Theologians from centuries past to present have carefully formulated methods of criticism in order to better understand the meaning of the prophetic portion of the canon. To date there are five major methods of criticism used. Each varies in methodology and direction, but they are one in purpose; consistency of biblical theology. In order to be part of canon, Old Testament prophesy must be consistent with the teachings of both the wisdom literature and the law, but also the entire new testament, including Revelation. The five methods of criticism are literary criticism, form criticism, redaction criticism, rhetorical criticism and canonical criticism. When used in context of biblical interpretation, these forms of criticism are not necessarily consistent in meaning with their literary definitions although they are similar.

Literary criticism is one which is not completely the same when used to analyze Old Testament prophesy. Literary criticism aims to identify inconsistencies of texts, stylistic variance and incoherence of statements for the purpose of uncovering the true nature of the text. In a sense, removing the fluff added by the artistic prophet. Not to say that this is the man’s way of portraying God’s word, rather that God chose to bestow the gift of prophesy on one of necessary artistic talent. The problem with literary criticism when used alone is that there is a danger of removing meaning from the text during the process. As is true in Revelation nothing should be taken away from the word of God, so it should be true of all of canon (The MacArthur Study Bible, Rev. 22.19).
Form criticism is a way of identifying the setting and audience of an account, speech or prayer in order to identify the contextual meaning of the text. This method is accurate when the setting and audience of the prophecy is known. However in most cases, very little is known about the setting or audience so it is difficult to derive anything of the text using this manor without making assumptions, which is often done, albeit educated assumption. In any case, to place a piece of prophecy within a pre-ordained setting, derived of other books of the Old Testament, would be to assume that the circumstance of Israel’s refusal to repent was pre-ordained rather than foreknown. To assume that the text is merely a written representation of something that has been decided is to remove the possibility of repentance for an alternate account. It is more commonly believed by Christians, that where God knew that Israel would not repent, He did not choose it for them otherwise the repentance would not be for His glory, rather because of His glory.
Redaction criticism is the study of the stages of growth which a book has undergone in order to get to its contemporary form. The purpose of redaction criticism is to identify the original context and intent of the words. To attempt to understand the text based on assumed contextual knowledge and take it out of its current form is to deny the power of God to preserve His intent for the prophetic words. For this reason, it can be dangerous to imply this technique independently to study, because it is more likely that one would misinterpret, rather than uncover biblical truth.
Rhetorical criticism is another technique commonly used in literature. It is the study of the speech and how it was used to persuade the people of a certain point of view; by definition studying the rhetoric of the text. Rhetorical criticism aims to uncover understanding through literary devices used in light of the culture which the text was originally intended. For example, the poetic nature of much of the prophecy is not likely because they were artists, rather the Hebrews culture operated on a very strict practice of orally passing down traditions and laws, word for word. Hebrew poetry is one of the methods which can be used to accomplish that. Another example would be the acrostic poetry of Psalm 119. There is a slight danger in relying mainly on this type of criticism in that the specific historical situations are often vague or assumed. However, the cultural implication of the rhetorical nature of the speech is often clear due to the amount of knowledge we have about the Hebrew culture.
Canonical criticism is by far the most accurate way of studying prophesy or any other scripture for that matter. It focuses on defining how the text as a whole fits into the theological understanding of the rest of the canon, both Old Testament and New Testament in order to define a unity in theology between modern Christians, the prophets and the original law as given to Moses. A skeptic to the scripture may suggest that this is manipulation of the text for purpose of defining unity and that it is in fact inconsistency of scripture which disproves itself. On the contrary it is God’s way and was used by the early church in Berea (The MacArthur Study Bible, Acts 17.11).
In order to develop further the meaning and intent of a scripture, other forms of criticism can be used, but only once canonical consistency is established. To consider inconsistency is to challenge God’s power to unify meaning of His Word on earth. The five major forms of criticism can often work hand in hand to obtain a deeper meaning of the prophesy if used properly.

Works Cited

The MacArthur Study Bible: Updated New American Standard Translation. MacArthur: Thomas Nelson Inc., 2006.

Criticism for True Biblical Understanding