Theological Interpretation Part 7

Thus ends the first section of the essay... More to come.

In the mean time, what if David Lynch made Return of the Jedi?:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALjbTo1D5U

Theological Interpretation Part 6

Summary

The six themes that have been discussed by no means exhaust all the concerns being addressed by those affiliated with TIS. Other prominent issues include the complex relationship between theological interpretation and philosophical hermeneutics, and the challenge of reading Scripture in a global context.¹ Even so, from the points considered a picture has begun to emerge of the aims and motivations of TIS. While any concise definition of TIS will fail to account for certain emphases and for the variety amongst its practitioners, a working definition should be attempted.

Moberly defines theological interpretation as 'reading the Bible with a concern for the enduring truth of its witness to the nature of God and humanity, with a view to enabling the transformation of humanity into the likeness of God.'² This is a helpful definition in what it affirms, but it does not sufficiently account for the ecclesial emphasis common to TIS proponents, and does not capture the sense of spiritual encounter found in a number of TIS writings. Green, for example, states that theological interpretation is concerned with 'encountering the God who stands behind and is mediated by Scripture.'³ Similarly, Vanhoozer emphasises communion, sharing in the light life and love of God.⁴ These comments indicate a desire to go beyond learning about the nature of God. Hays describes theological exegesis as 'a way of approaching Scripture with eyes of faith and seeking to understand it within the community of faith',⁵ thus emphasising both the theological lens or rule through which interpreters come to the text, and the primary setting in which TIS is practiced. Finally, Greg Allison characterizes TIS as a 'matrix of interpretative approaches, all of which bear some familial resemblances while exhibiting differences as well.'⁶ This highlights the plurality of methods and convictions that constitute TIS affiliates. With these factors in mind, a definition can be formulated. (1) Theological interpretation of Scripture involves reading the Bible confessionally through the interpretive lens of the historic Christian tradition's governing theological claims. (2) The aims of theological interpretation are to encounter the God who is the ultimate author of the Bible, and to be guided in living faithfully as Christians in the world today. (3) These aims can accommodate a range of methods and emphases. (4) The biblical text may produce a plurality of meanings within the parameters set by the rules of canon and creed (5) Theological interpretation is performed primarily by the Church and for the Church.

1Treier, Introducing, 157-205; Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “One Rule to Rule Them All? Theological Method in an Era of

World Christianity,” in Globalizing Theology, eds. Craig Ott and Harold A. Netland, 85-126 (Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2006).

2Moberly, “What,” 163.

3Green, Practicing, 5.

4Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Ten Theses on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” Modern Reformation 19, no. 4

(July/Aug 2010):16-19.

5Hays, “Reading,” 11.

6Allison, “Theological,” 28-29.

Theological Interpretation Part 5

(4) TIS recovers insights from 'pre-critical' interpretation

A major concern amongst TIS advocates is to rediscover and appropriate for today the insights of 'pre-critical' or 'pre-modern' interpretation. By these broad terms TIS literature tends to refer to Patristic and Medieval interpretation, though there are some exceptions.¹ It is recognised that there is no monolithic entity called pre-critical interpretation; the period of time between the New Testament and the Enlightenment was of course marked by development and disagreement. Nevertheless, it is argued that this variety may be labelled 'pre-critical' because it designates certain features common to interpreters that have been lacking since the turn to critical interpretation.² Uniting these features is the idea that theological interpretation was the normative way in which the Bible was read before the rise of biblical criticism in the late 1700s. Exegesis and theology were virtually inseparable activities for pre-critical interpreters, hence TIS is perceived as more of a rediscovery than a novel invention. But this is not to say that TIS practitioners endorse an uncritical or nostalgic acceptance of all pre-critical approaches to Scripture. Instead their aim (at least in theory) is to build on the successes of past generations while seeking to avoid its errors.³

What, then, constitutes pre-critical theological interpretation? With particular reference to Patristic exegesis, Brian Daley highlights six features: (1) Conviction of the present reality of God; (2) Presumption of a unified narrative; (3) The Rule of Faith; (4) Scripture as a diverse yet unified whole; (5) Scripture as historical yet meant for us; (6) Scripture as mystery.⁴ It is apparent that many of these features cohere with the commitments of TIS already discussed. For some theological interpreters such as Daly and Kathryn Greene-McCreight the lessons to be learnt from pre-critical exegetes are primarily their seamless integration of theology and exegesis, and their attitude of piety, reverence and reflection.⁵ Other TIS writers are more concerned with appropriating pre-critical strategies for discovering a range of 'meanings' in the biblical text.⁶ This is seen to stand in opposition to the modern critical interpretation of texts which equates meaning with the intent of the text's author in the original historical context.⁷ Daly contends that the various 'post-modern' critiques of the modern approach to texts and their meaning – especially following Gadamer - have led to the current revival of interest in pre-modern exegesis: 'Such premodern exegesis is generally free from the judgments about how to find the Bible's authentic meaning that seem so constricting, so theologically inhibited and inhibiting, to many modern religious readers.'⁸

