Historical criticism, as a general school of thought, seeks to reconstruct ‘the original meaning’, through history, archaeology, textual analysis (grammar, form, etc), author intent, redaction criticism and so on. In a sense this is no different from any other historically oriented discipline. Any historian, archaeologist, sociologist, anthropologist and so on, wants to get back to the original, unsullied, state. I don’t deny that there is value to be found in these approaches but they have, in my opinion, a major flaw – they assume, in many cases, a single ‘truth’ can be discovered. The sheer number of opinions on any given topic gives the lie to that optimistic outlook.

More recent literary approaches are very appealing (and I tend in that direction I must admit) with their focus on ‘the text’ as we have it and reader-response to it. In many respects they are a great leveller. They allow anyone to approach scripture without the need for any scholarly mediator. But they do open the door to an interpretational free-for-all. After all, I would suggest that there has never been a time when scripture has not been interpreted through the light of scholarly learning. Does that mean it should always be the case? I’m not sure. To maintain that position denies the work of the Spirit in interpretation and inspiration when we read the Bible.

Anyway, the discussion brought up the issue that texts, very often, use other texts for their own purposes. The lecturer (Larry Hurtado) gave an example of re-use which, I think, considerably undermines classic historical criticism. It wasn’t a textual example, but the principle still stands, I would suggest. Larry has, in his office, a paperweight. It’s a polished up railway spike and he originally took it because he liked it. Now, imagine some time in the future and a historian or archaeologist is rummaging through Larry’s office and they discover the railway spike. Historical critical methods want to get back to the original meaning so the railway spike is treated as a railway spike. But what’s the connection with a Biblical studies lecturer? Was he a collector of railway memorabilia? Was it a reminder of an earlier ambition to be a train driver? Nonetheless, its ‘meaning’ is still associated with beig a railway spike. You can imagine all sorts of contortions to create a link between the original function and the discovered setting. Ah, but then there is the setting. It was discovered lying in fragments of manuscripts, on the remains of a desk, in an office, so it’s ‘obvious’ that it had assumed a new function. It has been polished at some time (assuming you can determine that) and so it’s reasonable to assume it was decorative. A new use as a paperweight seems an obvious conclusion. So we have a whole new set of possibilities about the ‘meaning’ of the object. It’s merely a ‘tool’; it was just a handy lump of metal to weigh down papers; it represents a period in history where railway memorabilia was fashioned into office equipment. But what was the purpose in all of this? What was the author’s (sorry, Larry’s) intent in all of this? And what is the meaning for us today?

None of this gets close to the original ‘intent’ – he just liked it. It could just has easily have ended up as a decorative piece on a mantelpiece as a paperweight in an office. In a sense, putting it to re-use has confused the issue. The historical-critical method scholar would suggest that the answer lies in its original function. The more contemporary approach would look at the paperweight. Neither would get close to the ‘original meaning’ – it was aesthetically appealing to the person who owned it.

I would still suggest that the contemporary approach is perhaps closer to the ‘truth’ but there are, I’m sure, many examples where this is not the case. And, undoubtedly, the historical data can give us ‘colour’ when we come to consider the meaning.

But these thoughts also highlight a major issue with Biblical scholarship – it becomes/has become an academic exercise to meet its own ends rather than meeting the needs of the faith community it serves (or perhaps doesn’t serve any more). Biblical interpretation has to be more than the merely academic and this is why I lean towards the ‘reader-response’ approach. It has to be relevant to ‘me’ or the faith community I am in. It has to have contemporary use otherwise it does not represent the teachings of a living faith. The danger is that when we cannot find meaning then we discard it. When we do that, we discard and deny a critical aspect of our faith – the presence of the Spirit as guide and interpreter.

Share/Bookmark

I had two classes yesterday (I have one on Friday as well), both quite different. The first was Biblical Interpretation which was the class I tried to get out of but couldn’t. I don’t think it’s going to be as bad as I anticipated. The lecturer (for part of it anyway) is Prof Larry Hurtado. He comes across as a little bit dour when you chat to him but he’s quite animated when lecturing and really quite engaging. Yesterday was just an introductory session so not too heavy going. Mind you, it’s a small classroom and quite a busy class so the problem will be staying awake in a stuffy atmosphere. I’m still not overly taken by the content – it is very similar to the course I took last year and much of the focus is on historical-critical methods of Biblical interpretation, something that was heavily criticised in the course from last year.

