In light of this discussion of variants within textual meaning, it seems appro- priate to ask whether we can ever know if our understanding of a passage is correct?
Can we ever be assured that we have perceived a text’s meaning, much less an author’s intention, accurately? Or where we have dared to follow in the footsteps of the biblical writers in arriving at a creative understanding of a text, how can we know if it lies within the boundaries of acceptability? Indeed, are there such bound- aries? We cannot ignore these questions. Even for Christian interpreters who affirm that the Bible is God’s revelation, what value is an authoritative text if we cannot know that we have interpreted it correctly?
As stated earlier, in the absence of the author with whom we might consult, we are unable to assert with absolute confidence that we have precisely understood an author’s intention in a given text. Nor can we in any way determine the extent to which a text was originally understood. We set as our goal the meaning of the re- sulting text in view of all we can discover about the original circumstances of its formulation; consequently, we must deal in probabilities. Given all the evidence and all the factors at our disposal, we must ask more appropriately: Which interpre- tation is more likely to represent the text’s original meaning? Which interpretations fall within the reasonable limits of a text’s current meaning for various faith com- munitiesj108 To verify an interpretation requires weighing two types of evidence:. evidence pertaining to the text itself and evidence involving the interpreters.
“‘Recall that we have no way of knowing with certainty what they intended; we only possess the texts that were preserved.
‘OXOf course, a perennial problem faces interpreters: When is it proper to break the interpretive strictures of one’s (or another’s) faith community? For example, Protestants insist that Luther was correct in rejecting several “texts’ current meaning for the Roman Catholic faith community,” to paraphrase what we have just written. Or take Jesus’ example of labelling some Pharisees’ restrictive interpretations_
146 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
E. D. Hirsch addresses the first concern.lo9 He suggests four criteria to estab- lish an interpretation as probable. The most probable reading:
0 is possible according to the norms of the language in which it was written;
l must be able to account for each linguistic component in the text;
0 must follow the conventions for its type of literature; and
l must be coherent-it must make sense.“’
In other words, the most probable interpretation of a text is the one that is consis- tent with language in the ways that people typically write and understand that genre.“’ We seek to understand a text in the normal and clear sense in which hu- mans ordinarily communicate by that type of literature.l12 Indeed, Vanhoozer rightly affirms, “Scripture is composed of ‘ordinary’ language and ‘ordinary’ literature.“l13 Much of what is presented in this book expands and illustrates precisely those elements that enable interpreters to arrive at that “ordinary” meaning. We must address the issues of lexical analysis, historical and cultural background, literary criti- cism, genre, Hebrew and Greek grammar, and the like. We must consider, as well, the texts’ contents, purposes, and force. An interpretation that seems at first to be coherent may turn out to be incorrect because we have misconstrued some evi- dence. But an incoherent or anachronistic interpretation is most certainly not cor- rect. The more we know about the ancient world and the Bible itself, the more we increase the probability that fkom among the various viable alternatives we can as old wineskins that were defective (Mt 9:17; par). We argue that both Luther and Jesus were justified on the basis of the historical meanings of the relevant texts. In these instances the “faith communities”
had departed from the sense of God’s teachings. They needed to be challenged and their erroneous views eliminated.
‘OgRecall that his book is entitled Validity in Inferpretation. He discusses “Verification” on pp.
235-44., which he views as a procedure for establishing that a given reading or interpretation is more probable than any competing alternatives.
““Hirsch, Validity, 236.
“‘K. J. Vanhoozer, ‘The Semantics of Biblical Literature,” in H&men&&s, Author@, and Canon, ed.
D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, lps6) suggests, “Genm thus enables the reader to intelpret ‘meaningandto~whatkindsoftnrthclaimsarebeingmadeinandbyatext”(80).
‘12See B. Ramm’s clarikation in Profeskanf Biblical Interpretation, 3rd. rev. ed. (Grand Rapids:
Baker, 1970), 11927.
“3Vanhoozer, “Semantics,” 85. His explanation of how literature “works” to communicate is fresh and provocative. Vanhoozer suggests than any analysis of biblical literature must take into ac- count four crucial factors: (1) what the text is about-facts or issues; (2) why the text was written-its function or intention; (3) the form in which the message is “incarnated”; and (4) the power or force of the text that results from the combination of the first three elements (91-92). SO, “As Christian readers, we ought to be interested not only in the propositions themselves but in the manifold ways these propositions are presented for our consideration” (92).
The Goal of Interpretation 147
select the correct interpretation. And if our interpretation is correct, others will be able to replicate the study and come to the same conclusion.
Another locus of validation is the interpreters themselves. First, we must ac- knowledge the inevitable factors of human prejudice and parochialism-sinfulness and depravity-and our propensity to exonerate ourselves and blame others. Second, we must consider all the social, sexual, racial, political, economic, and religious factors that color our thinking. These indicate that no individual interpreter is in a position to judge rightly all the time, even given the above objective criteria. Is there a way to take into account our prejudices and preunderstandings so they don’t skew the evidence?
Can we recognize them and take them into consideration in the interpretive process?
Can we adopt some hermeneutic of distrust or suspicion that forces us to be aware of our biases and circumvent or account for them, at least as much as possible?
Clearly, one tactic has always been at the disposal of those who seek to under- stand Scripture or any literature for that matter-consider what others say. No repu- table interpreter excludes the wisdom of Christians throughout the centuries. Those who want to understand Scripture must read widely and assess judiciously what others have learned about a text. Students must consider the findings of other repu- table interpreters-preachers, teachers, and those who write various articles and other studies-all the while recognizing that not all of them share one’s own pre- suppositions. Interpreters need to learn all they can from others. At the same time, they must be skeptical of any author (or speaker) who exclaims, “No one has ever discovered this truth about this passage before.” Equally, interpreters should be cautious even when others agree with their preferred conclusions-until the evi- dence leaves no alternative. To paraphrase a proverb, “As iron sharpens iron, so one interpreter sharpens another” (Prov 27: 17).
But considering what others say goes beyond reading only the “experts.”
Swartley suggests two other processes that can also help validate an interpretation.
He proposes, first, that interpretations be validated in the “praxis of faith.“114 This criterion asks whether a proposed understanding of the text is workable in the lives of believers. Swartley suggests that interpreters apply this test “through personal and corporate meditation upon Scripture, through the witness of preaching, and through living the love, righteousness, reconciliation, and peace of the gospel.“l15 Of course, this criterion alone cannot guarantee the accuracy of a given interpreta- tion, for the history of the Church demonstrates that erroneous understandings can also be made to “work.“l16 But, given the nature of Scripture, correct understand- ings must work, and so this test can help validate them.
Second, Swartley suggests that interpreters need to secure the discernment of the believing community to check their conclusions. He says,
‘%wartley Slaoery 223. He builds here upon the “hermeneutics of consent” articulated by P.
Stuhlmacher, His~oricul Crfticism and lhzological Interpretation of Scripture: Toward a Hermeneutic of Consent (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977).
“5Swanley, Slavery, 215; his emphasis.
‘16With striking citations Swartley shows how thoughtful Christians employed the Bible to de- fend both sides of the four issues in his book: slavery, sabbath, war, and the role of women. Certainly in these instances both sides were made to “work” in the history of the Church. c
148 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
The community, whether the local congregation or a churchwide body, assesses an interpretation’s coherence with the central tenets of its traditional beliefs, its relationship to wider Christian belief?, or the way the interpretation accords or conflicts with how the community discerns the Spirit to be moving.l17
In other words, maverick or novel interpretations must be subjected to the critique of the corporate body of Christian believers. They must “ring true” in the Church.
Here is where theological acceptability informs the process.l18 Interpretive commu- nities draw boundaries around what they will admit. Rather than dismissing or de- nying this phenomenon, interpreters can take advantage of it. They can insist that interpretations be orthodox, that they conform to the community’s preunder- standing.119 They will also understand why other communities adopt differing posi- tions, “in spite of the clear evidence.” Interpreters validate their understandings of the Bible in keeping with who they are.120
However, even well-accepted interpretations need to be subjected to the bar of the worldwide Christian community. One way to examine the potentially dis- torting influence of our own preunderstandings is to listen to the insights of Chris- tian brothers and sisters elsewhere, particularly those who differ from us.121 In the North American (or other so-called First World) contexts, this must include listen- ing to the insights of believers who are poor, disenfranchised, persecuted, and op- pressed. Likewise, developing-world interpreters can learn from their First-World colleagues. Correspondingly, men and women interpreters-those of different races, those who live in the inner cities, those in the suburbs, the urban and rural, the rich and poor, the white collar and blue collar-all need to listen to each other.
“‘Swartley, Skzvey, 215.
