I think you are conflating a few different hermeneutics. The historical-critical method came out of the Protestant Reformation and their desire to call upon the authority of Scripture rather than the traditions of the Church. The Enlightenment tended to read Scripture as moral philosophy (e.g. Jefferson). Reading the Bible like any other book seems to be a twentieth century phenomenon — it comes out of a lot of new literary criticism.

Hi Jim,
Thanks for the comment. I could certainly be wrong on this, but I am basing my thoughts mainly on William Baird’s History of New Testament Research and other works we’ve read in Don Hagner’s seminar on the history of NT scholarship (e.g., Yarchin, McKim, Neill). I’m not sure I agree with you. Here are a couple quotes from Baird, which basically agree with the sentiments of other works on the history of interpretation that we read in our seminar (Don Hagner affirms them as well):

“A review of the work of these precursors of Enlightenment criticism indicates that a new era in biblical research had arrived. Most important, the books of the NT were being viewed as historical documents, and scholars had exercised–although with some limitations (Bossuet versus Simon)–the freedom of research. New data had been collected, reviewed by empirical observation, and evaluated by rational reflection.” (Vol. 1, 29 – from the chapter on Backgrounds and Beginnings)

“According to [August Hermann] Franke [1663-1727]–and in opposition to the main trend of Enlightenment research–one cannot understand Scripture in the way one understands any other book.” (Vol 1, 68 – from the chapter on Pietism)

“When they conclude, either by implication or explicitly (as in the case of Franke), that the Bible is not to be interpreted like any other book, the Pietists align themselves with the past and not the future.” (Vol 1, 90)

“For [Jean-Alphonse] Turretin [1671-1737], the Bible must be read like any other book and other books do not require inspired readers.” (Vol 1, 101 – Chapter on Defining Historical Research)

“Like Turretin, [Johann Jakob] Wettstein [1693-1754] maintains that one should interpret the Bible as one interprets any other book: ‘Since with the same eyes we read both sacred books and edicts of a ruler, both ancient and modern books, therefore the same rules should be used in the interpretation of the former, which we use in the understanding of the latter.’” (Vol 1, 106)

“Although he echoes the claim that the Bible should be read like any other book and employs the same rules of grammar he uses in interpreting the classics, [Johann August] Ernesti [1707-1781] assigns the Bible a unique place.” (Vol 1, 114)

There are dozens more references that I could cite here. While the new literary criticism seeks to read the Bible like other books in perhaps a new way, they are not the first to state that the Bible should be read like any other book–which happened long before the twentieth century.

My understanding is that the Reformation called for the “literal” or “plain sense” reading of Scripture. The Enlightenment called for rationalism, not necessarily moral philosophy. Sure, deism and moral philosophy was a product of the rationalistic view of the world, but I don’t think it was the defining characteristic of the age (as if we can pin down a defining characteristic of any age).

I think we can say that the striving to look for the “literal” meaning of Scripture (which had indeed been sought throughout Christian history, and the Protestants did not throw out allegorical readings anyway) led into the rationalistic research of the Enlightenment. The beginnings of historical research came about before the Enlightenment, but it seems to me that it was the full-blown rationalism of the Enlightenment that called for researchers to read the Bible like any other book and historical criticism began in earnest (that is, more detached from the church). I think the historical-critical method as we would basically recognize it did not really come into its own until the eighteenth century.

So, I’m stickin’ to my assumptions on this post

Ah, I see the disconnect now. I was thinking in terms of how laypeople were reading the Bible, not biblical scholars per se (once again, Jefferson is a good enlightenment example). Also, I was thinking of the Bible not the New Testament

To be honest, I’d be more interested in how laypeople read the Bible. I wish we had more info about regular folk hermeneutics through the centuries.

[...] within a history department is a statement about my modern sensibilities. While many are declaring the death of the historical method of interpreting the Bible, here I am signing up for historical scholarship on the Bible and the [...]

Pat, I think you have nothing to worry about. Historical criticism will not soon go away. It will, in fact, never go away.

The rise of theological interpretation, however, reminds us that historical criticism is not an end in itself as has too often been the case among modern bibllical studies. Theological interpretation also reminds us that scriptural interpretation is part of many things Christians do to live and worship faithfully before God. To that end, pre-modern models of interpretation are helpful. I’m currently editing an introduction to theological interpretation by Stephen Fowl for our Cascade Companion series. Fowl’s words are instructive here:

“At its best, the diversity and richness of the patterns of reading Scripture in the pre-modern period are governed and directed by Scripture’s role in shaping and being shaped by Christian worship and practice. Ultimately, Scriptural interpretation, worship, and Christian faith and life were all ordered and directed towards helping Christians achieve their proper end in God.

It is important to understand that the difference between modern and pre-modern biblical interpretation is not due to the fact that we are smart and sophisticated while they are ignorant and naive. Instead, modern biblical study is most clearly distinguished from pre-modern interpretation because of the priority granted to historical concerns over theological ones.”

Thanks for the comment, Chris. It’s great to get insight from your wisdom on theological interpretation. I agree that historical criticism is not the end. I also think it would be wise of historical critics to demonstrate more humility about the certainty with which they can ascertain the “facts” about the biblical texts and their context.

We were just talking in our seminar the other day how theological interpretation is one of the exciting developments in biblical scholarship. Matt Barnes made an interesting comment that it’s sort of like Christians claiming their own ground in the postmodern milieu: “If you can have your own perspective about interpretation and there can be a multiplicity of views, than this is our patch of grass.”

I’d like to respond to Fowl’s point: “It is important to understand that the difference between modern and pre-modern biblical interpretation is not due to the fact that we are smart and sophisticated while they are ignorant and naive.” I appreciate the corrective not to think of premodern interpreters as stupid.

On the other hand, I believe that we have made progress in discovering information that premodern interpreters had lost in their attempts to interpret from their own historical context and in their own theological debates. Perhaps in the future archaeologists (or some Bedouins) will find a bunch of scrolls that shed a whole new light on meaning in the New Testament. Almost by definition, I am “ignorant” of any such advances that come in the future. So, though it seems a little arrogant to suggest this, I think premodern folks were ignorant on some issues. Just as many modern and premodern folks are ignorant of what will come later.

I’m a little nervous about how this sounds. What do you think about it?