Reception History and Biblical Studies

Theory and Practice

Emma England, William John Lyons

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9780567672469
• eBook ISBN: 9780567660107
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

How do we begin to carry out such a vast task-the examination of three millennia of diverse uses and influences of the biblical texts? Where can the interested scholar find information on methods and techniques applicable to the many and varied ways in which these have happened? Through a series of examples of reception history practitioners at work and of their reflections this volume sets the agenda for biblical reception, as it begins to chart the near-infinite series of complex interpretive 'events' that have been generated by the journey of the biblical texts down through the centuries. The chapters consider aspects as diverse as political and economic factors, cultural location, the discipline of Biblical Studies, and the impact of scholarly preconceptions, upon reception history. Topics covered include biblical figures and concepts, contemporary music, paintings, children's Bibles, and interpreters as diverse as Calvin, Lenin, and Nick Cave.

Part One

Introduction

1

Explorations in the Reception of the Bible

Emma England and William John Lyons

Introduction

Studying the reception of the Bible is – or could easily be – a garden of delights allowing us to expand the discipline of biblical studies to embrace a much wider world of biblical interpretation. All manner of study objects could be included, whether popular, technical, artistic, hubristic, or ridiculous; virtually everything the biblical materials touch would be open to scholarly investigation. Such research is spreading, like a global case of guerrilla gardening, with small rebellious groups sowing its seeds. At the same time, biblical studies as a discipline has effectively become a discipline of bonsai tree cultivation, leaving little of its narrow remit untouched and with much repeated ad nauseam. As academia is threatened with increasing budget cuts, the loss of individual posts and departmental closures, some, including the editors of this volume, wonder how long such a narrowly focused discipline can survive at anything approaching its current size without significant change.¹

The irony is that these evaluations are taking place at the same time that there is a deepening and ongoing academic interest in the Bible² and its reception³ elsewhere. Increasingly, such discussions are taking place outside of the confines of biblical studies.⁴ This has further diluted what might already have been considered a feeble effort on the part of biblical scholarship to understand broader questions about the Bible, including those pertaining to biblical literacy, cultural appropriations and recreations of biblical texts. With people from other fields exploring our own specialism (and teaching the subject), biblical studies needs to find a way to defend itself and maintain its foothold if it wishes to remain relevant to – and financially viable within – the academic community. To prove our (financial) worth we need to build connections with our colleagues outside of biblical studies and to do this we need to offer the specializations that they cannot. We think the best way of doing this is through a concerted effort to build the strength, reputation and practices of reception studies of the Bible within the current guild.

In order to do this, scholars need to address a few important areas. First we need to openly acknowledge, without prejudice, when something we are working on is reception history. It should be the norm for biblical scholars to be able to discuss and refer to their own work in such terms without it being automatically considered a lesser task. Second, there need to be more foundational, entry level texts, to make it easier for students (and the curious scholar) to pick up a book and understand what reception history is from the contents. Third, there needs to be historic reflection upon the definition, name, subject matter and methodologies as they relate to the study of reception of the Bible. This is true both for the tried and tested and for the potential and unknown. And, so, we have this volume which, through a number of discrete but inter-related signposts, suggests some answers to questions such as: Who should carry out biblical reception studies and within what disciplinary framework(s)? What parameters should form the basis of any attempt to describe and encompass such a topic of study? What should the study of the reception of the Bible be called? What does the term ‘Bible’ even mean? Should ‘reception’, ‘impact’ and ‘use’ of a text be differentiated? Is the reception of a given text only a one-way street?

The diverse essays in this book offer scholarly considerations on theoretical ideas that may be used to underpin our study of the reception of the Bible, reflections on particular issues or problems that have already arisen, and snapshots of what has already been achieved in specific studies. Offered from within a variety of different scholarly contexts, these essays are intended to provide a broad range of examples of theoretical and practical interactions between text, context and audience, and thus to encourage further scholarly consideration of this exciting area of study. What this volume does not do is claim to definitively outline the range of methodologies to be used in studies of the reception of the Bible or limit the boundaries of such an area of study. In fact, its editors are convinced that there is no single methodology suitable for competent reception studies and the methodologies that currently exist are still in their infancy. The approaches offered in this book are therefore just a fraction of the available possibilities, but they are all, in their different ways, potentially groundbreaking and eye-opening.

Ultimately, these essays are intended to continue and encourage a multi-faceted discussion about the purpose, usefulness and framing of both biblical studies and the reception of the Bible. This volume’s primary purpose is therefore as an invitation to embrace expansion, diversity and change in the academic study of the Bible. It is intended not only for the already converted biblical scholar (or her students), but also – if not more so – for those readers who currently work only in traditional areas of biblical studies (or indeed in other relevant disciplines) to encourage them to transcend their boundaries. This volume is therefore enthusiastically aimed at scholars who are attracted to the ideas and practices of studying the reception of the Bible, but who currently shy away from it, or maybe do not even know where to start.