Instead of seeking one historically reconstructed meaning, pre-critical interpreters employed various devices such as allegory and typology for understanding Scripture. David Steinmetz offers three reasons why such devices were used. The first is that what appears initially to be a historical narrative may in fact contain absurdities or contradictions if read historically, and may instead be a metaphorical passage. Second, with recourse to only literal readings it was deemed hard to explain the difficult relationship between Israel and the Church, and the Old and New Testaments. Finally, while all Scripture was given for the edification of the Church and, according to Augustine, to nurture the virtues of faith, hope and love, not all the biblical stories are inherently edifying. The value in them must therefore be found on the level of allegory, metaphor and type.⁹ Steinmetz qualifies these points stating that pre-critical interpretation was not without boundaries. For example, Augustine appealed to the literal sense of Scripture to limit the range of possible allegorical meanings.¹⁰ Problematically Steinmetz fails to account fully for the plurality of understandings of the term 'literal' amongst pre-modern writers, and so this statement does not offer any real guidance about how one should appropriate allegory.¹¹ Moreover, the nature of allegorical interpretation (and its relationship to typology) is by no means straightforward, and its use requires careful qualification.¹² With respect to the contemporary situation, Steinmetz contends that the text cannot mean whatever a later audience wants it to mean. The language of the Bible opens up a field of possible meanings and readings that fall within this field are exegetically valid, even if the interpretation was not intended by the author.¹³ But once again, Steinmetz never explains how exactly the text constrains a field of acceptable meanings.

Similarly, Fowl advocates the use of 'figural reading'. He begins by defining 'literal reading' as the meanings that have been conventionally ascribed to a text by Christian communities - 'those interpretations Christians take to be primary, the basis and norm for all subsequent ways of interpreting the text.'¹⁴ On this basis he contends that there can be more than one literal sense of a biblical text. For example, in the context of Isaiah the child born of a virgin in Isaiah 7:14 seems quite clearly to refer to the son born to Isaiah of Jerusalem (cf. Isaiah 8:1-3). At the same time, Matthew's gospel and the Christian tradition understand this verse to be a prophetic announcement of the coming birth of Jesus. Both these can be considered literal senses, because the God who inspires the words is able to make them refer to both characters. But, Fowl states, there will be occasions when the literal sense of a passage is inadequate for contemporary Christian living. At this point one can use figural interpretation. Such readings, he writes, 'will use a variety of interpretative techniques to extend the literal sense of Scripture in ways that enhance Christian's abilities to live and worship faithfully in the contexts in which they find themselves.'¹⁵

Fowl follows this discussion with a somewhat tangential discussion about good ecclesial practices that safe-guard healthy theological interpretation. He argues that Scripture actually invites a plurality of interpretations, and it is not difference that leads to division but interpretation that isn't framed by certain interpretive virtues, namely truth seeking/telling; repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation; and patience.¹⁶ Certainly these are good qualities for anyone engaged in theological interpretation, and they could arguably be seen as means for regulating both the content of interpretations as well as the manner in which interpretation is conducted. It is not clear, though, if this is Fowl's point, and as with Steinmetz, Fowl's criteria for embracing figural readings is conspicuously absent. He seems to suggest that figural readings should be adopted on an ad hoc basis, but more needs to be said to qualify when such readings are warranted, and how best to restrain figural readings from becoming wildly fanciful.

TIS is right to advocate learning from pre-critical interpreters in terms of their disposition and methods. Expressing indebtedness to interpreters of the past and approaching them with humility and a willingness to be instructed by them is certainly better than an arrogant assumption of their irrelevance or lack of interpretive sophistication.¹⁷ Nevertheless, this cannot entail an indiscriminate appropriation of pre-critical methodology. It is also debatable whether the reductionistic term 'pre-critical' helps or hinders discussion. TIS would benefit from writing with greater specificity concerning particular interpreters rather than generalisations about different eras, and explaining in greater detail how one might constructively utilise different interpretive devices and how their resultant readings are to be regulated.

