Considering that the Euro-American (Western) way of reading and interpreting the Bible has been the dominant one in the last several centuries, I think that it would be appropriate to consider this particular hermeneutic before continuing on with other ways of interpreting and reading Scripture.
Let me begin by saying what I've said before, i.e. that there is no "universally valid" way of reading the Bible. We all come to the Bible from our respective social locations.
There are two prevalent means of approaching the Bible in the Euro-American community.
One is called lower (some prefer to call it textual) criticism. This approach involves comparing the existing manuscripts to determine which ones most accurately reflect what the original documents (autographs) of the Bible contained. Manuscripts (handwritten copies) vary in length and content. The various translations that we have of the Bible are based on the manuscripts, and depending on which manuscript the translators have used, the particular translation will reflect the length and content of the biblical message. In the more conservative or "evangelical" wing of the Church, those who subscribe to this approach, tend to believe in the divine inspiration of the Bible, and believe that the Bible is the "authoritative Word of God," and the primary (for some only) source of faith and practice. Because the Bible is "divinely inspired," according to this view, it is also inerrant and infallible in the original autographs, but not necessarily in the manuscripts (hand-written copies), or the translations which are based on the manuscripts.
Another approach which began in the seventeenth century and became popular in the nineteenth century in the Western Church was that known as the "historical-critical" approach, or as some would define it as "higher criticism." This approach to biblical interpretation entailed questions of authorship, date, audience, reason for writing, sources of information, styles of writing, types of literature, and whether or not the biblical writers edited or revised anything they said. Those who subscribe to the approach do not necessarily deny the inspiration of the Bible, but do acknowledge that this approach helps us to understand that the Bible is culturally conditioned. This approach enables us to read the Bible in its original cultural and social context, and in a sense, get to "the story behind the story," i.e. that background against which the biblical authors wrote. This approach is used by the more "liberal" churches, i.e. those that are open to a wide variety of biblical interpretation and theological perspectives.
The historical-critical approach has been the dominant one in the majority of Euro-American churches which prize highly the study of comparative religions, history, philosophy, etc. These churches do everything possible to avoid the "quick to verse" approach, i.e. the tendency to quote the Bible without taking its cultural and social context into consideration, that is found among many conservative and evangelical Christians.
The Euro-American churches that use the historical-critical approach to the Bible, believe that this approach can result in a more "universal" reading of Scripture. The major fallacy of this belief, is however, that scholars who use this approach differ among themselves relative to questions of authorship, date, etc. Many who use this approach bring certain presuppositions to their reading of Scripture, such as the belief in the theory of human evolution, an anti-supernatural mindset, etc. They tend to interpret the miracle stories in the Bible in terms of natural happenings.
Because there is a belief that this approach will result in a "universally valid" interpretation of the Bible, there is an attitude, (perhaps a subsconscious one) that the Euro-American biblical hermeneutic is superior to that of other ethnic, national, or social groups. Basically, those who utilize this method, bring their white-middle class assumptions and values into the equation, and therefore, tend to denigrate all other approaches. This has been made possible by the economic, international, political, and social power that Euro-Americans have exerted over others.
If we describe those in power as the "oppressors," and those ruled by those in power as the "oppressed," then what we have is a biblical hermeneutic (interpretation) that is utilized by the oppressors in order to justify the continued subjugation of the oppressed. A perfect example of this would be the slave masters quoting biblical texts that exhort slaves to " be obedient to their masters." Another example would be the white power structure in South Africa telling the blacks that to rebel against "the powers that be" would be a violation of what the Apostle Paul writes in Romans 13 in saying that we should obey the magistrates and that whoever rebels against the authorities, is in essence rebelling against God.
Given world events in recent years, especially revolutions in the so-called Third World against Euro-American powers, and given how some non-Euro-American people have come to power, what would say about the particular approach to biblical interpretation in the Euro-American community? Do you think that the Euro-American biblical hermeneutic is universally valid or is "beauty in the eyes of the beholder?" Should a biblical hermeneutic be considered valid by those in power or by those who are ruled? Please share your perspective on this issue with us.
