ, the Son of God, Biblical Theology of the New Testament lists more than forty-five instances of
irony found in the Gospel of John. Most of the instances listed by Kostenberger are in the form of ironic questions
such as Nicodemus’ question about being born again and Jesus’ request of a drink from the Samaritan woman.
Nevertheless, there are also other types of irony at work throughout the Gospel. For more details see, Andreas J.
Kostenberger, A Theology of John’s Gospel and Letters: The Word, the Christ, the Son of God, Biblical Theology
of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 153.

46
7.4. A Combination of Narrative Criticism and the Social Scientific Criticism in the New
Testament Studies

This combination helps us to understand the Biblical text, taking the social structures and
arrangements as depicted in a narrative world into consideration. The combination of narrative
(text) and social scientific (context) raises the question: would it be the narrative point of view
or the social-scientific analysis within a combinational framework? According to Peterson, “the
text itself must be analysed in its own terms before we discuss the background of the text,
whether in relation to the time of writing or in relation to the events referred to.” 310This point
of view is supported by scholar such as Elliott, who believes that a literary analysis of text
should begin with an initial close reading.311 According to Wire, “the text itself will tell us
about its specific situation.” 312 This means that the construction of the social context can only
be achieved through reading of the text. In other words, the construction of the social context
is only possible after analysis of the specific text. According to Peterson, the Gospels consists
of narrative and contextual worlds.313 In line with this, Eck puts it as follows: “the relation
between the narrative world and the contextual world, is that the narrative world should be seen
in the context of human social actions and relationships.”314 Staden argues that, “the narrative
world…is a whole, complete world presented to the reader in any way by a narrative,
and…offers the reader the only way to understand the real, historical world of which the
narrative world is a reflection.”315

7.5. Strength of Socio-narrative Criticism in the New Testament

The integration of these two methods helps in the process of interpretation of the text, because
the strength of one is the weakness of the other. For instance, the main weaknesses of narrative
criticism is its ignorance of the social context, which is complemented by the strength of social
sciences, which is its emphasis on the social context. Similarly, the tendency of social sciences
towards giving an emphasis on the social context is to be regulated and guided by the

310
N.R. Peterson, Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1978), 20.
311
John, H. Elliot, A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Its Situation and
Strategy (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1981), xxii.
312
A.C. Wire, Gender Roles in a Scribal Community: Social History of Matthean Community
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991), 209.
313
Peterson, Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s narrative World (Philadelphia,
Fortress Press, 1985), 7.
314
E. Van Eck, Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark’s Story of Jesus: A Narratological and Social Scientific
Reading (Pertoria: Pretoria University Press 1995), 73.
315
P. Van Staden, Compassion The Essence of Life: A Social Scientific Study of the Religious Symbolic
Universe Reflected in the Theology of Luke (Pretoria: University of Pretoria, 1991), 40.

47
constraints and the shape of the narratives.316 By combining these two methods, one can
identify the artistic elements employed by the implied author in the text in relation to its
particular context and will able to discover the intended meaning implied in the text and its
intended response from the implied reader. In other words, by analysing the literary features of
the text in its own social context, this integrated approach will add new insight in interpreting
the meaning of the New Testament texts.317 Hence, the combination of these two approaches
will add new insights in the study of the New Testament texts. However, the combination of
these two approaches in the study of NT texts has both weaknesses and strengths.

7.6. Weaknesses of Socio-Narrative Criticism in the New Testament

There is no “the method or approach” of interpreting the New Testament texts. It is true that
each approach can contribute new insight in bringing out meanings of the texts. However, one
approach cannot claim to have the ability to bring out the exact meaning implied in the text.
Likewise, though socio-narrative criticism aims to address the issue of neglecting one approach
over the other by complementing each other’s weaknesses, by doing so, it fails to employ each
approach in detail. While using this approach, one has to decide which elements or aspects of
each approach should be emphasised or give importance over other elements. Therefore, there
is a possibility of misjudging the importance and may sometimes fail to get the expected result
if one is not cautious enough.

