The defenders of the single meaning theory usually concede that the medieval approach to the Bible met the religious needs of the Christian community, but that it did so at the unacceptable price of doing violence to the biblical text. The fact that the historical-critical method after two hundred years is still struggling for more than a precarious foothold in that same religious community is generally blamed on the ignorance and conservatism of the Christian laity and the sloth or moral cowardice of its pastors.
I should like to suggest an alternative hypothesis. The medieval theory of levels of meaning in the biblical text, with all its undoubted defects, flourished because it is true, while the modern theory of a single meaning, with all its demonstrable virtues, is false. Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text which it is interpreting, it will remain restricted-as it deserves to be-to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred.
[blockquote]Until the historical-critical method becomes critical of its own theoretical foundations and develops a hermeneutical theory adequate to the nature of the text which it is interpreting, it will remain restricted-as it deserves to be-to the guild and the academy, where the question of truth can endlessly be deferred.[/blockquote]
Amen!
I was always interested in seminary how various professors and biblical academics would latch on to their own particular “critical method’ as if it was uber-lens through which all Christians should look at scripture. I was always troubled by that assertion for a number of reasons.
And don’t get me wrong, I think the various critical methods are helpful to engage scripture in ways that maybe we aren’t necessarily comfortable if left to our own exegetical devices. I think they can give some invaluable insights into the Word of God, whether we end up agreeing with the various conclusions of method exegetes or not.
But, I believe one has to take the various critical methods with a grain of salt. The individual methods are one tool amongst many that mature Christians can use to engage Scripture. I have seen too many bible scholars succomb to the siren song of their pet critical method theories, and its their own critical method that becomes the living word, and not the scripture itself. And that’s dangerous on numerous levels.
I was also disturbed, or perhaps amused, that the same professors would also be the ones, in one way or the other, that would promulgating the view that there is no absolute truth, and that what was true in one culture or for one individual might not be true for another, especially in terms of sexuality and other hot button seminary issues these days, but then they would turn around and be teaching that their own particular critical method of looking at scripture was the only true way for Christians anywhere to be interpreting scriptural texts.
To me, that seemed counter-intuitive logic.
You mean that reading the Bible “old school” is more tolerant of diversity than the “new thing”? Imagine that!
I’ll admit, some of the older Christian readings got into allegorical stuff that was like a great home run hitter – sometimes knocking one into the seats but often striking out.
But at least they were exploring the word and taking it seriously, not coming at it with eisegesis to find what they already believed.
Hmmm…I wonder. Did God provide the scriptures to the clergy alone, or to all mankind? Did God use a select religious class of people to actually write the Scriptures down, or did he use a broad scope of humanity across multiple centuries?
Given the answers to those questions, I think it is extremely likely that the common person from any age and without specialized training can read and understand the message God has committed to paper. This, I think, is especially true because He promised that His Spirit would be inside us to help us understand.
The plain meaning seems to be the correct meaning, to me. The grammatical-historical method of interpretation, or the “natural reading” of the text seems to be in order.
I think that deviations from the the “natural reading” are generally designed to allow what God does not allow. Those promoting the necessity of a specialized class of folks who alone can reveal the truth of Scripture are either selling something, craving power over others, or both.
I believe that education is wonderful and that by and large, the professional clergy are terrific folk. These things are a gift to the Church. But the essentials of the faith can be understood by small children, rude fishermen, and ladies of the evening. The truth that can be plainly understood by reading the Scriptures is powerful enough, all by itself, to free a drug addict, end slavery, and bring down governments.
That’s my opinion.
The important thing, it seems to me, is that a scholarly hermeneutic be formed and informed by faith. When I was in seminary, we were taught about the “hermeneutic of suspicion.” I always thought that we should have instead a “hermeneutic of trust” – trust in the inspiration of Holy Scripture by the Holy Spirit, and trust that in every word and sentence, God has something important to say to us.
Helen, does the “hermeneutic of suspicion” mean bringing doubt and suspicion to the text?
Years of reading the kind of stuff that laymen reading on their own crank out has given me an Anglican mistrust of the person sitting alone in his room with nothing but a bible (and one hopes, the Spirit). Let the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the eight chapter of the Acts instruct us; he is reading the scriptures alone, but when Philip asks him if he understands, the eunuch says, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” (NASB) We need to read within the church, with the guidance of the church; the scriptures are not for clerics alone, but they are not for laymen alone either.
