Biblical interpretation Archives - Page 3 of 3

The Future of Biblical Interpretation, Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm, eds. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2013.

Summary: A festschrift for Anthony Thiselton exploring from different perspectives the tension between plurality of interpretations of the Bible, and responsible hermeneutics.

Plurality of interpretations is perhaps one of the more troubling aspects of Protestant biblical interpretation. Not only does it account for numerous denominational divisions but there is the troubling phenomenon of Christians thinking everyone is his or her own interpreter without controls or answerability to others.

This volume explores the question of how to practice responsible hermeneutics in this context, as well as with a text that we believe both the Word of God and the product of multiple human voices. It is a festschrift to Anthony Thiselton, author, in the 1980s, of the ground-breaking The Two Horizons, where he brings to bear the work of figures like Heidegger, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein in the broader field of hermeneutics to explore one of the basic sources of much interpretive plurality, the unawareness of the historical horizon of the biblical text as well as the contemporary horizon of the interpreter (including traditions of interpretation that might shape the contemporary interpreter).

Perhaps in this case, the best way to give a sense of this book is to provide a table of contents of topics and contributors:

Introduction
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm

1. The Future of Biblical Interpretation and Responsible Plurality in Hermeneutics
Anthony C. Thiselton

2. Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Responsibility
Stanley E. Porter

3. Biblical Hermeneutics and Scriptural Responsibility
Richard S. Briggs

4. Biblical Hermeneutics and Kerygmatic Responsibility
Matthew R. Malcolm

5. Biblical Hermeneutics and Historical Responsibility
James D. G. Dunn

6. Biblical Hermeneutics and Critical Responsibility
Robert C. Morgan

7. Biblical Hermeneutics and Relational Responsibility
Tom Greggs

8. Biblical Hermeneutics and Ecclesial Responsibility
R. Walter L. Moberly

Conclusion
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm

Thiselton’s opening essay is perhaps one of the most interesting. Drawing on Bakhtin, he argues for the importance in dealing with plurality of being aware of the polyphony of voices in the corpus of scripture. Responsible hermeneutics neither holds these voices in conflict, nor mutes some to privilege others, but seeks the larger perspective to which all of these contribute.

There were several interesting issues raised in individual essays as well as in the conflicting perspectives between some essays. Stanley Porter raises interesting questions about theological interpretation, and particularly the privileging of pre-modern theology in many discussions. Richard Briggs argues that scriptural responsibility in hermeneutics is a fostering of dialogue between different ideas of “scripture as.” James Dunn argues for the priority of the historical horizon in interpretation, certainly reflected in his New Perspective work on Paul. By contrast, Robert Morgan argues for the role of theological criticism over against the text. The final two chapters explore the relation of biblical interpretation to our relationship to the church authority as well as to its traditions and creeds.

While I do think the interpreters raised different and interesting ideas from their own perspectives (something the editors wrestled with in the end), I found myself troubled in two respects. One was that for a group of people who are concerned with meaning, one found it a challenge to understand what they were arguing at times. This book actually assumes that the reader is highly conversant with the hermeneutic issues being discussed, the relevant philosophers and the particular uses of language in the field.

Related, but more troubling to me is that seems this work reflects an assumption of opaqueness rather than perspicuity of scripture. As I write this I certainly am aware of the fact that not every verse in scripture is utterly clear. But Robert Morgan’s theological criticism in particular seems to affirm there are times where the theologian must go against the clarity of the biblical text. In Moberly’s concluding essay, he begins with a discussion of the Pauline authorship of the pastorals and the unsettling discovery during seminary that biblical criticism calls this into question despite the clear attestations of authorship and relationship. By the end, he acknowledges himself agnostic on the matter and states that “literary theory makes it possible to take the first-person voice of the letters with full imaginative seriousness, and one can unreservedly inhabit the imaginative world of the text in preaching, while leaving open the relation between the literary voice and the historical author” (p. 156).

It seems to me that these writers often accept the hermeneutic of suspicion about these texts. I would contend that the mental gymnastics that differentiates between “imaginary Paul” and Paul, the apostle and martyr is a corrosive one that undercuts the preacher’s ability to speak the word of the Lord to the people of God. I do not see how “imaginary Paul” can speak with authority to the Timothys of this world, for example, about “taking your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:3), but the apostle who was stoned and beaten many times and who would die for the gospel certainly could and can.