(5) TIS reads Scripture with the Rule of Faith

According to critical scholar John Barton, current theological interpreters wrongly impose theology on the Bible; their exegesis is 'controlled by a theological or religious vision, so that the meaning found in the text in the course of exegesis is determined by prior theological commitments.'¹⁸ Part of the reason why TIS is open to such a charge is because of the emphasis placed on using the 'Rule of Faith' when interpreting the Bible. The Rule of Faith refers to an early summary of authoritative Christian belief that was used as a confession of faith in public worship.¹⁹ The basic contents of the Rule are found in some of the apologetic writings of the Church Fathers, and were eventually codified in fixed forms like the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed.²⁰ In the early Church the Rule functioned as a safeguard against heretical influences, as Treier explains, 'The Rule of Faith enabled the church to identify, preserve, and pass on a coherent doctrine of God in the face of competing accounts of Christian identity.'²¹ Similarly, contemporary TIS writers commonly hold that the Rule of Faith sets parameters for acceptable Christian readings of Scripture and ensures continuity with the historic Christian tradition.²²

Does this not suggest that Barton is correct in saying that theology is being used to determine exegesis? Green argues that it depends on how one understands the relationship between Scripture and the Rule. The biblical canon was not fully established at the time that the Rule of Faith was taking shape among early theologians. In fact, the christological lens of the Rule was one of the primary criteria for deciding which books belonged in the canon, thus both canon and Rule took shape in a context of mutual influence.²³ Consequently, if read on their own terms and without reference to the history and community of interpretation, the biblical texts do not necessarily align themselves with the classical faith of the Christian Church. The texts can be read in different ways, some of which may even be considered 'good' readings insofar as they are based on careful textual analysis, but this does not guarantee that they are Christian readings.²⁴ Green concludes that as surely as the canon and Rule were mutually influential in their formation, so today they must also interact mutually. Reading with the Rule is therefore an ongoing heuristic and dialectical process that should guide but not determine the interpretation of Scripture.²⁵ Furthermore, the idea of the Rule is not to determine a single meaning in the text such as the supposed 'plain sense', but to open up a range of imaginative possibilities within certain boundaries.²⁶

TIS authors find further justification for the use of of the Rule in their stated interpretative aims. As already observed, theological interpreters read the Bible with a view to hear and know the God who speaks through the text and to find direction for the Christian life.²⁷ While there are other legitimate reasons for studying the Bible, if one is reading with the goal of finding theological truth, meaning, and direction, criteria for appropriating such matters must be integral to one's interpretive method.²⁸ It is to this end that the Rule of Faith is used, thereby keeping the biblical text within the continuing life of the historic Christian Church.²⁹

Unfortunately, TIS appeals to the Rule of Faith are somewhat ambiguous on the issue of interpretative authority. Theological interpretations are required to land within the boundaries set by the Rule, but it is uncritically assumed that the Rule and the creeds conform to Scripture. For example, Green concedes that the Rule is lacking at certain points, such as its complete silence on the life and ministry of Jesus. But conceding that the Rule omits certain things does not go so far as to ask whether the Rule could be genuinely mistaken on any point. To speak of heuristic use of the Rule implies that the Ruled understanding by which one approaches the text should actually be deepened or even corrected dialectically by one's continued encounter with the text.³⁰ But despite talk of 'mutual influence', the authority of the Bible appears to be subject to the uncritical standard of the Rule.³¹ This ambiguity is problematic by TIS's own conviction that the Bible does not have the same ontology as other documents, yet the Rule is not seriously tested against it. Moreover, merely because the Rule and creeds enjoy the validation of widespread consensus one should be cautious not to assume that the general consensus is always correct.³² A further query concerns major Christian doctrines that are not addressed in the Rule but are clarified, for example, by Reformation standards. While the Rule may set parameters on matters of christology or trinitarian theology, it says nothing about justification.³³ Hypothetically one could read within the parameters of the Rule on matters of the Trinity but reach an unorthodox interpretation of Paul's teaching on justification from a Reformed perspective. Thus, while the Rule of Faith may be necessary for safeguarding ecclesial orthodoxy, for many Christian interpreters it is not sufficient in view of what it omits.

