Adam Kotsko explains why. He attributes the lamentable tendency to reduce the meaning of the text to what it meant to "a Protestant view of scriptural authority" which (anachronistically) views the Bible as the "source of Christianity."
Quite right! But not just any form of Protestantism.
The Reformers read the Bible in conversation with the Fathers and medieval exegetes. But fundamentalist Protestants don't. And the two, fundys and higher critics, are in fact two peas in a pod.
Historical critics and fundamentalists agree that the whole history of interpretation is of no consequence for understanding the meaning of the Bible. They also agree that Biblical texts are univocal.
Historical critics believe that the one, correct meaning lies in the 8th century BCE, preserved like a pottery shard in the hot, dry Palestinian sand, and it is their exclusive provenance to unearth and display said meaning. Fundamentalists believe that the one, correct meaning lies in a Platonic realm of pure doctrine, and to them is solely entrusted the sacred charge of displaying said meaning in tedious Bible studies, sermons or tracts.
It's of a piece. Each can be more Popish than the Pope in defending their magisteria. Which would land you in hot water faster? Thinking outside the box about the phrase "kingdom of God" in a Campus Crusade small group, or tacking on a Christological interpretation of Isaiah 7 to your exegesis paper? I'm not sure.
All this, I submit, is why fundamentalism does not stand in opposition to modernity, but is, in fact, modernity's reductio ad absurdum. At any rate, to paraphrase Kierkegaard, entrusting the Good Book to either camp is like entrusting your favorite pet to a taxidermist. They'll hand it back to you with all the pieces appropriately labeled, and they'll hand it back to you quite dead.
I understand why the academic to whom Kotsko refers in his post wishes that people would just stop using the Bible, especially if she teaches in a university setting. If the Bible were like the Gilgamesh Epic, an object of purely antiquarian interest, it'd be so much easier for her. She'd only have to suffer fools when she opened the second rate journals. As it is, everybody in society fancies him/herself an expert in her field of expertise, politicians, TV watchers, her relatives at Thanksgiving dinner--AND THEY AREN'T! Imagine the indignity of every Tom, Dick and Harry giving advice to Rep. Giffords' doctor on the finer points of brain surgery.
What I don't understand is why that attitude would prevail in a seminary faculty. I don't think it prevails at our seminary, but I wonder what's going on sometimes. Taking Bible seems to ruin these folks for theology. Last fall, when I TAed Theology I, they laughed Calvin right out of court for offering the modest proof for the authority scripture that all the Old Testament prophesies were fulfilled.
And it's not just that one point. Since Calvin is basically a biblical, not a systematic theologian, his pre-critical affirmations of scriptural authority wind up undermining his entire project in the minds of the students. Not only is he wrong, he's not really worth bothering with.
OK, you're so over Christological interpretations of the Old Testament. But you're a Christian, preparing for some form of Christian ministry. If it weren't for a historical and theological move, a move which, by the way, they had ample opportunity not to make, you wouldn't be reading the Bible to begin with.
Sure, historical criticism has value. I'm not in favor of dispensing with it; perhaps for the same reason that people are opposed to ending fraternity hazing: I had to go through it, and so should you.
Think of historical criticism, my dear MDiv or BA reader, as an anchor. It's made to be thrown overboard. During a storm, it can keep you from being driven on interpretive rocks.
But most of the time, you need to raise it, stow it away in some unobtrusive place, and shake out a reef; otherwise you won't go anywhere. The sails I prefer to catch a good interpretive wind are theologians (preferably dead, not necessarily German), old sermons (preferably composed by weirdos--4th century ascetics, English Separatists and TV evangelists will do), novels, and CPE verbatims.
And you need a community of people with which to read. Your fellow students and professors will do, but look out for those people who read the Bible assiduously with no fancier hermeneutical rule than the Golden Rule. They generally handle the Bible quite well.
Posted by: |