Over the past few days, several bibliobloggers have been discussing the idea of how exclusive biblical interpretation should be. That is, who makes the best interpreters. Two bloggers, Alastair and Jim West, have argued against just anyone interpreting the Bible, while Chris Heard at Higgaion has countered by arguing again exclusivism in interpretation. I will allow my readers to read their posts, as I do not plan to engage in the conversation directly, but I did want to make one comment.

One of the things I have been thinking about recently is the idea of a chronological exclusivism in biblical interpretation. That is, to what extent does my own approach to interpreting the Bible imply that interpreters throughout history have been wrong? If I claim that the historical critical method is the way we should interpret the Bible (and indeed this is what I teach), does that not imply that anyone who does not use this method is wrong? Since no one prior to the 19th century used this method and not everyone uses it today, is that not in and of itself a bit of scholastic hubris?

I don’t have any answers so far, but what I am seeking to elucidate is a way of saying that I believe that the historical critical method is the best way of interpreting the text for today while not invalidating other methods of reading the text, whether those methods be contemporary of historical. The Bible is a dynamic book and cannot be limited to one method of interpretation, so how do we say that some methods are good, others are better, but still others are unacceptable?

Granted, these are not the most cohearent thoughts, but one of the pluses and minuses of Open Source Scholarship ™ is seeing scholarship in progress, even when it is sloppy. I would love to hear the thoughts of others on this topic.

Permalink