Biblical Interpretation

Theory, Process, and Criteria

Yung Suk Kim

• Publisher: Pickwick Publications
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9781498261494
• eBook ISBN: 9781621896401
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Yung Suk Kim asks important questions in Biblical Interpretation: Why do we care about the Bible and biblical interpretation? How do we know which interpretation is better? He expertly brings to the fore the essential elements of interpretation--the reader, the text, and the reading lens--and attempts to explore a set of criteria for solid interpretation. While celebrating the diversity of biblical interpretation, Kim warns that not all interpretations are valid, legitimate, or healthy because interpretation involves the complex process of what he calls critical contextual biblical interpretation. He suggests that readers engage with the text by asking important questions of their own: Why do we read? How do we read? and What do we read?

Chapter One

Introduction

The Need for Critical Contextual Interpretation

The Bible is perhaps the most read book in the world and yet its influence is mixed. People seek the Bible for different reasons or purposes. One group of people looks to the Bible to find biblical authority applicable to their lives today; but even among this group, there are different approaches to analyzing the Bible. Some read the Bible devotionally and apply the lessons to their lives. They do not care much about the historical contexts of the texts, take the stories of the Bible as divinely inspired, and only pick up what they need from the Bible. Others read texts theologically by looking at the historical and literary contexts, usually done through a particular reading lens that aims at a particular theological doctrine. For instance, Paul’s letters are read through the lens of “justification by faith” at the price of the deeper and more complex aspects of justice or righteousness language used by Paul.1

On the other hand, the other group reads the Bible critically as a historical product like any other historical document.2 They are more interested in the history and knowledge contained in these ancient texts than of the present interaction between the texts and the reader. Certainly, this way of reading is important to our understanding of the texts, because otherwise, we may lose some voices of ancient texts, which should not be glossed over by later readers. But even within this area of study, the readers are not purely objective or value free. Though not explicitly, they still have a set agenda in their studies that affect the modern life context. Sexuality is a good example as can be seen in Rom 1:26–27. This passage can be interpreted in various ways, with no absolute verdict on the issue of sexuality.3 As Dale Martin points out, strictly speaking, texts do not mean, but we mean with texts, because no matter what voice is uncovered or claimed, it is the reader who ultimately decides a particular position.4 For example, if Paul is considered a misogynist, one can decide whether or not he or she will accept Paul’s misogynist position. The meaning of a text is the result of negotiation between the text and the reader, as will be clarified in the reader-oriented approach below.

As we see here, any interpretation of a text, professional or ordinary, involves the reader’s choice, which affects not only the immediate readers but also other people. On the one hand, the diversity of interpretation is to be celebrated because the Bible can be read from a variety of perspectives, but on the other hand, it does not mean that all interpretation is good, ethically sound, or helpful to others. The question is how we explain the existence of harmful or naïve interpretation that happens not simply because the reader is ill equipped but because the nature of biblical interpretation is more complex than we think. That is, any interpretation involves at least three layers of difficulties: the text, translation, and interpretation. The first layer is the text itself. We do not have original copies of the Greek or Hebrew texts. What we have are copies of copies of copies of a copy. Therefore, the first task is to establish credible texts among the variant manuscript traditions. The second layer is translation that requires highly technical training in terms of original language. But at the same time any translation is an interpretation. So we have to be careful about translation. The third layer is interpretation that involves the reader. These three layers are not independent of each other. Oftentimes the interpreter’s theology influences his or her translation and particular variant reading among others. Although this book primarily deals with matters of interpretation (the third layer), we will briefly see the difficulties involved in each layer.

Matters of Textual Criticism

1 Cor 14:33b–36 is a notoriously debated text not only from a textual critical point of view but also from a theological perspective because this passage often has been understood as rejecting women’s place in the church. Since this particular passage is similar to 1 Tim 2:11–15 (written around 90s or latest in 110 CE), it is argued that 1 Cor 14:33b–36 is an interpolation (an inserted text) by later copyists or editors who were interested in gender hierarchy in the church. Given that Paul’s letters were written between 50s and 60s, later church leaders or copy editors could add their conservative voice to Paul’s texts to make sure that the church follows a gender hierarchy of society. That is what we see a similar kind of conservative tone and message between 1 Cor 14:33b–36 and 1 Tim 2:11–15 (see below):

1 Tim 2:11–15 (NRSV)

Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.

