Fantastic article!! It is clear that one must bring subjective context into reading scripture but it must be such that it connects the reader with true things
I thought the example of a poet reciting his poem afresh when asked its meaning was spot on — scripture must be taken in its wholeness and by getting to pedantic and scientific with it we risk alienating ourselves from its deepest meanings
Great question, John. Many thanks! I would say that many people who read the biblical text almost exclusively historically have a great deal off academic background invested in their position. Also, the search for the one true meaning of the text is thoroughly wedded to a modern metaphysic. If you try to shake those kinds of trees, people get upset.
As a priest I knew used to say, “Everything is Christ.” The same Logos made manifest and revealed in Christ is also equally present in the Scriptures and all of creation.
This begs the question: As the Body of Christ, isn’t the Church nothing less than all of creation?
Also, do you remember the source from that egregious Tremper Longmann quote on the Canticle? I remember reading a book where he said something similar while speaking ill of St. Cyril and St. Gregory’s exegesis. I would love to track it down again! Thank you
Hi, Dr. Boersma - I appreciate your writing and work for the church. I was confused by the citing of some of the works early on: "Recent titles such as Reading while Black, Women and the Gender of God, and Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations all illustrate the tendency to let one’s background and context shape one’s interpretation of the biblical text." Were you saying that these works were examples of a wrongheaded tendency to bring one's background to bear, or were you saying that these works promote a healthy viewpoint of background influence and we ought to be more aware of that? I thought it might go either way.
Sorry for the confusion, Steve. I meant the former. These are examples of a wrongheaded approach that allows one’s background to determine his interpretation in unhealthy ways.
I think my impression of Reading While Black may have caused the confusion. I believe Dr. McCaulley's argument is that one's background can help him or her to see what is objectively in Scripture when others may not be apt to see it because of a different background. From the examples he gave, I think there is merit to his position. Is that what you're objecting to, or did you have other aspects of his work in mind?
Fr. Hans, thank you for your wonderful work in this area. Do you have any thoughts on why one of the most common reactions to Patristic exegesis is Fear? I suppose a healthy fear of misusing a text is good. But why aren’t we just as fearful that in our modern ways of reading we are in danger of failing to recognize the risen Jesus (Luke 24)?
Very fair question. I suspect that, as moderns, we are afraid of loss of control. Historical exegesis offers control or mastery of the text. That we aren't as fearful to recognize Jesus Christ shows just how modern we are, and how secondary our mystagogical aims are to us.
Fantastic article!! It is clear that one must bring subjective context into reading scripture but it must be such that it connects the reader with true things
I thought the example of a poet reciting his poem afresh when asked its meaning was spot on — scripture must be taken in its wholeness and by getting to pedantic and scientific with it we risk alienating ourselves from its deepest meanings
Great question, John. Many thanks! I would say that many people who read the biblical text almost exclusively historically have a great deal off academic background invested in their position. Also, the search for the one true meaning of the text is thoroughly wedded to a modern metaphysic. If you try to shake those kinds of trees, people get upset.
As a priest I knew used to say, “Everything is Christ.” The same Logos made manifest and revealed in Christ is also equally present in the Scriptures and all of creation.
This begs the question: As the Body of Christ, isn’t the Church nothing less than all of creation?
Beautiful fr. Boersma! Thank you for this.
Also, do you remember the source from that egregious Tremper Longmann quote on the Canticle? I remember reading a book where he said something similar while speaking ill of St. Cyril and St. Gregory’s exegesis. I would love to track it down again! Thank you
I dn't remember for sure, Josiah, but I seem to recall it is from his Song of Songs commentary.
Hi, Dr. Boersma - I appreciate your writing and work for the church. I was confused by the citing of some of the works early on: "Recent titles such as Reading while Black, Women and the Gender of God, and Evangelical Postcolonial Conversations all illustrate the tendency to let one’s background and context shape one’s interpretation of the biblical text." Were you saying that these works were examples of a wrongheaded tendency to bring one's background to bear, or were you saying that these works promote a healthy viewpoint of background influence and we ought to be more aware of that? I thought it might go either way.
Sorry for the confusion, Steve. I meant the former. These are examples of a wrongheaded approach that allows one’s background to determine his interpretation in unhealthy ways.
I think my impression of Reading While Black may have caused the confusion. I believe Dr. McCaulley's argument is that one's background can help him or her to see what is objectively in Scripture when others may not be apt to see it because of a different background. From the examples he gave, I think there is merit to his position. Is that what you're objecting to, or did you have other aspects of his work in mind?
Have you read ‘The Sin of Certainty’ by Peter Enns? He is excellent.
Thanks!
Fr. Hans, thank you for your wonderful work in this area. Do you have any thoughts on why one of the most common reactions to Patristic exegesis is Fear? I suppose a healthy fear of misusing a text is good. But why aren’t we just as fearful that in our modern ways of reading we are in danger of failing to recognize the risen Jesus (Luke 24)?
Very fair question. I suspect that, as moderns, we are afraid of loss of control. Historical exegesis offers control or mastery of the text. That we aren't as fearful to recognize Jesus Christ shows just how modern we are, and how secondary our mystagogical aims are to us.