There are many first questions we might want to ask of this text. In the ten years since it has been written have we observed more rhetorical or political interpretation? Is the rhetorical-political turn warranted? Is feminism the best place to locate this turn? In response to Childs and as a bit of a segue, one thing we might want to reflect on is the way in which both Biblical Theology as Childs considers it, and Ethics of Biblical Interpretation as Schussler Fiorenza consider it, succeed as second order discourses on the Bible. These are the two substantial discourses about how we interpret the bible operative in the academy in recent memory (more on this later). How are we helped in approaching the biblical text when we approach it in this way?
Okay, we fell into a lull for a week or two — I blame myself, as famous theologian Georg Festrunk said — but let’s move on to Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza’s Presidential Address to the Society of Biblical Literature, &ldqu;;The Ethics of Biblical Interpretation.” (I note that the SBL has removed this from their website; the link I gave earlier will no longer work. If you need a copy of the PDF file, just let me know.) Trevor will post some beginning observations, and take lead on the discussion of this essay.
By way of summary, Childs usefully got us talking about the context of biblical interpretation: does it matter, for instance, who gets to determine the extent of the canon? He likewise elicited questions about the criteria by which one assesses interpretations. How well does interpretation X accord with a doctrinal definition of &ldqu;;inspiration”? What happens if a bare historical evaluation comports badly with the ways that faith has read a particular passage? (And whose faith affects the answers? Who occupies the judgment seat?)
Keeping these questions at the center of our deliberations, let’ press on to talk about the contexts, criteria, and determinations that bear on our interpretations —and how we bear the obligation to interpret ethically.
What I appreciated most about Child’s thesis was the way he reintroduced faith into the Biblical Theology equation. His thesis, that “the canon…is the most appropriate context from which to do Biblical Theology” rests heavily on premises that cannot be logically demonstrated and must therefore be appropriated on the basis of the interpreter’s faith. He writes in chapter six, “The status of canonicity is not an objectively demonstrable claim but a statement of Christian belief,” in other words, a proclamation of faith in the God who speaks through the canon. Later in the same chapter, he opines, “The claim for the inspiration of Scripture is the claim for the uniqueness of the canonical context of the church through which the Holy Spirit works.” I would expand slightly upon this statement; the claim for the inspiration of Scripture is a claim for the miraculous-ness of the canonical context. Like the wedding wine at Cana, something fundamentally new is brought into being in the canon: “The confession of the canon as a context is a claim that the juxtaposition of the two Testaments in a particular order and form creates a context that is different from either of the two Testaments alone.” Like the multiplied bread on a remote hillside, a supernatural creating of something from nothing takes place: “The whole [of the canon] is more than the sum of its two parts.” Like all miracles, the Bible must be accepted and appropriated through faith. While reliance upon the canon for the context of Biblical theology is probably not required for a valid Biblical theology (though I must admit a sympathy for Childs’ argument), reliance upon faith most certainly is.
This is germane to our discussion of ethics because, in the final analysis, all theologically significant interpretations require a measure of faith. In fact, one might even argue that the more theologically significant the interpretation, the greater the measure of faith required to appropriate it. (Compare, for example, one’s interpretation of Luke 2:7, “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son,” with one’s interpretation of John 1:14, “The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.” The first merely asks us to accept that a woman named Mary gave birth to a male child; the second implies something of far greater theological import.) Judgments of the “soundness” of one interpretation over another cannot be made outside the framework of faith or without reliance upon propositions that are not objectively provable.
What, then, is the role of faith in discovering the “sound interpretation?” I’d love to hear your thoughts on the matter, as well as your critique of my line of reasoning.