8. CONCLUSION

From the above study, it can be concluded that since the emergence of the early Christianity,
there has been different ways of using hermeneutics in interpreting the texts of the Bible and
therefore, different methodological trends have developed for the interpretation of the Bible.
The historical critics have used the texts of the Bible as a means to understand “the worlds
behind the text” and aims to finds out the historical situation that influenced the author in
writing the particular text. In the same way, literary critics focus on the literary aspects of the
texts to understand the world reflected in the texts. Likewise, the perspectival reading of the
reader-centre critics focuses on the world of the reader to understand the particular text.
However, these methods in a way contribute each other in understanding and interpreting the
text in a better way. They help the interpreter to discover meaning from different perspectives
in interpreting the texts of the Bible. Each new approach of the text aims to add new insights

316
Syiemlieh, God’s Favourite, 10.

48
in understanding the meaning of the text. As such socio-narrative criticism in the study of New
Testament will contribute a wider perspective in interpreting the text of the NT. It adds new
insight in understanding the meaning of the Bible.

49
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Daniel J. Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Madras: The Christian

Literature Society, 1987.

Aichele, George et al., The Postmodern Bible: The Bible and Culture Collective. London: Yale
University Press, 1995.

Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York: Basic Books, 1981.

Angami, Zhodi. “Looking at Jesus from a Tribal Optic.” In Bible Reading from the
Northeast India Context. Edited by Takatemjen (Mokokchung: Clark Theological
College, 2014.

Ao, Atula. “Feminist Hermeneutics: A New Methodological Reflections.” In Contextual

Theologies. Edited by Wati Longchar. Kolkata: SCEPTRE, 2014.

Athyal, Abraham P. “Liberative Insights into the New Testament: Some Exegetical
Reflections.” In Frontiers of Dalit Theology. Edited by. V. Devasahayam; Gurukul:
ISPCK, 1997.

B. Stancil. “Structuralism.” In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation. Edited by David

Alan Black and David S. Dockery; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Baird, William. History of New Testament Research: From C.H. Dodd to Hans Dieter Betz.
Vol. 3 Minneapolis: Fortress, 2013.

Baker, Coleman. “Early Christianity Identity Formation: From Ethnicity and Theology to
Socio-Narrative Criticism.” Currents in Biblical Research 9(2): 228-237.

Berkhof, Louis. Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1950.

Bennema, Cornellis. A Theory of Character in New Testament Narrative. Minneapolis:

Fortress, 2014.

Booth, W.C. A Rhetoric of Irony. London: University of Chicago, 1971.

Bock, Darrell L. “Form Criticism.” In New Testament Criticism and Interpretation. Edited by
David Alan Back and David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991.

Bray, Gerald. Biblical Interpretation: Past & Present. Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Briggs, R.C. Interpreting the New Testament Today: An Introduction to Methods and Issues
in the Study of the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1973.

Bruce, F.F. “The History of New Testament Studies.” In New Testament Interpretation. Edited
by Howard Marshall. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1979.

50
_______. “Is Exegesis without Presuppositions Possible?” In Existence and Faith. Edited by
Schubert M. Ogden; New York: Living Age, 1960.

Camery-Hoggatt, Jerry. Irony in Mark’s Gospel: Text and Subtext. Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1992.

Collin, John J. “Form Criticism and the Synoptic Gospels: A Summary Study and Criticism.”
Theological Studies 2.3 (1941): 387-400.

Christopher, D Sam. “Revisiting the Contextual Interpretations of the New Testament in India
Today.” In Bible and Hermeneutics. Edited by C.I. David Joy; Tiruvalla: Christava Sahitya
Samithy, 2010.

DeSilva, D.A. An Introduction to the New Testaments: Contexts, Methods and Ministry
Formation. IVP Academic, 2004.

_______. “Embodying the Word: Social-Scientific Interpretation of statement.” In the Face of

New Testament Studies: A Survey of Recent Research. Edited by ScotMcKnight and
Grant R. Osborne. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2004.

Devesahayam, V. Frontiers of Dalit Theology. Gurukul: ISPCK, 1997.

Duke, Paul. Irony in the Fourth Gospel. Atlanta: John Knox, 1985.

Elliot, John, H. What is Social-Scientific Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

_______. A Home for the Homeless: A Sociological Exegesis of 1 Peter. Its Situation and
Strategy. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1981.

Epp, Eldon Jay and George W. MacRae, S.J. The New Testament and its Modern Interpreters.
Atlanta, Georgia: Scholar Press, 1989.

Epp, Eldon J. “Textual Criticism (NT).” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Volume 6. N.P: Doubleday
Dell Publishing House, 1992.

