Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
i (2007) 117-128
REVIEW ARTICLE
M I C H A E L J. G O R M A N
ST. MARY'S SEMINARY AND UNIVERSITY
Thus the comments I make in this review essay should be taken less as
criticisms of the project than as concerns, suggestions, and questions for
all of us who are committed to theological interpretation. After this intro-
ductory section, this essay is divided into three major parts: the first more
general, the second more specific to my own field of N T studies, and the
third more speculative about some directions to which this dictionary
may be pointing usperhaps unknowingly. I write of course from a par-
ticular perspective, so I end this introduction by locating myself as a re-
viewer in order to contextualize the review.
Despite my general abhorrence of labels, I consider myself a pro-
gressive evangelical who is part of a "mainline" denomination (The United
Methodist Church). I am employed by America's oldest Roman Catholic
Seminary (founded in 1791), where I teach in both of its academic divisions,
the Catholic seminary itself and the Ecumenical Institute of Theology, of
which I am also Dean. About one-fourth of our Catholic seminarians are
international students. For instance, in my recent seminar called "Romans
as Christian Theology," of 11 students, there were 2 priests from Africa and
a young student from India. Their perspectives greatly enhanced my own
and the class's reading of Romans. Moreover, in our Ecumenical Institute
of Theology, two-thirds of the students are women, and one-third African-
American. Catholics, Protestants, the Orthodox, and others read Scripture
and do theology together. Their diverse voices enhance one another and
the faculty. To me, therefore, the theological interpretation of Scripture is
an inherently ecumenical and multicultural practice.
GENERAL REMARKS
It may be useful to begin with a simple question: What are the objec-
tives of this dictionary? In a helpful six-page introduction, General Editor
Kevin Vanhoozer describes the vision for the dictionary as "a resource that
combines an interest in the academic study of the Bible with a passionate
commitment to making this scholarship of use to the church" (19). He
then provides (19-23) a description of what theological interpretation is
not (for example, the imposition of a confessional system onto the biblical
text), why it is needed (to overcome the gap between exegesis and theol-
ogy and the postmodern tendency to turn exegesis into ideology), and
what it is: the "joint responsibility of all theological disciplines and of the
whole people of God" to interpret Scripture "with a governing interest in
God" and a "broad ecclesial concern" (21-22). These three shared premises
come to expression in various ways, as Vanhoozer briefly but admirably
demonstrates in the introduction. In sum, Vanhoover says, theological in-
terpretation is "reading to know God," the God revealed in Israel and
Jesus (24).
GORMAN: A "Seamless Garment" Approach to Interpretation? 119
Vanhoozer notes that the dictionary seeks to achieve its goal through
four basic kinds of articles: (1) articles on texts (biblical books), which em-
phasize their theological message and contribution to Christian theology;
(2) articles on hermeneutics, including historical, philosophical, and literary
approaches and their "suitability" for theological interpretation; (3) specific
interpreters and interpretive communities; and (4) doctrines and themes
that arise from and/or impact biblical interpretation (23-24). There are 170
contributors and nearly 300 articles, with approximately 100 on biblical
texts and related topics, 70 on hermeneutics and interpretive methods, 77
on doctrines and themes, and 37 on specific interpreters and communities.
There is a topical index as well as a Scripture index and a "List of Articles
by Category."
The articles in the dictionary are nearly all well researched, well writ-
ten, and highly instructive. 1 Many will give readers insights that they need
for theological interpretation but perhaps do not know they need, supple-
menting the more narrowly historical and literary perspectives present in
traditional Bible dictionaries, commentaries, and introductory texts on
the Bible and its interpretation. Because space does not permit a review of
every aspect of the dictionary, it will have to suffice to mention some of
the most outstanding contributions (apart from those on the biblical
texts): "Canon" and "Karl Barth" by John Webster; "Canonical Approach"
by Christopher Seitz; "Intertextuality" by Paul Kloptak; and "Jewish Exe-
gesis" by Craig Evans.
Inevitably, readers of the dictionary will argue with the selection of
topics. Particularly odd is the absence of an article on peace; instead, the
reader is instructed to turn to the article on violence.2 Apart from the
problem of which books the dictionary considers canonical (and thus wor-
thy of an article)to which we will return belowthe greatest criticism
will likely be about the selection of specific interpreters to whom articles
are devoted: Augustine, Barth, Bonhoeffer, Calvin, Luther, Ricoeur, and
Aquinas. Although these are certainly appropriately included, the absence
of fathers such as Origen and John Chrysostom is difficult to understand.
Moreover, the lack of articles on recent great biblical scholars (e.g., Schlat-
ter, Bultmann, von Rad, Brueggemann) whose work was or is clearly theo-
logical and widely influential is a lacuna.
1. There are occasional articles that seem dismissive of perspectives other than their
own, whether past (such as allegorical interpretation) or present, or else overly polemical or
apologetic in tone (for example, the articles 'Anti-Semitism" and on "Ancient Near Eastern
Background Studies").
