Linbeck's argument for unified biblical interpretation through tradition

Article Summary: Linbeck, G. (2002). Scripture, consensus, and community. In Theological reflection: Sources. SCM Press, 2007, 164-175. Q1. The main purpose of this book/article is to argue the need to interpret the Bible as it was historically interpreted, as a holistic cannon of teaching versus in a fragmented fashion as it is often interpreted today. The purpose of the article is to return to what the author sees as an older and more authentic form of scriptural interpretation, as clearly stated in the introduction to the article. Q2. The key question the author is addressing is what is the purpose of modern hermeneutics? This question is clearly stated and the majority of the article is a review of different historical approaches to hermeneutics, beginning with Early Christianity, to the Enlightenment, to the present. The author argues that there has been a shift due to the current emphasis on textual construction and postmodernism that marks a distinct departure from both the early Christian church and the Enlightenment’s stress upon reason and progress. Q3. The most important information in this book/article is presented in a chronological approach, first describing the history before the canonization of the current Bible when different church factions were fighting for dominance; next, the immediate period of canonization (which Linbeck regards as the ideal), followed by the Enlightenment interpretation of the Bible, to the modern, fragmented view which is at odds with those theologians who still demand a more classical approach. The author presents a very slanted view of history to defend his point-of-view, but does so in an educated manner, with historical and theological references. The essay is clearly an argument, but it is well-argued. Q4. The main inferences or conclusions in this book/article are that the reader is a Christian and accepts the current, canonized Bible as a spiritual text. Unlike someone who might be merely interested in Christianity for academic purposes, there is a presumption that the reader wishes to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible from a Christian perspective. Q5. The main assumptions underlying the author’s thinking are that when the Bible was canonized it was done so in a way to presume a coherent, linear narrative and to offer a consistent interpretation which would bring the reader closer to Christ. Although many theologians offered commentary on scripture, they did so in a manner to illuminate it in a consistent fashion and link it to a tradition, versus modern commentators which analyze texts in and of themselves as historical constructs. This results in fragmentation. There is an assumption that historical insight into the Bible is less valuable than the moral teachings it might offer. Q6a. If we take the author’s line of argument seriously, the implications are that modern Biblical study has taken a turn away from fruitful hermeneutics and has become diverted from its original purpose with an excessive emphasis on historicism. Q6b. If we fail to take the author’s line of argument seriously, the implications are that multiple approaches to interpreting the Bible are acceptable and given that in the past the author admits that many hermeneutical approaches were inconsistent—even though they used a textual rather than a historical approach—hermeneutics is not a cure-all. Q7. The point-of-view presented in this book/article is that of an orthodox, academic, Christian commentator. The author is clearly in conversation with other academics in the field of religion who wish to take a postmodern approach and who do not necessarily see their roles as moral and instructive. The author does show sensitivity to other author’s opinions by engaging with the opposition, even though he does not agree with them. He criticizes postmodernism for offering a lack of consensus and community-building spirit, but in a respectful way.