(6) TIS is primarily an ecclesial practice

The points made thus far presuppose TIS' concern to prioritise the Church as the locus of theological interpretation. In Reading Scripture with the Church, Watson observes that whatever his co-authors disagree about, at the very least they agree that exegesis should be put back into the hands of the Church and be ecclesially responsible. He states that theological exegesis 'must reckon with a context in which the scriptural texts are not read like other books, since issues of ultimate concern are uniquely and definitively articulated in them.'³⁴ That is to say, the Bible has been marked out as performing a normative function in the Christian community, and within this context a rich tradition of interpretation has developed. Watson adds that his co-authors also agree that the claims of modern biblical scholarship should be resisted if they prove incompatible with the claims made by the ecclesial community, its canon, and its interpretive tradition.³⁵ Equally, Fowl writes, 'reading Scripture theologically is first and foremost a practice of the church. It does not depend on the support of academics for its survival. Nevertheless, disciplined, scholarly attention to interpreting Scripture theologically can only benefit the practice within the church.'³⁶ This last almost offhand comment is actually considerably important. It has already been noted that there is a discrepancy between TIS' claims that theological interpretation is foremost an ecclesial practice, and the fact that current TIS literature is almost entirely the work of academics writing for academics. Fowl's remark justifies this situation insofar as the careful refinement of theological interpretation in academia helps cultivate greater sophistication and depth in a church context.³⁷ However, this assumes that those involved in TIS are being proactive about disseminating their ideas outside of the university walls. While acknowledging the personal involvement that TIS authors may or may not have in church settings, the existing literature certainly does not suggest that TIS ideas are being made available to Christian communities, except perhaps to those fortunate enough to have a formal theological education.³⁸

Setting this issue aside, at least in principle TIS is seen as an ecclesial activity. As already indicated the Bible maintains theological significance only in relation to the continued life of the Church, as Robert Jenson writes, 'outside the church, no such entity as the Christian Bible has any reason to exist.'³⁹ Furthermore, the goal of TIS is not mine the biblical texts for information but to facilitate communion with God and guidance for corporate and individual Christian living – 'faithful interpretation of Scripture requires its faithful performance.'⁴⁰ One way that that the Church facilitates faithful interpretation and performance is in communal reading. In keeping with what Treier calls the best of pre-critical exegesis, reading for spiritual formation is primarily a communal activity.⁴¹ Reading Scripture in community helps interpreters refine their readings with the insight of different perspectives and restrains readings from straying outside the parameters of broad Christian orthodoxy. Conversely, the lone reader is unaccountable to Christian tradition. This point is uncontroversial, but an apparent issue is that individual church communities or even whole denominations are at risk of confinement and introspection. Instead, Max Turner advocates the advantages of inter-denominational discussion. For example, a Pentecostal New Testament scholar might offer a more nuanced pneumatology of Paul's letters than a non-charismatic scholar. On the other hand, these same commitments may result in 'eisegesis, selective blindness, and dubious ranking of elements as central or peripheral.'⁴² In careful dialogue with representatives from other confessional positions such problems can be highlighted and diminished. Problematically, Turner's suggestion implies the scholarly rather than ecclesial realm. A case could be made that the university or seminary excels with respect to inter-denominational conversation whereas churches often struggle, but the general point that Christian community is advantageous for theological interpretation is certainly reasonable.

The advantages of reading in community could be applied to any text, whether sacred or secular. The value of ecclesial interpretation is not simply to expand the perspective of the reader but to enable Christian transformation. Fowl writes, 'Christian communities, local congregations, should be the places where Christians are formed through word and sacrament to read Scripture in the light of their proper ends in Christ.'⁴³ Stated differently, the whole life of the Church should cultivate certain character traits and interpretive habits that help people to read Scripture theologically, and the practice itself should be formative and transformative. An example of this might be the regular corporate reading of the Apostle's creed in a church service, which would cultivate a strong sense of the theological norms of 'Ruled' reading.

One concern with TIS' emphasis on ecclesial reading is with the use of the term 'church'. The question 'which church?' is not mere pedantry. Bockmuehl rightly comments that the term 'church' can be notably abstract when detached from the life and worship of a concrete ecclesial community. He writes, 'Whether in postliberal or evangelical guise, fashionably mellifluous talk of “ecclesial communities” may conveniently cloak tough questions both of history and of tradition.'⁴⁴ Similarly, Carson notes that TIS is composed of at least Roman Catholics, confessional evangelicals, Barthians, and chastened liberals.⁴⁵ For each of these groups an understanding of the authority and truthfulness of Scripture is rather different. For example, the authority of the Roman Catholic magesterium is not inferior to the authority of Scripture, which will considerably affect the way Catholics bring theology to bear on biblical interpretation.⁴⁶ The difficulty is that although TIS statements about putting the Bible back in the Church are rhetorically persuasive, they disguise (no doubt inadvertently) the complexity of such an appeal. Theological interpretation may look radically different in different Christian denominations or institutions, and further reflection is needed to understand how they can all identify with TIS.