Anyway, back to the article in question: I haven’t had time to read it all, but I am definitely in sympathy with it. And I was struck from the start with the realization that a post-modernist would reject categorically the goal of recovering “the meaning which it had in the mind of the Prophet or Evangelist who first uttered or wrote, to the hearers or readers who first received it.” (If nothing else, one should probably draw up short at trying to uncover the meaning in the mind of Balaam’s ass.)
For several years now I’ve had this section of the RC Catechism sticky-noted to the inside of my bible:
116 The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: “All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.”83
117 The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.
1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.84
2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.85
3. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem.86
118 A medieval couplet summarizes the significance of the four senses:
The Letter speaks of deeds; Allegory to faith;
The Moral how to act; Anagogy our destiny.87
One might also heed that scripture interprets itself in the manifold ways.
Dear #5, Sherri:
It’s been a long time since I had that class. To be fair, I think it may be more suspicion of how the Church has traditionally interpreted scripture, rather than suspicion of the text itself. Anybody more current on this than I am?
“Guidance of the Church” Does the include the present TEC that is seems to be guiding peple down a strange and odd road.
Vatican II said that the gospels were written in order to form a basis for preaching. cf.John 20:30-31. If this is so, then what is going on in seminary and academic circles is missing the pioint.
As I’ve heard the term used, a “hermeneutic of suspicion” means that you approach the text with question like, “Who wrote this, and what was their agenda? Who stands to gain from this way of presenting the events? Who isn’t being heard in this text, and why not?” It’s often associated with liberation theology, which may be one of the reasons that liberation theology is something of an orthodox bugbear.
A hermeneutic of suspicion would read, oh, for instance, the Scriptural story of the conquest of Canaan and say, “Well, of course the text portrays the Israelites as carrying out the will of God against the wicked Canaanites; it was written self-servingly by the victors. The Canaanite version of the story, if they were allowed to tell it, would be about the bloodthirsty cruelty of the invading Israelites.”
My personal opinion is that a hermeneutic of suspicion is one part of a balanced hermeneutical approach to Scripture — necessary, but distorting if you don’t weigh it against other interpretive lenses.
“Let the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the eight chapter of the Acts instruct us; he is reading the scriptures alone, but when Philip asks him if he understands, the eunuch says, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?†(NASB) We need to read within the church, with the guidance of the church; the scriptures are not for clerics alone, but they are not for laymen alone either.”
While I agree, in general with this, I personally would err on the side of laymen. Ask youself, throughout history, was it the laymen or the clerics that lead folks into heresy? Was it the simple reading and acceptance of the texts that lead folks into heresy, or was it some “profound” new understanding of what was written plainly?
Yes, the story of the Ethiopian eunuch is instructive. Yet, I would remind everyone that the Ethiopian eunuch was reading Isaiah the prophet. The explaining that Philip [a deacon] did was to reveal that Jesus Christ was the fullfillment of what Isaiah had said. The deacon gave the gospel message through the medium of explaining an Old Testament prophecy. That’s it. This is within the grasp of almost all genuine believers. Philip was no seminarian. He was no professional theologian. He was not one of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, or Teachers. He was a deacon.
Things that make you go, hmm.
“Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?†(NASB) We need to read within the church, with the guidance of the church; the scriptures are not for clerics alone, but they are not for laymen alone either. ”
Given the difficulty of distinguishing shepherds from theives among the clerics, it would seem that the sheep would do better to read the Bible on their own. Then they would be guided by their true Shepherd.
The function of this critical scholarship has increasingly been to justify “A canon within the Canon.” Usually that inner “canon” — alleged to be more “historical, “accurate,” “really written by” etc — just happens to correspond to the academic’s worldview.
It’s used as a way of dismissing the parts you don’t like and elevating the one’s that you do.