The Hebrew Prophecy course should be interesting. Prof Hans Barstad is very knowledgeable but his lecturing style can be very off-putting until you’re familiar with it. He tends to wander off at tangents and it would be easy to switch off until he gets back on track, but there are wonderful little nuggets of teaching in his tangents and, all too often, he doesn’t get back on track. It’s only much later that you realise that, actually, he’s provided you with a lot of information to answer for yourself the question he got sidetracked from in the first place. He spent most of the first class setting out his position for teaching the Hebrew prophets – and it’s most definitely not from a historical-critical perspective, which he panned mercilessly (but I knew this and that’s why I wanted to do the course). However, that didn’t go down well with a couple of class members. One is German and is steeped in the historical-critical methodology. To be fair, he did say he was open to other approaches and I think he will get a lot out of the class. The other is from the US and seems to want the ‘right answers’. At least that’s the impression I got. She’s really not happy at the thought of more literary approaches to the Bible. However, if she gives it a chance she’ll discover that Barstad’s literary approach does not mean a liberal free-for-all in interpretation. A few of us in the class have had Barstad as a lecturer before so we know what to expect. We were chatting about it afterwards and it’s funny how particular lecturing ‘quirks’ stick in your head – and we all remembered the same ones. Maybe that’s a sign that he definitely makes an impression.

And some things never change – the potential for a huge photocopying bill for the reams of reading to be done.

Then just to cap off a busy day, I had to head to St. Andrews for the first of a series of meetings for the Ministries Training Network. This is part of the Church of Scotland training process for candidates. A short time of worship, a half hour Bible passage discussion, tea break and a one hour discussion of a theology article. I’m not altogether sure of what it achieved other than a very late return home and lots more miles on the car. At least the next one should be in Edinburgh.

Share/Bookmark

Anyway, I think I may have identified a few possible areas of study and they cover my two main areas of interest which are Biblical studies and theology.

My main inspiration has come from NT Wright’s ‘Surprised by Hope’. My earlier post on it probably didn’t do justice to just how inspiring I found the book. So, I’ve come up with a few possibilities for further research.

• The scriptural portrayal of heaven.
• The scriptural understanding of resurrection and the ‘new heaven and the new earth’.
• Does a focus on heaven devalue God’s ‘very good’ creation?

They can all be approached theologically or through Biblical interpretation, although the last one has a greater theological bias. Anyway, I’ve fired off my general ideas to a couple of potential supervisors and I’ll see what they have to say.

In the meantime, I need to focus on revision for my forthcoming exams.

Share/Bookmark

Share/Bookmark

Mat 5:14-16 “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden.
Nor do people light a lamp and put it under a basket, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house.
In the same way, let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.

It struck me that the balance of these verses is not that we are light so that we may see, but rather that our light is there to be seen. A tiny candle-flame will be seen for miles on the darkest night for all that it does not cause the path before us to be illuminated. For that we need to bring the light to bear in a much more personal way.

Joh 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”

Share/Bookmark

I then thought about pursuing the line of ‘how the Bible interprets itself’ – but, again, I’ll need to come up with specifics such as how Paul uses particular Hebrew scriptures for example.

But then I had another thought. I’ve been reading N.T. Wright’s ‘Surprised by Hope’ (more on that another time) and found it really fascinating. His main theme is that the western church pretty much ignores the Biblical teaching on ‘the new heavens and the new earth’ to focus on heaven as an end in itself. He discusses the whole idea of resurrection and what it means and it’s got me quite fascinated, so now I’m thinking of following this as a possible avenue of study. To be honest, I could probably still tie it in with theology and all the rest, but, again, it’s a case of narrowing it down to something manageable.

Ho! Hum! something to let stew at the back of the mind for a little while anyway.

Share/Bookmark

You can tell a lot about someone’s theology by watching how they deal with a stop sign:

