Modern and Traditional Methods of Reading Scripture

Traditional and modern methods of reading Scripture, it seems to me, are compatible. For a helpful introduction to the ancient Christian practice of lectio divina, try that of Luke Dysinger.  For a defense of a religiously sensitive reading of the Bible in the historical-critical mode, try that of Marc Zvi Brettler. 

On the other hand, I think that traditional methods of reading Scripture are often more respectful of Scripture than modern methods. Modern appropriation of Scripture, while necessary if one lives in modernity in a way a Yeshiva bocher or an Amish farmer does not, almost inevitably distorts the sense of the text to a greater degree than traditional rabbinic or traditional Christian appropriation. It need not be so, of course: the best modern historical exegesis defends the biblical text from ancient and modern mis-readers alike.   

The historical approach to the study of the Bible in the best sense of the word is a magnificent intellectual adventure, an act of devotion in its own right.

It is doubtful, nonetheless, that a modern reader will ever match a rabbinic or patristic reader's utter familiarity with the details of the text. In the same way, the immersion of Luther and Calvin in the biblical text saved them from errors of ignorance frequent today. UPDATE: Kevin Edgecomb weighs in with a thoughtful post.

Comments

[Angela Erisman]

Hi John,

Great post, and so thought provoking! I like the balance you advocate between traditional and modern critical reading strategies. I have to disagree, though, with your suggestion that modern readings of Scripture, however valuable they may be, distort the sense of the text more than rabbinic interpretation. I think the two simply have different goals. What you're saying here sounds to me like suggesting that medieval grammarians know biblical Hebrew better than we do. I'd be the last to underestimate the continued value of this literature (Qimhi, Ibn Ezra, etc.) for understanding biblical Hebrew. These are important voices worth paying attention to. But there are points where we do, in light of modern comparative semitics, understand it better. I'd love to write my own post on Imaginary Grace about this, but it should include specific examples and I just haven't the time to put that together right now. Maybe soon I will.

Like you, I wouldn't put one inherently above the other. I think it depends on what you're after and what's the best tool to get you there.

[JohnFH]

Angela,

I look forward to you posting on these matters. You touch on points I discussed cursorily at best.

I wish you well with your writing.

[Chariots of Fire 4]

I completely agree with the post. I have noticed often that the scripture is taken out of context and I think it should be more respectful like the traditional methods