I’m catching up on my reading, and was struck by a witty and helpful discussion of biblical interpretation by Shalom Carmy in the Spring issue of Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought.
In his editorial for this issue, Carmy (a First Things contributor) uses the clever ambiguities of a famous telegram exchange to remind us just how ellusive meaning can be. A publicist send a message: “How old Cary Grant?’ The famous actor replied, “Old Cary Grant fine how you?”
As Carmy obseves, to properly interpret the exchange, one needs to know a great deal about the abbreviated verbal style of telegraphs, the reasons why an aging movie actor might want to keep his age ambiguous, and the modern culture of celebrity.
Modern historical critical study of the bible promises to illuminate the contexts that will help us interpret difficult passages the bible, some of which are far less accessible to our understanding the Cary Grant’s telegram. But, as Carmy points out, this promise is only partially filled.
Indeed, as Carmy points out, the relative limitations of modern historical study can create a vacuum in which all sorts of highly speculative versions of spiritual interpretation flourish unchecked. We’ve seen this in the Christian world. Modern biblical “science” creates its doppelganger—a sui generis biblical “literalism” that traffics in wild dispensational schemes. In a certain sense, Julius Wellhausen and John Nelson Darby need each other.
It turns out that the traditional, normative interpretations of the bible help us achieve the larger goal of interpretation—making sense out of the large sweep of the biblical material while at the same time doing as much justice as possible to the plain or literal sense. Tradition, in short, is reliable, which, Carmy notes, “is why Ibn Ezra insisted that ignoring Rabbinic tradition ends up perverting the plain meaing of the text.”
Carmy’s reflections are telling. They reflect a general trend toward what I call “theological exegesis” in my article in the forthcoming issue, “A Richer Bible.” The Oral Torah—the Jewish analogy to the Christian doctrinal tradition—provides a discipling framework for biblical interpretation. It can be leavened by historical work, supplemented by ambitious spiritual readings that stretch the limits of traditional readings, but for a coherent take on the bible as a whole, tradition is the best bet.




July 1st, 2010 | 11:48 pm
Given our recent exchange in the pages of First Things (my letter responding to your review of Kinship by Covenant), I’m awaiting your piece with great anticipation. I suspect were on the same fundamental page regarding tradition and historical criticism, and I’m thinking I’ll better understand where you were coming from in the review and in your response to me.
July 2nd, 2010 | 8:20 am
“How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now” by Prof. James L. Kugel contains this wonderful passage: “The ‘Oral Torah,” it should be noted, consisted of more than biblical interpretation alone – it also contained rules governing a number of matters not covered in the Pentateuch (for example, prayers and blessings …agricultural laws … matters connected with betrothal, marriage, and divorce …and so forth). It thus included a vast body of material, and even though it continued to be called the ‘Oral Torah,’ this material was eventually committed to writing- it became the Mishnah and Tosefta and the two Talmuds and various compilations of midrash in different genres. Thus, today, Judaism has essentially two canons, the biblical one and the great corpus of writings included under the Oral Torah. Although these two bodies of writings were, and are, said to be of equal authority, in practice, the Oral Torah always wins. … The solutions produced by the Bible’s ancient interpreters simply became what the text meant. So Judaism has at its heart a great secret. … upon inspection Judaism turns out to be quite the opposite of fundamentalism. The written text alone is not all-powerful; in fact, it rarely stands on its own.” A comparison with the teachings of the Church, her doctrine, and her sacramental life, as they stand vis-a-vis Scripture immediately occurs to a Catholic reader. The passage I have quoted is found in Chapter 39, entitled “After such Knowledge…,” a chapter worth reading on its own if one does not have time for the entire book.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact