Bible Interpretation Without the Bible?

I wonder if it would be better to teach my “Bible Interpretation” class using texts from outside the Bible.  Essentially the aim of the course is to teach methods, goals and practices of good interpretation and if I could cover the same exercises without using the Bible, then they could take those same methods and apply them to the bible.  The assessments could still be focussed on biblical texts but the class room analysis could be on texts unfamiliar to the student.  We could use texts from ANE, Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apostolic Fathers in our classroom exercises, texts from similar historical, cultural, and ideological environments in which the Bible was written.  The benefit of this approach would be that students would have no theological/ideological investment in the specific “meaning” of these texts, since most of them would be unfamiliar with these writings and have no vested interest in their interpretation.  There could be a sustained focus on texts that aid our interpretation of the Bible and also this would alert students to the various texts which provide the necessary ideological, historical and cultural matrix within which biblical writings are to be understood. 

 

Thoughts?  What am I missing? 

Detailed Exposition

It is not in the interest of extravagant ambition that we trouble ourselves with this detailed exposition, but we hope through such painstaking interpretation to train you in the importance of not passing over even one slight word or syllable in the Sacred Scriptures.  For they are not ordinary utterances, but the very expression of the Holy Spirit, and for this reason it is possible to find great treasure even in a single syllable. – John Chrysostom 

The Intentional Fallacy and Authorial Intent

It is sometimes suggested that the article of William K. Wimsatt, and Monroe C. Beardsley, ‘The Intentional Fallacy’ Sewanee Review 54 (1946): 468-488, reprinted in William K. Wimsatt, The Verbal Icon. (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1954), 3-18, has advocated the view that authorial intention is unknowable or irrelevant in understanding a text.  However, a careful reading of this piece notes that these authors are not suggesting that authorial intention be dismissed in reading any kind of text, but more specifically in reading poetry.  In fact, regarding the reading of other texts, they specifically state that “poetry differs from practical messages, which are successful if and only if we correctly infer the intention.”  They thus agree that authorial intention is important for the understanding of texts generally, with the noted exception of poetry.  It is thus ironic that some authors have missed their communicative intent and thus misrepresented their thesis. 

 

The irony is delicious.

Intertextuality - Understanding Types of Audiences

Christopher Stanley in his work, Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul, suggests that the only references “that Paul’s first-century audience definitely would have recognized are those that are marked as such within the text” (e.g., as with “an explicit quotation formula”). Stanley thus cautions “against the presumption that Paul’s first-century audience recognized and appreciated his many unmarked references to the biblical text.”  I say cautions, as there may be legitimate appeals to intertextuality where formal quotation formulae are absent.  Stanley's helpful contribution comes to us in his analysis of types of audiences. 

Types of Audiences

(a) The informed audience – ‘a person who knows the original context of every one of Paul's quotations and is willing to engage in critical dialogue with Paul about his handling of the biblical text.’

(b) The competent audience – the ‘hypothetical person who knows just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point of Paul's quotations in their current rhetorical context.’

(c) The minimal audience – ‘...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited.’

Richard Hays has suggested that, “The implied readers of these letters appear to be primarily Gentile Christians with an extensive knowledge of the LXX and an urgent interest in interpretation.” Is this a valid assumption? Does this work for all the letters of Paul or the New Testament, or just some of the letters?  The question remains, what type of audience will be able to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust Paul’s intertextual reading? 

Intertextuality - Author vs. Audience

In my previous post I noted Hays key foundation in claiming an intertextual echo. 

The concept of allusion depends both on the notion of authorial intention and on the assumption that the reader will share with the author the requisite “portable library” to recognize the source of the allusion…

For an intertextual echo to be affective and effective, the audience must be able to the following successive mental steps: they must be able to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust  an intertextual reading.  Without these successive steps, the echo/allusion is missed, and the communicative intent of the author is potentially mistaken.  Like Virgil's phrase, Audentes Fortuna iuvat, misunderstanding the context and the communicative intent could lead to serious misrepresentation and misunderstanding. 

Fortune favors the bold is one of those phrases that are quoted so frequently that they bear none of the weight of their original contexts. The appeal of its underlying message — luck is not something that merely happens to people, but rather the other way around — ignores the fact that it was originally written, by the Roman poet Virgil, as the battle cry of a fool whose boldness shortly leads to his death.