‘W-agically, the guild of professional biblical scholars often ignores this criterion. It stands accountable to no one, usually in the name of objectivity.
ri9So, for example, orthodox Christians reject the heretical view of Jesus that Jehovah’s Wit- nesses teach. Mainstream Christians refuse to admit interpretations of Jn 1:l that suggest that Jesus was only “a god” (see the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Trun-shtion). In other words, some “creative”
interpretations lie outside acceptable bounds; heresy is always intolerable even if some “faith commu- nity” accepts it (so Colossians and 1 John were written to champion the truth). Orthodox Christians might admit the possibility of alternative explanations of baptism or eschatology, as we saw above, but they agree that a Jesus who is less than deity is unacceptable. Christians refuse to tolerate heresy.
In fact, they seek to persuade Jehovah’s Witnesses of the truth about Jesus’ deity using the very hermeneutical principles presented in this textbook.
?See J. Schreiter, Constructing Local ‘(heologies (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1985) for one study of the role of the community in adopting and shaping theology.
i2’One rich value of a recent development such as feminism is the new scrutiny given to previ- ous interpretations which historically were almost exclusively male-generated. Though we do not en- dorse all its developments or conclusions, the potential for new insight has increased. One challenging feminist critique comes from E. S. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christtin Or&ins (New York: Crossroads, 1983); and id., Bread Not Stone: 7%e Challenge of Feminist Biblical Interpretation (Boston: Beacon, 1984). In our estimation she goes too far in seeking to eradi- cate what she believes to be the oppressive androcentric and patriarchal structures in the biblical texts themselves. This succumbs to one of the perils of “reader-response” readings, where modem readers judge the Bible’s teaching according to their own standards of legitimacy. Of course, neither do we want to perpetuate or affirm oppressive androcentric structures today, and thus her agenda raises important concerns and issues. See our further assessment in the Appendix.
The Goal of Interpretation 149
Christian interpreters can gain insights from Jewish interpreters and Jewish inter- preters can gain insights from Christian interpreters.
Interpreters can learn much about the meaning of the Bible from a multitude of sources, including non-Christian interpreters. In some instances unbelievers might shed crucial light on the Bible that believers would not be able to see. But signifi- cance is another matter. Seeing the Bible’s significance belongs to believers. The point is to exert all efforts to minimize our preferences and prejudices lest they blur our vision and obstruct our ability to see the truth in the Scriptures. The history of the interpretation of the Bible will dramatize to any reader just how easily even well-intentioned and pious believers can “squeeze the text into their own molds,”
to paraphrase translator J. B. Phillips’ rendition of Rom 12:2.122
What do we do when interpreters disagree? How do we proceed when well- intentioned Christians come to different interpretations about the meaning of a text or passage? First, we should set out precisely the nature of the difference- where, specifically, do the views depart from each other. Second, we should itemize the elements in the process of study that led each interpreter to his or her view.
That is, returning to our textual criteria above, did either interpreter misconstrue some evidence or engage in shoddy reasoning, or were there other flaws in the process that indicate one of the positions must be relinquished?
Third, as we evaluate the options we must assess which one relies most on the historical meaning of a text as opposed to more creative extrapolations.123 Where one view more readily emerges from the historical sense of the text, it must stand.
The historically defensible interpretation hasflreatest authority. That is, interpreters can have maximum confidence in their understanding of a text when they base that understanding on historically defensible arguments.
Yet we may need to concede that creative interpretation also has validity, though not in the same historically defensible way. Matthew’s use of Hos 11: 1 might not have reflected the prophet’s intention nor a historical understanding of the text to its original readers, but it “fit” typologically. That is, the Hosea text did express God’s actions to protect his favored ones and to bring them out of Egypt, and that held true for the Messiah as well as for Jacob and his family. Thus, a creative inter- pretation may be accepted if:
l it expresses or conforms to orthodox Christian theology;124
‘22J. B. Phillips, 7%e New Testament in Modern English, 2d ed. (London and Glasgow: Bles and Collins, 1960), 332. His translation of Rom 12:2 reads, “Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould. . . .”
‘231n other words as we argued above, were the historical meaning of a text the only legitimate one, we might object to Matthew’s use of Hos 11:l in Mt 2:15. We might say to Matthew, “But, Mat- thew, you did not understand the historical meaning of Hos 11:l. That is not what the prophet’s words meant to the original readers.” So, the Bible seems to admit of two interpretations of Hos 11:l: the text’s original historical meaning and Matthew’s creative understanding and application of the text to the Messiah.
