Interacting with the Texture of the Scriptural Record

David E. Cox, PhD

February2011

Beginning Comments

The Historical Critical Method of Biblical Study as conceived within the 19^th Century German academic community has received less emphasis within the mainline denominational educational programs of North America.  There appears to be less and less emphasis for historical critical methodologies and more and more calls for alternative processes to engage the textual record.

My instruction in Biblical Studies came in the 1970’s and 80’s, just as the Historical Critical Method of Study was beginning to receive less emphasis.  A more open, multifaceted approach was advocated, especially with a reimagining of the text through various disciplines of Rhetorical, Deconstructive, and Ideological Criticism. I do appreciate the insights that have been gained by using a multifaceted approach in Biblical Interpretation, especially as it seems to open the conversation among a more diverse group of hearers. Yet, in these days I am drawn back to my earlier roots— to the texts that undergird the conversation… the texts as they have come to us in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek.  And this is primarily due—I admit freely—to what I perceive as the misuse of the Scriptures within what I will call the Christian Right in the North American experience.[1] There is also the tension which exists in the ongoing debate between fundamentalist, modernist, and post-modern concerns in present day dialogues which provide clear distinctions and positions within the North American Christian experience.[2]

My interaction with the Christian Right has caused me great consternation and pause; especially as perceptions of the Scriptures are becoming more and more minimalistic in scope.  Sola Scriptura, which is one of the five great “solas” within the Lutheran Movement, has become an absolutized concept which hampers and arrests conversation with the world, rather than prompting engagement with the world.[3]  I have sensed within the general membership of the denomination in which I serve an increased indulgence toward a “shallow” reading of Scripture. Combined with this thin perception of understanding the Scriptures is a literalistic reading of the text from a hermeneutic of terror and intolerance, rather than from justice and compassion. This view of Scripture, Theology, and Ecclesiology especially centers its viewpoints through the lenses of the bankrupt morality codes of the 19^th and 20^th Centuries being highlighted as somehow being “good news,” rather than the “good news” as is described by the term euangelion—“gospel.” And it is the gospel we serve—and the God of this gospel we worship—not a limited perspective of biblical interpretation based on patriarchal or cultural imposition. We do not worship the Bible: we worship rather the Triune God, who is the incarnate “Word” known to us as Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ.

As an ecclesiastical professional (an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Pastor) who continues to enter a pulpit on a regular basis, I consider it essential to provide a different hermeneutic for opening the scriptures than regurgitating a morality debate from the ancient past. The proclamation of the gospel through the lens of a Theology of the Cross has been my primary focus, as this appears to be the kernel or central feature of the preaching of the early church in the Acts of the Apostles and the compilation of the four Canonical Gospels. My hope has been to supply within the community of the faithful a “living word”—a word provided by and for the “mouth house” of the gathered known as the church.

Yet, even this approach must affirm some points of importance in crafting a hermeneutic worthy of the gospel of Christ. This hermeneutic is exercised within the canonical whole of the Scriptures—and, I would assert embodies a hermeneutic of pluralism and diversity. The Scriptures are quite pluralistic in their construction and compilation—especially as one sees the dialogue between different strands and themes interworking side by side within the gathered text.[4] Even as the text embodies various strands of traditions, and emphasizes insights from thousands of years past, the conversation with the scriptures requires new places of departure and conversation which allow for questions, for clarification, for reflection, and for newness.

Deus auctor sacrae scripturae… Moving from a position of Inerrancy to one of Inherency

Within the Western Catholic tradition there has been an over arching statement, which is accepted in theological conversations regarding the “inspiration” of the sacred text. Deus auctor sacrae scripturae… “God is the auctor of sacred scripture.[5]” The word “auctor” is the crux of the matter for those still wishing to connect to this statement, even as the church emerges into new horizons and concepts of mission, theology, and faith.[6]  “Auctor” may be rendered in English as either the “originator/beginner/founder/creator or author” of a specific item. Those who would emphasize the close allusion between “auctor” and the English word “author” would affirm a repristinarian theory of inerrancy.[7] Others will chose the option of translating “auctor” from its root sense of “originator/beginner/founder/ creator,” affirming the concept of inherency—the text embodying divine breath—and thus moving with the writers of the text,[8] but without requiring a specific or absolutized understanding of each and every text within the scriptures.