One strategy around this herculean boulder of what the audience would have understood or picked up on, is to pass the audience and focus solely on the author. Thus Stanley Porter,

Although investigation of an audience-oriented approach has merit in establishing the shared assumptions and biblical knowledge of the audience (in fact, much more could and should be done in this area), it is questionable whether it provides the proper basis for establishing the author’s use of the Old Testament. If one is interested in establishing a given author’s use of the Old Testament, it would appear imperative to orient one’s discussion to the language of the author, rather than supposed, reconstructed “knowledge” of the audience.

Why would an author go to so much trouble to allude to a text, knowing the audience would probably not pick up on the allusion or echo?  Thus, in response to this it must be noted that rhetors in the ancient world would be aware of the audience to whom they were speaking, and would speak accordingly.  Thus to ignore the problem of the audience's ability to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust an intertextual reading, could seriously undermine the integrity of the proposed intertextual echo.  And it would not pass Hays' criteria noted before.   What we need is a better model for understanding the audiences to whom NT authors wrote.  And thankfully, such a model exists and provides us with helpful insights and a way of carefully assessing the validity of such claimed echoes. 

Intertextuality - Hays Criteria and Assumption

Richard B. Hays in his celebrated work, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul, offers seven criteria for determining an “echo” or an “allusion” to Scripture.

1. Availability: Was the proposed source of the allusion/echo available to the author and/or original hearers?
2. Volume: What is the degree of explicit repetition of words or syntactical patterns?
3. Recurrence: How often does Paul elsewhere cite or allude to the same scriptural passage?
4. Thematic Coherence: How well does the alleged echo fit into the line of argument that Paul is developing?
5. Historical Plausibility: Could Paul have intended the alleged meaning effect?
6. History of Interpretation: Have other readers, both critical and pre-critical, heard the same echoes?
7. Satisfaction: Does the proposed reading make sense?

Intertextuality is built on several key assumptions, which Hays outlines below.   

Prominent among these conventions are the convictions that a proposed interpretation must be justified with reference to evidence provided both by the text’s rhetorical structure and by what can be known through critical investigation about the author and the original readers. Any interpretation must respect these constraints in order to be persuasive in my reading community. Claims about intertextual meaning are strongest where it can credibly be demonstrated that they occur within the literary structure of the text and that they can plausibly be ascribed to the intention of the author and the competence of the original readers.

The concept of allusion depends both on the notion of authorial intention and on the assumption that the reader will share with the author the requisite “portable library” to recognize the source of the allusion…

This last quote is the achilles heel in many claims to intertextuality, as many of the audiences to whom New Testament authors wrote, simply did not have that "portable library" to recognise, recall, connect, assess and trust Paul’s intertextual reading.  And without this ability, claims to intertextuality are severely weakened and often undermined. 

Intertextuality - What Constitutes an Echo or Allusion?

Providing some methodological clarity and specificity to the topic of intertextuality in biblical studies, is the careful work of Christopher Beecham, which I draw from in this post.  By specifying and clarifying his criteria, something many engaged in intertextuality have failed to do, Beecham brings guidance to an at times unclear conversation. 

Items that are Essential to Identifying Something as an Allusion.

1. First, an allusion is an intentional, conscious attempt by an author to point a reader back to a prior text.

2. The second item that is essential to allusion is that an allusion has “in each instance, a single identifiable source.”

3. Third, an allusion must adequately stand out in order to be perceived by the audience. This presupposes that the author and reader share a common language and tradition. For an allusion to be successful, the prior text must be “. . . part of the portable library shared by the author and his ideal audience.” If the work is unfamiliar to the reader, the allusion will race past the ear like an arrow that missed its target.

4. The final item essential to allusion is that an author employing it expects that the audience will remember the original sense of the previous text and link the appropriate components that the new context requires in order to be most fully understood.

Items that are essential for identifying an Echo

1. First, unlike allusion, an echo may be either a conscious or unconscious act. Echoes are faint enough that often it is impossible to gauge whether its appearance in the text was consciously or unconsciously performed by the author.

2. Every echo derives from one specific text, event, tradition, person, or thing (whether animate or inanimate, concrete or abstract). If the echo is a textual or literary echo, it stems from a text that the author has read (or heard) at some point in the past.