2. This oddity makes the new book by Willard M. Swartley all the more important:
Covenant of Peace: The Missing Peace in New Testament Theology and Ethics (Grand Rapids, MI:
Eerdmans, 2006).
I20 Journal of Theological Interpretation i.i (200j)
INCLUS I VITY
3. In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that I am a veteran reader of Interpre-
tation, a regular contributor of book reviews (though not articles), and a member of the jour-
nal's editorial council.
4. It should also be noted, unfortunately, that a few articles use gender-exclusive lan-
guage such as "he" (rather than "he or she") and "modern man."
GORMAN: A "Seamless Garment" Approach to Interpretation? 121
5. In the book Scripture: An Ecumenical Introduction to the Bible and Its Interpretation
(Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2005), edited by the present reviewer, there are three chapters
on the interpretation of the Bible in various traditions: Protestant, Roman Catholic and Or-
thodox, and African-American. Although African-American Christians are of course part of
all three of the great streams of Christianity, there are African-American approaches to bib-
lical interpretation rooted in common historical experiences that transcend current religious
affiliation.
6. By theopolitical, I mean that the fundamental biblical affirmations of yhweh's king-
ship and Jesus' lordship make implicit claims on the public and political dimensions of hu-
man existence and call forth an assembly (the people of God, the body of Christ) that
embodies a distinctive way of being in the world that is rooted in these affirmations.
122 Journal of Theological Interpretation 1.1 (2007)
impact of Cone's God of the Oppressed\7 for example, seem relevant to the
pursuit of theological interpretation in our day. As many of us work to
make theological interpretation more faithful to the character of Scrip-
ture itself, which is a theopolitical book from beginning to end, we cannot
ignore the methods and results of African-American biblical interpreta-
tion. 8 If space permitted, we could make similar observations about mod-
els of biblical interpretation from around the world.
INCLUSIVITY AS ECUMENICITY
the spirit of the Orthodox hermeneutic. (One might even say that we are
attempting to reinvent the wheel.) We should not, therefore, treat "Or
thodox biblical interpretation" as a long footnote but rather as a sub
stantive model of what theological interpretation looks like. Similarly,
Protestants need to take seriously not only medieval discussions of the
"spiritual sense" of Scripture but also recent Roman Catholic reflection on
it ("the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read, under the influ
ence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the paschal mystery of Christ
{the cross and resurrection}, and of the new life that flows from it") and on
the related "fuller sense" (sensusplenior).11
To summarize: as theological interpreters of Scripture, we need to be
more inclusive readers, willing to hear God's voice in and through the
church universal, male and female, African and African-American, Catho
lic and Orthodox, and so on. This Pauline allusion takes us next to some
comments about the N T articles.
ARTICLES ON T H E N E W TESTAMENT
11. The quotation in parentheses is from the 1993 document of the Pontifical Biblical
Commission, Interpretation of the Bible in the Church II.B.2. For further discussion with helpful
references to relevant works, see Carolyn Osiek, "Catholic or catholic? Biblical Scholarship
at the Center," JBL125 (2006): 5-22; and, more polemically, Luke Timothy Johnson and Wil
liam S. Kurz, The Future of Catholic Biblical Scholarship (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2002).
The dictionary has helpful articles on "Catholic Biblical Interpretation" and on "Spiritual
Sense" (though not sensus plenior), but these approaches are not incorporated as such into the
dictionary.
124 Journal of Theological Interpretation i.i (2007)
12. Sylvia C. Keesmaat and Brian J. Walsh, Colossians Remixed: Subverting the Empire
(Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004).
GORMAN: A "Seamless Garment" Approach to Interpretation? 125
N E W DIRECTIONS?
Perhaps one effect of this dictionary (as in the case of any text, not
necessarily intended by the authors or editors) will be the pursuit of new
directions and the realization of unexpected convergences in the theolog-
ical interpretation of Scripture. Three possibilities come to mind for new
directions.
First, this dictionary points ahead to a broadening of the theological
conversation about theological interpretation and of the practice of theo-
logical interpretation itself. Many of the contributors to this volume are
often in conversation with one another, but we must work toward bridging
the gap not only between biblical scholars and theologians but also be-
tween Protestants (especially evangelical Protestants) and non-Protestants
committed to theological interpretation. This gap is reflected in our major
professional biblical societies, the Society of Biblical Literature and the
Catholic Biblical Association, despite some overlap of membership. But
the conversation about and the practice of theological interpretation take
tremendous risks if they ignore the Orthodox voices mentioned earlier or
Catholic voices such as John Donahue, Luke Johnson, Francis Moloney,
Sandra Schneiders, and others. Further, we must also bridge the gap be-
tween North and South, to include more voices from Latin America, Af-
rica, and Asia, where the Christian faith is exploding.