I would suggest that these concepts of scripture being either “authored” by the text, (or that scripture is to be seen as Archetype) or scripture as being something that is “originated/begun/founded/ created” by divine “breath/Spirit” (or that Scripture is to be seen as a Prototype) fuels the argument we experience today. I would also suggest that either position allows for an authentic voice within the entire Scriptural record, contributing to the “scriptura sui ipsius interpres[9]” conversation in theology and life.  Of course, even allowing this consideration of “archetype” or “prototype” position of interpretation, there is no uniform agreement within the church catholic on this point. [10]

As a proponent of the Prototype method of reading the scriptures, I propose that seeing the text as revelation and as progression allows for freedom in considering a new word, a living word, for today. Using a Canonical Critical method, I would suggest that within the Canonical record there is the following progression or set of strands within the scriptural texture:

n  Purity

n  Justice

n  Compassion

As the received canon of scripture,[11]  there is a movement from texts which are concerned with issues of purity, to texts which are concerned with justice, to those texts concerned with compassion.  Within the canonical record of the church catholic, these three axis points interact in a manner which considers the interactions of God with the people, the people with God, and the people with each other. In the progression there is a strong tendency to see purity being tempered by the issues of justice, and justice as a concept being tempered by compassion. All three thematic strands, Purity – Justice – Compassion, interact with each other, and interpret each other, but the progression tends to put the emphasis toward compassion. To allow for this pattern creates the opportunity for conversation, consideration of the text, and hermeneutical exposition of the text that is based on the image of scripture as prototype. I would affirm that this is a constructive path pathway to listening to the text; to speaking from the text to a given context and situation; and in its implementation to prompt action for the sake of the neighbor and the world.

Some Considerations and Concerns in Handling the Scriptural Text

I affirm that in attempting to proclaim a word which intersects with the community of faith there must be an attachment to the Scriptural text. This attachment may come in a myriad of ways—but follows a basic pattern where hermeneutics are employed to tie the text to the circumstances or situation of the congregational community.  In a simplified form the pattern is graphed out as follows:

Texts /Traditions         >     >   > Hermeneutics  <       <     <      Situations/Community Context

To consider a biblical text requires a patient, deep textual reading which examines the “texture” of the record itself. Rather than emphasizing simplistic themes, or moving quickly toward ideological concerns, the text itself contains depth and texture that require exploration. The fabric of the text provides strands of material, is shaped by the specific literary form it embodies, which is created from the tension of the loom of experience of the authors and sources. These have been intentionally brought together by the compiler of the scriptural record. Such activities pulsate with life, much like feeling the past touch of fingers on a pot that has been thrown on a wheel.

The words chosen by the processes of redaction convey the feeling of the textual cloth, so to speak, of the one who chooses to convey a word forward in time and place.  In such activities we perceive and encounter a voice from the past. Is there a feel of the oral word or proclaimed word in a text, prompted by examples of parallelism and word play? Is there a presentation within the text that gives alliteration, or evidence of a spoken rallentando due to the use of consonantal sounds that naturally slow the speech of the presenter?  Or is the text an example of prose that intends to simply but clearly provide points to be recorded?

At this point the rhetorical and the ideological can and needs come to play—but I would affirm, not before this point. This is where the Sitz em Leben—the “life situation” of the community and its context comes to life within the imagination of the preacher.  As the preacher comes to the text, he/she must come with the context of the people of God of this present time and place. Biblical scholarship that simply locks the Bible and its message into the past causes the Bible to become more irrelevant in the present, and opens the gate to shallow interpretation and simplistic moralization by ancient texts in ancient contexts. The God who makes “all things new” certainly is about more than absolutizing attitudes better understood and contextual for the Bronze or Iron Age peoples where they began. New paradigms and visions are essential to be mixed with the old, lest there be no possibility for fresh words and insights for today’s context of faith and life.[12]

The ontology of the Bible might be stressed as a “paradigm of God’s work from Creation through re-creation out of which we may construct paradigms for our own works, rather than as a jewel box of ancient wisdom to be perpetuated.”[13] Just as the Canon was developed over time with the ability to both be stable and adaptable (think how Deuteronomy was a revision of the previous Mosaic codes, or Jesus’ new interpretations with the Sermon on the Mount; or how Matthew and Luke were free to reformulate and rewrite the materials from Mark) the preacher becomes the embodiment of the “living voice” physically present among today’s people of God, offering a word which may highlight or transform or even annihilate a previous teaching.[14] And, if the Canon allows for change, transformation, and re imaging within its sacred pages, who are we to consider this process beyond the context and situations of our present age?[15] Using the approach of sensing how the purity/justice/compassion progression is being engaged, as well as the movement of the breath of God, and the beginning of the message being rooted in the prototype of the received text, the preacher is poised to sense the voice of God for a new day and age.

At this point—dare I say it— comes the great work of the preacher to do the careful, responsible and critical work of divine/human conversation to continue the dialogue between the God we confess and the people whom we serve. I would suggest a combination approach, where we move beyond the English or other modern language translations to do the work highlighted by the Historical Critical Method, lest the textual record is relegated to a shallow image.  We move beyond the idea of the text as an archetype to a prototype, and realize it is the beginning of a conversation to be held with the people of God in this time and place. As the text is seriously engaged, the insights of the preacher and hermeneutical skill will connect up with the contextual Sitz em Leben of the present, with the result being a voice which is alive, relevant within the community, and authentic to the task of proclamation by creating the voice of Christ in our midst.[16] At this point the text does become a prototype of proclamation, and the viva voce of the Word alive within community,[17] prompting new life among the people of God.