Reshaping boundaries

The chapters in this book implicitly characterize the reception history of the Bible as a form of enquiry that is essentially defined by two discrete features. The first is the general subject matter; the series of ‘events’ generated by the historical journey/ies of the biblical texts down through the centuries. It will not be enough to show and tell examples of the Bible appearing in different locations, however; we need to analyse the use, impact and influence of these appearances. The second is the inherent limitation given to it because of the complications attached to researching evidence that has survived, but with various levels of success, within the multitudinous streams of a two-millennia-plus long journey down through history. The tensions created by these two features not only demand and generate creative ways of tackling discrete questions about the biblical materials, they also require scholars to work out what questions need to be asked in the first place. Uncovering these questions is one of the greatest challenges faced by reception historians. There can be no simple series of enquiries because it is not possible to ask identical questions of each and every biblical text, or of each and every occasion of biblical use or impact. Even the availability of specific types of information changes; information that enables us to ask a question of a certain text, a certain context and a certain audience, and feel confident of having produced a satisfactory and plausible answer may simply be unavailable elsewhere. While we will be able to develop common questions that apply in a large number of situations, it is the partial and happenstance nature of the work produced within reception history that will mark the future development of the approach, and indeed a discipline of biblical studies dominated by it.

It is the case that the diversity of the material and questions scholars are forced to consider often lie in areas where the expertise required is not currently part of the biblical scholar’s training: art, politics, the media, popular culture, philosophy, economics, cultural studies and so on. Since expertise in numerous fields, sub-disciplines and disciplines is beyond the capacity of most individuals to acquire, other options are required. This may include replacing some of the methods currently studied as part of the biblical scholar’s training (e.g. advanced language skills, archaeology, ancient history) with other interdisciplinary skills, and perhaps also introducing more disciplinary cross-fertilization and collaborative work. In the shorter term, however, we expect to find more dilettante wanderers, who have somewhat heroically left their academic comfort zone behind them, even if for only a little while. It is these wanderers who will encourage the growth of the field and, quite frankly, how can one fail to be excited by such a prospect?

To entice more wanderers into experiencing some of the joys of reception history, the essays in this volume are placed in four (somewhat arbitrary) groups, beginning with the broad and becoming narrower in theme: 1) Reception history, historical-criticism and biblical studies; 2) Conceptualizing reception history; 3) Practical implications, difficulties and solutions; and 4) Bible, reception and popular music. Most, if not all, of the articles overlap the categories but by making the decision to guide the reader in this way we hope to have highlighted the greatest strengths of the articles for the purposes of challenging the discipline.

Reception history, historical-criticism and biblical studies

Challenging the idea that biblical studies is an easily identifiable and static discipline based on a single idea of the ‘Bible’, the four articles in this part all defend the place of reception history in the discipline of biblical studies. None of the approaches suggested are mutually exclusive and none of them erase the need for traditional historical-critical scholarship. Rather they argue for a discipline where all scholars are encouraged and creativity is a welcome asset, for the benefit of individuals and the discipline as a whole.

For Susan Gillingham a chance overheard description of reception history as ‘biblical studies on holiday’ is the jumping off point for a positive appropriation of the slur. Holidaying involves changes of perspectives as different cultures are encountered, previous priorities are challenged and new projects are generated. The metaphor of the ‘department store’ offers a way of categorizing the discipline’s recent history, with new areas added increasing its methodological diversity to the extent that even defining what ‘it’ is has become difficult. Focusing on the psalms, Gillingham offers examples which illustrate the critical role that reception history could play in future. Consideration of certain criticisms – its lack of theoretical underpinning, and its tendencies to description, subjectivity and eccentricity – are followed by a call for scholarly collaboration.

In his contribution, James E. Harding questions both the identity and the coherence of Biblical Studies as a discipline in light of the emergence of reception history, challenging the idea that there is even a single, identifiable ‘biblical text’ with which biblical scholars are concerned. This, together with the competing theological and ideological positions that determine the approaches biblical scholars take, renders Biblical Studies unstable. Moreover, reception history shows that both the questions biblical scholars ask, and the fluid biblical texts themselves, are part of the reception history of the Bible. The (inter)disciplinary complexity of Biblical Studies, conceived in reception-historical terms, presents enormous challenges, as it is impossible for individual scholars to hold all of the competencies required. Thus collaborative research is necessary, but this raises questions about where, among the disciplines of modern academia, reception history of the Bible really belongs. In the end, Harding asserts that there are profound ethical reasons to place reception history at the heart of what biblical scholars do.

