THE BASIS FOR BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: A THEOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE
A "theology of Scripture" is an organized, thoughtful, theologically-oriented statement about what the Bible is and how it functions. In the Bible itself, we have a few places where one could begin to see the background of a shape of a theology of Scripture, such as the way the written "law" (torah) is treated in the Old Testament (e.g., Exodus 24; Deuteronomy 4, 6, 30; 2 Kings 22–23), or the famous reference in 2 Tim 3:16, "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." At other points, one might mistakenly read certain verses and metaphors and think they are they talking about the Bible, when in fact they seem not to be—e.g., John ch. 1, "In the beginning was the word (logos), and the word was with God, and the word was God" . . . almost no theologian or biblical scholar or thinks the word "word" (logos) here refers to the Bible, but rather this "word" is something like the full creative power of God, indeed, the very essence of God's own self, according to John. Not the Bible. In the end, we are probably going to have to admit that the Bible itself does not offer an elaborate theology or direction on its own terms for how to read it. This is work that we need to engage in.
What I mean here is that it is not enough, for Christians, to merely say that we think the Bible is "inspired" or "the word of God," though these are great starting points, and almost everyone agrees on them. What we mean by "theology of Scripture" is something deeper and more expansive; something that begins to explain how and why the Bible is what it is for Christians; something that explains, in distinctly Christian theological language, what the status of the Bible actually is (ontology), what its authority actually is, and how, in principle (even if not in every detail) interpreters should begin to interpret it (hermeneutics).
Many Christian institutions and denominations produce at least an outline of a theology of Scripture for their adherents as part of their larger "What We Believe" statements; some of these are quite short, and then they have expanded documentation elsewhere, while others are more involved. Examples: Southern Baptists, on the main SBC website (here), and then articles like this which expand and explain (here); the Presbyterians (USA) have a long "Book of Confessions," which elaborates theology on a number of fronts, including Scripture (here); the Assemblies of God has a "Statement of Fundamental Truths" with very short statement on Scripture (here) and then a series of "Position Papers" (here) where one can see how the theology of Scripture might play out in practice; a particular group of Anglicans put out the 2008 "Jerusalem Statement" (here) to clarify their view on certain matters; and Catholics have some of the most extensive and formal documents to bear on this topic, such as Dei Verbum (here), Divino Afflante Spiritu (here), and others, linked and discussed below.
An analogy: In a way, I see this phrase "theology of Scripture" as parallel to what in the legal language of a courtroom trial might be called a "theory of the case." As a prosecutor goes about making a charge and questioning witnesses and gathering evidence, that prosecutor must have some coherent, integrated theory about how the events actually occurred, some kind of timeline, some idea of who did what and when and why. Every case or argument or affirmation has to hang on some fundamental assumptions and arguments and assertions. A "theology of scripture" is like this. As Christians read and interpret, we have to have some coherent, integrated idea of what exactly it is that we are reading. What is this "thing" we call the Bible, and how does it speak to us, what metaphors do we use to use it as we do, and so on.
Where would we look to find sources throughout history from those who have created distinct theologies of Scripture?
Yes, this is overwhelming, and a lot to consider—and this is just a sample! The idea for our project is not to literally read and cite all of these. But the idea is that we will be reading and citing and inspired by some of these. Several of these sources below will be assigned readings as we move through the course, so you'll have it covered that way—and please know that any of our course texts (book club books, PDFs, etc.) are also sources you should use!
The development of the Bible itself as a material document:
…….The first and therefore most fundamental question for interpretation is: What version of the Bible are you reading? Which books? Which words? Which translation? How are you even accessing the text in the first place? Is there an “inspired” version or translation of the Bible? Is the Bible only infallible or God’s Word as it was originally written, by the original authors, or in some other form, in an ongoing way? How would you know?
…….This is such an extensive topic that we have an entirely separate document devoted to it: “Canon, Textual Criticism, and Translation Issues that Matter—
for Biblical Interpretation”From the early Church: Three major examples come to mind:
.......Irenaeus's Against Heresies, written ch. 180 AD, has several key passages that speak to theology of Scripture concerns, though it's difficult to find it all in one place. See this link (at NewAdvent.org) for a translation of this entire work, by book/chapter. Try the following: Book 2, chs. 27–28, 35; Book 3, chs. 2–4 (3.4 is a crucial statement for reading the Bible within the boundaries of Church tradition), 11 (3.11 is one of the earliest defenses of a canon for the Gospels); Book 4, chs. 20–21; Book 5, chs. 33–36.