1E.g. Joel Green's analysis of John Wesley: Green, Practicing, 99-121.

2Treier, Introducing, 42.

3Fowl, Theological, 55.

4Brian E. Daley, “Is Patristic Exegesis Still Usable? Some Reflections on Early Christian Interpretation of the

Psalms,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, eds. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, 74-80 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,

2003).

5Ibid., 87-88; Kathryn Greene-McCreight, "Introducing Premodern Scriptural Exegesis," JTI 4, no. 1 (2010): 1-6.

6E.g. David C. Steinmetz, “The Superiority of Pre-Critical Exegesis,” in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture:

Classic and Contemporary Readings, ed. Stephen E. Fowl, 28-29 (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997); Treier, Introducing, 39-

55; Fowl, Theological, 55-63.

7Daley, “Patristic,” 72.

8Ibid., 73.

9Steinmetz, “Superiority,” 28-29.

10Ibid., 29.

11See Stephen E. Fowl, Engaging Scripture, A Model for Theological Interpretation (Eugene: Wipf and Stock,

2008), 37-40.

12Gerald Bray, “Allegory,” in DTIB, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 34-36 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005). Cf.

Carson, “Theological,” 199.

13Steinmetz, “Superiority,” 31. For a response to Steinmetz see Daniel J. Treier, “The

Superiority of Pre-critical Exegesis? Sic et non,” Trinity Journal 24, no. 1 (March 1, 2003): 77-103.

14Fowl, Theological, 56-57.

15Ibid., 57.

16Ibid., 64-65. Cf. Fowl, Engaging, 62-96.

17E.g. Frederic W. Farrar, History of Interpretation (London: Macmillan, 1886), 8.

18John Barton, The Nature of Biblical Criticism (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007), 177.

19Kathryn Green-McCreight, “Rule of Faith,” in DTIB, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 703 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,

2005).

20Ibid.

21Treier, Introducing, 59.

22Green, Practicing, 79. See also Spinks, Bible, 14.

23Ibid., 72-73.

24Ibid., 74. See also Hart, “Tradition,” 183-184.

25Greene-McCreight, “Rule,” 704; R. W. L. Moberly, "Biblical Criticism and Religious Belief," JTI 2, no. 1 (2008):

84.

26Kathryn Greene-McCreight, Ad Litteram: How Augustine, Calvin, and Barth Read the “Plain Sense” of Genesis 1-

3, Issues in Systematic Theology (New York: Peter Lang, 1999), 243.

27Robert W. Wall, “Reading the Bible from within Our Traditions: The “Rule of Faith” in Theological Hermeneutics,”

in Between Two Horizons, eds. Max Turner and Joel B. Green, 91 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

28R. W. L Moberly, The Bible, Theology, and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 2000), 38.

29Ibid., 43.

30Understanding of heuristic from Lewis S. Mudge, “Heuristics,” in A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, eds.

Alan Richardson and John Bowden, 254 (London: SCM Press, 1983). Cf. James D. G. Dunn, “Criteria for a Wise

Reading of a Biblical Text,” in Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom, edited by David F. Ford and Graham Stanton, 50-51

(London: SCM Press, 2003).

31E.g. Wall, “Reading,” 102-103; Hart, “Tradition,” 185-192.

32Carson, “Theological,” 198.

33Gregg R. Allison, “Theological Interpretation of Scripture: An Introduction and Preliminary Evaluation,” SBJT 14,

no. 2 (2010): 32.

34Francis Watson, “Authors, Readers, Hermeneutics,” in Reading Scripture with the Church, A. K. M. Adam et al. 119

(Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006). Cf. Hays, “Reading,” 11-12.

35Ibid., 120.

36Fowl, Theological, 23.

37Cf. Turner and Green, “New Testament,” 2.

38One partially successful attempt to make TIS accessible to non-academics is J. Todd Billings, The Word of God For

the People of God: An Entryway to the Theological Interpretation of Scripture (Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2010).

39Robert Jenson, “Scripture's Authority in the Church,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, eds. Ellen F. Davis and

Richard B. Hays, 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

40Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, “Nine Theses on the Interpretation of Scripture,” in The Art of Reading

Scripture, eds. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, 4 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

41Treier, Introducing, 79.

42Max Turner, “Historical Criticism and Theological Hermeneutics of the New Testament,” in Between Two Horizons,

eds. Max Turner and Joel B. Green, 58 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

43Stephen Fowl, “Further Thoughts on Theological Interpretation,” in Reading Scripture with the Church, A. K. M.

Adam et al. 127 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006).

44Bockmuehl, Seeing, 58.

