"In chapter 3 of his book, An Introduction to Old Testament Study, John H. Hayes discusses the consequences of the Classical Renaissance on the field of biblical studies. He notes three elements in Renaissance thought that had a particularly significant effect. One of these was that, “Renaissance humanists stressed the use of grammatical analysis as the means for understanding ancient texts” (pg. 101). Hayes states that, according to Erasmus (1467-1536), “the trivial concerns of the grammarian are of more importance in understanding the biblical texts than the inquiries of theologians” (pg. 102).
What ought we think of this? How far can philology, grammar, and textual criticism go in interpretation? Should biblical studies take precedent to theology or should theology take precedent and inform our exegesis?"
To state my conviction simply at the outset: Solid scriptural exegesis trumps anyone's theological assertions. However, scripture study for the purpose of shaping theology is a discipline best undertaken in dialogue with the whole depth and breadth of the Church; in light of the clear convictions of the Christian community throughout history, in conversation with the Christian community in our own day, and with a keen awareness of the work of the Holy Spirit in making proper understanding possible.
As tools for proper understanding of scripture, language studies, grammar, text criticism and the like can be very powerful. That is, if we truly take scripture to constitute the self-revelation of God himself for the benefit of becoming known to humanity as he truly is, and this scripture was originally transcribed in a language and cultural context other than our own, then we ought to be very concerned that the scripture is then transmitted and communicated to us in a manner that accurately conveys what the original authors intended it to convey. This is the task of the biblical grammarian, historian and the like; to help wrestle, out of textual and contextual elements both large and minute, a more complete and accurate picture of the biblical author's work and intent. This is work which is foundational, essential, and primary to the interpretive and synthesizing work of the theologian; apart from the authority of genuine scriptural scholarship and biblical underpinning, theology is merely a work of rogue philosophy, rootless and ultimately limited in real benefit. In this sense, I would strongly assert that biblical studies take the foremost place, and inform our theology.
That said, tools are only as useful and effective as the person's hands in which they are wielded. Textual/contextual study is not an end in and of itself; while they can, and ought to, inform our interpretation and application of scripture, they cannot accomplish that work on their own. A fork can be useful for getting food to one's mouth, but the fork itself does not constitute food, nor does it lift itself from the plate; its effectiveness depends both upon who is eating, and what is being eaten. Every one of us is impaired, to one degree or another; both by sin, and by the natural limitations of our own wisdom. This realization ought to breed a strong sense of humility within us as we engage with scripture and the work of theology. For this reason, we are called to the mutually challenging/sharpening/clarifying work of engaging scripture in dialogue with community, both historic and present. The theology we inherit from the Church historic is of great value; the sum total of many lives worth of prayer, conversation and study by the community of the saints in Christ. We impoverish ourselves to neglect their insights, and it is in conversation with their theology that our own study of scripture will be enhanced and enriched, standing upon their shoulders and benefiting from their work.
All of this, finally, comes to naught lest we fail to recognize that it is only through the work of the Holy Spirit in our own hearts and minds that we are able to rightly discern the nature and voice of God; either in scripture, or in the voice of the saints.
No comments:
Post a Comment