Engaging with recent attempts to restrict biblical studies’ disciplinary boundaries, James Crossley rejects the idea of confining the label of ‘biblical scholar’ to those with the skill-set of traditional biblical studies. He goes on to argue that fragmentation and divisiveness within the discipline hinder the continued existence of a Bible-based discipline within either Theology and Religious Studies (THRS) departments or, more significantly, within the wider humanities. Instead, a coherent unified discipline is required to convince academics elsewhere of their need for dedicated biblical studies and of their lack without it. The discipline needs to present itself as working with questions about the origins, development, survival and transmission of the Bible as well as its ability to attract, create indifference, or repel those who encounter it. The significance of the discipline’s potential contribution to the humanities is demonstrated by outlining the impact of the Liberal Bible.

In the final article in this section Jonathan Morgan uses William John Lyons’ ‘Hope for a Troubled Discipline?’ as a jumping off point. Morgan argues that reception historians should stop apologizing and justifying their work. Instead they should be steadfast in their approaches and forceful in the diversity of their objects of research. Locating Lyons’ article in ongoing debates about the core purpose and methods of biblical studies, Morgan asserts that Lyons is one of the scholars who threaten historical-critical practitioners by suggesting they re-label their work as reception history. Such an approach is unlikely, but if the approach were adopted reception history would then be understood in terms of historical-critical scholarship, and it is these scholars who are so frequently the gatekeepers of the discipline. As gatekeepers they keep the gates narrow but it is reception historians who, by working collaboratively and with non-biblical texts, expand the field and stand the best chances of keeping the discipline alive in a difficult landscape.

Conceptualizing reception history

While most of the articles in this volume briefly touch upon the definition of reception history, the articles in this section go a stage further. They conceptualize the area of research, exploring how it should be understood while questioning its purpose. Diverse in their theoretical approaches, the articles are complementary and can be seen to build a unified understanding, placing reception history in a framework balancing social, political, religious, cultural, intellectual and aesthetic changes.

Using the narrative of the beheading of John the Baptist as an example, Caroline Vander Stichele conceptualizes reception history using ‘intertextuality’ (Jonathan Culler), ‘pre-posterous history’ (Mieke Bal) and ‘rhizomorphous systems’ (Gilles Deleuze with Felix Guattari). Intertextuality is a concept that shows the connections between texts while uncovering origins and making codes intelligible. Pre-posterous history highlights the interconnections of multiple forms of visual and written texts across history in a multi-directional manner so earlier texts are also interpreted and understood through later texts. Rhizomorphous systems are root networks interconnected in complex ever-growing webs thereby connecting history with the present and future and expanding opportunities for discussion in all areas of creativity including music and the Internet. The cultural impact of the Bible is Vander Stichele’s focus as she uses Giovanni di Paolo’s paintings of John the Baptist and their connections to literature, art history and the Internet to explore the heuristic usefulness of her concepts.

In Brennan Breed’s essay the power of metaphors in shaping scholarly behaviour is critiqued with regard to Daniel 7. Eschewing traditional images like ‘anchorage’, the ‘pristine’ (in an ‘original text’ sense) and ‘etiology’ (in an ‘original context’ sense), he offers the notion of ethology, drawn from the work of Gilles Deleuze. Ethology is a view of animal behaviour ‘which emphasizes the range of a species’ potential action’ in response to the problems – or ‘problematic field’ – posed to it by complex, challenging and ever-changing environments. Uninterested in genetic essence or in previous historically demonstrated activity, ethology understands animals – and hence by way of analogy, biblical texts – ‘by means of what they actually do’. Reception history as ethology goes beyond a simple echoing of the traditional discipline’s questions in different times and places, and seeks to understand larger questions about how ‘the problematic field of particular biblical texts changes through time and space in response to surrounding environments’.

Calling for an approach to biblical texts and interpretation as fragmentary, Samuel Tongue engages with Jacques Berlinerblau and Timothy Beal while providing an analysis of Yehuda Amichai’s poetic rewriting of Jacob and the Angel. Berlinerblau calls for a secular aesthetic that challenges the theological paradigm of much biblical scholarship. Yet, Tongue notes, aesthetics is not so readily separated into the secular and religious. Furthermore, we must not forget that biblical texts, and their retellings, are imbued with an authority that needs to be addressed. The dual aesthetic of secular and religious is explored through an analysis of Amichai’s poem, which leads to a discussion of Beal’s reconstruction of reception history as part of a broader religious studies. In such a location the balance and conflict between secular and religious, that biblical reception historians work with, provide a perfect place to practise their art.

Conceptualizing reception history through politics, Masiiwa Ragies Gunda argues for its critical significance in African biblical studies. Gunda demonstrates how the heightened status of the Bible leads to its influence over socio-political situations. The reception historian’s goal is therefore not to justify, ignore, or otherwise be an apologist for biblical texts but to highlight, analyse and discuss them as they are and have been appropri...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgements
• List of Contributors
• Part 1 Introduction
• Part 2 Reception History, Historical-Criticism and Biblical Studies
• Part 3 Conceptualizing Reception History
• Part 4 Practical Implications, Difficulties and Solutions
• Part 5 Bible, Reception and Popular Music
• Bibliography
• Index
• Copyright