.......Origen, On First Principles, Book IV, esp. chs. 1–3 (full text of those chapters), written c. 220 AD, which some see as the earliest coherent hermeneutical handbook for Christians.
.......Augustine, On Christian Teaching (link to ch. 3 here), written c. 400 AD, which is an early book-length treatment by a Christian on how the Bible functions. These two texts are particularly helpful for seeing how these major early Christian leaders thought about interpretation, particularly the problem of literal and figurative sense of Scripture.From the Medieval period: A truly creative period with a lot of sources, but here are two:
.......Hildegard of Bingen (1098–1179) was a female leader ("abbess") of nuns in medieval Germany; she was a major scholar in several areas, such as natural history, music, and theology; she wrote plays and invented an entire mystical language (!); and she made preaching "tours" and preached publicly in Germany during a time when such an act was very limited or even forbidden for women (!!). Pope Benedict XVI named her a "doctor of the church" (for significant academic theological contribution) in 2012. Her "Scivias," written when she was in her 40s, records spiritual visions she had, interwoven with experiential and mystical analysis of the Bible (selections from the Scivias).
.......Hugh of St. Victor's Didascalicon, from c. 1120 AD (full text) is a major medieval Christian synthesis on learning and hermeneutics. Focus on this 19-page "cheat sheet" of selections: Book 3, ch. 8, pp. 91–92 in this PDF (on the levels of meaning in a text); Book 4, ch. 1, pp. 102-103 (on the status of Scripture); Book 5, chs. 1-4, pp. 120-125 (on the method and rules for interpretation); Book 6, chs. 1-6, pp. 135-146 (more on interpretation, history, allegory)
.......Thomas Aquinas, the most famous medieval thinker, addresses some theology-of-scripture type things in his Summa Theologica, Part 1, Question 1, written c. 1270 AD (full text). Articles 9-10 here in this PDF are most directly relevant for biblical interpretation, but reading Articles 1-8 leading up to it give a sense for how Aquinas thinks and how knowledge is organized and expressed.
.......Julian of Norwich (1343–1416) was an English "Anchoress" (a type of nun who lives in a secluded place and is devoted to prayer and worship) whose writings are the earliest surviving writings of any woman in the English language. She lived through the Black Death, and after a near-death experience at age 30, she was moved to write down her visionary experiences received on her deathbed ("Revelations of Divine Love"; full text). Her engagement with Scripture in this text reveals various interpretations of major biblical events and themes; they are creative interpretations, emotional, and affective—making her something of a medieval precursor to later reading theories that will lean into experiential elements of interpretation rather than formal doctrines or institutional norms.From Reformers and Early Modernity, i.e., the 1500s–1700s: Now we see open challenges to the tradition, which are helpful for framing the problem of authority—does the institution or tradition have authority alongside Scripture, or does the individual have that authority to interpret? In this period we also see the emergence of Enlightenment responses to Scripture that one might even call "anti-theologies," in that they criticize or question the Church tradition:
........Martin Luther's "Prefaces" or "Introductions" to the Old Testament, New Testament, and various books of the Bible, which he created for his own German translations in the 1500s, are an important source for the Reformer's theology of Scripture (full text).
........The Catholic Church responded to Luther at the Council of Trent in 1546, including the Fourth Council statement on Scripture (full text).
.......Teresa of Ávila (1515–1582) was a nun of the Carmelite order in Spain devoted to reform in the period after the Reformation (the "Counter-Reformation," a revival of Catholic spirituality). She wrote an autobiography and various books on meditation practice and mystical spirituality, including The Interior Castle, which was a spiritual guide using the metaphor of a "castle of the soul" divided up into seven mansions corresponding to various states of one's soul (selections from The Interior Castle). Though not an explicit manual on biblical interpretation, we can see an approach familiar to that of Hildegard and Julian (above, in Medieval period) in that the approach is mystical and experiential, and through her citations of Scripture, we can see how she wove the Bible into her mystical meditations.
.......Missionary and colonial voices: I would like to work to add more non-euro-centric voices to our options here, though the options for texts that can reasonably be read from 16th-18th century indigenous perspectives are difficult to find. What we can offer are two ideas here: Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) was the first Catholic (Jesuit) missionary to China, and he made an attempt to translate various aspects of Catholic theology and practice and the Bible itself through a Confucian lens to win converts. So this would make a fascinating exploration, though I have not yet secured a sharable text (see here and here on Amazon). Another option to explore would be the writings of Bertolomé de las Casas (1484–1566); a Catholic, he was one of the first Spanish settlers in North American, and he zealously wrote from his faith perspective about the horror of exploitation and slavery that he saw. I have some sense that his writings draw on biblical examples and cite Genesis ch. 1 to the effect that all people—including indigenous people—are made in the image of God and not to be enslaved, and thus he would stand as a sort of precursor to later theologies of liberation drawn from Scripture in the late modern and contemporary periods (below). Upon further examination, his book A Brief Account of the Destruction of the Indies (1542; full text online) contains no explicit biblical interpretation that I can find, except one reference to native populations being made "in the image of God."
.......Spinoza's Tractatus (1670) is a great example of the "anti-theology-of-Scripture" trend, esp. ch. 3, "On the Interpretation of Scripture" (full text of that chapter).Late Modern Period, c. 1800–1945: The 19th century through the end of the second World War produced a massive amount of important material for thinking about theologies of Scripture. Many church denominations really got going as independent units during this time period, and we had the industrial revolution, the American Civil War, the invention of the car, the airplane, and nuclear weapons...the list of massive upheavals goes on and on. Sorting through all of this is its own class! Let us offer these shortcuts, acknowledging their inadequacy. We have the emergence of a faith-infused response to and appropriation of Enlightenment criticism of the Bible and faith generally in the form of liberal theologies, that sought to define the Bible in historical terms, as a human witness to an experiential encounter with God. We had fundamentalist responses to these liberals which sought to define the Bible as completely inerrant, infallible, and verbally inspired by God. And we had the Catholics, who represent their own take on all this—endorsing historical-critical study (with caution), emphasizing the role of the Church/Tradition in the act of interpretation, and making high affirmations of Scripture's inspiration and authority. Here are some sources to get us started:
......Friedrich Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith (2nd German edition came out in 1830) was a landmark work for liberal Protestant theology, and Schleiermacher is sometimes called "the father of modern theology"; sections 128–132 (= pp. 591–611 in this online edition) of this massive volume give a famous elaboration of his view that the Bible is not really the foundation of faith, but rather a witness to faith.
......Hodge and Warfield's "Inspiration" is a famous 1881 essay that many view as the classic statement on the "inerrancy" idea (full text).
......Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel (2nd edition in 1883, in German) was a major scholarly bombshell in the Enlightenment "anti-theology" mode, in that he made a radical argument about the composition and historical development of the Torah/Pentateuch. It's a long and complex work, and it's difficult to find a portion of it that nicely summarizes the entire argument; for the moment, try reading the basic summary on Wikipedia, or here is the full book, online. A source like this forces us to ask the question: How much does the actual historical development of the text of the Bible (into its final form) matter for us as we construct a theology of Scripture? And does our theology of Scripture have to be founded on a correct historical understanding of not only the historicity of the events depicted in the Bible, and if so, what is that correct understanding?
.......Pope Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus (1893) is an important Catholic statement on Scripture (an "encyclical") and historical study of the Bible (full text). This document re-states the Catholic position on the Bible and carefully endorses the use of certain historical methods to interpret it.
......The Fundamentals, a multi-volume collection 90 essays by various authors published between 1910–1915, gives a lot of material for our topic from what would become the "fundamentalist" tradition. Example essays include James Grey, "The Inspiration of the Bible" (full text), or Dyson Hague's attempt to discredit certain critical views in "The History of the Higher Criticism" (full text). There is a lot of other material in the full Volume 1 of The Fundamentals (full text).
......Karl Barth, in his Church Dogmatics (particularly vol. 1/2, sections 19–21, published in 1938), gives a famous statement on the authority and role of Scripture in the church. (Access: PDF of the first 50 pages of ch. 3, "Holy Scripture," which gives a sense of his style and argument; or go here for the full volume, GFU Library e-book full access); the relevant pages are 457–740, which is . . . a lot. The text is so dense that I'm not even sure what part of it I could assign to you. Here is a 2010 academic essay reflecting on Barth as well as his contemporary Rudolf Bultmann with regard to their beliefs about the nature and authority of Scripture, if that helps.
......Pope Pius XII's Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) is another important Catholic statement, an "encyclical," expanding on "Providentissimus Deus" and calling for new biblical translations (full text). One prominent Catholic scholar called it a "Magna Carta for biblical progress" (= high praise).Postmodern & Contemporary World (1945–present): We now arrive our familiar and confused current reality. The number of publications and statements are bewildering, but many of the main ideas were set in motion during the previous historical period sketched out above. Here are some examples to guide us:
.......Pope Paul VI's Dei Verbum (1965) is the last in the series of major Catholic statements, and comes as one of the most important documents of the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) (full text). It is classified as a "dogmatic constitution," a category lower than the "encyclical," but given its historic context at Vatican II, it was important.