3. Third, unlike allusion, by echo the author does not intend to point the audience to the precursor. Intention implies a conscious activity, and echo is often but not always a conscious act. Echo is a linking of texts accomplished without the aim to render a communication for public consumption… Echoes surface in a text largely because the author’s mind is saturated with the source text.

4. Unlike allusion, an echo is not dependent upon the original sense of the precursor to be understood. The meaning in the new context is not tied to the previous context; that is, the audience does not need to “recognize, remember, realize, and connect” the two texts to grasp the author’s intended public communication in the new context. The original context may or may not have been taken into consideration.

The strongest, most explicit mode of reference is quotation. The citation of the former reference is verbatim or nearly so, and is long enough to be recognized as such. An allusion, while still overt by definition, is less explicit, being more “fragmentary or periphrastic.”

Quotations may be further divided up into two categories: formal and informal. A formal quotation is a quotation that is accompanied by a quotation formula, which serves as a clear marker to the reader that what follows (or immediately precedes) is a citation from a previous source… An informal quotation, on the other hand, is a quotation that lacks a quotation formula. An informal quotation is just as much a quotation as a formal one; it merely wants for an explicit introductory marker.

This is from Christopher A. Beetham. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Biblical Interpretation Series 96. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 16-20.

Intertextuality - What is it?

Recently I was giving a paper on Philippians, and made the claim that Philippians never quotes the Hebrew Bible. I thought this was a standard position given the claim of Moisés Silva, who notes that “Paul’s letter to the Philippians is totally lacking in direct OT quotations, and even its allusions to the OT are subtle enough that they can easily be missed.” [See Moisés Silva, “Philippians” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament eds. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 835.] However, someone pointed out that Philippians 1:19 could be a quotation from Job 13:16 LXX, which states: τοῦτό μοι ἀποβήσεται εἰς σωτηρίαν. Before exploring this, we must first clarify the key idea of intertextuality.

When two texts are juxtaposed, as occurs when an OT text is quoted in the Pauline epistles, an intertextual space is defined that forms a new interpretive context. Concepts from each text mutually play upon and amplify one another within this intertextual space. [K. H. Jobes, “Jerusalem, Our Mother: Metalepsis and Intertextuality in Galatians 4:21-31” Westminster Theological Journal 55 (1993) 299-320, here 305.]

When a literary echo links the text in which it occurs to an earlier text, the figurative effect of the echo can lie in the unstated or suppressed (transumed) points of resonance between the two texts… Allusive echo functions to suggest to the reader that text B should be understood in light of a broad interplay with text A, encompassing aspects of A beyond those explicitly echoed… Metalepsis places the reader within a field of whispered or unstated correspondences. [Richard Hays, Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 20.]

These two quotes set the stage for what it is we are looking for, when we engage in the work of intertextuality. But this raises many methodological questions about what constitutes a quotation, allusion and even an echo.

In the next post, we’ll explore the work of Christopher A. Beetham. Echoes of Scripture in the Letter of Paul to the Colossians. Biblical Interpretation Series 96. (Leiden: Brill, 2008), who has offered a helpful analysis of what constitutes an echo, allusion and quotation. And does Philippians 1:19 constitute a verbatim quotation of Job 13:16 LXX?

Coming out of Retirement - Recurrent Attestation

So I'm coming out of retirement, I hope. And the first thing I'd like to do is note something I explored some time ago [2005] about what Dale Allison has recently called "recurrent attestation." I'll explore this more in an upcoming blog...

----------------------------------------

Stephen Patterson, in his book The God of Jesus: The Historical Jesus and the Search for Meaning offers an interesting idea, borrowed from R. W. Funk, about typifications. Patterson in explaining the problem caused by judging which events or deeds of Jesus are in fact historical, writes:

The best provisional solution to this problem is to say simply that the deeds of Jesus present us with the creative memory of the church. In the Jesus Seminar, it was seldom that we could assert, even tenuously, the historical accuracy of any particular event or occasion as it is depicted in the gospels, or in fact, that such and such an event occurred at all. But we did notice that certain types of events are depicted with great frequency in the Jesus traditions, and across a variety of sources and forms. Things like healings and exorcisms, cavorting with the unclean and the shamed, conflict with his family - such things began to emerge as "typical" of Jesus in the widespread memory of the early church. Such typifications became the basis for a general description of the sort of things Jesus probably did, even though the historicity of any single story in the gospels was always hard to demonstrate.          Patterson, The God of Jesus, 57.

