kata ta biblia

a blog exploring Christian origins, biblical studies, social/cultural history, method, education and the journey through academia

History, Theology, Ideology, Meaning and the Bible

Two of my friends, Matt Barnes and Chris Spinks, are having a lively discussion about meaning over on Matt’s blog. It all started when Matt (NT PhD student at Fuller Seminary) lamented over the “ideological” criticism that wants to do away with historical criticism. He suggested that there is no way to determine valid readings without historical tools. In the comments, I pushed back a wee bit, suggesting that historical scholars can come to a wide variety of “meanings” of many texts using the exact same methodology with the same level of skill. So, does historical research really give us the definitive meaning that we long for?

Then Chris chimed in–he did his dissertation at Fuller Seminary on theological interpretation and now is an editor at Wipf & Stock–with a much stronger push back than I had and with much greater logic. Chris has thought in detail about these issues much more than I have. Here is a fabulous set of questions from Chris:

Still not sure what you mean by “valid”? I’m not sure what are the criteria for validity. How do you know when you’ve said something about the Bible that is invalid? (These questions should not be interpreted to mean that I believe all statements are valid. I raise them out of a genuine desire to know. I think this notion of validity may be the fly in the ointment for us.)

Since the comments got unweildy, Matt moved Chris’ main points and his own response to their own post.

I generally understand and relate to the thoughts of both Matt and Chris. Though I am being trained as a social historian of texts, I do not feel I have to guard my historical-critical territory. I am theologically trained too. And I am an Anabaptist. And a feminist. Generally, I will try to come to as objective a conclusion as possible in my historical research (which is quite muddy when dealing with ancient texts). But then I move from there to consider the implications of that reading from my various perspectives–or my own singular blend of various perspectives.

One of the nice things about the discussion between Matt and Chris thus far is its civility. Check it out.

Post to Facebook Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Google Buzz Post to LinkedIn Post to StumbleUpon

2 Comments by Patrick George McCullough  /  May 12, 2009  /  Posted in: hermeneutics, history
« Previous post
Next post »
  • http://inthecornerwithmatt.blogspot.com J. Matthew Barnes

    Hey Pat, thanks for the link!

    This whole issue of history and its value in interpreting texts fascinates me. I guess the way that things make the most sense to me is that historical criticism can provide checks and balances for readings of the text with regard to specific social locations. I do realize that this is sticky since my presuppositions influence my understanding of history and since I am relegating ideological readings to a second-step status.

    Maybe a way to judge a reading is to begin by thinking if it would have been historically plausible at the time of the writing/reception of a text. If the reading fails at this point that does not mean that it should be deemed dubious. Instead it would then be wise to look at the historical reception of the text in order to see where a particular reading fits in the flow of interpretation.

    In my way of thinking a reading that is both historically plausible and stands within the reception history of a text is pretty solid. One that stands only on one of those points would be weaker, not necessarily invalid just not as closely related to the text as other readings might be.

  • http://patmccullough.com/ Patrick George McCullough

    Thanks for the comment, Matt. One response on this point that you make:

    “In my way of thinking a reading that is both historically plausible and stands within the reception history of a text is pretty solid.”

    Reception history is interesting to me, but I think for different reasons than for you. For me, I am interested in reception history particularly for what it might tell us of those who are receiving the text (that is, the interpreters of biblical texts throughout history), rather than the text itself.

    I worry that if we have historical plausibility and reception history work as a tag team, then our temptation may be to rush too quickly to reception history to “confirm” our conclusions about plausibility. . . OR that we would let reception history direct our research to try to confirm the plausibility of interpretations in the reception history.

    In other words, for me the key word is “plausible.” I want to linger there for a good long while. I want to swim in the pool of possibility vs. plausibility and maybe, someday, come out of the water to check out reception history–not for confirmation, but more out of curiosity. It sounds like your use of reception history is actually a factor in your decision about plausibility.