Biblical Interpretation III

We’ve been talking about Biblical interpretation, with the aim toward figuring out how us we can possibly relate to texts written in another time and place, by people from other cultures. We’ve mentioned several possibilities: (1) you take the church’s word for what it means; (2) you don’t admit it’s a problem, and rely on a literal understanding of Scripture; or (3) you use historical and literary strategies for understanding the texts. If the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) had any official stance on biblical interpretation, it would be this third option, and it’s my feeling that it is the best way to read and truly understand scripture. So let’s take a quick look at these interpretive tools.

The major task of historical criticism is to answer the “who, when, where, why” questions. The “who” question tries to answer who the author and his/her audience was. Pharisee Paul saw the world very differently from Gentile Luke; the theology reflected in their writings is very different as well. The “when” question relates to what was going on in the world when the text was written. For example, part of Isaiah was written before the destruction of the Northern Kingdom and the rest several centuries later. The “where” question deals with the social/cultural milieu in which the text was written. What was the standard-of-living, family-structure of the community at the time? Finally, the “why” question deals with the purpose of the text. Paul’s letters were written to individual churches regarding specific problems; the Gospels were was written— in part—to answer the question of who and what Jesus was.

Historical criticism tries to get at what a text meant when it was written, literary criticism attempts to understand what meaning it carries in its present form. Characteristic questions from this field include what kind of rhetoric is the author using, and how does that support the thesis? Are repeating structures and framing devices apparent? Does the author use—like Paul—classical Greek rhetorical devices? What kind of literature is the text? Is it poetry (e.g., Song of Solomon, Psalms)? A hymn fragment (e.g., Philippians 2:5-11) or narrative (John 4:1-42)? Finally, what kind of response does the text attempt to elicit in its readers? Is it trying to provoke surprise? Dismay? Chagrin?

All of these questions—both historical and literary—affect our 21^st-century interpretation of scripture. But do we all have to become biblical scholars to critically read scripture? Do we all have to go to seminary or bible college to understand the text? I don’t think so . . . there are very good study bibles available to guide serious Bible study. Two I recommend are the Harper Collins Study Bible (HarperCollins, New York, 1993) and The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Revised Edition (Oxford University Press, 2001). There are also excellent studies of individual books; Westminster/John Knox has a series, as does Abingdon Press. Finally, our denomination spends a lot of money training pastors to be competent at biblical interpretation. A large part of our training is in the original languages, history of the ancient world, and current scholarly consensus. The PCUSA requires that each congregation hire a seminary-trained pastor to be a resource in biblical interpretation, not just on Sunday mornings, but at any time. If you have a question about the meaning of any passage, or a quibble about how I interpret one on Sunday morning, do not hesitate to come see me. It’s what I’m here for.