Moving from a Shallow or Thin reading of the Text to a Thick, Layered Reading

Recently I heard Walter Brueggemann speak about the importance of handling the text with care.  His concerns with shallowness discuss the density of the text in terms of thinness and thickness.  Without the process of handling scriptural texts within the original language, context, form and history of interpretation we are easily swayed to read the text “thinly.” We read the text in our chosen vernacular language with set presuppositions that invade the concept of objectivity and plunge people into life experiences of race, gender, economic place and classism, and subject the text to our own comfort zones.  Over against this type of superficial reading is the reality of texts that are not thin, but rather thick, layered, sometimes conflicted with other texts, and elusive in meaning.  For Brueggemann the texts are this way because they express interaction with the God of these texts: a God who is also thick, layered, sometimes conflicted, irascible and unwilling to be somehow domesticated by the likes of institutional communities and individual readers. The God of the scriptures can be elusive, is untamed by humans, and yet is willing to be bound by hesed—covenantal love and promise.  The scriptures are thick and layered—not shallow nor thin.

Allow me a divergence into another academic discipline. A dictum of Library and Information Science professionals regarding the preservation of information is that when technology provides a new means to carry or contain information that the medium and the method by which it is transmitted becomes more fragile than the previous medium, and the previous method.  Vellum is more durable than paper. Not all paper is of similar quality, composition, or acidic level. Yet paper stores with less protracted processes than microfilm, magnetic tape, or digital renditions.  The medium becomes more fragile—and the technology becomes more fragile to interact with the container. And, unless the medium has the correct technology to transmit the information, the information becomes unreadable and lost for use.

Now, I am not a Luddite—I love my computer, the Internet, and modern scholarship. I am concerned, however, about the process of embracing present day technologies when it discards the processes of Biblical scholarship. I am concerned that a lack of attention to Biblical Languages, literary forms, syntax and style are becoming more a part of the past skills of scholars and other users of Biblical material. Such skills are being replaced by processes considered more modern, and with perspectives less interactive with the texture of the scriptural record as found within its languages of origin.  And this distance from the text is no less brittle and fragile than the distance that occurs within the processes discussed in the paragraph above.

If we expect to encourage and apprehend strong preaching, teaching, and theological interpretation from our academic and ecclesiastical professionals, the development and integration of sound textual methodology is crucial.  From such a professional foundation the practitioner is then able to utilize the more recent trends and theories of scholarship with eyes that have been opened first to the scriptural record as found within the textures of its language of origin. Otherwise, we may be providing not depth, but shallowness within our presentations of the gospel—and our preaching, teaching and praxis thus becomes more and more fragile as we move forward into the world. To counteract such fragility, the preacher’s hermeneutic comes from the ability to consider a living word, within a context… borne from also seriously interacting with the text.[18] It is in being in conversation between that which is old and that which is new that the preacher becomes the presenter and sound of the Dominion of God within the community and its context.[19]

Suggestions for the Academy and Ecclesiastical Professionals

 I sense an urgent need for Theological and other Academic institutions to continue teaching Biblical languages—a practice that more and more Seminaries and Divinity Schools are making elective rather than required. As one who has struggled to teach both Greek and Hebrew to seminarians and college students, I am also aware that not all people have the gift of languages. What are we to do about this limitation? My response is to teach the languages anyway. If a person is encouraged to interact with Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic and other Biblical languages they are farther along the road toward seeing something deeper than an English or other modern language interpretive translation. Language classes can still be required, but might do better if there is a system where instead of a letter grade credit is given for having endured the process!

Friends and colleagues of mine in the ministry have been helpful in thinking about the need to at least be exposed to the Biblical Languages in theological education. Even if a person cannot master the Biblical languages, they can realize that there is more depth to the text than the English translations are able to embody into words. Since interpretation and proclamation are always to be done within community, not everyone in the community needs to have a mastery of the original languages. But the pastor can receive the instruction to consider that the text is not thin, but thick and dense, so that the default of literalism does not cause even less understanding. Employing Paul's image of the body of Christ as an example of dealing with the text: not all are translators; not all are systematic experts; not all are historians; but from many members we are one body.[20]

In keeping with the idea of being exposed to the complexities of the Biblical text, ecclesiastical professionals should find and acquire good textual reference tools. In our digital age I would first suggest a software program, such as Bible Works.[21] Other digital tools are also available through many resource libraries. These tools are essential in considering the scriptures within the context and interaction of scripture. I still appreciate my “analog” reference books (that old romantic notion of holding a book) but many software programs exist which allow for an integrated examination of passages with linked resource and translation tools. For use with the intention of teaching the scriptures within an adult education program I would suggest something like Edward Markquart’s “Life of Christ”[22] or Harry Wendt’s Crossways.[23] The benefit to the community studying through the scriptures is well worth the effort, besides the secondary benefit for the presenter: you are engaged with the text, which you then engage with your community. Such a process will strengthen the connection with the text—it is far better than simply getting a “big floppy bible” and attempting to be louder than anyone else in the room!

