(Mis)Reading the Face of God: The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church

Abstract

[In a recent document Pontifical Biblical Commission reasoned that, based on Scripture's two natures—divine and human—the his­ torical-critical method of interpretatio n is indispensable. This argu­ ment is confused. Asserting that Scripture, like person of Jesus Christ, has two natures does not necessarily require a priority of any one kind of reading. The authors argue that several theologians in Christian history have drawn more appropriate analogies between Christ's nature and Scripture that show how a wide variety of styles of scriptural interpretation is appropriate.] F ROM THE VERY beginning of Church, Christians have been engaged in discussion, argument, and debate about how they ought to read Scripture.1 Appropriate attention to Scripture has always been at heart of Christian existence. In this life, Augustine tells us, we should treat Scripture as the face of God. 2 In past 200 years, however, rise of modern biblical criticism has shaped Christians' engagement with their Scripture in very particular ways. The different schools of modern biblical criticism have encouraged Christians to read Bible primarily, if not solely, with those tools of historical, literary, and sociological or ideological critique that may be deployed in reading any text. Some modern theorists, wanting to argue that these modern reading practices must be determina­ tive for Christians reading their Scripture, have argued for a very particular