Abstract
Scholarship related to the theological interpretation of Scripture has experienced resurgence in the last decade or two. Frequently dismissed as “confessional” interpretation in contrast to “academic” interpretation, theological interpretation has attained an increasingly central place in a variety of contexts, both academic and ecclesial. Scholarship on theological interpretation now includes a peer-reviewed journal (The Journal for Theological Interpretation), program units at the Annual Meetings of the Society of Biblical Literature (Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Christian Theology and the Bible, and Theology of the Hebrew Scriptures), several recent monographs (among others, see recent publications by Stephen E. Fowl, Daniel J. Treier, J. Todd Billings, and Joel B. Green), a handful of book series (The Brazos Theological Commentary series, the Concordia Commentary series, the Two Horizons Commentary series, the International Theological Commentary series, and Studies in Theological Interpretation), and a dictionary edited by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Craig G. Bartholomew.
A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation, edited by Craig G. Bartholomew and Heath A. Thomas, offers readers another point of entry for understanding theological interpretation. According to the preface, the book emerges from meetings of the Scripture and Hermeneutics Seminar (SAHS), which aims to “facilitate the renewal of biblical interpretation in the academy” in a way that “will help open the Book for our cultures,” according to their website (http://www.stgeorgesonline.com/centre/sahs-2/). The SAHS is “unashamedly academic,” interdisciplinary, explicitly Christian, and ecumenical. Meetings for the SAHS have resulted in a number of publications, including eight volumes in the Scripture and Hermeneutics series published by Paternoster and Zondervan and the 2012 book Hearing the Old Testament: Listening for God’s Address (Eerdmans). The preface to A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation indicates that it is the result of SAHS meetings held between 2012 and 2014 (x).
The book consists of a preface, a chapter containing “A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation,” twelve chapters corresponding to the Manifesto, and back matter (list of contributors, Scripture index, and subject index). The preface introduces the project and key assumptions driving it, several worth noting here. First, the editors define theological interpretation as “interpretation for the church,” which they suggest is both one of the most recent approaches to the Bible and one of the most ancient (p. ix). Second, the purpose of the Manifesto—both the chapter length version and its exposition in subsequent chapters, I assume—is “an attempt to identify the key issues in theological interpretation and to propose fruitful ways forward” (p. ix). The Manifesto serves to gather and present “essential tenets to help orient the church toward theological interpretation today” (p. x). Third, the preface briefly touches on the challenges inherent to theological interpretation: reading Scripture in a way that approaches it as God’s transformative address while nevertheless being thoroughly academic (p. ix).
The book’s structure is unique. The Manifesto itself numbers twenty-five pages divided into twelve sections written by the book’s seventeen contributors. The remainder of the book is devoted to explaining and expanding upon the Manifesto’s twelve sections. The sections and their respective authors are as follows: “The History and Reemergence of Theological Interpretation (Angus Paddison), “Doctrine of Scripture and Theological Interpretation” (Michael W. Goheen and Michael D. Williams), “The Ecclesia as Primary Context for the Reception of the Bible” (Robby Holt and Aubrey Spears), “Theological Interpretation and Historical Criticism” (Murray Rae), “The Role of Hermeneutics and Philosophy in Theological Interpretation” (William P. Olhausen), “The Canon and Theological Interpretation” (Stephen G. Dempster), “Biblical Theology and Theological Interpretation” (David J. H. Beldman and Jonathan Swales), “Mission and Theological Interpretation” (Michael W. Goheen and Christopher J. H. Wright), “The Telos (Goal) of Theological Interpretation” (Heath A. Thomas), “A Framework for Theological Interpretation” (Denis Farkasfalvy), “Theological Commentary” (Mark Gignilliat and Jonathan T. Pennington), and “Theological Interpretation for All of Life” (Craig G. Bartholomew and Matthew Y. Emerson). As the different sections/chapters listed above indicate, this is a broad and ambitious project, drawing from several academic disciplines. Contributors bring their specialties in biblical studies, theology, missiology, and philosophy to bear on the topic of theological interpretation.
In a review of this size, it is not possible to provide an in-depth analysis of each chapter. As with any collection of essays, the contributions are of a mixed quality. I found the chapters by Rae, Goheen and Wright, Gignilliat and Pennington, and Bartholomew and Emerson to be the strongest in the book. These chapters are generally well argued, nuanced, and informative. Rae’s chapter adequately handles the tenuous relationship between historical criticism and theological interpretation, resisting better than some of the other contributors the dichotomy between academic/modern and theological/premodern interpretative approaches. In addition to exploring the connections between mission and theological interpretation, Goheen and Wright’s chapter provides readers with an accessible introduction to missional hermeneutics. Gignilliat and Pennington’s chapter on theological commentary succeeds, not only in providing an overview of the history of theological commentaries, but also in offering a balanced consideration of what a theological commentary is (or does) and how that relates to the ontology of Scripture. Their discussion of recent attempts to liken theologies of Scripture to the Church’s developing theology of the Incarnation (especially the work of Peter Enns) is quite thorough and carefully written. I appreciated reading Bartholomew and Emerson’s concluding chapter on “Theological Interpretation for All of Life.” Although one might get the impression from other contributors that theological interpretation is only concerned with the Bible and God’s revelation through it, their chapter widens the focus to explore Scripture’s “comprehensive witness” given Christ’s Lordship over all of creation.
Although there are strengths throughout the book, there are certain problems as well. First, as someone with a vested interest in theological interpretation, the book struck me as somewhat insular. It should be stated here that, although the book claims to be written by a “diverse group” of scholars (p. ix), there is not a single woman or a person of color among the seventeen contributors. Additionally, most of the contributors appear to come from broadly evangelical backgrounds and conservative theological orientations. The majority of their conversation partners, likewise, originate from that background as well. This is not problematic in itself, but it lends to theological interpretation a certain homogeneity that may not exist; additionally, it left me wondering how much room there is in their Manifesto for other proponents of theological interpretation who may hold a different understanding of Scripture, revelation, or God’s activity in the world. Second, for a book with “interpretation” in the title, I was discouraged by how little actual interpretation is contained in its pages. Frequently, a verse, passage, or entire section or book of the Bible appears in parentheses following a sentence in support, I presume, of a claim, but I often found myself asking how or why these references pertained to the points being made. While understandably more focused on the theory of theological interpretation than on its practice, the use of Scripture by some contributors implies that the meanings of these texts are self-evident and uncontested. For an approach that seeks to honor the “otherness of the text” (p. 83), such a use of Scripture leads to the impression that one will never find anything really troubling, problematic, or even surprising in Scripture. Third, and finally, there is a Biblicism throughout that I found problematic. To take but one example, when discussing the authority of Scripture, Goheen and Williams ask, “If we are staking our lives on the message of Scripture, the question is urgent: Can we trust it for life and for death” (p. 65). This strikes me as not only problematic but bordering on idolatrous. Is not a central claim of the Christian faith that God, and God alone, is the one who brings life and death (and resurrection)? Do we really stake our lives on Scripture or do we stake our lives on the God whom Scripture reveals?
As the preceding analysis should indicate, A Manifesto for Theological Interpretation will provide readers will plenty to reflect upon and engage, even if they disagree with some of the assumptions or conclusions of the contributors as I have.