Ferguson, Duncan S. Biblical Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 1986.

Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schussler. Wisdom Ways: Introducing Feminist Biblical Interpretation.

Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 2001.

_______. “The Will to Choose or to Reject: Continuing our Critical Work.” In Feminist
Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Letty M. Russell. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.,
1985.

Fitzmyer, J.A. “Historical Criticism: Its Role in Biblical Interpretation and Church Life.”
Theological Studies 50 (1989): 244-259.

51
Friedman, N. “Forms of the Plot.” In The Theory of the Novel. Edited by Philip Stevick. New
York: 1967.

Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse. An essay in Method. Translated by Jane E. Lewin.

Ithaca: Cornell University, 1980.

Gottwald, Normann K. “Social-Sciences.” The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Biblical

Interpretation 2: 292-300.

Green, J.B. Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Michigan: William B.
Eerdmans, 1995.

Greenlee, J. Harold, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism. Massachusetts:

Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Greenwood, David C. Structuralism and the Biblical Text. Berlin: Mouton Publishers, 1985.

Hanson, K.C. “Kinship.” In The Social Sciences and New Testament Interpretation. Edited by
Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Edingburgh: T&T Clark, 1992.

Harrisville, Roy A. and Walter Sundberg, The Bible in Modern Culture: Theology and
Historical Critical Method from Spinoza to Kasemann. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
William B. Eerdmans, 1995.

Harrington, Daniel J. Interpreting the New Testament: A Practical Guide. Collegeville: The
Liturgical, 1979.

Hauser, Alan J. and Duane F. Watson, A History of Biblical Interpretation: The Ancient
Period. vol. 1. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans, 2003.

Hellerman, Joseph H. “Challenging the Authority of Jesus: Mark 11: 27-33 and Mediterranean
Notions of Honor and Shame.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 43/2 (June
2000): 213-228.

Herzog II, W.R. “Sociological Approaches to the Gospels.” In Dictionary of Jesus and the
Gospels. Edited by Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight and I. Howard Marshall. Downers
Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1992.

Imchen, S. Temjen “Recent Trends in the Old Testament Interpretation: Social-Scientific

Approach and the New Literary Criticism.” Sathri Journal vol 5. (December 2011): 84-
146.

Joy, C.I. David. Hermeneutics: Foundations and New Trends: A Post-Colonial Reading of
John 4. Delhi: ISPCK, 2012.

52
Kariapuram, Mathew George. Tribal Hermeneutics for a Contextual Theology. The Tribal
Context Series 1; Shillong: Don Bosco Centre for Indigenous Cultures, Sacred Heart
Theological College, 1999.

______. “Tribal Perspective in Biblical Hermeneutics today.” Indian Journal of Theology 31.
3-4 (July-December, 1984): 293-313.

Kennedy, George. New Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticism. Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1984.

Kessler, Martin. “A Methodological Setting for Rhetorical Criticism.” In Art and Meaning:
Rhetoric in Biblical Literature. Edited by David J.A. Clines, David M. Gunn, and Alan
J. Hauser; Sheffield: JSOT, 1982.

Khiangte, Vanlalchhawna. “An Analysis of the Recent Development in New Testament

Criticism with Special Focus on Sociological Criticism, Narrative Criticism, Rhetorical
Criticism and Feminist Hermeneutics.” Sathri Journal (September, 2013): 28-66.

Kistemaker, Simon. The Gospels in Current Study. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1972.

Klein, William W. Craig L. Blomberg and Robert L. Hubbard, Introduction to Biblical

Interpretation. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1993.

Kwok-Pui-lan, “Response of the Semeia Volume on Postcolonial Criticism.” Semeia 75

(1996): 211-217.

Lang, Peter. Jesus and Nicodemus: A Literary and Narrative Exegesis of Jn. 2, 23-3, 36. Berlin:
European University Studies, 2000.

Law, David R. The Historical-Critical Method: A Guide for the Preplexed. London: T&T
Clark International, 2012.

Lawrence, Arren Bennet. “Narrative Criticism.” In Approaches to the New Testament: A

Handbook for Students and Pastors. Edited by Arren Bennet Lawrence; Bangalore:
SAAICS, 2018.

Leclercq, Jean. The Love of Learning and the Desire for God, A Study of Monastic Culture.
New York: Fordham University Press, 1982.

