(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historical documents, worthy only of historical and philological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.
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.