1. A postmodernist deconstructs the sign (i.e., he knocks it over with his car), thus ending forever the tyranny of the north-south traffic over the east-west traffic.
2. Similarly, a Marxist sees a stop sign as an instrument of class conflict. He concludes that the bourgeoisie use the north-south road and obstruct the progress of the workers on the east-west road.
3. A serious and educated Catholic believes that he cannot understand the stop sign apart from its interpretive community and their tradition. Observing that the interpretive community doesn’t take it too seriously, he doesn’t feel obligated to take it too seriously either.
4. An average Catholic (or Orthodox or Coptic or Anglican or Methodist or Presbyterian or whatever) doesn’t bother to read the sign but he’ll stop if the car in front of him does.
5. A Fundamentalist, taking the text very literally, stops at the stop sign and then waits for it to tell him to go.
6. A preacher might look up “STOP” in his lexicons of English and discover that it can mean either: 1) something which prevents motion, such as a plug for a drain, or a block of wood that prevents a door from closing; or 2) a location where a train or bus lets off passengers. The main point of his sermon the following Sunday on this text is: when you see a stop sign, it is a place where traffic is naturally clogged, so it is a good place to let off passengers from your car.
7. An Orthodox Jew does one of two things:
   1. Takes another route to work that doesn’t have a stop sign so that he doesn’t run the risk of disobeying the halachah (Jewish Law), or
   2. Stops at the stop sign, says “Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, king of the universe, who hast given us thy commandment to stop,” waits 3 seconds according to his watch, and then proceeds.
8. Incidentally, the Talmud has the following comments on this passage: R[abbi] Meir says: He who does not stop shall not live long. R. Hillel says: Cursed is he who does not count to three before proceeding. R. Simon ben Yudah says: Why three? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, gave us the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. R. ben Isaac says: Because of the three patriarchs. R. Yehuda says: Why bless the Lord at a stop sign? Because it says: “Be still, and know that I am God.”
9. R.Hezekiel says: When Jephthah returned from defeating the Ammonites, the Holy One, blessed be He, knew that a donkey would run out of the house and overtake his daughter; but Jephthah did not stop at the stop sign, and the donkey did not have time to come out. For this reason he saw his daughter first and lost her. Thus he was judged for his transgression at the stop sign.
10. R. Gamaliel says: R. Hillel, when he was a baby, never spoke a word, though his parents tried to teach him by speaking and showing him the words on a scroll. One day his father was driving through town and did not stop at the sign. Young Hillel called out: “Stop, father!” In this way, he began reading and speaking at the same time. Thus it is written: “Out of the mouth of babes.” R. ben Jacob says: Where did the stop sign come from? Out of the sky, for it is written: “Forever, O Lord, your word is fixed in the heavens.” R. ben Nathan says: When were stop signs created? On the fourth day, for it is written: “let them serve as signs.” But R. Yehoshua says: … (continues for three more pages)
11. A Haredi [ultra-Orthodox "black hat" Jew] does the same thing as an Orthodox Jew, except that he waits 10 seconds instead of 3. He also replaces his brake lights with 1000 watt searchlights and connects his horn so that it is activated whenever he touches the brake pedal.
12. A Breslover Hasidic Jew sees the sign and makes hisboddidus (a form of spontaneous personal prayer) saying: “Robono Shel Olam [Master of the Universe] – here I am, traveling on the road in Your service, and I’m about to face who knows what danger at this intersection in my life. So please watch over me and help me to get through this stop sign safely.” Then, “looking neither to left nor right” as Rebbe Nachman advises, he joyfully accepts the challenge, remains focused on his goal – even if the car rolls backward for a moment – then he hits the gas pedal and forges bravely forward, overcoming all obstacles which the yetzer hara [evil inclination] might put in his path.
13. A Lubovitcher Hasidic Jew stops at the sign and reads it very carefully in the light of the Rebbe’s teachings. (In former times he would have used his cell phone to call Brooklyn and speak to the Rebbe personally for advice, but this is no longer possible, may the Rebbe rest in peace.) Next, he gets out of the car and sets up a roadside mitzvah mobile [outreach booth], taking this opportunity to ask other Jewish drivers who stop at the sign whether or not they have put on tefillin today [male ritual] or whether they light Shabbos candles [female ritual]. Having now settled there, he steadfastly refuses to give up a single inch of the land he occupies until Moschiach [the Jewish Messiah] comes.
14. A Reform Jew sees the stop sign, and coasts up to it while contemplating the question “Do I personally feel commanded to stop?” During this internal process he edges into the intersection and is hit from behind by a car driven by a secular Jew who ignored the sign completely.
15. A Conservative Jew reacts by calling his rabbi and asking him whether stopping at this sign is required by unanimous ruling of the Commission on Jewish Law or if there is a minority position. While waiting for the rabbi’s answer he is ticketed by a policeman for obstructing traffic.
16. A Reconstructionist Jew, seeing the stop sign, might say: First, this sign is part of our evolving civilization and therefore I must honor it and stop. On the other hand, since its origins are in the past, I must assert that “the past has a vote and not a veto,” and therefore I must study the issue carefully and decide if the argument “to stop” is spiritually, intellectually and culturally compelling enough to convince me to stop. If yes, I will vote with the past. If not, I will veto it. Finally, is there any way that I can re-value or transvalue the stop sign’s message for our own time?
17. The Renewal-Movement-Jew meditates on whether the STOP sign applies in all kabbalistic Four Worlds [Body-Emotion-Mind-Spirit] or only in some of them, and if so which ones? Must he stop feeling? thinking? being? driving? Since he has stopped to breathe and meditate on this question, he is quite safe while he does so, barukh HaShem. [Praise God.]
18. A scholar from the Jesus seminar concludes that the passage “STOP” undoubtedly was never uttered by Jesus himself, but belongs entirely to stage III of the Gospel tradition, when the church was first confronted by traffic in its parking lot.
19. A NT scholar notices that there is no stop sign on Mark Street but there is one on Matthew and Luke streets, and concludes that the ones on Luke and Matthew streets are both copied from a sign on a completely hypothetical street called “Q”.
    There is an excellent 300 page discussion of speculations on the origin of these stop signs and the differences between the stop signs on Matthew and Luke street in the scholar’s commentary on the passage. There is an unfortunate omission in the commentary, however: the author apparently forgot to explain what the text means.
20. An OT scholar points out that there are a number of stylistic differences between the first and second half of the passage “STOP”. For example, “ST” contains no enclosed areas and 5 line endings, whereas “OP” contains two enclosed areas and only one line termination. He concludes that the author for the second part is different from the author for the first part and probably lived hundreds of years later. Later scholars determine that the second half is itself actually written by two separate authors because of similar stylistic differences between the “O” and the “P”.
21. Another prominent OT scholar notes in his commentary that the stop sign would fit better into the context three streets back. (Unfortunately, he neglected to explain why in his commentary.) Clearly it was moved to its present location by a later redactor. He thus exegetes the intersection as though the stop sign were not there.
22. Because of the difficulties in interpretation, another OT scholar amends the text, changing “T” to “H”. “SHOP” is much easier to understand in context than “STOP” because of the multiplicity of stores in the area. The textual corruption probably occurred because “SHOP” is so similar to “STOP” on the sign several streets back that it is a natural mistake for a scribe to make. Thus the sign should be interpreted to announce the existence of a shopping area.
23. A feminist scholar notes that all commentary refers to “he” and concludes she is thus exempt, so she runs the sign and is killed.
24. A radical feminist, observing what happened to the first feminist, concludes this is a misogynist plot to get all feminists killed by inciting them to run stop signs. So she gets out of the car and stages a protest against the inherent sexism in all traffic signs.
25. An observant Orthodox Jewish woman concludes that she is not allowed to observe the mitzvah [commandment] of stopping because she is niddah [menstruant]. This is a dilemma, because the stop sign is located on the way to the mikvah [ritual purification pool]. She refers the dilemma to all the Rabbinical scholars, who shrug.
26. A feminist Jewish woman sees this as a sign from the Shekinah [feminine aspect of God] that translates roughly “enough already….”

