A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation

Bartholomew, Craig G., Thomas, Heath A.

• Publisher: Baker Academic
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781493403424
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Crítica e interpretación bíblicas

Recent decades have witnessed a renaissance of theological interpretation. Craig Bartholomew, coauthor of the bestselling The Drama of Scripture, and Heath Thomas bring together a team of specialists to articulate a multifaceted vision for returning rigorous biblical interpretation to the context of the church. Developed by the internationally recognized Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar, this book is designed to bring clarity and unity to the enterprise of theological interpretation. It positively integrates multiple approaches to interpreting the Bible, combining academic rigor with pastoral sensitivity for professors, students, and church leaders.

1
The History and Reemergence of Theological Interpretation

Angus Paddison

Introduction: The Marks of the History and Reemergence of Theological Interpretation

In expounding my contribution to the Manifesto, it is necessary to speak both of the history and the reemergence of theological interpretation. In other words, we need to see what theological interpretation has been in the life of the church, what it is now, and what it might be and become. This latter feature is why this book is a Manifesto for theological interpretation: with due humility, the intention is to propose a future for theological interpretation. The history and reemergence of theological interpretation are closely linked: one of the features of the reemergent theological interpretation in recent years has been its desire to be fed by the long history of how the Bible has been read in the church catholic. We therefore can say that theological interpretation of Scripture, as with the Christian life more generally, has a past, a present, and a future orientation.1

What is to be understood by the term “theological interpretation”? Theological interpretation, theological hermeneutics, and theological reading are all notoriously slippery and porous categories to define.2 If we consider the topic that is the subject of this particular Manifesto—theological interpretation—only in vain will one look for a single definition of what counts as theological interpretation, which is probably not surprising if we recall that what counts as “theological” is hardly uncontested territory either.3 Nevertheless, in what many call the most significant development in contemporary theology—the breaking down of what Brevard Childs famously called the “iron curtain” separating theological work and biblical reasoning—it is possible to pick out some recurrent themes, or what I will term “marks” of theological interpretation.4 After introducing the marks briefly, in this chapter I will unpack them (understanding them as porous one to the other) by highlighting attendant risks and opportunities for the theological interpretation that is reemerging in our time. In this way we will sketch proposals for the future of theological interpretation of Scripture. But before setting out the marks of theological interpretation, it is wise to say something about the history of theological interpretation.

When the Manifesto says, “It is not possible to approach the history of the church and its faith without sensitivity to how both have been formed by and with its reading of Scripture,” what is being warned against is any notion that theological interpretation is something that relies on professional theologians like Karl Barth to resurrect. Theological interpretation has never been entirely lost in the church. The history of the church is, to a large extent, the history of its engagement with the scriptural text. Theological interpretation is not something that theology has discovered in the last half of the twentieth century. Instead, theological interpretation is a conversation with the texts as instrumental to the divine will, a dialogue that theology has started to contribute toward again, a conversation that never truly ceased in the church. Thus, as I say in the Manifesto, “theological interpretation of Scripture can be cast as rejoining an enduring conversation to which modern theology and biblical studies gradually ceased contributing.” Some examples illustrate how theological interpretation is about rejoining a conversation and extending a history. When Barth undertook his incendiary work in rereading Romans, a key resource for the kind of reading he wanted to adopt was the hermeneutics of John Calvin. In the Brazos Theological Commentary series, a strong emphasis on the figural reading of the Old Testament text is evident: the conviction so important to the history of the church, that the Old Testament texts are to be read christocentrically, has emerged again with clarity.5 Finally, I could point to my theological interpretation of 1 Thessalonians as a reading of the text that requires an engagement with the historical readings of Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin; I undertook a reading for today by conversing with fellow biblical exegetes such as Cyril of Alexandria and Athanasius, as well as a range of biblical texts.6

What unites each of these three examples is not just a desire to be fed by the history of theological interpretation, but also a sense that historical criticism is a resource that, although valuable, is not in itself sufficient for the task of interpreting Scripture theologically. Equally, there is a strong impulse that biblical scholars need to be supplemented by other conversation partners (alive and dead) if we are to understand the texts as divine communication. The theological interpretation that has reemerged in our time has been motivated by a sense that the interests of historical criticism in the genesis of texts needs to be supplemented by a reengagement with the church’s history of reading the text. Walter Wink gave powerful metaphorical articulation to this disenchantment with historical criticism when he labeled it a “bankrupt” resource.7 With a sense that the history of theological interpretation is vital to understanding what is reemerging in our time, we can now try to identify theological interpretation’s marks with more precision.

Mark 1. A theological interpretation of Scripture (TIS) approaches Scripture expecting to be addressed. This theme of Scripture as address is articulated forcefully in Heath Thomas’s contribution to the Manifesto asserting that the aim of TIS is to hear God’s voice. God in Scripture speaks, and the church listens for his voice each time it gathers in worship. With no illusions regarding the complex implications of the claim, Rowan Williams reminds us that “the Bible is the territory in which Christians expect to hear God speaking.”8 Although Scripture is always mediated through the life of the church catholic, and although Scripture is always webbed in the contexts of its readers, Scripture is never entirely absorbed into our proximate contexts. Scripture always contains the promise of being heard as an exterior word and precisely as an instrument of the gospel; it is good news. Yet news to be news needs not to be just exterior to the hearer; it also needs to be...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Endorsements
• Contents
• Preface
• A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation
• 1. The History and Reemergence of Theological Interpretation
• 2. Doctrine of Scripture and Theological Interpretation
• 3. The Ecclesia as Primary Context for the Reception of the Bible
• 4. Theological Interpretation and Historical Criticism
• 5. The Role of Hermeneutics and Philosophy in Theological Interpretation
• 6. The Canon and Theological Interpretation
• 7. Biblical Theology and Theological Interpretation
• 8. Mission and Theological Interpretation
• 9. The Telos (Goal) of Theological Interpretation
• 10. A Framework for Theological Interpretation
• 11. Theological Commentary
• 12. Theological Interpretation for All of Life
• Contributors
• Scripture Index
• Subject Index
• Back Cover