Here Crossley’s aim is to describe ‘… the ways in which biblical texts have been used through the ages, the ‘afterlives’ of the biblical texts’ (p. 117).
[Error note: the first sentence of the second full paragraph reads oddly and apparently something has been left out. ‘… and perhaps not before time’ needs adjustment].
So, then, if that’s his aim, what exactly is reception history? First, it’s an examination of the views of the major theologians of the Church. How have our predecessors seen and understood biblical texts? Second, it’s an ‘aid to correct interpretation’.
[Error notes- the last paragraph at the bottom of page 119 is muddled and I’m not at all sure what to make of it. Crossley writes
Thiselton turns to the ideas of Martin Luther … and when Luther was confronted with figures such as Thomas Müntzer use of Reformation ideas, figures who ‘were found carrying them to extremes … [and] inspired radicalism in politics, theology, and liturgy’.
I can only sit in wonderment at what he must be after. Words have disappeared into some sort of devil’s triangle in the composition or editorial stage.
Further, on p. 121, second to the last line of the first paragraph, ‘… now we start looking beyond the orthodoxy and beyond any…’ ‘The’ needs to be excised.]
For Crossley, the third sub-category of reception history is ‘anything goes’. I take him to mean that how the bible is used in art, film, farce, on Broadway, or at the local diner is the issue of scholarly investigation. And I know he sees how the Bible is used in politics as part and parcel of this sub-category as well, because the remainder of the chapter is devoted to that issue. This approach, he says, ‘… has the potential to make biblical and New Testament studies look very different’ (p. 122). With that I completely agree.
But what such an approach suggests is that the Bible is fair game for the sort of intellectual pillaging we haven’t seen since Feminist Hermeneutics neutered Jesus and turned the Holy Spirit into the Holy She. No holds barred rubbish, in short.
Still, Crossley is probably right. The guild of biblical scholars is becoming (by and large) less interested in what the text meant and means to viewing it simply in terms of how Joe Blow sees it. Joe Blow though is a dullard. How he sees, and uses, the Bible is as relevant to understanding the Bible itself and in and of itself as worrying how a dog sees the sun and taking the dog’s word when it comes to the meaning of the sun. How an artist envisions a biblical scene may illuminate the artist’s mind, but it tells us absolutely nothing of the event he ‘reports’ through art. DaVinci was a slacker when it comes to first century dining customs and he never should have painted the Last Supper as a gathering around (or on one side only!) an elevated table. We all know that. Except poor Joe Blow.
[Error note: p. 127, line 6 from the top- ‘… the use of the religion in American political rhetoric.’ ‘The’ before ‘religion’ should be dropped.]
Crossley recognizes this sort of criticism, wryly remarking
‘… one criticism … is that reception history is a safe place to work and avoid all the tricky questions of historical accuracy, problematic interpretations of earliest Christianity, and anything a traditional reading with the potential to challenge faith might produce’ (p. 128).
Reception history’s first two aims are honorable and desirable. The third. Well, it’s just eisegesis, isn’t it?
Crossley stays with reception history in the next chapter, discussing methods and questions. That will be fun.
Zwinglius Redivivus 
You must be logged in to post a comment.