“Reading the Bible Theologically”
I’ve written a review of Darren Sarisky’s new book, “Reading the Bible Theologically by Darren Sarisky (Cambridge: CUP, 2019)” for the International Journal of Systematic Theology.
[This is the pre-peer reviewed version of the article, which has been published at doi.org./10.1111/ijst.12436]
Theological interpretation of Scripture has garnered significant interest and debate in recent years, and the diversity of approaches can be disorienting to even the most astute reader. The term ‘theological interpretation’ is so polyvalent to be considered unserviceable by some, and, at times, it has been put to sufficiently bad use to be regarded with deep suspicion by many others. For all of these reasons and more, this book is a welcome and essential addition to the conversation. Sarisky offers a razor-sharp exposition of the debates, lays out the relevant issues clearly and concisely, and provides a robust and original positive contribution to the field.
‘Theological reading does not exist in contradistinction to a historically grounded approach to reading, but rather to one that is driven by metaphysical naturalism’ (p. 72). This is the central claim of this excellent new monograph, which is a sequel to Scriptural Interpretation: A Theological Exploration (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013). Herein, Sarisky considers the impact that a theological construal of reality might have on the process of biblical interpretation. Focusing on the reader, the text, and the process of interpretation—a threefold emphasis that outstrips myriad myopic approaches—he engages questions of interpretation from the vantage of what he calls ‘theological ontology’: a sacramental approach to metaphysics that seeks to integrate the natural and the supernatural and speak of all things in light of their source in God.
In his 75-page introduction, Sarisky provides a valuable overview of the current debates, and he positions his project with admirable precision in relation to other significant works in the field. This chapter alone makes the book worth buying, and it would be well-suited for a course on biblical hermeneutics. By interrogating the various roles assigned to theological discourse in exegetical practices—both active and passive—Sarisky carves out a clear and compelling space for his constructive hermeneutical project. Opposing any dualism between doctrine and history, he seeks to provide an account of doctrine as a description of reality that makes a difference for practices of interpretation without depicting historical description as superfluous or damaging to the exegetical task.
Sarisky consistently structures his arguments dialectically, considering approaches on either side before forging a middle path that synthesizes the best from both. This begins with two successive chapters devoted to his primary interlocutors: Augustine and Spinoza. Sarisky outlines Augustine’s theological anthropology alongside his innovative application of semiotics to the biblical text. For Augustine, neither reader nor text can be adequately described without reference to God. The resulting approach to interpretation is not procedural—rules and methods for interpretation are not primary for Augustine—but ‘substantive’: a proper reading is one that arrives at a correct view of the text (p. 105). By way of contrast, Spinoza stands as an example of what theological reading is not. Noting Spinoza’s Cartesian view of rationality as procedural and the way this leads him to separate meaning from truth, Sarisky highlights the role of naturalism in Spinoza’s hermeneutics. This discussion enables Sarisky to prise apart naturalism and historical consciousness in order to offer an approach to theological interpretation that is grounded in the latter while eschewing the former.
In three final chapters, Sarisky unpacks his constructive proposal. In Chapter Four, he articulates the impact of theological anthropology and social/ecclesial context on the reader. Sarisky notes that the need to account for the reader in hermeneutics arises from a conception of interpretation as a receptive process—something he endorses. Key here is a construal of faith as ‘a readerly capacity rather than a prejudice with a pious gloss’ (p. 290), and a discussion of the way the ecclesial community inducts the reader into knowledge of the content of the text and trains her in practices of reading. Importantly, Sarisky is cognizant of the issues raised by historical distance and the strategies of active reading necessary to overcome them. He advocates for approaches to historical interpretation that help contextualize and illuminate the biblical texts while disagreeing with those who see these issues as fatal to receptive reading.
In Chapter Five Sarisky seeks to extend the Augustinian sacramental view of biblical semiotics by accounting for ‘how knowledge of the text’s history factors into the text’s work as a sign pointing to a transcendent res’ (p. 239). Sarisky develops his theological ontology of Scripture over-against ‘ahistorical dualistic’ approaches exemplified for him by the Brazos Theological Commentary series, and the ‘dualism of the immanent frame’ found in the work of James Barr, among others. Quoting Joseph Ratzinger, Sarisky maintains that ‘better than repudiating history is seeing it as having an “intrinsic openness to something greater,”’ and he sets out a historically-grounded canonical understanding of Scripture as a privileged set of signs pointing to the triune God. In contrast to a functional view of the text, Sarisky emphasizes the nature of the Bible, reframing the issue of its operation ontologically: ‘Scripture can be read in this way by virtue of its nature’ (p. 241). In this way, the rules of engagement follow from the unique theological reality of the Bible itself, rather than from purely external standards of rationality or method.
In Chapter Six, Sarisky discusses the difference all of this makes for practices of interpretation. Following Karl Barth, he outlines three levels of reading: explicatio, meditatio, and applicatio. Though this approach is not necessarily incompatible with the traditional fourfold sense of Scripture, it is noteworthy that he has chosen to follow Barth rather than Henri de Lubac at this juncture. Sarisky’s account of the first phase—the acquisition of the sense of the text—attempts to incorporate historical criticism while both resisting a naturalistic view of historical causation and authorizing literary study as a component part of the task. Unfortunately, one is unlikely to grasp from this chapter the immense intricacy of historical-critical methodology or the near-complete lack of critical consensus on many important issues. His suggestions about following critical consensus seem to ignore the fact that, if such a thing could be said to exist, it is utterly beholden to metaphysical naturalism and thus incompatible with his own theological ontology of reader and text. Nevertheless, Sarisky ably describes each stage of reading, providing illuminating examples along with some rubrics for evaluating interpretive decisions at each point. He is well aware that the current disciplinary boundaries within academia will mean that biblical scholars will focus on stage one, theologians on stage two, and practical theologians on stage three. He suggests, somewhat dubiously, that interdisciplinary projects and conferences should serve to redress these divisions.
The concluding chapter recons with the charge of eisegesis that has loomed over discussions of theological interpretation. Sarisky rightly maintains that the typical accusation of eisegesis depends for its force on naturalistic assumptions—it is the sharp end of a competing metaphysic that inevitably clashes with a theological approach. What counts for eisegesis within a naturalistic hermeneutic may count as genuine exegesis within a theological one: “theological readers ought not consider themselves beholden or answerable to naturalistic presuppositions, which undercut their entire approach from the start” (p. 360). That is not to say that eisegesis is no longer an issue within theological interpretation, but that we will conceive of it differently if we view reading as a receptive enterprise and integrate truth and meaning theologically.
Sarisky consistently notes points of convergence or distinction from other major proposals and the book is exceptionally well footnoted. One shortcoming is how often he illustrates his points rather than arguing for them. This is inevitable in order to keep the book to a manageable length, but it leaves much detailed work still to be done. While Sarisky rightly intertwines the three levels of reading outlined in chapter six, it is not clear that he has gone far enough in unpacking the implications of his theological ontology for practices of historical interpretation. The implications for historical treatments of the text are quite radical, and yet there are various points at which the ‘results’ of historical criticism seem to emerge unscathed from the hermeneutical gauntlet laid down at the outset. The advantage to this is that many biblical scholars are likely to find an ally in Sarisky, and I expect they will take his arguments seriously for this reason. At the same time, they may fail to reckon with the full implications of his proposal. Either way, this book will go a long way toward helping scholars and students reframe the debate, moving away from theology vs history and thinking instead of how a historical reading of Scripture is transformed when it is approached theologically instead of naturalistically.