Theological Interpretation of Scripture

Back in 2003, two scriptural scholars, Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays, edited a most interesting book entitled, The Art of Reading Scripture (Eerdmans). The book was the product of 15 scholars who contributed to what was called The Scripture Project, an attempt to restore and renew a theological approach to scriptural exegesis. One result of the project were these nine theses:

1. Scripture truthfully tells the story of God’s action of creating, judging, and saving the world.
2. Scripture is rightly understood in light of the church’s rule of faith as a coherent dramatic narrative.
3. Faithful interpretation of Scripture requires an engagement with the entire narrative: the New Testament cannot be rightly understood apart from the Old, nor can the Old be rightly understood apart from the New.
4. Texts of Scripture do not have a single meaning limited to the intent of the original author. In accord with Jewish and Christian traditions, we affirm that Scripture has multiple complex senses given by God, the author of the whole drama.
5. The four canonical Gospels narrate the truth about Jesus.
6. Faithful interpretation of Scripture invites and presupposes participation in the community brought into being by God’s redemptive action–the church.
7. The saints of the church provide guidance in how to interpret and perform Scripture.
8. Christians need to read the Bible in dialogue with diverse others outside the church.
9. We live in the tension between the “already” and the “not yet” of the kingdom of God; consequently Scripture calls the church to ongoing discernment, to continually fresh rereadings of the text in light of the Holy Spirit’s ongoing work in the world.

As you can see by the above, these scholars are by no means slaves to the historical-critical method that has almost monopolized scriptural scholarship since the 19th century. Interestingly, these scholars, who come from a variety of Evangelical backgrounds, seem to reflect the teachings we encounter in Dei Verbum, Vatican II's Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation. The Council Fathers, while affirming the value of historical-critical interpretation, also realized that, by itself, such an approach often leads to serious error. Pope Benedict XVI has addressed this dangerous tendency on numerous occasions; for example...

"...Scripture has become a word from the past that each person tries in his own way to bring into the present day; without being altogether able to trust the raft he is using for the purpose. Faith declines into a kind of philosophy of life, which each individual attempts to distill for himself from the Bible as well as he is able. Dogma, from which the ground of Scripture has been pulled away, no longer stands. The Bible that has freed itself from dogma has become a document about the past and, thereby, itself belongs to the past." [Joseph Ratzinger, God's Word: Scripture - Tradition - Office (2005), p. 98-99]

And so, for too many today, total reliance on this approach has turned the Bible almost into an historical artifact, no different from any other ancient document. Recognizing this danger the Council Fathers insisted that scriptural interpretation must also be theological if we are to understand the text as God's people. Once again, Pope Benedict XVI offers a clear solution:

"Perhaps the problems of current attempts can help us to understand again that faith is in fact the spirit from which the Scriptures were born and, hence, the only door by which we may enter into them." [Joseph Ratzinger, God's Word: Scripture - Tradition - Office (2005), p.126]

What a novel concept! Approaching Scripture theologically, from faith! And, apparently, it's a concept that thankfully seems to be catching on. A few months ago I devoted a brief post to some of my favorite scriptural commentaries. Among them was R. R. Reno's wonderful commentary on Genesis published by Brazos Press. Professor Reno's volume is just one in a still incomplete series that offers a theological, rather than a purely historical-critical, commentary on scripture. I can't recommend this series highly enough. 

And then there's a book that I am currently reading: Holy People, Holy Land. Also published by Brazos Press, its authors are Michael Dauphinais and Matthew Levering, two theologians who teach at Ave Maria University right here in Florida. The book provides a well-written and compact theological introduction to Scripture. Indeed, it's subtitle is just that: "A Theological Introduction to the Bible." I'm about half-way through and already intend to recommend it to those who participate in my two parish Bible Study groups.

Reading and understanding Scripture isn't easy; rather, for most Christians it becomes the work of a lifetime. But it's a task that can be eased considerably by good commentaries that help us understand, experience, and live the holiness and joy that God wants for us. 

