Darren Sarisky, Theology, History, and Biblical Interpretation: Modern Readings (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 490 Pps., $48.95.
Darren Sarisky received his PhD from King’s College Aberdeen, UK, and he currently holds a position as Junior Research Fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK where he also teaches Christian Doctrine. Presently, there is an upheaval over theological interpretation, with some backlash occurring against this seemingly new development. In this confusion, it is not clear what the differences and similarities are between historical and theological approaches to the bible. In so doing, it gathers together several classical and contemporary statements of the differences and similarities between historical and theological approaches to the interpretation of the bible. Theology, History and Biblical Interpretation is a collection of twenty seminal essays that reflect the state of historical vs. theological interests over the past two hundred years of biblical interpretation from the Enlightenment to the present day.
Sarisky realizes that there is both a theological and historical aspect to the text of the bible, and this reader focuses on the question of which factors drive the process of reading, and especially how historical and theological coefficients combine harmoniously (at least that is the ideal scenario). There is a broad movement in the Academy today over the theological interpretation of Scripture. Systematic theologians, for example, are increasingly turning to Scripture, whereas in the past they have might have dialogued more so with other theologians or philosophers, and they are producing there own commentaries that reflect engagement with biblical exegesis. Moreover, mainstream biblical scholarship is giving greater attention to theological questions that the text under investigation raises, and a number of contemporary texts have been published that prioritize theological issues. In addition, historical scholars increasingly are focused upon the role of exegesis in past doctrinal debates. Miroslav Volf’s comments to the effect that the return of biblical scholars to the theological reading of the Scriptures, and the return of systematic theologians to sustained engagement with biblical texts – in sum, the return of both to theological readings of the bible – is the most important development in the late twentieth century are apropos to this volume. These trends raise the question immediately of what theological interpretation actually is. What is the rationale for each approach? Do the approaches conflict, or can they effectively be reconciled?
This reader encourages both students and scholars to explore these important questions by bringing together some of history’s most influential discussions of the issues as well as some of the most distinguished attempts of the contemporary era. Indeed, Sarisky indicates that a grave problem results from differentiating the two approaches, theological and historical, absolutely. A theological reading, after all is also historical by definition. Instead of polarizing theology and history, this reader seeks to approach texts with a different question in mind: how do theology and history function within the account of interpretation that the author is proposing? Sarisky notes that any account of interpretation involves some phenomenon to be interpreted, someone who is available to interpret that phenomenon, and some interaction between these first two realities.
Given what this reader is about, there are a few questions that are worthwhile to put to each of the twenty chapters in the text. First, it is important to discern what the author is saying about interpretation and the realities that underly it. Is there anything in the reading that the author explicitly says about the reader, or is it implied by him or her? Of any putative statements or suggestions, which of them are theological in nature? Which ones are based in history? Does the author use both historical and theological language? Once it becomes clear, Sarisky says, what the author is saying, it becomes possible to evaluate their positions. There are some broad trends in the texts that Sarisky points out. For example, the readings that derive from previous to the twentieth century, seem almost inclined to view the relationship between history and theology in conflictual terms, whereas the writers from the twentieth century seem more inclined to seek resolution between the two, or even a synthesis of them. While the reader as a whole focuses on how historical and theological factors enter into the account of reading texts, there are a number of subordinate themes also present within Sarisky’s reader. For example, many of the contributors explore which methods of interpretation to apply to the bible; a few are even rather enthusiastic in using a particularly powerful method of study. Other contributors do not think this is a wise move, and think it is impossible to hear the bible as a living voice. Yet further contributors are not exercised by one method or another. A second underlying theme is the significance of modernity for theological claims; some contributors contend that the arrival of modernity shows previous configurations of theology to be outmoded. Bultmann’s classic statement to the effect that we cannot use electricity and medical doctors while at the same time believe in the spirit world of the New Testament comes to mind in this regard. A third subordinate theme is viewing the bible as relevant for past and present; some contributors see it exclusively as a past act of communication, whereas others view it to speak to people today. A fourth minor theme regards Judaism’s relation to Christianity.
Cursorily, this reader covers everyone from Benedict de Spinoza, David F. Strauss, Soren Kierkegaard, Ernst Troeltsch, Karl Barth, Rudolf Bultmann, and Pope Pius XII. Moreover, the reader includes representative selections from Gerhard Ebeling, Henri de Lubac, Krister Stendahl, Brevard S. Childs, David C. Steinmetz, Ulrich Luz, Jean-Luc Marion, and Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza. Additionally, selections will be found herein from Jon D. Levenson, Alvin Plantinga, Paul Ricoeur, James Barr, and John Webster. In sum, this text is designed to reach multiple audiences, though it my contention that it will be best received within the Academy. Because of the breadth and depth of the material chosen by Sarisky to include in this text, it will appeal to systematic theologians, those involved with biblical scholarship, as well as those dealing with Jewish and Christian history. Sarisky provides introductions to each reading, and these introductions are clear and concise. Sarisky has done students and their teachers a great service by making such a broad range of major contributions to this debate available within a single volume.
Bradford McCall
Holy Apostles College and Seminary