The historical study of Scripture is not enough

Peter Enns has begun blogging about his take on Scripture. His views on Scripture – rightly or wrongly understood – recently led to his suspension from the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. (Go here, here, and here for more on the controversy). In this post, I describe what I consider to be a weakness, not necessarily in Peter’s actual approach to Scripture, but in the rhetorical strategy he adopts in defense of it.

In an undated post, Peter makes a 2007 article of his published in the Calvin Theological Journal available in PDF Format (before you print, make sure to put the DPI at the max). The article is a cogently reasoned defense of the practice of reading the Bible historically, against the background of its historical contexts insofar as they are known.

As Enns rightly notes, comparative historical studies have led to a sea-change on the exegetical level with respect to a passage, for example, like Genesis 1:1-2:4. Until recently, in evangelical circles - equivalents in non-Protestant contexts might easily be cited - people might look to defensive treatments by  W. H. Green or E. J. Young for insights into the book of Genesis. Now confident, contextual approaches of a Bruce Waltke, John Walton, or a Tremper Longman more often carry the day (p. 234 of the original article; for full references, go there).

As much as I appreciate the contextual approach, I am left with a question: is a historical take on Scripture the be-all and end-all of the interpretation of the Bible in a confessional setting? The answer is obviously: no.

There is another, more important way of reading Scripture as Scripture. It is a-historical in nature. It involves reading Scripture in light of itself. It involves reading one passage in light of all others in a sort of timeless dialogue within the framework of a metanarrative – sometimes referred to as a regula fidei – which is itself derived from Scripture.

Now, when Peter Enns reads Scripture, does he recognize the need, from a confessional point of view, to read the Bible “a-historically” as well as historically. I’m sure he does. But I don’t see him pointing that out. He needs to.

It could be argued that a confessional reading of Scripture is just as historical in its own way as is reading Scripture against the background of its ancient contexts. Okay, but the distinction remains of capital significance.

A confessional reading of scripture is holistic in nature. On the one hand, it will be historically informed. That is, it will be backward-looking, reading scripture in light of everything, culturally speaking, that preceded it.

On the other hand, it will be canonically informed and confessionally oriented. A passage like Genesis 1:1-2:4 will be interpreted in the context of all of scripture and in critical conversation with a confessionally defined history of interpretation. That is, it will be forward-looking.

Here is my foolish, uninformed take on the debate. Biblical scholars are giving the false impression that the interpretation of scripture from the point of view of systematic theology is superfluous, perhaps even docetic. Well, it often is. But it needn’t be. There is no greater need in both church and synagogue today than a holistic reading of scripture.

Is it possible to read the Tanakh as such today, in an educated up-to-date setting, without recourse to both ancient Near Eastern studies and Talmud, Targum, Midrash, and Miqraot Gedolot? I don’t think so.

Is it possible to read the Old and New Testaments as such today, in an educated up-to-date setting, without recourse to both the study of the ancient Near East and Greco-Roman antiquity and the history of biblical interpretation stretching from within the Bible itself to Irenaeus, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Jerome, and Augustine, all the way down to the present day? I don’t think so.

For another attempt to describe the divide within the Reformed camp, go here (HT: Ros Clarke).

Comments

[steve martin]

Hi John,
You said:
"Now, when Peter Enns reads Scripture, does he recognize the need, from a confessional point of view, to read the Bible “a-historically” as well as historically. I’m sure he does. But I don’t see him pointing that out. He needs to."

I’m not sure this is an entirely fair criticism. For example, from his just posted article on biblical authority he states:

“How this authoritative Scripture translates to different times and places, in both its timeless affirmations and contextualized particularity is (I trust this is not too reductionistic) the task of theological study.”

I believe he states similar sentiments in other places. The point is that yes, he does emphasize the historical context of scripture, just as he emphasizes the humanity of scripture. He places the emphasis here because Evangelicals have traditionally placed all their focus on the timelessness & divinity of scripture. Peter is simply trying to reset the balance, not deny these truths.

[JohnFH]

I'm sure you're right, Steve.

But "how Scripture translates to different times and places" cannot be a task left to one side by the exegete who takes the incarnational analogy seriously. It cannot be the task left over for the (systematic) theologian - whose hands are full with other things.

OT scholars in particular need to do more than just nod to the necessity of confessionally oriented exegetical reflection. They need to practice it themselves. In the context of commentary, it needs to become more common to cover all the bases: a treatment of the text in historical-critical terms, in canonical terms, in light of a regula fidei, and in terms of a confessionally defined (or not) history of interpretation.

It could very well be the case that beyond what I've read (I & I and little more), Peter engages in confessionally oriented, theological exegesis. I think if he had done that consistently and with the same amount of passion he puts into historically oriented exegesis, he would not have run into the problems he has.

I'm not blaming him in the least. There isn't even a decent Ph.D. program available yet that trains people to do theological exegesis.

What once was a holistic enterprise, for example in Calvin, is now divided up among specialists. That's inevitable. But there needs to be generalists in the distinct subdisciplines (OT, NT, history of interpretation, historical theology, systematic theology) building bridges.