M. Maisuangdibou. Tribal Literature Theology & Methodology: Reading Folklore for

Developing Tribal Theological Hermeneutics and Literary Criticism. Delhi: Christian
World Imprints, 2022.

Macky, Peter W. “The Coming Revolution: The New Literary Approach to New Testament
Interpretation.” In A Guide to Contemporary Hermeneutics: Major Trends in Biblical
Interpretation. Edited by Donald K. McKim. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986.

53
Macleod, John. Beginning Postcolonialism. Delhi: Viva Books Private Limited, 2011.

Malbon, Elizabeth Struthers. “Narrative Criticism: How Does the Story Mean.” In Mark
&Method: New Approaches in Biblical Studies. Edited by Janice Capel Anderson and
Stephen D. Moore. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

Malina, Bruce J. “The Social Sciences and Biblical Interpretation.” In The Bible and
Liberation: Political and Social Hermeneutics. Edited by Norman K. Gottwald.
Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1983.

Marguerat, Daniel and Yvan Bourquin. How to Read Bible Stories: An Introduction to
Narrative Criticism. London: SCM, 1999.

Massey, James. Dalit Theology: History, Context, Text and Whole Salvation. Delhi: Manohar
Publishers & Distributors, 2014.

_______. Dalit Theology: History, Context, Text and Whole Salvation. Delhi: Manohar
Publishers & Distributors, 2014.

Mathew, Joji. “The Context, Method and Issues in Selected Biblical, Classical, Enlightenment
and Post Enlightenment Christologies.” Sathri Journal Vol. III, No. 1 (April, 2013) :39-
79.

May, David M. Social Scientific Criticism of the New Testament: A Bibliography. Georgia:
Mercer University Press, 1991.

Mckim, Donald J. Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreter. Illinois: InterVarsity

Press, 1998.

Mcknight, Edgar V. “Form and Redaction Criticism.” In The New Testament and Its Modern
Interpreters. Edited by Eldon Jay Epp and George W. MacRae. Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1989.

Melanchton, Monica Jyotsna. “Dalits, Bible, and Method.” In Voices from the Margins:
Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. Edited by R.S. Sugirtharajah. New York: Orbis
Books, 2016.

Moxnes, Halvor. “Honor and Shame.” In The Social Sciences and New Testament
Interpretation. Edited by Richard L. Rohrbaugh. Massachusetts: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1996): (21-22).

Moore, Stephen D. Literary Criticism and the Gospels. New Haven: Yale University, 1989.

Mueke, D. C. The Compass of Irony. London: Methuen, 1969.

54
Mulholland, M. Robert Jr., “Sociological criticism.” In New Testament Criticism and
Interpretation. Edited by David Allan Black & David S. Dockery. Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1991.

Muthuraj, S. “The Bible and Postliberal Theologies.” Bangalore Theological Forum 40 (2008):
31-55.

Neufeld, Dietmar. “New Testament.” The Oxford Encyclopaedia of the Biblical Interpretation
2 307: 300-310.

Neville, Birdsall J. “Textual Criticism (New Testament).” DBI: 681-684.

Neyrey, Jerome H. Honor and Shame in the Gospel of Matthew. Louisville: Westminster John
Knox Press, 1998.

Okyere, Kojo and Gifty Effah Darko. “Honour and Shame in the Context of Agricultural Work
in Ancient Israel: The Case of Proverbs 10:5.” Theoforum 49 (2019) :75-92.

Parker, D.C. An Introduction to the New Testament manuscripts and Their Texts. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Patte, Daniel. “An Analysis of Narrative Structure and the Good Samaritan.” Semeia 2
(1974):1-26.

Peterson. Rediscovering Paul: Philemon and the Sociology of Paul’s narrative World.
Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1985.

_______. Literary Criticism for New Testament Critics. Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1978.

Philip, Abraham. Biblical Hermeneutics: Methods and Perspectives. Tiruvalla: Christava

Sahitya Samithi, 2020.

Plank, Karl A. Paul and the Irony of Affliction, The Society of Biblical Literature Semeia
Studies. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987.

Powell, Mark Allan. What is Narrative Criticism? Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

_______. “Narrative Criticism.” In Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation.
Edited by Joel B. Green; Michigan: Eerdmans, 1995.