God's peace...

Exegesis and Theology...Not!

Over the years -- at retreats, continuing education programs, courses, etc. -- I've heard a lot of odd things roll off the tongues of professors, theologians, scriptural scholars and others. Because I'm such a compulsive note-taker, I've written down many of these remarkable comments. This morning, while doing a little housecleaning in my den, I came across a few of the old notebooks in which I had jotted down some of these gems. And so, I thought that at least a few of you might enjoy reading them along with my inadequate responses.

"You have to be careful when reading the New Testament since some of it really doesn't apply today, at least not without substantial additional redaction." -- By a well-known New Testament scholar in answer to a student's question (1995)

Whoa! There are so many troublesome things in this statement that one hardly knows where to begin. Let me begin by stating that once one gets so caught up in the zeitgeist and decides that some of the Gospel doesn't really apply to today's more "sophisticated" forms of Christianity...well he might as well toss the whole thing. This, of course, is exactly what many folks like this have done. And what they haven't tossed, they have turned into an ideological manifesto that can be massaged and reinterpreted to ensure it applies to and supports their constantly changing lifestyles and shifting politics.

Why these people think they even need the Gospel is beyond me, but I suppose many are still at least culturally attached to their "faith" and need the reassurance and consolation they have associated with it. Or perhaps it's all about power, and their appeals to Scripture are needed to attract new adherents to whatever cause they espouse. Or I suppose it could just be simple intellectual arrogance and pride of the sort that's behind the generation of so many off-the-wall, wacko concepts.

And then there's that "redaction" comment. Of course, by "redaction" the exegete really meant a form of radical editing of the sort that has generated some of our more questionable Biblical translations. Ah, well, let's pray that our scholar has changed his views since 1995 and is now more willing to accept the Gospel as the Holy Spirit gave it to us. Trust me, it's radical enough as it is.

"We really don't know who the real Jesus was since virtually everything we know about him was written by his followers." -- By a priest and professor of theology during a Sunday homily (2004)

This has to be one of the more absurd comments I've ever heard in a homily, and so I won't expend too many words critiquing it. What the good father seems to be saying is that we really can't trust those disciples to speak or write the truth about Jesus. After all, they obviously liked Him and so would be unlikely to say anything negative about Him.

It's important to remember that the four evangelists never intended to write biographies; they were witnesses who wrote testimonies of their faith. The Holy Spirit had them include just enough biographical information about Jesus to support that faith and show Jesus as the fulfillment of Scripture. Unfortunately it would seem our homilist also completely disregards the rather important role of the Holy Spirit in the development of Holy Scripture. Either that or He doesn't trust the Spirit to speak the truth either.

I suppose if Pontius Pilate or Herod Antipas or Caiaphas or all three had left us their impressions of Jesus, our theology professor would have given these more weight than the Gospels.

"You can't understand the Gospel unless you have a strong grasp of the cultural, political, and religious aspects of life in first century Palestine." -- Moral theologian during a lecture on "Morality in the Gospels" (1996)

This is one of those statements that, to the educated person, sounds fine at first...until you think about it from a perspective of faith. Believe it or not, the Gospels were not written for theologians or Scriptural scholars. They were written for all of us -- for the wise and the not so wise, for the rich man and the beggar, and for the the educated and the illiterate. Yes, the Gospels were written even for the illiterate, for those unable to read them. My own first exposure to the Gospels came before I had learned to read, largely from my father who would regularly read or recite Gospel passages to my brother and me. And do you know something? Even as a child I could grasp the essential meaning of much of what I had heard.

Too many scholars get so wrapped up in the cultural and political particulars of the setting that they fail to grasp the timelessness of the Gospel message. And it is this message that the average Christian will usually comprehend without access to all that specialist knowledge. Yes, the Gospel can enlighten the mind, but through the mysterious working of the Holy Spirit it moves the hearts of all who approach it with humility and faith.

Enough for now. The grandchildren are calling for Papa, so I must respond. More later...

God's peace...