1 Cor 14:33–36 (NRSV)

For God is a God not of disorder but of peace. (As in all the churches of the saints, women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?)

We find in 1 Tim 2:11–15 a more rigid tone of women degradation than in 1 Cor 14:33–36; that is perhaps because the community behind this pastoral letter is more rigid in its view of gender than the earlier times. As the church becomes larger and when Christ does not return as quickly as possible for later Christians in the second century CE, understandably, they choose to grow the church by accepting the conventional hierarchical view of gender and society. Accordingly, 1 Tim 2:11–15 says that the reason for women’s silence in the church is sought from the story of creation and fall in Genesis (mainly from Gen 2–3 where scholars identify the second account of creation); Eve was formed second after Adam; the implication is that she is subordinate to Adam. Furthermore, Eve was deceived first, and became a transgressor. Otherwise, there is no charge against Adam. But according to the first account of creation in Gen 1, we do not see hierarchy between male and female since both are created at the same time in the image and likeness of God (Gen 1:27). Nevertheless, later Jews and Christians interpret Genesis with a focus on gender hierarchy based on the second account of creation. Likewise, in 1 Tim women’s salvation comes through childbearing, which underscores women’s particular role of reproduction and domestic work. To a lesser degree, however, there is a similar tone of women degradation in 1 Cor 14:33b–36.

Given the existence of a difficult text such as this (1 Cor 14:33b–36), we have to decide whether this text is Paul’s or not. Many people consider this text as an interpolation because except for this particular text, Paul’s view of women is positive throughout his letters. He is seen as egalitarian and works with other women leaders such as Phoebe and Priscilla. Junia is named the first woman apostle (Rom 16:7). Women in the Corinthian church are freely participating in worship, praying and prophesying (1 Cor 11:5).5 The other interpretive option is that Paul wrote these texts. But within this option there are different explanations for it. Whereas some consider Paul a social conservative (not allowing women to speak in the church), others contextualize this text by fitting it into a particular local ministry context. To this latter group, Paul is concerned not with women’s place in the church in general, but he is concerned about a particular disruptive practice of some women in the church who may have been related to a mystery religion.6 There is still another option. That is, 1 Cor 14:33b–36 is considered Paul’s text, but he quotes from his rivals and refutes their restraining position on women.7 In this view, 1 Cor 14: 36 is Paul’s rebuttal of their position on women: “Or did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached?” As we see here, matters of textual criticism involve more than the question of which text is correct or acceptable; rather, they require the reader’s critical discernment. There are numerous textual issues in the Bible; some are minor or negligible, but others are crucial to our understanding of texts.8 If there are textual variants, the reader should decide which text he or she will choose. That is actually the start of interpretation.

Matters of Translation

Erga Nomou (Gal 2:16)

The best literal translation of erga nomou in Gal 2:16 may be “works of the law.” But the old New International Version (NIV) has it: “observing the law,” which is not a plain translation. It is a translation from a specific theological interest, based on the doctrine of justification by faith. The idea behind such a translation is based on the legalist view of Judaism in which individual righteousness is obtained through observing the law.9 No matter how difficult it is to understand the meaning of the “works of the law,” the translation should maintain the original syntax, which is close to literal equivalence translation. Gene...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Acknowledgments
• Preface
• Chapter 1: Introduction
• Chapter 2: Textuality: How Do We Read?
• Chapter 3: Contextuality: Why Do We Read?
• Chapter 4: Engagement: What Do We Read?
• Chapter 5: Criteria for Solid Interpretation
• Chapter 6: The Kingdom of God as a Test Case
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
• Bibliography