_______. “Literary Approaches and the Gospel of Matthew.” In Methods for Matthew. Edited
by Mark Allan Powell; Cambridge: CUP, 2009.

Poythress, Vern S. “Structuralism and Biblical Studies.” Journal of the Evangelical

Theological Society 21 (1978): 237.

Ramm, Bernard. Protestant Biblical Interpretation. Revised Ed. Boston: W.A. Wild Company,
1956.
55
Redlich, E. Basil. Form Criticism: Its Value and Limitations. London: Duckworth, 1948.

Reese, Ruth Anne. Writing Jude: The Reader, the Text, and the Author in Constructs of Power
& Desire. Leiden: Boston, 2000.

Resseguie, James L. Narrative Criticism of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Baker Academic, 2005.

_______. “A Narrative Critical Approach to the Fourth Gospel.” In Characters and

Characterization in the Gospel of John. Edited by Christopher W. Skinner; New Delhi:
Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013.

Rhoads, David. “Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark.” The Journal of the American
Academy of Religion L/3: 411-434.

Rhoads, David, Joanna Dewey, and Donald Michie. Mark as Story: An Introduction to the
Narrative of a Gospel. 2d ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999.

Rhoads, David. and K. Syreeni. Characterization in the Gospels: Reconceiving Narrative

Criticism. JSNTS 184; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1999.

Richard E. Burnett. “Historical Criticism.” Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the

Bible. Edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer et al., Michigan: Baker Book House Company,
2005.

S. Chatman. Story and Discourse: Narrative Structure in Fiction and Film. Ithaca: Cornell
University, 1978.

Samuel, Joshua. “Re-Contextualizing Dalit Hermeneutics: Exploring Hermeneutical

Parameters for a Changing Community.” In Liberation Hermeneutics in the Indian
Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Bangalore: SBSI and Christava Sahitya Samithy,
Tiruvalla), 98-123.

Smalley, Beryl. The Study of the Bible in The Middle Ages. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1952.

Smalley, Stephen S. “Redaction Criticism.” In Marshall New Testament Interpretation. Edited

by I. Howard Marshall. Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1979.

Smith, Stephen H. A Lion with Wings: A Narrative-Critical Approach to Mark’s Gospel. BS

38; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996.

Soares-Prabhu, George M. “Class in the Bible: The Biblical Poor a Social Class?” In Voices
from the Margin: Interpreting the Bible in the Third World. Maryknoll: Orbis Books,
1991.

Soulen, Richard N. Handbook of Biblical Criticism. Guildford and London: Lutterworth, 1977.

56
Spencer, Aída Besançon. Paul’s Literary Style: A Stylistic and Historical Comparison of II
Corinthians 11:16- 12:13, Romans 8:9-39, and Philippians 3:2-4:13. ETSM; Winnowa
Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1984.

Sugirtharajah, R.S. The Post-Colonial Biblical Reader. Malden: Blackwell Publishing, 2006.

_______. Exploring Postcolonial Biblical Criticism: History, Method, Practice. Chichester:

Willey-Blackwell, 2012.

_______. “Postcolonial Biblical Interpretation.” Oxford Encyclopaedia of Biblical

Interpretation 2: 123-132.

Syiemlieh, B.J. God’s Favourite: A Socio- Narrative Analysis of the Characters in the Lukan
Infancy Narratives (Luke 1:5-2: 52). Delhi: ISPCK, 2005.

T. Longman III. Literary Approaches to Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,

1987.

Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach, third edition.

Massachusetts: Hendrickson, publisher, Inc., 2008.

_______. Interpreting the Bible: A Handbook of Terms and Methods. Massachusetts:

Hendrickson Publishers, 2006.

Thanzauva, K. “Issues in Tribal Theology.” In Tribal Theology: A Reader. Edited by

Shimreingam Shimray. Jorhat: Eastern Theological College, 2003.

Theissen, Gerd. The Social Setting of Early Christianity. Edited by John H. Schutz. Edinburgh:
T&T Clark, 1982.

Thiselton, Anthony C. New Horizons in Hermeneutics: The Theory and Practice of

Transforming Biblical Reading. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992.

Thiselton, Anthony C. Hermeneutics: An Introduction. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.

