Historical scholarship and theological interpretation in conversation

Program / Course 4: Biblical Studies and Hermeneutics / Lesson 6.4

What you will learn

• Describe the tension between historical and theological readings of Scripture.
• Name some modern proposals for bringing them together.
• Explain the idea of a hermeneutic of faith and a hermeneutic of suspicion.
• Practice a short procedure that lets each kind of reading question the other.

The big idea

Historical scholarship asks what a text meant in its first setting. Theological interpretation asks what the text says about God and how it should be heard as Scripture by the church. For about two centuries these two have often been seen as rivals. Many scholars and churches now try to bring them into conversation, so that history disciplines theology and theology gives history its larger questions. The aim is not to blend them into one method, but to let each question the other honestly.

Key terms

Theological interpretation

Reading Scripture as the word of God for the church, attending to what it says about God and the Christian life, and using the church’s creeds and tradition as guides.

Biblical theology

The study of the teaching of the Bible, whether of one author, one Testament or the whole. Its relation to historical study and to doctrine is debated.

Hermeneutic of suspicion

An attitude that questions a text’s claims and looks for hidden interests, power or distortion. The phrase is associated with the philosopher Paul Ricoeur.

Hermeneutic of faith

An attitude that approaches the text expecting to hear a word from God, and trusts it provisionally while still asking questions.

Rule of faith

The summary of Christian belief that guided early readers of Scripture, later expressed in the creeds.

Demythologizing

Rudolf Bultmann’s program of interpreting the New Testament’s mythical world picture in terms of human existence. It is much debated.

Dogmatics

The systematic statement of the church’s teaching. Also called systematic theology.

Background

In 1787 the German scholar Johann Philipp Gabler argued that biblical theology should be a historical discipline, separate from dogmatic theology, describing what each biblical writer believed in his own time. The proposal helped to free biblical study from being used only to prove doctrines, and it opened the way to serious historical work. It also began a long separation between the study of the Bible and the study of doctrine, one that has left many pastors and students feeling that the two do not speak to each other.

In the twentieth century, figures with very different views tried to close the gap. Karl Barth, a Swiss Reformed theologian, argued in the preface to his commentary on Romans that historical criticism is a necessary preparation but that real interpretation must press on to the subject matter of the text, God’s word. Rudolf Bultmann sought to translate the New Testament message for modern readers. Later, Brevard Childs and others developed canonical and theological approaches, as seen in earlier lessons.

In the Catholic church, Pope Benedict XVI, writing as a scholar and as pope, called for a reading that uses the historical method fully and also reads the Bible as one book within the living faith of the church. His apostolic exhortation Verbum Domini of 2010 speaks of the need for a method that does not stop at the historical dimension. Orthodox and Protestant scholars have made similar calls in their own ways.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: See what each kind of reading does best

Historical scholarship does several things well. It checks the text, clarifies the language, restores the setting and reveals the diversity of the biblical voices. It helps to prevent a reader from making Scripture say whatever is convenient. Theological interpretation also does something well. It asks what the text tells us about God, the world and ourselves, and it reads the parts in light of the whole canon and the creed. It keeps the purpose of Scripture in view, which is to lead to faith and life.

Each kind of reading can fail when it goes alone. History alone can end in a catalogue of what ancient people believed, with no word for the present. Theology alone can end in reading the Bible only for what is already believed, so that the text never surprises. The tasks complement each other.

Step 2: Understand the two attitudes

Ricoeur described two attitudes toward a text. In a hermeneutic of suspicion, the reader asks what the text may be hiding or serving: whose interests does it protect, and what has been left out? In a hermeneutic of faith, or of trust, the reader listens for the message, expecting to be addressed. Each has a place. Scripture itself invites suspicion of false teachers and self-deception, and the prophets criticize religion that becomes hollow. And every serious reader trusts the text enough to read it patiently.

A sound practice is to hold both: to trust enough to listen and to question enough not to be deceived, especially about one’s own motives. Christians in every tradition would add that the church’s prayer and repentance are part of the discipline of reading.