45Carson, “Theological,” 204.

46Ibid.

Theological Interpretation Part 4

(2) TIS reads the Bible as Scripture

Commenting on the opening verses of the letter of James, Green asks, 'Who is the “you” to whom James addresses his letter? Are we willing to be that “you”?'¹ How one answers this question will indicate one's stance towards theological interpretation. Green continues, 'When we read James, are we reading someone else's mail? This is the basic presumption of critical biblical studies in the modern era.'² For theological interpreters, this question is to be answered with a resounding 'no'. The Bible is not simply a collection of ancient historical documents, worthy only of historical and philological enquiry for those with niche interests. The Bible is regarded as Scripture. Although there is no consensus among TIS authors as to how the doctrine of Scripture must be understood, they keep company with historic Christianity and approach the text with the presupposition that behind it stands one divine author and that readers are addressed by the word of God that is spoken in and through the text.³ The purpose of the triune God's self-communication through Scripture is to draw its readers into communion with himself, but also to provide normative guidance for the ecclesial community with respect to theology, ethics and truth.⁴

While such a belief is acceptable in the Church, is it tenable in an academic setting? Can serious biblical scholarship be compatible with a belief that God actually speaks through the Bible today? Theological interpreters answer 'yes', and necessarily so. Insofar as TIS involves coming to the biblical text with certain theological presuppositions it resembles ideological approaches to interpretation. This is because TIS operates under no pretence of hermeneutical neutrality. TIS is explicitly confessional as it attempts to appropriate Scripture's message for contemporary belief and practice within the community of faith. In fact, it may be argued that ideological criticism's corrective to any false notion of unbiased interpretation, and its embracing of the reader's interpretive horizon as a hermeneutical norm has inadvertently granted the freedom required by theological interpreters to make their interests explicit.⁵

Where TIS differs from typical ideological readings is in its basic hermeneutical posture. Ideological criticism, be it feminist, liberation or something else, tends to approach the text with a hermeneutic of suspicion; the Bible is not rejected outright, but it is thought to contain both oppressive and liberating themes. The liberating impulses of the Bible may be preached, but they must first be recovered from whatever oppressive textual and historical contexts they inhabit. Responding to Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, Richard Hays comments that the problem with adopting a posture of suspicion is that if the Bible is inherently oppressive, on what basis can one know or relate to God? Further, on what ground does one critique the Bible so as to render it less harmful? Fiorenza's response is to appeal to women's own experience of liberation as revelatory, and the Bible is critically read through this lens. But, as Hays remarks, 'Regrettably, many practitioners of the hermeneutics of suspicion... are remarkably credulous about the claims of experience. As a result, they endlessly critique the biblical texts but rarely get around to hearing scripture's [sic] critique of us or hearing its message of grace.'⁶

Instead of coming to the text suspicious of its content, theological interpretation assumes a hermeneutic of trust or consent.⁷ Put simply, this involves giving the Bible the benefit of the doubt, recognizing that because the people of God, both Jewish and Christian, have heard the Bible (or various parts of it) as the word of God for thousands of years they might still do so today. This conviction is essential for theological reading, and for nurturing the life of faith, as Michael Gorman comments, 'it is difficult to imagine believers being able to sustain themselves as a community for long without a basic hermeneutic of consent or trust towards their sacred texts.'⁸ It must be asked, however, if a hermeneutic of trust is merely a naïve type of fundamentalism. Theological interpreters argue that this is not the case; it is in fact warranted by the nature of the Bible. Two points can be made. Firstly, theological interpreters argue that the Bible should be read according to its own claims and invitation.⁹ Markus Bockmuehl, while advocating responsible integration of historical criticism, contends that it is impossible to make significant sense of the biblical texts without recognising the 'explosively “totalizing” theological assertions that writers like Paul and the evangelists state or imply in practically every sentence',¹⁰ and without 'facing the inalienably transformative and self-involving demands that these ecclesial writings place on a serious reader.'¹¹ Moreover, the New Testament never conceives of or encourages any attempt to access the identity of Jesus Christ apart from through the apostolic witness and the churches.¹² The point, then, is that theological interpretation is warranted by the nature of the Bible's subject matter, and by the type of reader it implicitly invites.¹³

