Matthew R. Malcolm

Interpretation of the Bible is called legion for they are many. There are many hermeneutical approaches and countless interpreters. Of course not all interpretations are equal, some fail to attend to important aspects of the hermeneutical process. In order to read the Bible responsibly, you need to pay attention to the original intent, the theological tradition, the church, contemporary issues, etc. Stanely Porter and Matthew Malcolm have edited together eight brief essays advocating for responsible interpretation of the Bible in an age of plurality. While the contributors share broad theological commitments, they each speak with their own voice, in their own discipline and bring their unique gifts to the hermeneutical task.

The essays in The Future of Biblical Interpretation: Responsible Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics are book-ended by an introduction and a conclusion from Porter and Malcolm (who each also contribute an essay). In between these, each contributor unfolds what he (and they are all he) what it means to interpret the Bible responsibly. Anthony Thistleton’s essay sets the tone for the volume, where he discusses responsible plurality and the future of biblical interpretation. In each of the chapters that follow, the contributors discuss one aspect of hermeneutical responsibility. These include:

Theological Responsibility (Stanley Porter
Scriptural Responsibility (Richard Briggs)
Kerygmatic Responsibility (Matthew Malcolm)
Historical Responsibility (James Dunn)
Critical Responsibility (Robert Morgan)
Ecclesial Responsibility (Walter Moberly)
Here is a brief walk through:

In chapter one, Thistleton defines what he calls ‘responsible plurality’ by contrasting Mikhail Bakhtin’s concept of ‘polyphonic meaning’ with Jacques Lyotard’s pluraformity. The former approach acknowledges the diversity of genre, authorial intent, as well as interpretive approaches. Lyotard’s approach relativizes all meaning and therefore marginalizes the notion of responsible reading (22). Thistleton argues for a polyphonic concordance, and closes his essay with some suggestions of how the discipline of hermeneutics can fruitfully develop.

Porter discusses the interface of biblical hermeneutics and theological responsibility (chapter 2). Porter contrasts biblical hermeneutics with biblical interpretation by positing that interpretation involves processes and techniques related to interpretive acts, whereas biblical hermeneutics is a broader study of how we read text (31-32). This means not just attending to the original, or authorial intent, but the whole hermeneutical process and what the Bible means in a contemporary context. Included in Porter’s essay is an implict critique on the recent theological interpretation movement, which proposes a method of reading the Bible (with deference to precritical sources) without paying sufficient attention to the history of theological reception.

In chapter three Briggs argues for scriptural responsibility by using hermeneutical framework of ‘Scripture as’ to explore the ways that scripture functions. Briggs describes the Bible as a series of texts which explore theological themes dialogically (162). So he suggests that scriptural responsibility involves attending to the two-testament structure, fostering hermeneutic discussion between those with competing theological claims, and understanding scripture as a means of grace where God communicates himself through the various genres of the biblical material (64-9).

In chapter four Malcolm discusses kerygmatic responsibility This is a fascinating essay reflecting on the proclamation and mission of the early church and the reader reception of the New Testament. Malcolm suggests that the reader most able to respond responsibly (and responsively) to the text is the one who is a ‘primed’ and ‘faithful’ intepreter. In the examples Malcolm gives, a primed reader (of Pauline Epistles) will ‘know that Paul’s kerygma focuses on the humiliating death of God’s Messiah’ (81), this will illuminate aspects of the Biblical text and make the reader aware of common themes emerging throughout the New Testament documents. Likewise the faithful reader is ‘a cruciform interpreter.’ Malcolm writes, “one who is shaped by the cross is particularly attuned and open to the formational orientation of the kerygma, whether explicit or subtle (82).

Dunn argues for Historical responsibly (chapter 5). By this he means attention to the original context as the primary factor for understanding the meaning of the text (99). More than other authors in this volume, Dunn relativizes the contributions of church tradition to the hermeneutical task. Morgan urges critical responsibility (chapter 6) nad argues that we should make use of critical scholarship and approaches to help us get a better grasp on the biblical witness. Gregg argues for relational responsibility. He pays homage to the Reformation’s idea of sola scriptura and the normative authority of the Bible. However modern interpretation is constrained by the early councils and creeds which helped define theological orthodoxy. The creeds did not create orthodoxy ex nihilo but interpreted the Bible faithfully. Hence the Bible remains the supreme authority. Morbley’s essay rounds out the collection with some reflections on ecclesial responsibility. He observes that his own theological education taught him to question traditional notions like Pauline authorship of the pastoral epistles, but did not equip him to interpret texts for the church which affirms veracity of these epistles as part of the canon. Porter and Malcolm’s conclusion discusses the distinctive character of each of the above essays.

Despite being a short book, this is not a light book. There are a number of ideas and important considerations discussed here for any one who wants to interpret scripture well. This book is probably too technical for readers who have not studied the topic Biblical hermeneutics. Those who have will find these essays suggestive, provocative and challenging. As with all multi-author books particular chapters are more stimulating than others. I particularly enjoyed Thistleton’s chapter and his survey of contemporary developments. I also enjoyed reading several of these essays because I have books by these authors and it is helpful to be able to map their interpretive philosophies. I give this book four stars.