.......The World Council of Churches "Report on Scripture and Tradition" (1963) represents a high point of the progressive Christian ecumenical movement (full text). The statement here is not openly combative against other traditions—indeed, it is meant to be "inclusive" and unifying—but clearly the approach and language here are meant very different from "inerrancy"-style approaches in The Fundamentals (section above) and the later Chicago Statement (below).
.......The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, written by 200+ Protestant evangelical leaders in 1978, sought to clarify the meaning of the "inerrancy" doctrine in the face of what that group saw as progressive distortions of the Bible's authority (full text).
.......The Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics, a framework for interpretation added in 1984 to the statement on Inerrancy (above), was produced by the same group as the Inerrancy statement (full text).
.......Pope Benedict XVI's Verbum Domini (2010) is an "apostolic exhortation"—apparently a level beneath an "encyclical" in terms of authority (Providentissimus Deus and Divino Afflante Spiritu are both "encyclicals")—for the Church on biblical authority and interpretation (full text).
......."Identity-Explicit Approaches" is my provisional term for a wide variety of reading methods that take the identity of the interpreter and make that identity an explicit center-point of reading and interpretation. This has many and different implications for one's theology of Scripture. This category includes approaches such as feminist, postcolonial, Native American, sexuality, Womanist (= black female), disability, Latina/o...and many other types of reading. I have curated a growing folder of "identity-explicit" approaches, here. These are just examples. You can find others in the New Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (course e-book through GFU library, here).
........"Feminist" and "Liberationist" readings: If I had to choose two major interpretive approaches that have been the most influential for more contemporary readers, particularly in more theologically progressive circles, these are the two I would choose (out of many worthy options). In the New Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (full e-book through the GFU library), see Mary Ann Beavis's entry on "Feminist Interpretation" (full text) and Gerald O. West on "Liberationist Interpretation" (full text).
Whatever else your theology of Scripture addresses, it must address the following questions: And indeed, as you read sources like those above, you can search for how any given statement addresses these issues:
(1) Ontology: What is the Bible, fundamentally? Is it literally and directly the Word of God? A human book that contains the Word of God? What does your chosen terminology actually mean in this respect? This can also include the issue of canon (which can also be addressed in terms of Authority, below)—which books are we talking about, and is there a particular manuscript or version or translation of the books through which the Bible is or becomes whatever it is?
(2) Authority: In what sense do we trust the Bible? On what questions? To what extent? Does Scripture have its own objective, independent authority, apart from any human interpreter? Or is its authority enacted or made real only through some human or institutional authority? Moreover, is authority, in your view, attached to a particular version, manuscript, or translation of the Bible? Why or why not?
(3) Hermeneutics: What major principles of interpretation should we affirm, deny, or explain? Major issues include: literal vs. figurative or allegorical readings (how do we know what kind of text we're reading?) . . . Old Testament vs. New Testament (mainly, what authority does the OT and OT law in particular still have, if any?) . . . role of historical criticism or any critical approaches . . . does the racial, geographical, economic, or social identity of the interpreter matter for interpretation . . . and so much more.
Here are some other notes on method :
On mystery and rationality: The concept of "mystery" is crucial to almost every faith tradition; however, please do not abuse the concept of "mystery" as a substitute for thought, work, struggle, and explanation for the purpose of this project. For many of us—certainly for myself—the life of faith and belief does invoke mysterious and non-rational things! This assignment and these guidelines here do not contradict that; rather, we're refusing for this project to merely appeal to these categories as if they are a self-standing explanation of your beliefs to other people. There must be some rationality and logical, linear coherence to your theology of Scripture. Why? Why not say that God is above all that, and so is the Bible? Utilizing rational argumentation is not a guarantee, at all, that one will reach a correct conclusion—but it does ensure that you are being honest and fair, and not merely saying "Scripture is X" in one case, where it benefits or suits you, but then "Scripture is not X" in this other case when it is uncomfortable or does not advance some other agenda. The numbered guidelines here are kind of fun to think about, e.g., "Don't weaponize equivocation"— see comment above about "mystery." In other words: You have to be consistent and rigorous about what you are saying for this project.
On existing institutional or church statements: You may already belong to a Church or institution that has a detailed theology of Scripture, and you adhere to that statement. If so, you should say so and work with those categories—but you still need to articulate, explain, and expand upon these existing categories in your own way (not merely repeat them or link them; though you should cite your sources). We do not want students to merely copy/paste some other existing statement of any kind into their project and then just sort of tweak things around the edges.