[Alan Lenzi]

"There is another, more important way of reading Scripture as Scripture. It is a-historical in nature. It involves reading Scripture in light of itself. It involves reading one passage in light of all others in a sort of timeless dialogue within the framework of a metanarrative – sometimes referred to as a regula fidei – which is itself derived from Scripture." It involves fooling oneself into believing that what one pulls out of the text is actually there, or worse, was made real to you at that moment by the holy spirit.

Your ahistorical reading doesn't really ever happen since all interpretation is itself culturally situated. Even when people think they are in dialogue with a metanarrative, interpreting scripture with scripture, or "in the spirit" they are in fact positing questions that their situatedness in space and time, their concerns, has suggested to them. Traditions don't stand still. Religion and theology are not timeless.

IT'S ALL ABOUT HISTORY, John.

Positing an extra "ahistorical" layer as you do is an attempt to eschew the obvious and provide theological justification / insulation for (human) existential experiences. I'm not against EEs--we all have 'em. But your idea of ahistorical reading sounds like fancy talk for "me and my Bible" spirituality. And that's a Petri dish for all kinds of anti-intellectual drivel (witness Fundamentalism) or authoritarian proclamations (witness Galileo).

I realize you're not denying the historical side of reading, which thankfully has closed the door on a lot of nonsense. But your ahistorical reading just opened a window.

[JohnFH]

I'm fine, Alan, with the notion that all interpretation is situated, yada, yada. Nothing I said was meant to imply otherwise.

By "timeless," I meant "timeless" in the same sense as the Constitution or the Bill of Rights are treated as containing timeless truths in jurisprudence. You can call that a fiction if you wish - some legal scholars do - but it is a fiction no one wants to give up.

Your EE's, insofar as you control things, are not inscribed in any way within the charmed circle of a particular religious tradition in which God speaks through scripture. Fine. And of course you're right that religious traditions are Petri dishes in which all kinds of nasty things grow.

Many others noted that fact before you and me. Some of them, entire social movements, have tried to build alternatives to religion based on that correct observation.

So far as I can see, the new Petri dishes have turned out to be just as vile if not more so than the old ones, and have not even produced great literature, art, or music in the process.

To each his own Petri dish.

[dave b]

The I&I debate aside, I quite like the direction this post points us. I couldn’t agree more with your statement that “A confessional reading of scripture is holistic in nature”…how to do that with integrity is another matter.

With regard to your confessional reading, perhaps to your “backward-looking” (historically oriented) and “forward-looking” (history of interpretation—which is also in a way backward looking) you could add the need for a nuanced interpretation of contemporary culture in light of Scripture. It seems as though one of the big problems with the church today is a capitulation to culture, stemming from a lack of critical engagement.

You write:

“OT scholars in particular need to do more than just nod to the necessity of confessionally oriented exegetical reflection. They need to practice it themselves. In the context of commentary, it needs to become more common to cover all the bases: a treatment of the text in historical-critical terms, in canonical terms, in light of a regula fidei, and in terms of a confessionally defined (or not) history of interpretation.”

Bravo, John! When can we expect a commentary like this from you? There is quite a bit of stuff being published as so-called "theological interpretation" but quite a bit of it seems to be found wanting. To be fair, with the differentiation not only across disciplines but also within disciplines a kind of holistic confessional reading is very hard to do—perhaps more academic work in community can help to an extent to overcome this.

[JohnFH]

Dave,

thanks for your insights.

I dream of doing what you say for the Psalms and Isaiah. Reliable resources on which one might base the work are now available.

And yes, the last thing we need is more theological commentary whose bottom line is simply a refried version of political correctness of the right or the left.

[Jim Getz]

is a historical take on Scripture the be-all and end-all of the interpretation of the Bible in a confessional setting?
no.

I think the lesson learned from the Enns affair is that the historical take on Scripture is still grounds for dismissal from a confessional setting....

[JohnFH]

Maybe that's right, Jim.

But for Westminster's sake, I pray the battle will be fought along other lines.

[Phil Sumpter]

I had a wonderful experience yesterday. The Catholic faculty at the university of Bonn invited Prof. Schwienhorst-Schönberger, a representative of a growing minority of "canonical interpreters" in Germany, to lead a Studientag. He gave two papers saying stuff very much along the lines of what you have said, criticising historical criticism for missing an integral part of the text itself and its inability to speak to contemporary spiritual needs. Between papers the Fachgruppen met to discuss what he said: biblical theological, church historical and systematic theological. There was feed back and response. Amazing, considering the fact that Bonn is a stronghold of classic historical criticism!

Needless to say, the biblical theologians - who were actually the primary addressees, were the most critical (scientific objectivity and our ability to be taken seriously by the sciences in general were their primary concern). Nevertheless, I was surprised to see how seriously he was taken and am hopeful that things will change. I personally believe that God is at work in his church and that things are changing. I'm hopeful about these developments, as the church as got more serious things to worry than whether we identify a struggle between polytheism and monotheism in Genesis 18 (an example given by one of the professors for how historical criticism can make a positive theological contribution).

[JohnFH]

Phil,

thank you for your hopeful remarks. I see some positive signs as well. Indeed, your blog is one of them.