Thank you to IVP Academic for providing me with a copy of this book in exchange for my honest review

… (mer)

Summary: A festschrift for Anthony Thiselton exploring from different perspectives the tension between plurality of interpretations of the Bible, and responsible hermeneutics.

Plurality of interpretations is perhaps one of the more troubling aspects of Protestant biblical interpretation. Not only does it account for numerous denominational divisions but there is the troubling phenomenon of Christians thinking everyone is his or her own interpreter without controls or answerability to others.

This volume explores the question of how to practice responsible hermeneutics in this context, as well as with a text that we believe both the Word of God and the product of multiple human voices. It is a festschrift to Anthony Thiselton, author, in the 1980s, of the ground-breaking The Two Horizons, where he brings to bear the work of figures like Heidegger, Gadamer, and Wittgenstein in the broader field of hermeneutics to explore one of the basic sources of much interpretive plurality, the unawareness of the historical horizon of the biblical text as well as the contemporary horizon of the interpreter (including traditions of interpretation that might shape the contemporary interpreter).

Perhaps in this case, the best way to give a sense of this book is to provide a table of contents of topics and contributors:

Introduction
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm

1. The Future of Biblical Interpretation and Responsible Plurality in Hermeneutics
Anthony C. Thiselton

2. Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Responsibility
Stanley E. Porter

3. Biblical Hermeneutics and Scriptural Responsibility
Richard S. Briggs

4. Biblical Hermeneutics and Kerygmatic Responsibility
Matthew R. Malcolm

5. Biblical Hermeneutics and Historical Responsibility
James D. G. Dunn

6. Biblical Hermeneutics and Critical Responsibility
Robert C. Morgan

7. Biblical Hermeneutics and Relational Responsibility
Tom Greggs

8. Biblical Hermeneutics and Ecclesial Responsibility
R. Walter L. Moberly

Conclusion
Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm

Thiselton’s opening essay is perhaps one of the most interesting. Drawing on Bakhtin, he argues for the importance in dealing with plurality of being aware of the polyphony of voices in the corpus of scripture. Responsible hermeneutics neither holds these voices in conflict, nor mutes some to privilege others, but seeks the larger perspective to which all of these contribute.

There were several interesting issues raised in individual essays as well as in the conflicting perspectives between some essays. Stanley Porter raises interesting questions about theological interpretation, and particularly the privileging of pre-modern theology in many discussions. Richard Briggs argues that scriptural responsibility in hermeneutics is a fostering of dialogue between different ideas of “scripture as.” James Dunn argues for the priority of the historical horizon in interpretation, certainly reflected in his New Perspective work on Paul. By contrast, Robert Morgan argues for the role of theological criticism over against the text. The final two chapters explore the relation of biblical interpretation to our relationship to the church authority as well as to its traditions and creeds.

While I do think the interpreters raised different and interesting ideas from their own perspectives (something the editors wrestled with in the end), I found myself troubled in two respects. One was that for a group of people who are concerned with meaning, one found it a challenge to understand what they were arguing at times. This book actually assumes that the reader is highly conversant with the hermeneutic issues being discussed, the relevant philosophers and the particular uses of language in the field.

Related, but more troubling to me is that seems this work reflects an assumption of opaqueness rather than perspicuity of scripture. As I write this I certainly am aware of the fact that not every verse in scripture is utterly clear. But Robert Morgan’s theological criticism in particular seems to affirm there are times where the theologian must go against the clarity of the biblical text. In Moberly’s concluding essay, he begins with a discussion of the Pauline authorship of the pastorals and the unsettling discovery during seminary that biblical criticism calls this into question despite the clear attestations of authorship and relationship. By the end, he acknowledges himself agnostic on the matter and states that “literary theory makes it possible to take the first-person voice of the letters with full imaginative seriousness, and one can unreservedly inhabit the imaginative world of the text in preaching, while leaving open the relation between the literary voice and the historical author” (p. 156).

It seems to me that these writers often accept the hermeneutic of suspicion about these texts. I would contend that the mental gymnastics that differentiates between “imaginary Paul” and Paul, the apostle and martyr is a corrosive one that undercuts the preacher’s ability to speak the word of the Lord to the people of God. I do not see how “imaginary Paul” can speak with authority to the Timothys of this world, for example, about “taking your share of suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus” (2 Timothy 2:3), but the apostle who was stoned and beaten many times and who would die for the gospel certainly could and can.

So, while I would wish in no way to detract from Anthony Thiselton’s scholarship, nor from the value of a collection like this for elucidating the current discussions in hermeneutics, I must express serious reservations about the value of this work either for addressing the issue of plurality that is its purported task or for the edifying and equipping of the people of God.… (mer)