Preachers must seek out suggestions for the identification of excellent online blogs and accessible materials.[24]  The imagination of the preacher is something that can wither and die without proper hydration and stimulation. With the continually improving platform of the Internet on-line blogs are readily available from diverse parts of the globe. Reference materials are accessible through programs such as the Libronix Digital Library. Complete editions of reference works for biblical and theological study are available in digital format. Other interactive on-line access platforms can be accessed through Divinity Schools and Seminary Libraries, and are often available by being an alumni/a, or applying for an access card. Thankful, a user does not have to be physically present within a library to use its resources!

The development of text studies among ecclesiastical professionals which encompass more than one denominational perspective, as well as promote the greater community in the exegetical and homiletic process is invigorating. Too often groups of denominational clergy gather as if they were family, and all other traditions were strangers: thankful the Ecumenical movement has prodded us beyond such insular sectarian pettiness. It is time to extend ourselves, and to communicate with other ecclesiastical professionals. People who are well grounded and integrated in their faith and life have nothing to fear from other denominational perspectives. Just because one participates does not demand an integration of other methodologies: but there is no choice of whether or not to do so if there is no participation. So what is a solution? Don’t be so mired in the past that you don’t engage with new ways to think, or are unavailable to interacting with other professionals who are engaged within the same task of proclaiming the gospel. An integrated textual study group, where more than one faith tradition is represented supports the vision that the church, though made up of many, is one body in Christ. When diverse thoughts, insights, and homiletical “shop talk” happens in a more integrated setting the mental, spiritual, and communicative juices start to flow—and the taste can be incredible.

The practice to gather and share the old and new has its roots within the rabbinical movement of the Jewish faith, where debate and consideration of a text was considered both noteworthy and necessary. I have the image of the scriptures being considered by the rabbi’s as the setting of light within a faceted gemstone. The gemstone, however, is seen differently by those gathered, in that it is casting diffused rays of light from its facets in various and diverse ways. The manner in which people around a table may share their perceptions of the light from the text allows for as many facets of light to be experienced as possible. And the preaching task is better for the participants.

A last suggestion for pastors and other ecclesiastical professions is to encourage using continuing education time on activities that will allow for excellent interaction with communication and homiletical scholars.  This does not always mean having to buy an airline ticket, or traveling significant distance to events.  Just this past month (January 20, 2011 to be exact) I participated in the Trinity Institute’s recent webcast activity (from Trinity Episcopal, Wall Street, New York City). Two days of presentations, small group discussions, and interaction with scholars would have cost a $1000.00 or more if I had traveled to New York City. The webcast was a cost effective solution (25 dollars for two days!) and interactive with the main site and communities gathered from around the globe.

Concluding Comments

An acquaintance of mine continually reminds me of a central truth—preaching is a shared experience.  It is not simply talking, but a conversation with others. If this is true, then as preachers we must engage in a conversation, willing to share both what is new and old from wrestling with the scriptures, with others in the community, and with those who hunger for substance and purpose as they engage with the text and the community gathered around the text. And, as with any conversation, be willing to hear what is shared from the experiences of those who also are called, named, and claimed by the Triune God. One must be dedicated to share what is old and what is new to allow the conversation to embody authenticity, integrity, and transformative power for those who engage in the process.

As members of a faith tradition which affirms the power of the Holy Spirit, alive and embedded within the community of faith, there is an increasing need to remain flexible in our interaction with the text. The text is more than letters on a page, containing only a single meaning determined from someone in the past. The Canonical Record is diverse, gathered from various periods and circumstances where the Spirit moved among the people of God, and gave a word that was crucial for that specific place and time.  The text is thus a prototype of the activity and voice of God, and remains alive and pulsing with potential for a new word to be spoken in the community of faith today. After a time of study, reflection, contextual consideration of the scripture and the contextual present of the community, the preacher continues in a long tradition of those who with temerity, or reticence, or a galloping heart that cannot be stopped speak a specific word for a specific time. This word is alive, vocalized in the assembly, and comes from those who stand with the assurance to say, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” Such are those who take seriously the call to embody the living voice of God for the sake of the Baptized. Such are those who are the preachers seeking to speak the word of the Lord.