Second, this dictionary points ahead to the task of refining our under-
standing and practice of theological interpretation. One way to trace the
history of theological interpretation in the last few generations of West-
ern/Northern scholarship and to think about its future is by considering
the Interpreter's Bible (1952-57) and the New Interpreter's Bible (1994-2002)
along with the Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (even
though the dictionary is obviously a different genre from the other two
works). In the Interpreter's Bible, there was "exegesis" and "exposition" by
two different contributors, and the connection between the two was not
always apparent. Theological interpretation consisted of two separate and
separated tasks. In the New Interpreter's Bible, the "commentary" and "re-
flections" are by the same author, and the connections are nearly always
evident. But theological interpretation is still two separate, though now
less-separated, tasks. Is this a natural division between analytical and ana-
logical thinking that allows the "bridging of horizons," as we are fond of
saying, or is this separation an unnatural bifurcation? Would not the ex-
ample of many of the great interpreters, whether patristic, reformation, or
African-American, suggest that these two tasks, the analytical and the an-
alogical, need to become more unified? Can we imagine postmodern,
theological interpretation in which "commentary" and "reflection" are one
task? What might the format of the next Interpreter's Bible look like?
The Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible suggests that
theological interpretation actually consists of several separate but interre-
lated tasks (tracing history of interpretation, analyzing theological mes-
sage, determining canonical function, and reflecting on contemporary
significance), at least one of which (history of interpretation) requires ex-
pertise in which many biblical interpreters have not been trained. The ex-
pansion of theological interpretation into, say, four tasks rather than two
creates the possibility, if the dictionary is any indication, that theologi-
cal interpretation might become less integrated into a holistic process.
Can we imagine postmodern, theological interpretation in which all four
aspects of theological interpretation are executed as one? Is this not
GORMAN: A "Seamless Garment" Approach to Interpretation? 127
what patristic exegesis and rabbinic exegesis, for example, are, each in its
own way?
If someone were to say, as I might, that we can maintain a unified ap
proach to theological interpretation but still, for heuristic or pedagogical
or other practical reasons, divide the task into several components, is
there a way to execute the several components as a unified task that we
might call the "seamless garment" approach to biblical interpretation?
This garment of theological commentary would contain the interwoven
threads of the argument and theology of the text, aspects of the history of
its interpretation, its role in the canon, and reflection on its theological
and spiritual significance. If we attempt to do so, are we making the task
so arduous that even the best professional theological scholars cannot ex
ecute it? . Wright's article on Philippians in the dictionary approaches
this kind of unity in method, but it definitely pays more attention to theo
logical analysis than to contemporary significance and canonical function,
and it says very little about history of interpretation. *4 Still, Wright's ar
ticle may point us toward a unified approach of this sort.
Third and finally, this dictionary points ahead, more by what it omits
than what it includes, to a unified theological hermeneutic that expands it
self to be both theopolitical and missional. The inherently theopolitical
character of the Bible and hence of theological biblical interpretation has
already been suggested above. What also needs to be part of any theologi
cal approach is recognition of the Bible's inherently missional character
and hence the inherently missional character of theological interpretation.
Within the Society of Biblical Literature, the American Academy of Reli
gion, and other professional theological societies, some theologians, missi-
ologists, and biblical scholars are working to develop a truly missional
hermeneutic for the 21st century. x5 However, this movement, for lack of a
better term, does not seem to be reflected in the dictionary. The word mis
sion appears on the appropriate page of the dictionary, but there is no ar
ticle. Rather, the reader is referred at that page (and in the index) to
articles on the "Church," "Culture and Hermeneutics," and the "Trinity"
all of which are helpful essays but not focused on mission. The distin
guished missiologist Samuel Escobar contributes an article, not on mission
per se, but on liberation theologies and hermeneutics. And the already-
mentioned absence of an article on peace seems almost tragic today.
14. Interestingly, Wright's article also lacks the subheadings used in most of the articles
to delineate the various parts.
15. See, for example, James Brownson, Speaking the Truth in Love: New Testament Re
sources for a Missional Hermeneutic (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity International Press, 1998). Scholars
developing a missional hermeneutic have been meeting for several years in conjunction with
SBL/AAR.
128 Journal of Theological Interpretation . (looj)
CONCLUSION
Wherever and however the Spirit leads the church forward in a more
catholic, holistic, and missional theological interpretation, this excellent
resourcein spite of and perhaps even because of its lacunaewill be
among the tools the Spirit uses (along with the gifted editors and contrib
utors who created it) to "guide us into all the truth" (John 16:13). It pro
vides a wealth of information and perspectives on texts, hermeneutical
strategies, interpreters, and theological topics. For this, we should all
be grateful.
16. Relevant articles that do show sensitivity include the articles on justice, kingdom of
God, political theology, and prophets such as Amos and Habakkuk.
^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.