Secondly, because the Bible has been understood as the authoritative text of the Church, incorporated in regular worship, reading and liturgy throughout an unbroken history of tradition, no interpreter can come to the text neutrally, 'but only in the context of an enduring Jewish and Christian, and consequent wider, cultural reception.'¹⁴ Appropriating the work of Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, Walter Moberly sees this faith-based reception as a kind of plausibility structure - a necessary precondition for regarding the Bible as enduringly meaningful and truthful. The Church provides a context for taking the text seriously in a way that would not be so if it were merely an ancient oddity.¹⁵ From this perspective, it is those embarking on supposedly value free historical-critical enquiry that need to justify their scholarly enterprise, for in the absence of meaning attributed to the Bible from its enduring status in faith communities and its wider cultural impact, what distinguishes it from any other ancient text? Similarly, ideological critics though adopting a posture of suspicion inevitably presuppose the enduring significance and meaning of the Bible, otherwise it is hard to see how it is worth the effort of opposing.¹⁶ Vanhoozer summarises the point as thus, 'Only the assumption that these texts say something of unique importance can ultimately justify the depth of the exegete's engagement.'¹⁷

The case for reading the Bible as Scripture is a strong one. It challenges advocates of other interpretative approaches to justify their endeavours instead of assuming a monopoly on legitimacy. At the very least, TIS should be accepted as equally justified amongst the ranks of 'interested' readings. One somewhat pragmatic issue arises, however, and that is how theological interpreters envisage the working relationship between themselves and those in academic departments who are not confessing Christians. As Carson observes, Christian academics have to interact with non-Christians, but TIS sometimes appears to be advocating an exclusive huddle.¹⁸ With this in mind, the problem of bridging biblical studies and theology is not simply solvable at methodological level, for in some cases it is a symptom of the gap between Christian and non-Christian world-views, and it is not clear how thoroughly TIS authors have addressed this matter.

(3) TIS reads the Bible canonically

If TIS proponents approach the Bible with the explicit conviction that behind the disparate writings of human authors is the single divine author, it is unsurprising that TIS emphasizes reading the Bible as a canonical whole.¹⁹ The canon refers to the collection of sacred writings considered authoritative and normative for Christian belief and practice.²⁰ According to Vanhoozer, appeal to divine authorship is necessary for reading the Bible as a unified canon. He claims that various attempts to identify intra-textual bases for canonical coherence have proven unsatisfactory, stating that not every book in the canon exhibits the unity proposed by any given model. Instead the only justification for reading the Bible as a unified discourse, wherein its constituent parts form a totality, is if something “outside” the text is the ground of its coherence.²¹ Vanhoozer suggests that to understand the relationship between many diverse texts and the unified whole, one might think in terms of a 'stratified semantic reality'. On one stratum is the historical discourse of the human authors which has an intelligibility and integrity of its own. On another stratum, divine discourse emerges at a canonical level. This level depends on the individual human authors, but cannot be reduced to them.²² Theological interpretation therefore involves discerning what God is saying and doing through the text at both levels of discourse, human and divine, and the parts must always be related back to the whole.

A further reason for approaching the Bible canonically is due to its reception in the community of faith. While historical-critical approaches emphasise the 'world behind the text' as they attempt to discern the actual events of the past, theological interpreters are primarily concerned with the texts in their final form. This includes the recognition that the biblical texts have historically been received in canonical form, thus Francis Watson writes, 'It is only in their final, canonical form that the biblical texts have functioned as communally authoritative within synagogue and church...this is the form of the text most suitable for theological use...the subject matter or content of the biblical texts is inseparable from their form.'²³ The very fact that the biblical texts have been received as a canon indicates that the individual texts should be mutually interpretative, as well as the parts being understood in light of the whole.²⁴ In theory this should not result in a failure to hear the distinctive theological voices of individual books; individual texts must not be subject to crude homogenisation. Nevertheless, each distinctive voice must also be understood in relation to the bigger picture, as it is 'modified or deepened by its location within a wider set of textual relationships.'²⁵

This is undoubtedly easier to state in theory, and much harder in practice. In his reading of Lamentations, Robin Parry says that the text must be read in its canonical form with the theme of weeping, and in its canonical context with the theme of hope. He urges that one should not move too quickly from weeping to hope, from Saturday to Sunday, but nevertheless remember that Sunday will come.²⁶ In response to Parry, Charlie Trimm argues that while Christian readers affirm that canonically they have hope, texts where hope is not expressed such as Lamentations should not be prematurely synthesized.²⁷ Trimm suggests that the author of Lamentations deliberately did not include hope out of a desire to express the despair of the present time. This in turn makes Lamentations a poignant text for those in despair today. Trimm's argument is that the diverse books of the Bible should not be flattened into saying the same thing, and that textual diversity reflects the human experience of diversity.²⁸ The risk of aiming for uniformity is to try and make rough edges smooth and reduce the impact of the distinct voices.