While I abhor many of the absurd presuppositions that the Jesus Seminar approach the gospels with when doing historical enquiry, this method seems to make much sense. We know for sure that the gospels don't record every single detail of the life of Jesus. Whatever we think of the historical value of John's gospel, his statement that Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book [or any other I might add] appears a priori valid. It seems axiomatic that the gospels are a sampled survey of all the things about Jesus and they are not in an exact diary collection of facts and data.

Could the deeds of Jesus be likened to the position of Darrell Bock who has argued that the sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels are the "voice" of Jesus, and not the exact literal word for word dictation that many assume? Could we have echoes of the typical deeds of Jesus recorded in the gospels? Patterson notes that "the limits of ancient history are considerable, indeed."

Could this approach fit better with a critical realist epistemology, where certainty on any exact event [with a few notable exceptions such as the temple action, cross & resurrection, and perhaps a few others?] is unknown but the gist and typical features of Jesus' actions in healing, exorcism, interaction with Gentiles and Jews are known? The plausibility of this being the case seems almost certain given what we know about the limits and strengths of oral tradition as well. Maybe the memory of two separate encounters got blurred into one event [would that explain gospel differences better than or as well as editorial emphases?]

Wright notes that there is nothing to suggest that the sermon on the Mount and the sermon on the Plain are the same event. Jesus probably regularly gave a set piece of didactic speeches - Luke and Matt record summaries of them - in different locations because that was typical of Jesus teachings in various locations.

Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms? Are there any published critiques or advocates of this view? In my mind, which is now reeling over the possibilities, this could alter our conception of the criteria of authenticity and exegesis.

Carey on Fowl - Theological Interpretation

Greg Carey has a great set of reflections on Stephen Fowl's important little book, Theological Interpretation of Scripture. The first reflection is here, the second here, and now a third. I think Carey has done us a great service in offering his thoughtful responses. Do check it out, if you're interested in theological exegesis and interpretation - especially withregards to the issue of historical analysis. Carey has a great quote where he rhetorically asks: Isn't it wonderful how conflict often generates revelation? And isn't this a theological interpretation based on historical analysis? Do check these out.

The Role of Audiences in Interpretation

In light of my previous post, the Blog Father has just alerted us to The Role of the Audience in the Interpretation of Paul’s References to the Jewish Scriptures by Dr. Christopher D. Stanley.

Authorial Intent and Theological Interpretation

I'm currently engaged in multiple thought adventures, from studying the sermon on the Mount (exegetically, theologically, and ethically) to a historical-critical analysis of Philippians, to teaching an introductory course on the New Testament, to arguing with friends about hermeneutics. Amidst my reading, thinking and research I stumbled upon this, by Stephen Fowl:

To claim, as many biblical scholars do, that Paul never would have thought in such metaphysical terms is not in itself theologically relevant. Later creeds and confessions are best understood as scripturally disciplined ways of coherently ordering claims, inferences, and implications of scriptural language about God, the world, and God's purposes for the world. Scripture by its very diversity requires such an ordering. The question is not whether Paul thought this way himself. Rather, the question is whether one uses historical-critical, sociological, philosophical, or christian theological categories for order that diversity.

Fowl, Philippians, pg. 95-96.

First things first. Fowl's commentary is like a breath of fresh air for those wanting more than just careful historical and exegetical analysis. His interpretation of φρονεω, as a common pattern of thinking, feeling and acting, is accurate and instructive. However, Fowl has problems with the notion of authorial intent, and in his essay for Between Two Horizons, "The Role of Authorial Intention in Theological Interpretation" he advances his position on this matter. As one may guess, I cannot understand this position. Perhaps it is to complex for me, but having read Umberto Eco's The Limits of Interpretation and Kevin Vanhoozer's Is There a Meaning in this Text?, I am persuaded that any death or denial of authorial intent undermines the meaning of a text.

