Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

The Northampton Seminar

Home
Evangelical
Religion News
What is distinctive about a theological approach to the Bible?

What is distinctive about a theological approach to the Bible?

Last updated on: January 8, 2015 at 6:22 pm by Guest Contributor

What is distinctive about a theological approach to the Bible? 2015-01-08T18:22:52-04:00 Guest Contributor

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Friends:

This was in response to scholars who wonder what theology can add to the historical-critical appproach to the Bible.

Gerry

What is distinctive about a theological approach to the Bible?

Gerald McDermott

18 Feb 2011

It goes beyond the historical-critical approach.
1. It uses not only historical criticism, but other hermeneutical approaches in addition.
It recognizes the limitations of historical criticism.
1. The historical-critical approach, as it has been used often since its rise in the 18th and 19th centuries, is based typically on its own presuppositions that cannot be proved and therefore are somewhat arbitrary.

i. Such as the notion, for example, that miracles are impossible, or that God does not intervene in ordinary history

Hence the best approach to accounts of the supernatural in the Bible is to figure out a naturalistic explanation, or to assume that the story is made up to further the author’s theological agenda.

ii. and the idea that the best meaning of a text comes from establishing the original intent of the author.

iii. In most of the history of this modern method it has also been assumed that the historical critic can take a neutral and dispassionate attitude toward the text and its meaning.

More recently some but not all its practitioners have conceded that neutrality is impossible and that every reader, even the best-intentioned historical critic, brings her own biases to a text.

1. Therefore this approach is a tradition of its own, with its own presuppositions and methods, hence with its own faith in certain axioms that cannot be proven with scientific certainty.

i. Most historians have been recognizing this for some decades—that the old ideal of absolute objectivity is a myth.

And that there are many historical methods, none value-free
In other words, there is always a degree of speculation in any historical reconstruction

ii. Therefore the theological interpreter of Scripture welcomes input from historical criticism, but also wants to sift through the work of different historians, recognizing that often historians disagree, and that each era of historiography often revises the conclusions of earlier ones.

Hence the historical interpreter of the Bible needs to speak with humility and provisionally.

The theological approach recognizes that it is a set of books written by faith communities for the purpose of faith.
1. Therefore someone with faith might have certain insights, especially when reading and debating its meaning within a faith community, that might not otherwise obtain.
2. Perhaps a comparable situation obtains when a feminist tries to interpret a feminist work, or a Marxist a Marxist work.

i. Sometimes the view from the inside gives a certain hermeneutical advantage.

while at the same time valuing perspectives from the outside of that faith community—Christian, feminist or Marxist

Theologians when reading Scripture take their cue in part from the apostolic witness, which insists that recognition of the reality of Jesus’ resurrection opens up a new and different perspective on the rest of the Bible
1. “After he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered what he had said and what it meant.” (paraphrase of John 2.21-22)
2. Throughout the NT, authors give new and fresh meaning to OT texts, based on their experience of the crucified and risen Jesus.

i. Often the meanings are somewhat or wholly different from what a historical critic would say was the original intent of the OT author.

ii. So what does the OT text mean?

The theological interpreter might say there is a plurality of meaning
1. The original intent of the author (if that can even be discerned)
2. The NT interpretation of that text
3. The later church’s theological interpretation of the text as it fits into the overall proclamation of the gospel in Christian doctrine.

i. This is equally important for theology, since even in the early church new meaning emerged from liturgical participation in the life of the believing community

“When he was at table with them, he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened . . . “ (Lk 24.30-31)

iii. Thus interpretation of the Bible goes far beyond, but does not exclude, historical interpretation, for the theological interpreter.

In other words, it uses the methods of religious studies methods, but is not limited to them.
It acknowledges the plurality of voices and stories in the Bible, which sometimes appear to conflict with one another (e.g., androcentric and gynocentric perspectives on the story, as in Ruth; stories in which YHW’s direction seems direct and those in which it is hidden, as in Esther; those where evil is explained [Deuteronomy] and those where it is a mystery [Job]; and those asserting Israel’s privilege and those where God has concern for the nations, as in Jonah), but also holds that the best parameters for proper interpretation come from Scripture itself.
1. In other words, this is the recognition that the Bible has its own unique capacity for self-criticism.

Hence the theological interpreter might adopt a hermeneutic of suspicion in initial historical examination of a pericope, but then move on to a hermeneutic of faith as she searches for the meaning of that pericope in a larger canonical context, and then in the theological tradition.
1. Something like Ricoeur’s “second naivete,” in which the interpreter moves from critical understanding to a fresh encounter with the divine reality to which the text points.

i. If not experience of that divine reality, at least understanding of what is being said about that divine reality

Therefore for a theological interpretation of Scripture, there are not one but three contexts in which proper reading takes place:
1. The contemporary context outside the text, including the tradition of recent historical criticism
2. The life of the Christian community as it has engaged and interpreted these texts
3. The reality of Jesus Christ experienced both by the reader and the historic church, as the key to the meaning of both OT and NT texts.

Previous Post

February 12, 2011

Will gay marriage hurt your marriage?

Next Post

February 21, 2011 Jewish-Christian Dialogue Today

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Uncategorized

Select a Month March 2023 November 2022 October 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 November 2021 October 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 July 2020 June 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 August 2019 July 2019 May 2019 April 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010

Follow Us!

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

What does the name "Samuel" mean in Hebrew?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Chosen one Heard by God The Lord is my salvation Servant of the Lord

Related posts from The Northampton Seminar

Jesus and Jewish law

The Northampton Seminar

Interview on what difference Jesus' Jewishness makes and...

The Northampton Seminar

News from Israel--the election and Messianic Jews

The Northampton Seminar

The third rail in conservative churches

The Northampton Seminar

TRENDING AT PATHEOS Evangelical

Creation as Secondary to Judgment

Creating is a most human act. A good canonical (classical) education will...

The REST of Your Life: A Creative Wrestles...

This week I had a conversation with a good friend from church....

Nuggets of Wisdom—Fall 2026

Every few months or so I like to share quotes that I...

How the author of the world's best hymn...

I've been working with John Newton for a while now. This makes...

Psalm 130 | Lectio Divina

Long before this Lectio Divina, Psalm 130 - the song - started...

What About the Trees? Another Living Parable

After I finished writing the last article about falling leaves as a...

view all Evangelical blogs

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Copyright 2008-2026, Patheos. All rights reserved.

Subscription Support Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In

Follow Patheos