A further canonical challenge faced by theological interpreters relates specifically to the nature of the Old Testament. Firstly, the Old Testament comprises a pre-Christian set of texts which were selected, arranged and regarded as authoritative largely before the advent of the Christian faith.²⁹ Consequently, theological interpretation actually begins with the New Testament's recontextualization of the Old Testament, especially as it is read in the light of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Thus any reading of the Old Testament as Christian Scripture raises difficult interpretative questions about issues such as Christ's relationship to the law and the Church's relationship to Israel.³⁰ Secondly, the Old Testament originally existed in Hebrew and Greek (LXX). Moberly observes that the New Testament implicitly acknowledges both as authoritative, and Patristic writers such as Augustine favoured the Greek whereas Jerome favoured the Hebrew. This raises an interesting question: 'What then is the authoritative text of the Old Testament for the theological commentator?'³¹ Given that TIS authors typically praise Patristic interpretation and seek to reclaim its benefits for today, perhaps they too will advocate in due course the dual authority of both Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments for theological interpretation.

The issues raised thus far are just a sample of challenges faced by canonical reading. The intentions of TIS are nevertheless apparent. Theological interpretation must go beyond merely describing the theological perspectives of the diverse biblical texts, and press towards the question of canonical synthesis.³²

1Green, Practicing, 15.

2Ibid., 16.

3Richard B. Hays, “Reading the Bible with eyes of faith: the practice of theological exegesis,” JTI 1, no. 1 (2007):

12. With Barthian resonances some TIS authors emphasize the trinitarian nature of God's self-revelation, and that

Scripture is almost an extension of God's very nature and a medium of his self-communication that in turn draws reader

back into communion with the triune God. See Fowl, Theological, 1-12; Kevin Vanhoozer, “Imprisoned of Free? Text,

Status, and Theological Interpretation in the Master/Slave Discourse of Philemon,” in Reading Scripture with the

Church: Toward A Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation, A. K. M. Adam et al. 76-77 (Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2006).

4Vanhoozer. “Introduction,” 22-24; Fowl, Theological, 7.

5Michael Gorman, Elements of Biblical Exegesis: Revised and Expanded Edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2001),

144.

6Richard B. Hays, "Salvation by trust? Reading the Bible faithfully," Christian Century 114, no. 7 (1997): 218.

7Ibid.

8Gorman, Elements, 144.

9Michael Allen, “Theological Commentary,” in Theological Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives, ed. R. Michael

Allen, 5 (London: Continuum, 2011).

10Bockmuehl, Seeing, 46.

11Ibid.

12Ibid., 47.

13Spinks, Bible, 11.

14R. W. L. Moberly, The Theology of the Book of Genesis (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 6. See also

Peter Berger and Thomas Luckman, The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge

(Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1967).

15Ibid., 7.

16Ibid., 11.

17Vanhoozer. “Introduction,” 21. See also R. W. Jenson, “Scripture's Authority in the Church,” in The Art of Reading

Scripture, eds. E. F. Davis and R. B. Hays, 27-29 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).

18Carson, “Theological,” 203.

19The major influence is Brevard Childs. See especially “The Exegetical Significance of Canon for the Study of the

Old Testament,” VT Supplements 29 (1977): 66-80. For a helpful overview see Francis Watson, Text, Church and World

(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1994), 30-45.

20John Webster, “Canon,” in DTIB, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 97 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

21Vanhoozer, “Imprisoned,” 68.

22Ibid., 69.

23Francis Watson, Text Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,

1994), 16-17.

24Webster, “Canon,”100.

25Trevor Hart, “Tradition, Authority, and a Christian Approach to the Bible as Scripture,” in Between Two Horizons,

eds. Max Turner and Joel B. Green, 198 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

26Robin Parry, “Prolegomena to Christian Theological Interpretation of Lamentations,” in Canon and Biblical

Interpretation, ed. Craig Bartholomew et al.(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2006), 413-415.

27Trimm, “Evangelicals,” 318.

28Ibid.

29R. W. L. Moberly, “What is Theological Commentary? An Old Testament Perspective,” in Theological

Commentary: Evangelical Perspectives, ed. R. Michael Allen, 174 (London: T&T Clark, 2011).

30Fowl, Theological, 31.

31Ibid., 175. For further discussion see also J. Ross Wagner, “The Septuagint and the 'Search for the Christian Bible',”

in Scripture's Doctrine and Theology's Bible, eds. Markus Bockmuehl and Alan J. Torrance, 17-28 (Grand Rapids:

Baker Academic, 2008).

32Hays, “Reading,” 13.