More specifically, the context of Fowl's quote above intrigues me. The discussion revolves around Phil 2:5-11. Fowl advances a plausible reading that suggests the "form of God" should be taken as a reference to God's glory. He does some good historical analysis, and then forsakes it in his theological construction. Now, if the creeds and confessions are scripturally disciplined, what does that mean? That we have read the scriptures and understood their intention, and formulated what we believe based on them? That seems most likely. However, were we to deny authorial intent, we could come up with any creed and just forsake what Paul says. When we claim that what Paul meant (or any author for that matter), is irrelevant, we sink into the despair of relativism. And that just won't do. Fowl himself constantly appeals to what Paul meant, and intends throughout his excellent commentary. But here, retreating into Philosophical particularities, loses the plot when he suggests that it doesn't matter if Paul himself thought this way or not. Reader-response criticism, despite Fowl's, and Wall's claims to the contrary, have no "controls" that are valid if one denies authorial intent as the governing dynamic.

For a better proposal, one need look no further than Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, which outlines a suitable hermeneutic which allows for careful theological reflection within the bounds of good exegetical work. Of course theology (especially systematics) will always want to go further, but it cannot go against what the authors of Scripture said. Nor can it claim much validity once the voice of Scripture's teaching is silenced. As Hays sees it, there are four steps: (1) The Exegetical Task, Reading the Text Carefully; (2) The Synthetic Task, Placing the Text in Canonical Context; (3) The Hermeneutical Task, Relating the Text to Our Situation; and (4) The Pragmatic Task, Living the Text.

It is therefore utterly relevant whether or not a particular Scriptural author thought in particular categories. Since failing to attend to those categories, could entail in a misunderstanding and misapplication of their teaching. I find myself increasingly sceptical of theological claims that are far removed from the categories of Scripture. They may have good ideas, but is it good theology?

Missional Hermeneutics

How can we not interpret the Scriptures in light of the mission of GOD? How could we ignore mission as central to the core movement of the biblical narrative? Isn’t this what the Bible is all about? While we must at once recognise that the Scriptures are multivocal, and come in a variety of literary genre’s and expressions, the canon as a whole tells the [one?] story of God’s mission. This mission includes creating people, calling people, teaching people, leading people, rescuing people, restoring people and redirecting people. This is the story about God and people, and God’s mission to connect with them in a variety of settings, in a variety of ways, but ultimately through Jesus who perfectly reveals the identity of the missional GOD.

Exegesis of any particular passage must also attend to the [controlling? meta?] narrative which pervades every facet of Scripture and is thus integral to understanding both of the specific passage and also the entire Scriptural symphony. Specific passages cannot be properly understood in isolation from the whole canon/story. God’s mission thus provides the interpretive key to unlocking the central message and mission of Scripture.

How does our text advance the mission of God?

• What does our text add to our understanding of the mission of God?
• What counsel does our text give to those involved/situated in the mission of God?
• How does our text understand/construct the identity of God’s missionary people?
• How does our text help or equip those engaged in the mission?

God is directing his missional movements throughout history through the symphony of Scripture, inspiring and inciting God’s people to understand and improvise, and thus advance God’s mission on planet earth. A failure to engage the voice of God revealed in the symphony of Scripture would be a failure to understand, appreciate and therefore participate in God’s unfolding and reconciling mission.

Michael Gorman is advancing this discussion, see his posts. See also the essays at the Gospel and Our culture. Goheen and Bartholomew provide several articles pertaining to this topic. An excellent article by J. V. Brownson, "Speaking the Truth in Love" in International Review of Mission VOL. LXXXIII No. 330. See also Michael Barram "The Bible, Mission, and Social Location: Toward a Missional Hermeneutic" Interpretation 43.

Letter-Carriers as Performers

In reading through Joel Green's excellent new commentary on 1 Peter, he makes this comment that I think aids our discussion on authorial intent, audience understanding and the Hebrew Scriptures.

To say that the majority of the first audience of 1 Peter was comprised of Gentiles is not say that all were Gentiles, and we can imagine that Jewish Christians within the communities to which this letter is addressed would have been able to draw ongoing attention to the scriptural allusions and echoes that dot the landscape of the letter. Second, the person or persons who conveyed the letter across the area of Asia mentioned in 1:1 would have served not only as letter-carriers but also as performers of the letter, interpreting it to these groups of Christians. We can imagine their attending to the interplay of the letter with its scriptural intertexts. Third, it should not be forgotten that Israel’s Scriptures comprised the Bible of those early Christians, so that we would be mistaken were we to suppose that even Gentile converts would not have been progressing in their intimacy with the words of Scripture.[1]

Could we postulate that Timothy, Silvanus or whoever takes this letter, would preach and interpret 1 Thessalonians for the community of believers? Obviously, Green is writing about 1 Peter, so the circumstances are different, but could we postulate a similar scenario for the Thessalonian correspondence? My question is then simply: What evidence do we have of Letter-carriers performing this function? Anyone know of any literature on this matter? It seems a priori plausible, but is there evidence for this?

