« Local Warming
Main
Here's to a Life Full of Length of Days »
July 2, 2007
Who Can "Fully" Interpret the Bible?
I've been meaning to write something on this subject anyway. Yesterday's online interview with Claude Mariottini provided the necessary motivation. Check out the interview. It is abnormally interesting and visit Claude's blog while you're at it. Claude is an extremely busy person and it's hard to understand how he gets everything done and still has time to post to his blog. I guess he considers his blog part of "everything." While I don't always agree with him, I enjoy and learn from Claude's posts. In the interview, Claude tells us, "I enjoy dialoguing with Atheists. Many of them write to me and read what I write." I know from my own experience that this is true. But one question and answer sequence caused my heart to skip a beat. (JW is Jim West and CM is, of course, Claude Mariottini.)
JW: Why do you think (if you do) Christians are "better" at interpreting the Bible?CM: I believe Jews and Christians can be good interpreters of the Bible. Atheists cannot be good interpreters of the Bible because they already begin with the assumption that the Bible is a bunch of nothing. Historically, both Jews and Christians can interpret the Bible and provide correct information to readers. Theologically, however, I believe Christians may have a better understanding of the Bible because they can understand the work of God in Christ. If Christians take seriously the truth that “The Word became flesh,” then the Incarnation gives Christians a better understanding of the work of God in history. [emphasis added]
I think the highlighted sentence is wrong on at least two counts. First, atheists who study the Bible seriously do not think that the Bible is "a bunch of nothing." They may think it wrong in many ways, but atheists who are sensitive to living traditions know that the Bible has had a tremendous influence on Western Civilization for the better part of two millennia. The exact length time depends on your view of the history of the canon and the process of canonization. The fact that the Bible has had and still has such influence may determine how or if atheists use Biblical material to address issues in contemporary life and society. But, in so far as atheist scholars, seek to be Biblical scholars, few if any think the Bible "a bunch of nothing." Furthermore, their atheism need not influence how they understand the Hebrew Bible in its ancient contexts any more than the presuppositions of believers influence their understanding. Of course, there is no a priori reason to think that interpretations by atheists are less susceptible to presuppositions than are those of believers either. One could make analogous points about the study the Christian New Testament. While I do not claim to be any kind of a scholar and I don't particularly like the term "atheist," as a secular student with an interest in the Hebrew Bible, I find that I agree with many of Claude's interpretations of Biblical texts and, where I disagree, I hope I disagree in terms of the text and the context and not in terms of his or my beliefs or lack of same. In general, I think the Bible, when properly interpreted, is often wrong, and/or has little or no direct application to our current situation. I think Claude would differ at least with regard to application and he would likely not find as many things that are wrong as I do. And, although I see the Bible as packed top to bottom with theology, it certainly lacks any theological that is significant to me; although, there are other things that I find very significant. However, atheist scholars can discover and articulate the theology without accepting it.
But I think my second criticism of the highlighted sentence is both more general and more damning. The underlying presupposition of the sentence in the context of Claude's complete answer to Jim's question, when generalized, is that in order to provide as full an interpretation of a text as possible, the interpreter must be part of that text's living tradition. If I am correct in seeing this presupposition behind Claude's comment, no one can fully interpret the historic works of a different religion. Neither could a religious person "fully" understand the writings of secularists. Such a presupposition might be correct if the Bible were of very recent origin and the work of the interpreter's religious community. Only those still alive can know the full significant of such a collection of tests. And there are even limitations on what they can know. But no one is still alive from the time of writing or final editing of any of the several works that make up the Bible. And no one alive today has any memory, independent of those works and their ancient cognates, of their origin, their social context and their meaning. We must glean all of that, however imperfectly, by hard scholarly work. Work that some atheists and some believers have the proper tools to do.
If the underlying presupposition of Claude's statement were correct, than no one alive today can "fully" interpret Homer, the Nordic myths, or . . . Well you get the point. Certainly, no Christian could "fully" interpret them. Perhaps a problem rests with the word "fully." But, because problems of interpretation are usually underdetermined, the believer faces whatever evidentiary limitation the atheist faces when seeking the "full" meaning of the Bible or any other set of texts. The most probable interpretation will always fall short of being a "full" interpretation. In many ways, the problem with the presupposition extends even to modern works. Claude would be justifiably upset if I claimed he couldn't fully understand Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens because he isn't an atheist.
In agreement with Claude, I too "believe Jews and Christians can be good interpreters of the Bible." But so can properly trained atheists. Jim West likes to talk about "dilettantes." But relying of Jim's accounts of the rascals, atheists are far from having a corner on the dilettante market.
I see here a kind of special pleading that some believers articulate. Not being a believer disqualifies one from totally participating in some discussion or other. This special pleading severely limits that discussion.
Posted by Duane Smith at July 2, 2007 9:13 AM | Read more on Hebrew Bible |
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.telecomtally.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2164
Comments
"I believe Christians may have a better understanding of the Bible because they can understand the work of God in Christ..."
If a person really believes this sort of rubbish & puts it forward as a "scientific" proposition, I can't take his/her general reasoning seriously & waste my time reading what he/she writes.
Posted by: Aydin at July 3, 2007 6:22 AM
Aydin,
In general, I agree with you. The problem I face in perusing my abnormal interest in the Hebrew Bible is that the overwhelming vast majority of those who study this set of ancient texts academically do not consider it an abnormal interest. For reasons I can barely fathom, they consider it central to their own identity. But that doesn't mean that they are stupid. Quite the contrary, most of them are amazingly smart. It does take some otherwise unnecessary work to learn much from most people who hold the views that Claude Mariottini holds. I would not wish this burden on you, but unfortunately, it is a burden that I must bare if I am to further my knowledge of this abnormal interest. Even in Biology, there is the likes of Francis S. Collins whose work as a biologist is generally respected as long as he doesn't say anything about religion. In this post, I wanted to make a point that I hoped some Christian scholars would understand. I'm not all together sure I succeeded.
Posted by: Duane at July 3, 2007 7:25 AM
Duane,
I've got to agree with you, I think Claude has blundered on this one. We all bring baggage to our interpretations of ancient texts and in many cases Christians bring the most. Furthermore, many Christians also have their pump primed for what the texts are "supposed" to say and they don't entertain other ideas. This certainly hampers their interpretations.
Posted by: Charles Halton at July 3, 2007 10:05 AM
Post a comment
Please read Abnormal Interest's Comments Policy.