Often the word “Bible” and the word “Scripture” are used interchangeably. One talks about reading the Bible and reading Scripture as meaning the same thing. Yet as Joel Green argues, when one is reading the Bible it does not necessarily follow that one is reading the Bible as Scripture (Green 3). The difference lies in the aim or purpose. To interpret the Bible is to discover what it meant in order to figure out what it means. Interpreting the Bible treats the text as an object to be dissected. To interpret Scripture is to engage the text in a way that allows it to shape a person’s identity (Green 5). To interpret Scripture is to recognize its function and purpose as being primarily that of character formation.
It is completely possible to read and interpret the Bible without being a Christian. It is even possible to interpret the Bible accurately without ever claiming to believe in what the text claims. Interpreting the Bible in this sense is akin to reading the Bible as one would read any other book. Interpreting the Bible would be no different than interpreting Homer’s Iliad. This approach to interpreting the Bible is in a large part due to the influence of the modern scientific methods on the interpretive process, which insists on objectivity. This quest for objectivity tends to turn the biblical material into an object to be examined (Green 13). It is after information, not transformation. On the other hand, the interpretation of Scripture is after transformation.
The interpretation of Scripture begins not with the quest for objectivity, but with the recognition that one is approaching the process of interpretation from very specific biases with very clear presuppositions. The Scripture is read and interpreted as God’s word, not merely as one more piece of literature among many. The Scripture is read and interpreted recognizing our theological purposes and prejudices. The Scripture is read and interpreted as a Christian (Green 5-6). Yet even here, the Scripture is not read and interpreted merely as a means to discover doctrinal or theological nuggets; it is interpreted to shape and form character.
It should be noted that the formation of the Christian canon was not the function of an Ecumenical council deciding which texts were authoritative and should be included. Rather, it was the recognition of how certain texts were already functioning authoritatively because of the formative role they played within the community of faith (Thompson 3). It was, and is, Scripture’s role in forming character that is the basis of Scripture’s authority. This formative function of Scripture is also indispensible for the evaluation of the interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the church, as interpreter of Scripture, must look for ways to embody its interpretation in “worship, practices, and responses toward others” (Thompson 12). Joel Green notes that, “Narrative is not just a ‘story’ but also an ‘action’” (Green 168).
Interpreting the Bible is about distilling information from a text. It treats the text as a repository of facts—historical, doctrinal, or theological. It requires no faith investment on the reader’s part. As a matter of fact, it prefers it that way. Interpreting the Bible is over once the meaning has been located and extracted. Interpreting Scripture, on the other hand, approaches the interpretive process from an unabashedly Christian perspective. It recognizes its theological presuppositions as integral to the interpretive process. It invites the interpreter to think with the Scriptures, not about them (Green 59). Interpreting Scripture invites response. Without response the interpretive processes is incomplete.
*Green, Joel B. Seized by Truth: Reading the Bible as Scripture. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2007.
*Thompson, Richard P. “Scripture, Community and Conversation: Rethinking Theological Interpretation Canonically.” Richard P. Thompson. 2007.
No comments:
Post a Comment