[1] Green, 1 Peter, pg. 6

Authorial Intent and Community Understanding

My thanks to both to all those offering very helpful questions and comments. I think this topic is one that has the capacity to really open up further understanding of both Paul and his epistles. I want to respond to the questions and comments, and so will begin with Nijay’s comments on my post.

It seems reasonable that our understanding of each of the communities to which Paul writes, can only be re-constructed from the details and evidence in Paul’s writings. For example, we may know much about Thessalonica from other sources, but save Paul’s letters and perhaps Acts, we know nothing of the community of believers in Thessalonica. This means that we must engage in what scholars have called “mirror-reading.”[1] However, utilising Chris Stanley’s categories noted before, I think it is a safe assumption that each of Paul’s communities would at least be a minimal audience.

(c) The 'minimal audience' - '...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited' (69).

If Paul’s usual modus operandi included studying and arguing from the Scriptures - with the Jews and perhaps others (Acts), and the LXX was the Bible of the first Church (1 Tim, public reading of Scripture), then I’m confident that Paul would have instructed his communities to read and learn Israel’s scriptures, with the teachings (letters? 2 Pet 3:16?) of the Apostles, and perhaps Jesus tradition (gospels?). Perhaps Hays has overstated the case of re-constructing the audience’s Scriptural understanding as merely guesswork. It seems that we can have certain parameters within which to construct our understanding, these premises seem likely candidates as boundaries to any hypothesis.

But we must also think historically. Is it plausible that the Thessalonian community, given its age, situation, and circumstance held anything more than a minimal understanding? Amidst the persecution, daily life, eschatological confusion of these believers, is it likely that they were competent with the LXX? To me this seems to be a stretch of the imagination. A minimal audience, yes. A competent audience, no.

Nijay poses the most fascinating question, which is what generated my thoughts in this area. Is Paul competent enough to use arguments that his audiences would understand? This is the question which must guide our thinking. With Nijay I agree that it seems clear that Paul was competent. But this does not solve our initial question. Since Paul was competent to use arguments that the audience would understand, what would suggest that Paul is using an argument which is determined by a Scriptural or Hebrew context, or whether Paul was using a Roman context? According to Tom Wright, Paul moved in three worlds: The world of Judaism, The world of Rome, and the New world inaugurated with Jesus.[2] Each of these play a role in our exegesis of the Pauline letters. But does one of them govern a text, idea or praxis, and if so, how do we determine which one governs and at what times?

So back to my original example: 1 Thess 4:3-7

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to acquire/control your own vessel/organ/wife in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness.

Does an allusion to 1 Sam 21:5 appear more likely? Or is there another background that suits the context better? Is it plausible that these young Christians in Thessalonica would pick up on an allusion to such an obscure text is Samuel? Thus, determining the translation of “organ” and thus the interpretation that this refers to sexual activity. Or, does the word mean “wife” which thus changes the interpretation to ethics in courtship.

What factors persuade us in either direction? The lack of scriptural quotations in Thessalonians as a whole, could be indicative of an audience unfamiliar with Scripture, and that's why Paul builds no technical argument for any of his positions from the Hebrew scriptures. He reasons rather, from "the word of the Lord." [It would be interesting to see what Michael Pahl says about this....] In fact, based on the text of Thessalonians, it seems more likely that "the Gospel" functioned as the authority that determined life, faith and obedience. The Hebrew text features little in Thessalonica, even if Paul was an informed author. He used arguments his audience could understand, and technical arguments based on the Hebrew scriptures would possibly be misunderstood, and would be unnecessary for Paul's purposes... Perhaps?

There is another meta question that looms in our discussion, the question of authorial intent, and modern reconstruction. In the words of J. A. Fitzmyer in his comments on Acts 5 and the possible backgrounds being alluded to, he asks the pregnant question, “Who is seeing the connection between them, Luke or the modern commentator?”[3]

More thinking is required on my part before wading further into that intellectual arena...