Dr. Juan A. Ayala-Carmona
I don’t feel qualified to speak on the various approaches to the study of scripture, never having studied the issues in death or at length in a course of study as one would find in a university or seminary setting. But, I’ll respond to your comment about the belief held by some that the historical-critical approach might lead to a more universal reading of the bible. I really think this is not so much about finding universal agreement on names and dates, and such, as on broadening the discussion to take into account the many spheres of knowledge, both historical and comparative, that are available to us. Many of us believe that this approach enriches both our understanding of scripture and our lives. Additionally, this is not so much a belief as more of hope.
ReplyDeleteThe desire to get away from narrow, tribal, restricted and exclusive understanding of scripture was alive and well in the early church, before being actively suppressed, and has been an under current for much of Christian history.
Today it is a growing movement. It seems that many want there lives to be informed by more than just the sin-salvation framework of traditional christianity. You are correct in saying that God never changes and that the bible never changes. What needs to be acknowledge and emphasized is that man’s understanding changes, both over the course of history and during the individual life. Or at least it should (a presupposition?). It is called growth.
A few words about the bible as being divinely inspired. Why is this said? Is it because the bible speaks about our conception of God. Is it because we have agreed that these, and only these, will be our sacred scriptures. Is it so we can distinguish those that are in from those that out? These are all poor reasons for asserting that the bible is the inspired word of God. It is more than that the manuscripts we have today are far from original, that they are translations, and have been influenced by so many variables that we can be certain about only one thing. We need to look deeply for meaning. The listed reasons are poor indeed, because they are about us, about self interest. But think about how in practice those reasons are precisely what result.
There is something more going on in the bible than the surface activity that we point to and quote so ardently and vigorously to show others how much we have memorized and to keep them in line. What is this "Inerrant and infallible” word play other than a way to assert that one interpretation is right and another wrong? It is always about interpretation! The issue is whether the interpretation is one that speaks to Truth or only to our common everyday understanding that transforms nothing, not us, not our lives. Abundant life. That’s what he spoke about and tried to teach us how to attain. If our interpretation does not result in this, we’ve certainly missed something.
Dear friends. Let me make it clear that the reason why I sent my last response as "anonymous" was because of a technical problem in signing these posts. I am Juan Ayala-Carmona, the originator of the posts, and I am very happy to engage in dialogue with all of you. By your input, you have made it clear that you are just as qualified to speak on this issue as anyone else.
ReplyDeleteDear "Unknown:" Thank you so much for your very valuable input. What you say is indeed, very valuable and very important. I certainly appreciate your insight. I should also mention that this dialogue is not exclusively for bible scholars or theologians. The only two requirements for participation are interest and time. Some of us have either one or the other and/or both. Others of us have neither. You have generated some important issues. And you are so, so correct, when you intimate that the intention and thrust of these posts is to broaden the discussion to take into account the various spheres of knowledge. And thank you for pointing out that a growing number of people want something more than just a "sin-salvation" framework in approaching the Scriptures. Your insight about the canon (included and excluded books from the sacred collection) is so appropriate. We certainly need to look deeply for meaning. And as you imply, the approaches that we use many time are about us and our particular agenda in biblical interpretation. I should add that the issue of "inerrant and infallible" refer to the Scriptures themselves and not to the interpretation thereof. However, it can be a "word play," as you indicated, since we no longer have the original document (autographs) if Scripture to determine how accurate the original document was. The affirmation of "inerrant" and "infallible" is an affirmation of faith in the absence of the originals. And yes, at the end of the day, it is about interpretation. We cannot escape that. The minute that we pick up the Bible to read any passage and attempt to make sense out of what that passage is saying, we are involved in interpretation. Again, thank you so much for your valuable contribution.
Grace and peace,
Juan Ayala-Carmona