Interpretation of the Bible and Hermeneutics

Interpretation is problematic, not only because of the restrictions in understanding ancient written languages and the nuances of their cultural contexts, but also with regards to understanding the textual and contextual factors involved in exegesis and hermeneutics. For the bulk of early Christian history, the responsibility for interpreting scripture was assigned to official authorities in the church. Low literacy rates among the general public enabled the perpetuation of elitist hermeneutics. However, the Reformation and the Enlightenment changed everything. To be a competent and responsible interpreter of scripture does not require membership in the clergy but instead belief and belonging to the Christian community, according to Boring (2012). Furthermore, Boring (2012) claims that interpretation of the Bible is a dynamic and ongoing act. Hermeneutics and exegesis are not static, but dynamic and discursive engagements with the primary sources to allow scripture to remain relevant regardless of shifts in geography, historical epoch, and culture.
The Enlightenment dramatically shifted cultural norms and values, creating a space for secularism in society. Reason and scientific inquiry were used to denounce religion, especially as the realms of Church and State grew increasingly apart. Likewise, the Old and New Testament were subject to intense scrutiny by academics, leading to a new method of interpretation. Whereas scripture had long been taken for granted as authoritative, universal, and eternally relevant, the Enlightenment encouraged a more critical view that took into account factors like historicity and authenticity. The historical-critical method, or historical criticism, treats the Bible as a work of literature or historiography rather than as a sacred text. The good that came out of the Enlightenment attacks on the Christian scriptures is that it actually led to a broader understanding of how to apply Biblical truths to changing social and historical circumstances. Historical criticism created a lively and ongoing debate, continuing to affect how scripture is read and understood. The historical-critical method prevents the crystallization of scripture and other problems associated with fundamentalism.
Pope Pius XII and the Divino Afflante Spiritu exemplify the ways the Catholic Church has integrated the results of historical-critical inquiry into hermeneutics. These advancements in official Church doctrine allow for fluid and broad understandings of contextual variables that enhance the validity and applicability of scripture. Most importantly, the welcoming of historical criticism through Divino Afflante Spiritu and other texts permits an understanding of the historical, political, social and cultural contexts of the era in which Biblical texts were penned. It is important to take into account the historical and cultural context of the source texts for an interpretation to remain valid. Likewise, the Divino Afflante Spiritu helped reveal the role that literary criticism plays in understanding the source texts. The language used in primary source material cannot be understood in isolation of other texts codified and presented around the same historical period. Although some fundamentalists protested the inclusion of historical criticism into hermeneutics, generally the shift was both welcome and necessary. Both literary criticism and historical criticism take into account the nuances of language and how words might have meant different things in different times and places; and also the nuances of values, belief systems, and worldviews.
Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement related to the “new era” that ensued following the rise of the historical-critical method refers to the dramatic changes that took place within the Church and the society as a whole. For one, the historical-critical method encouraged biblical scholars to review the historical context in an earnest way. Historical context informs language and semiotics, the form and content of allegorical material, and the role or function scripture plays. Second, the historical-critical method stimulated rigorous academic inquiry into the Bible, which ironically legitimized both the Bible and religion in general as scholarly topics. Universities throughout Europe based their curricula upon the historical-critical method, without serious clashes with official Church doctrine and religious practice.
Boring (2012) refers to the progression from the First Naiveté to Critical Distance and onto the Second Naiveté. The First Naiveté refers to the lack of critical analysis entirely; taking the text at face value. This approach can lead to rigidity and superstition, as well as bias because readers assume that the world of the Bible was static. With the introduction of historical criticism, it became possible to see that the Bible needed to be “heard in its own situation, in its own historically conditioned terms,” (Boring, 2012, p. 71). Although literalists continue to resist historical criticism, it led to what Boring (2012) calls the Second Naiveté: honoring the way the Bible is a living text that evolves with each successive generation of Christian community.




References

Boring, M. Eugene. An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature and Theology. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2012