I haven’t read Reading the New Testament as Christian Scripture, but I appreciated this interview with its authors. In it, they speak of some of the differences between how we read the Bible today and how the ancients used to read it. We’ve certainly made many great gains in our understanding. But there remain some strengths of yesteryear we ought to be careful not to lose.
Every culture and age has particular insights and blind spots. This applies to biblical interpretation as well. In the West we’re a few hundred years into particular modes and habits of reading the Bible, what we can call modernist hermeneutics. Modernist hermeneutics serve us well in providing a depth of historical background, insights from literary analysis, and a focus on hearing the human author’s intent. But modern approaches to interpreting the Bible often fail to read theologically, canonically, and tropologically (for moral formation). Believing interpreters will also seek to interpret the Bible in these latter ways, but the modern hermeneutical commitments are ironically contrary to these good reading habits.
Premodern interpreters operated with different priorities and sensibilities when reading Scripture. Theological, moral formative, intra-canonical, devotional, and homiletical interpretations were seen as primary and ultimate because this is why God has given Scripture to his people—to shape us to be like him, to be holy as he is holy.
Disclaimer: Amazon link is an affiliate link. Clicking it and buying stuff will help to support this blog’s moral formation, at no extra cost to yourself.
Leave a Reply