Thomaskutty, Johnson. Dialogue in the Book of Signs: A Polyvalent Analysis of John 1:19-
12:50. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Thumai, Lalnghak. “Why Re-read the Bible?” In Envisioning a New Heaven and a New Earth
Edited by Lalrinawmi Ralte et al., Nagpur: NCCI, 1998.

Travis, Stephen H. “Form Criticism.” In New Testament Interpretation: Essays on Principles

and Methods. Edited by I. Howard Marshall; Exeter: The Paternoster, 1977.

Trible, Phyllis. “Feminist Hermeneutics and Biblical Studies.” In Feminist Theology: A

Reader. Edited by Ann Loades; Great Britain: SPCK, 1990.

57
Trueblood, Elton. The Humor of Christ. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Tucket, Christopher. Reading the New Testament: Methods of Interpretation. London: SPCK,
1992.

Van Eck, E. Galilee and Jerusalem in Mark’s Story of Jesus: A Narratological and Social
Scientific Reading. Pretoria: Pretoria University Press 1995.

Van Staden, P. Compassion The Essence of Life: A Social Scientific Study of the Religious
Symbolic Universe Reflected in the Theology of Luke. Pretoria: University of Pretoria,
1991.

Vanhoozer, A.J. “The Reader in New Testament Interpretation.” In Hearing the New
Testament: Strategies for Interpretation. Edited by Joel B. Green. Michigan: Eerdmans,
1995.

Virkler, Henry H. and Karelynne Gerber Ayoyo. Hermeneutics: Principles and Processes of
Biblical Interpretations. 2nd edition. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2007.

Wati Longchar, A. “A Critique of the Christian Theology of Creation.” In Doing Theology with
Tribal Resources: Context and Perspective. Edited by A. Wati Longchar and Larry E.
Davies; Jorhat: Tribal Study Centre, Eastern Theological College, 1999.

Wati Longchar, A. "Tribal Identity and Theology.” In Rethinking Theology in India:

Christianity in the Twenty First Century. Edited by James Massey and T.K. John. Delhi:
Manohar Publishers and Distributors, 2013.

Watson, Natalie K. Feminist Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Watson, Duane F. “Rhetorical Criticism.” In Blackwell Companion to the New Testament.

Edited by David E. Aune; Oxford: Blackwell, 2010.

Wegner, Paul D. A Students Guide to the Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods
& Results. Illinois: Intervarsity, 2006.

West, Gerald. “Liberation Hermeneutics.” Oxford Encyclopaedia of Biblical Interpretation 1:

503-515.

Westfall, Cynthia Long. “Narrative Criticism.” In Dictionary of Biblical Criticism and

Interpretation. Edited by Stanley E. Porter. New York: Rutledge, 2007.

Wire, A.C. Gender Roles in a Scribal Community: Social History of Matthean Community.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1991.

Wood, Skevington. The Principles of Biblical Interpretation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967.

58
Young, Frances. “Alexandrian and Antiochene Exegesis.” In A History of Biblical
Interpretation. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Daune F. Watson. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003.

Zikmund, Barbara Brown. “Feminist Consciousness in Historical Perspectives.” In Feminist

Interpretation of the Bible. Edited by Letty M. Russell. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Ltd.,
1985.

Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth.
Secunderabad: OM Books, 1991.

WEBLIOGRAPHY

Elliot, John H. “Social-Scientific Criticism, Perspective, Process and Payoff. Evil eye
accusation at Galatia as illustration of the method.” Page 1. Cited on 22nd September,
10:01 a.m 2022. Online: www.scielo.org.za/pdf/hts/v67n1/a18v67n1.pdf.

Melanchthon, Monica Jyotsna. “Dalits, Bible and Method.” No Pages. Cited on 4th October
2022.Online:https://www.sblsite.org/publications/article.aspx?Articled=459

Rao, A. Koteswara. Historical Critical Methods: Types, Nature, Development, and Critique.
Page 3. Cited on 15th September 2022. Online: https://www.academia.edu/44658564his
torical_critical_method_Types_Nature_Development_Critique.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission, “The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church.” No Pages.
Cited on 19th September 2022. Online: http://catholic-
resources.org/ChurchDocs/PBC_Interp1.htm.

Unpublished Thesis
Negewo, Tekalign Duguma. “Identity Formation and the Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-
narrative Reading.” Doctor of Philosophy dissertation, Stellenbosch University 2021.

59