So, which method of Biblical interpretation do you prefer?

Share/Bookmark

The critique of this method, in my reading, comes primarily from Lou Silberman. In a nutshell he says that texts are best understood when the are ‘experienced’ rather than analysed. In the article I was reading he cites a number of examples where ‘analysis’ of the language of the text raises concerns over the technically correct usage of words, leading to considerations of scribal errors or questions over meaning. However, when one ‘zooms out’ of the text, it can be seen that the choice of words or phrases better fits the rhythm of the story or its poetry or its emphasis. It’s easy to forget that the Bible is literature – it has a dramatic story to tell and it tells it in a dramatic way. Remember too that much of it stems from oral tradition. When was the last time you heard a good storyteller use bland phrases and uninteresting delivery?

But for some, reading scripture as a story devalues it in some way. Rather, it should be a list of ‘rules’, examples of what’s right and wrong, guidance without ambiguity. How can a ‘truth’ be transmitted in a story when it would be better stated clearly? I think the answer is ‘impact’. If we have to work at getting the truth of a passage, the message of a text then it has much more impact on us. Moreover, it means that there are many paths that can be travelled to reach that truth and, what’s more, there are many truths that can be found along those paths.

And that brings me to limericks. I was trying to think of a more contemporary or literary example of this idea of valid truth within a form of literature that, at first glance, detracted from the truth it contained. For whatever reason the following limerick popped into my head:

An epicure dining at Crewe,
found quite a large mouse in his stew.
Said the waiter, “Don’t shout,
or wave it about,
or the rest will be wanting one too!”

Now, at first glance it’s mildly amusing – the absurdity of other diners also wanting a mouse in their meal. Then there’s the puzzling choice of the word ‘epicure’. Surely a word like ‘gentleman’ would be just as effective to communicate the absurdity? But then we consider who/what an epicure is and we realise that the limerick can actually be quite a biting social comment. Why is that? Well, here’s a definition of the word:

epicure

n. person taking care over the niceties of food and drink. epicurean, a. luxurious; sensual; n. such person; follower of philosophy of Epicurus, who taught that ultimate moral good is happiness.