‘24This excludes the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ interpretation of Jn 1:l where they say the Word was
“a god.” It also excludes medieval Rome’s inadequate understanding of justification by faith, against
which the Reformers objected. c
150 Introduction to Biblical Interpretation
l it corresponds to typical paradigms of God’s truth or activity as clearly revealed in historically interpreted sections of the Bible;125
0 it works in the crucible of Christian experience-producing godliness and other valid Christian qualities, and advancing God’s kingdom; and
0 it finds confirmation along the full spectrum (racially, sexu- ally, socio-economically, et al.) of Christians within an orthodox faith- community.
Where a creative interpretation meets these criteria, it has a claim to validity. Where one occurs in isolated sectors of the Church or derives from individual interpreters, it must remain seriously suspect.
What do we mean by “a claim to validity?” An original reader of Hos 11: 1 would interpret his reminiscence in a valid way if he or she understood it to speak of God’s past deliverance of the nation Israel. That was its historically valid meaning.
Matthew’s interpretation in Mt 2: 15 was, by definition, valid too, but not in the same historically defensible way. His was a creative reader-response interpretation.
Presumably it would have met the four criteria we suggested.
Preachers, teachers, and authors of books on biblical theology are all too aware of their attackers and detractors. Where interpreters have committed errors of meth- odology or judgment, they must be willing to learn and change their interpreta- tions. As we have said already, and will continue to echo throughout this volume, determination and sincerity are no substitutes for accuracy. Nor are determination and sincerity rendered acceptable when mixed with large doses of piety! Many of us have rolled our eyes in a small group Bible study when a new or immature (or less excusably, an older) Christian has said, “What this verse says to me is . . .,” followed by a truly extraordinary interpretation that could not possibly be correct. Correct interpretation must always be our goal.
But once we have eliminated erroneous interpretations, what do we do when sincere believers adopt different or, in some cases, opposite explanations of the mean- ing of the same text? Here Christian grace must prevail. We must listen to each other and appreciate why others have arrived at alternative explanations. Consider again the millennial example. One of the views may be more historically defensible;
it may better express the historical sense of the relevant texts. But all views are cer- tainly acceptable within their respective interpretive communities. The communi- ties could make their claims that their views meet the four criteria for valid interpretation. That being the case, and given our mandate to maintain and pro- mote the unity of the body of Christ, when alternative interpretations meet the requisite criteria, Christians should agree to avoid using such texts to divide fellow- ship. Beyond simple arrogance, as the history of interpretation shows, separating
“‘Here we have “blended” typology and reader-response understandings. An acceptable reader- response must “fit” with how God works with his people, how the Church operates, and how Jesus exercises his Lordship.
The Goal of Interpretation 151
from other members of Christ’s Church over these kinds of disputed texts causes great damage. Amillennialist and premillennialist Christians need to embrace each other and their postmillennialist fellow-believers. One may say, “I don’t agree with your conclusions, but in light of who you are and your community of faith, in light of how these biblical texts have been interpreted throughout history, and in light of the diligence and care with which you attempt to understand and live in conformity to the Bible’s teachings, I concede your interpretation. You have responded to the Bible in a valid manner.” Certainly this is preferable to accusing our brothers and sisters of shoddy work (at best) or dishonesty or heresy (at worst), and separating from them as if they were enemies. We ought to exert every effort to keep in line with Jesus’ words: “Whoever is not against us is for us” (Mk 9:39), not to mention his prayer: “May [those who believe in me] be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (Jn 17:23).
We should not immediately assume that the brother or sister with the oppos- ing view is misguided, either too liberal on one side or too conservative on the other, or dishonest with the evidence. If the cliche “Blood is thicker than water”
has any validity, then even more valid is the truth that “Faith is thicker than either blood or water!” The landscape of Christian history exhibits tragic evidence of Chris- tian brothers and sisters damaging each other and the cause of Christ over their preferred interpretations of the Bible. Hear us well: our plea is not to condone heresy, error, or harmful teaching in the guise of Christian toleration; rather, we plead for humility and the grace to treat other Christians as siblings and fellow- seekers for God’s truth. Where sincere Christians come to two different interpreta- tions, we must allow that both options are possible (as outlined above), “agree to disagree,n and support each other as brothers and sisters.