[1] J. M G. Barclay, “Mirror-Reading a Polemical Letter: Galatians as a Test Case,” JSNT 31 (1987) 73-93.

[2] N. T. Wright, Paul in Fresh Perspective (Fortress, 2005) pgs. 3-13

[3] Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, pg. 319

Contextual Exegesis

Following on from our previous post on “Contextual Hermeneutics” I have found two posts that also deal with this issue. Nijay Gupta writes on A Couple of Disturbing Trends in Pauline Scholarship. This is followed by Matthew Montonini’s post Were Paul's Audiences Scripturally Illiterate?

Both posts propose issues that I’d like to discuss further. Gupta suggests “What we do know is that the encoded/implied reader was quite savvy with Scripture.” While Matthew outlines the position of Chris Stanley in his book Arguing with Scripture: The Rhetoric of Quotations in the Letters of Paul (T & T Clark, 2004). Stanley offers three different proposed audiences:

(a) The 'informed audience' - 'a person who knows the original context of every one of Paul's quotations and is willing to engage in critical dialogue with Paul about his handling of the biblical text' (68).

(b) The 'competent audience' - the 'hypothetical person who knows just enough of the Jewish Scriptures to grasp the point of Paul's quotations in their current rhetorical context' (68).

(c) The 'minimal audience' - '...people in this category were aware of the high degree of respect given to the Scriptures in Christian circles. As a result, they would have been inclined to take seriously any argument that claimed to be grounded in the biblical text. But their ability to follow the argument of a passage laced with quotations would have been limited' (69).

Both posts deal with the question we raised in our first post on Contextual Hermeneutics. How much background information can we assume in any of Paul’s churches? Views that suggest an “informed” or “competent” audience appear to be more assumption than demonstration. More discussion needs to take place on factors that could determine what the audiences capabilities were.

Instead of discussing the broad outlines of each view, let us take the specific example of the Thessalonian community. How plausible is it, that a congregation established a few months ago would be either an “informed audience” or a “competent audience”? Thus, for a specific example I alluded to, 1 Thess 4:4 and the understanding of skeuos is still relevant. Would Paul have expected his readers to pick up on the supposed allusion to 1 Sam 21:5, as commentators have?[1] Or would Paul be working with a more rabbinic background understanding?[2] Or did Paul simply choose a word that was multifaceted?

In this case, it seems more likely to me, that the Thessalonian church would be classified as a “minimal audience”. It appears a priori implausible to suggest that recent Gentile converts were “savvy with scripture”. I’m quite happy to concede that the Thessalonians were a ‘minimal audience’ with a respect for the Scriptures. I’m even happy to concur with the notion of formal scripture readings in the community, and leaders in the community reading the LXX. But this would definitely not amount to the audience being informed or competent in the Scriptures. Not after such a short time.

Thinking wider therefore, what we probably have reflected before us in the Pauline churches are various stages of these three categories. Perhaps some in the Galatian churches would have been “informed” community members. It seems likely that Rome would have had a competent audience, if not an informed one.

But can we suppose any at Thessalonica? I’m not convinced.

[1] Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, pg. 51 n.59

[2] Malherbe, The Letters to the Thessalonians, pg. 227

Contextual Hermeneutics: 1 Thessalonians 4:4 as a Test Case

Scholars often debate the finer points of interpretation based on various backgrounds or nuances to specific words, phrases or ideas. In 1 Thessalonians 4:4 we are presented with a verse that causes much distress to the interpreter for precisely this reason. The background context will determine how one understands this verse. The passage in context reads:

For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from fornication; 4 that each one of you know how to acquire/control your own vessel/organ/wife in holiness and honour, 5 not with lustful passion, like the Gentiles who do not know God; 6 that no one wrong or exploit a brother or sister in this matter, because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, just as we have already told you beforehand and solemnly warned you. 7 For God did not call us to impurity but in holiness.

The key words are that of skeuos (vessell/organ/body/wife) and ktasthai (acquire/control). How one interprets or understands these words depends very much on the probable backgrounds to which interpreters appeal. Given that Paul is writing to a mainly Gentile audience, a roman background is possible. But Paul is a Jew, well versed is the writings and thought-world of Judaism. So interpreting this against a Jewish back-drop seems equally possible. Enter here the problem of “background information of the early Christians.”