The use of the word to indicate merely a lover of food is actually a relatively modern usage and departs somewhat from Epicurean philosophy. Nonetheless, let me suggest that it implies that the diner would be, identifiably, a lover of fine foods. And if the epicure had a mouse, then it must be good and so, in order to appear as ‘sophisticated’ diners, then the rest would wish to eat the same. So the ‘truth’ at the heart of this limerick is that we are always concerned about appearances and like to emulate those who, in our opinion, set a fine example to follow. And so we arrive at a ‘truth’ within an absurd form of literature.

The question is, is that what is intended by the limerick? Maybe it is, maybe it’s not but the point is that when we de-construct the limerick, we may understand the meaning of the words, but it’s only when we ‘experience’ the limerick in its entirety that deeper truths may be revealed. De-construction may help us to see the social comment (and even allow us to phrase it in more ‘rule-like’ form), but the humour and the absurdity and the style make it memorable and add emphasis to the truth it is imparting. The fact that we may need to do a bit of digging to appreciate it simply adds to the overall impact.

I quite like the analytical – it can highlight fruitful avenues of exploration but, ultimately, it can be dry with only an academic interest at its heart. So, I guess I’m firmly in the camp of scripture needing to be experienced and that means allowing the Spirit to open up the truths it contains, noting, carefully, the plural.

Share/Bookmark

As for the other two courses – well, a mixed bag so far. One class is Method of Reading the Hebrew Bible. It’s about the different critical methods that have been and can be applied to interpreting scripture. There are only 5 in the class and it looks like it’ll be really good. I volunteered to do the first presentation/group discussion next week. Typically, I was then informed that it was probably the most difficult. I’ve gone through the readings and had to laugh. The one I’ve to do starts off with speaking about approaching scripture as myth/saga/story and then develops the idea of ‘experiencing’ the narrative, not just reading it as words (all in response to ‘literary criticism’ – I’ll do a separate blog entry I think). I was speaking to the lecturer today (I had to borrow a book from him) and he was asking how I found the readings. I sad that I thought they were very clear and straightforward and not at all ‘difficult’ and he explained that the reason they are found difficult is because some people can’t get beyond the idea of myth/saga/story implying ‘falsehood’. Anyway, that course looks to be really enjoyable.

The other academic course is Reformation Theology – looking at the events and arguments surrounding the Reformation and counter-Reformation. It promises to be a good course but it’s a big class – over 25. That’s not so good because, in my opinion, honours level courses need that bit more ‘involvement’ and more opportunity to explore issues in detail. You lose a lot of that in a bigger class I feel. Still, the weekly reading is not too onerous and the essay’s pretty straightforward so all in all I should make the most of a relatively uncomplicated semester.

Share/Bookmark

The thing I struggle with about the lectionary series is that you can hit those times when there is simply no obvious connection to be made and even a contrived one is a struggle. From speaking to a friend, I know that their view is that there doesn’t need to be a connection and it’s perfectly legitimate to have a reading with no further reference to it. The purpose of the lectionary is to expose the hearer/reader to parts of scripture that may otherwise be ignored. I don’t have an issue with that and can see the validity of the argument.

However, there are times when a reading just sits there, on its own, in splendid isolation. Should it have its own exegesis and application ‘slot’? Or should it be left to stand alone. I think the danger of the latter approach is that if it’s a difficult reading then there’s a risk of people ‘turning off’ and, rather than it being given the exposure it merits, it contributes to an overall sense of ‘I’ll stick to the bits I understand’. The risk of the former is that the service appears ‘bitty’ and disjointed or, if a contrived connection is made, there is the possibility of being open to the, perfectly valid, accusation of distorting scripture to make it mean whatever we want.

There is, of course, one over-riding influence which can come to bear and perhaps needs to be borne in mind more. When scripture is read in an open and honest way, its meaning comes not just from our own comprehension but through the intercession of the Holy Spirit as well. So, when that piece of scripture is sitting in splendid isolation, the reality is, it’s not sitting on its own and its capacity to ‘speak’ to someone is, in no way diminished.

It’s just frustrating when your eyes are opened by something you’ve heard or read and the preacher goes off down an entirely different avenue, ignoring your exciting revelation. Still, take a moment to enjoy the presence of the Spirit, leading, guiding, teaching.

Share/Bookmark