So, while I would wish in no way to detract from Anthony Thiselton’s scholarship, nor from the value of a collection like this for elucidating the current discussions in hermeneutics, I must express serious reservations about the value of this work either for addressing the issue of plurality that is its purported task or for the edifying and equipping of the people of God. I’m not sure this is a future of biblical interpretation I can commend.

Abusing Scripture, Manfred T. Brauch. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2009.

Summary: The author explores the different ways we misread the Bible and consequently interpret and apply it in ways that abuse both the intent of the text, and sadly, in some cases the people with whom we apply these texts.

I teach the Bible in my work, and on occasion, in the congregation of which I am a part. That is both an exciting and sobering opportunity for me. One one hand I believe that I am explaining what God has said through human beings, and that this can be powerfully transformative in lives. On the other hand, I am keenly aware that how I explain and apply a text can either lead people to such transformative encounters with the living God, or mislead them. I’m always mindful of James’ comment that “we who teach will be judged more strictly” (James 3:1, NIV).

Manfred Brauch is concerned that we might in fact abuse the scriptures in our mishandling of them. This is strong language which he defends in his opening chapter by the fact that we may well do violence to the intent of the text by our mishandling of it. And this violence in turn may warp the understanding of Christian truth by those who hear such teaching, and may, often unintentionally, result in causing others in the Christian community deep pain, or in misrepresenting the message of Christ.

He begins by focusing on the nature of scripture and argues that it is both intentional and incarnational and that abuse occurs when we ignore either the intent of the Bible or its incarnational character, both as the word of God and as given to particular people in a particular cultural context. In succeeding chapters Brauch six ways we mishandle scripture in our interpretation and application:

The abuse of the whole gospel. We may tend toward a focus on a gospel of personal salvation or a social gospel, focusing on the redemptive work of Jesus and its impact on overcoming injustice and setting right the structures of society. Neither alone are the whole message of scripture.
The abuse of selectivity. It is often observed that differing positions on an issue like gender roles can both cite scripture for their view. The issue often is selective use of scripture, ignoring passages that may not agree with one’s view. Often, we need to listen to all the relevant texts and look particularly for those that reflect the overarching redemptive trajectory of scripture.
The abuse of biblical balance. This differs from the abuse preceding it in overemphasis on a particular doctrine while under-emphasizing others. We may focus on certain sins while ignoring others. Again, we need to hear all these perspectives and consider a both/and rather than either/or approach.
The abuse of words. Most of us read, and certainly preach the Bible in translation. Care must be used to be certain that the words we use and meanings we attribute to a word accurately reflect what the author would have understood, as best as we can ascertain. Brauch uses as an example the word cephale and argues for how our translations as “head” may ignore the dimension of “headship” that has to do with “source” and instead uses the term hierarchically.
The abuse of context, both literary and theological. Literary context concerns the place of a particular passage in a larger narrative. Theological context has to do with relating a particular theological idea to the larger theological themes of a book, or even all the books of a particular writer, like Paul.
The abuse of context, relating to historical context and cultural reality. We may universalize what is particular to a historical context or assume that teaching in a context must be applied in the same way in very different cultural contexts–for example, how we understand Jesus healings on the sabbath and the implication for early Christians of whether and how to carry over Jewish sabbath practices.

He then concludes by considering what it could mean if those who differ over scripture and give weight to one part while ignoring others would simply begin to listen to the witness of each other. And he includes appendices going deeper on selective issues of interpretation. And most helpful throughout is that Brauch illustrates both abuses and the proper handling of scripture using contemporary issues.

This book is important for anyone who teaches the scriptures and seeks to be thoughtful of engaging the disparate views one encounters with others who may even claim a similar, evangelical faith. It advocates neither a culture war nor expulsion of those who differ, but the engagement that takes both the scriptures and our hearers seriously. Church leaders facing sharp doctrinal challenges might read this to think through how this might be approached both irenically and yet with doctrinal integrity.