How much background information can we assume in any of Paul’s churches? This has to be one of the most perplexing issues in NT scholarship. We have literally no information from them, or about them, to determine their own background understanding. The audience in all of Paul’s letters remains practically anonymous to us.[1] Thus, how is one to determine the concrete meaning of a phrase, such as the one above? For example, J. E. Smith’s article “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse” spends forty pages analysing three distinctive interpretations.[2] This study is exhaustive in its attempt to investigate these options thoroughly. But again the problem persists as to whether or not we allow Paul’s understanding to dominate our interpretation, or whether we allow the audiences assumed understanding or limited knowledge to affect the way we interpret scripture. Illustrative of this is Wanamaker’s comment:

The Thessalonians did not know Hebrew and therefore Paul could not rely on them to make the kind of connections made by Maurer and others in arriving at this interpretation.[3]

So my question is: Do we sometimes over interpret scripture? Looking for every possible allusion and echo to the Hebrew narrative [or elsewhere], when it is highly unlikely that the audiences would even be aware of such scriptures and allusions? Is much of the research we acquire, a bit of a waste? Any ideas?

[1] M. Bockmuehl, Seeing the Word (Baker, 2006) pgs. 68ff. considers possible “implied readers” which may offer some assistance to this problem. However, it will not solve the specifics of this problematic feature of our discipline.

[2] Jay E. Smith, “1 Thessalonians 4:4: Breaking the Impasse” Bulletin for Biblical Research 11.1 (2001) 65-105.

[3] C. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians, pg. 152

Hermeneutics of Trust

Reading through the Pope's new book on Jesus, and I found a most helpful discussion on what Richard Hays terms the hermeneutics of trust (See his article: Salvation by Trust? Reading the Bible Faithfully available from Religion Online).

The common practice today is to measure the Bible against the so-called modern worldview, whose fundamental dogma is that God cannot act in history – that everything to do with God is to be relegated to the domain of subjectivity. And so the Bible no longer speaks of God, the living God; no, now we alone speak and decide what God can do and what we will and should do. And the Antichrist, with an air of scholarly excellence, tells us that any exegesis that reads the Bible from the perspective of faith in the living God, in order to listen to what God has to say, is fundamentalism; he wants to convince us that only his kind of exegesis, the supposedly pure scientific kind, in which God says nothing and has nothing to say, is able to keep abreast the times.

The theological debate between Jesus and the devil is a dispute over the correct interpretation of Scripture, and it is relevant to every period of history. The hermeneutical question lying at the basis of proper scriptural exegesis is this: What picture of God are we working with? The dispute about interpretation is ultimately a dispute about who God is. Yet in practice, the struggle over the image of God, which underlies the debate about valid biblical interpretation, is decided by the picture we form of Christ: Is he, who remained without worldly power, really the Son of the Living God?[1]

Thus, the question over starting assumptions and how worldviews affect interpretation are always to be at the front of the researchers mind. How does my faith (presupposition), affect the way I read, understand and interpret? Does it prohibit me from accessing the truth? Or does it allow me to penetrate further into the mystery of what actually happened, because I am not constrained by the beast of doubt?

[1] Joseph Ratzinger, Jesus of Nazareth (Doubleday, 2007) pg. 35-36

Justification by Doubt

Ben Witherington has some good thinking in his post: Justification by Doubt. I wish I had read this ages ago. It reminds me also of a choice quote from William Baker in his article on Jacobean Christology where he writes:

“instead of treating the text as an accumulation of sterile facts and sifting through them to rational, theological conclusions, we should treat the text as we would a friend whom we love and respect. In doing so, we listen carefully to everything it wants to say before dissecting its terms… It means asking the text if our interpretation is an appropriate estimate of its words because we love our friend so much we don’t desire to knowingly misrepresent her... To read the text at distance, or with so-called healthy, academic scepticism without also reading it as a message from a caring friend is to misread it and truncate our theological calling.”

Baker, W. R. “Christology in the Epistle of James” EQ 74:1 (2002) 47-57, pg. 49

So often, if one does not embrace a hermeneutic of suspicion, one is summarily disqualified as an able exegete or historian of early Christianity. Well, such was my experience at Auckland University. Is there any way to reverse this tide of destructive deconstruction? Does faith provide an air of optimism regarding study of ancient texts?

Think on these things...