Well, I know I have said this before, but the different ways of reading scripture leaves out the one that I have suggested, namely, that scripture be read the way we read poetry, which is words being used to say things that words cannot say. This is how poetry works – or at least real poetry – by which I mean a language designed to convey experience, not knowledge. There is a world of knowledge, perfectly real, that is outside the reach of discursive thought and therefore outside the reach of Standard Formal English. When we listen to music or watch a painting, we are acquiring knowledge, but it is notoriously non-verbal. Poetry is the intermediary in this context, as Christ is the intermediary in a most complex problem of communication. How is God to speak to us? What language can He use which will convey what he knows? His best solution (to date) is a human that is also wholy divine and who can speak both languages. So complex a problem causes Christ to say tht he is obliged to speak in parables (which are micro- poems, aren’t they>?) because humans aren’t up to anything more difficult. He tells his apostles that THEY will get the truth straight, but the fact is, they don’t understand what he is saying either. We must therefore ALSO read scripture as an attempt to convey that which exceeds the paltry limitations of human language. We must therefore read scripture as experience, not as information. The other methods cited are sound enough, but I remind you that they are necessary precisely because what is being said comes from a source far beyond language. L
C.Wingate wrote:
[blockquote]Years of reading the kind of stuff that laymen reading on their own crank out has given me an Anglican mistrust of the person sitting alone in his room with nothing but a bible (and one hopes, the Spirit). Let the story of the Ethiopian eunuch in the eight chapter of the Acts instruct us; he is reading the scriptures alone, but when Philip asks him if he understands, the eunuch says, “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?†(NASB) We need to read within the church, with the guidance of the church; the scriptures are not for clerics alone, but they are not for laymen alone either. [/blockquote]
Which is why it is so important to have a knowledge of the Church Fathers and how the Church has [i]always[/i] interpreted the Bible.
A person reading the Bible on their own may gain insights into certain areas in his or her own life that need to be addressed (lectio divina), but certain private interpretations can also be skewed by what one WANTS the text to read. Thus a standard of measure or safeguard against heretical readings is needed.
Thus the ‘critical method’ falls short, as it does not take into account the historic interpretation.
The literalist reading also falls short for the same reason, as not all scripture is meant to be taken literally.
The poetical reading is good, but also lacking, as not all texts in Scripture are meant to be read that way either, and much plain meaning can be lost by ‘allegorizing’ the passage where it need not be so.
A well rounded guide is needed. One that takes into account that the Scriptures were written a) for a community not individuals, but with individual applications, b) in languages other than English, and c) for all peoples at all times but in a context of a specific place and time.
Peace!
Jim Elliott <><
I remember reading a book on an introduction to the pentateuch, and the author was a big proponent of the JEDP with redactor theory of authorship. In the introduction, he mentioned that many students came to him asking why not accept or at least teach the Mosaic authorship of the work, since many scholars accepted that theory. His response?
Too many people, himself included, had invested too much time to just ‘throw the JEDP theory by the wayside’ and admit they might be wrong, and that it would make for a very short book and class just to say “Moses wrote it”.
In other words, facts aside, he liked the theory and had given a good protion of his life to it, so there! That should be reason enough to teach it as fact.
Too many academics in seminaries and Colleges and Universities hold to their theories in this fashion.
JE <><
re 13: I’d say, “laymen”. At least in most churches, clerics are put thorugh some degree of training which exposes them to some historical theology. Even at EDS I suspect they still are taught about the classic trinitarian and Christological heresies. In any kind of lay discussion of theology I find people recreating classic heresies left and right. As an object case, take a look at the “Bible Students” movement, and especially that self-constructed heresiarch, Charles Taze Russell.
LJ, your scholar’s response is, at the least, on the flippant side. But I suppose if I were him and a bunch of students came up to me and asked the question, my first temptation would be to ask them back, “Why?” But the question I would be more likely to ask is, “why is it important?” Indeed, I think that the multiplicitous medieval approach makes reliance upon Mosaic authority less crucial, which leads in turn to another point: such an approach isn’t friendly to the American Protestant model of interpretation which gives us doctrinal systems like fundamentalism (the real thing, that is). My faith wasn’t disturbed by being taught the JEDP system in sacred studies, and I had enough sense (or was taught sensibly enough) to recognize that it didn’t support the kind of extreme liberal statements it was invoked to justify. The real issue with these matters of criticism is sensitizing people to when they are seeing lower and higher criticism. I would tend to classify the division of Torah into the four “sources” as lower, if only because even in English the division is easy to map out. It the assignment of meaning to these (and the similar synoptic problem) that should be setting the “higher crit” warning bells. To switch off to territory I know better, for instance, I’m relatively accepting of the two source solution to the synoptic problem, but I’m extremely dubious about any claims made as to dating. There is simply too much disagreement and way, way too much speculation. But the danger is that a layman will come up against this stuff and not be prepared to argue with it, so that he falls into the fallacy that accepting the 2SH or the JEDP theory means accepting any conclusion promulgated under their banners. Pitting ecclesiastical authority against reasoning is a risky business, because any fault found in the former tends under those conditions to bring the whole edifice down.