Step 3: Look at some proposals

Several proposals aim at conversation. Childs proposed reading the final form of the canon with history in service. The movement called theological interpretation of Scripture, with scholars such as Kevin Vanhoozer, Stephen Fowl and others from various traditions, seeks to recover the older Christian habit of reading Scripture with the creeds and the fathers while using modern tools. The Catholic Pontifical Biblical Commission in 1993 approved the historical-critical method as indispensable but insufficient, and urged attention to the church’s tradition and the literary and canonical readings.

Orthodox theologians such as Georges Florovsky called for a return to the fathers, a neo-patristic synthesis, while accepting that modern scholarship has much to contribute. Jewish scholars such as Jon Levenson have argued that historical criticism has often assumed Christian categories and that it should learn from Jewish ways of reading. These are different proposals, with different strengths, and they remain under discussion.

Step 4: Try a conversation

For a given passage, work in order. First, ask the historical questions: what did it mean in its time, according to the best evidence? Then ask the theological questions: what does this passage say about God, and how does it connect to the whole of Scripture and the church’s faith? Then let each question the other. Does the historical result complicate the traditional reading? Does the traditional reading raise a question the historians have not asked? Write down what remains in tension and do not hurry to resolve it.

This procedure can be used by a student of any tradition. It will not produce agreement among traditions, but it will help each to state its reading honestly and to hear the questions of the others.

1. What does the passage mean in its historical setting?
2. What does the passage say about God and about the life of faith?
3. How does the church’s tradition read it, and why?
4. Where do the historical and theological readings agree, and where do they pull apart?
5. What am I trusting, and what am I questioning?
6. What would change my mind?

Examples

Different perspectives

Catholic

The Catholic Church holds that historical study is necessary and that a full interpretation also reads in the unity of Scripture, the living tradition and the analogy of faith. The 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and Pope Benedict’s writings are central statements.

Orthodox

Orthodox theologians welcome the findings of scholarship when they illuminate the text, but hold that the final context for understanding Scripture is the church’s life in the Spirit. Many call for a patristic approach that engages modern questions with the mind of the fathers.

Protestant

Protestants range from those who largely embrace historical criticism to those who reject its assumptions. Barth, Childs, and many evangelicals call for theological reading informed by history, and the field of theological interpretation has grown from Protestant and Catholic scholars working together.

Jewish

Jewish scholars emphasize that the Hebrew Bible is first of all the Scripture of Israel, and that reading it only as a prelude to the New Testament distorts it. Some argue that Jewish ways of reading, attending to commentary and tradition, offer a model for combining historical and theological concerns.

Secular and critical scholars

Many scholars argue that historical study should be free of theological commitments, to keep it honest. Others reply that no one reads from nowhere and that being open about one’s commitments is better than pretending to neutrality. The disagreement itself is part of the conversation.

Why it matters

Most of the confusion about the Bible in modern life comes from setting history and faith against each other. If you can hold them in conversation, you are better equipped to read with integrity and to speak with those who emphasize one side. This lesson also prepares you for the last module, in which you will practice combining the methods in a full exegesis.

Common misunderstandings

Knowledge check

Think it through

1. Have you tended to emphasize history or theology in your own reading, and why?
2. How might a historical finding challenge a tradition you hold, and how would you respond?
3. How might a theological conviction lead you to ask a question that historians neglect?
4. What would you need to see in a scholar before trusting his or her reading of a passage that matters to you?

Independent assignment

A conversation on one passage

Choose a passage that matters to you, such as Isaiah 53, Psalm 22 or Luke 24:13-35. In your notebook, write 150 words from a historical point of view and 150 words from a theological point of view, using the steps in this lesson. Then write 150 words on where the two readings help or challenge each other, and what remains unresolved. Keep your work in your notebook.

Further study

• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Hermeneutics Read for the history of the discipline and the modern debates about meaning and the reader.
• Alister E. McGrath, Christian Theology: An Introduction Read the sections on Scripture and tradition for a fair overview of the three major traditions.
• N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God Read selectively as an example of a historical argument made with theological awareness.
• Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion Read the opening for the idea of faith seeking understanding.
• Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (5 volumes) Read for how doctrine and interpretation developed together.
• Luke 24:27 Jesus interprets the Scriptures concerning himself.
• Acts 8:30 Philip asks if the Ethiopian understands what he reads.
• 1 Thessalonians 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.