Sins of Interpretation #6: Changing the Ground Rules
The sixth sin of biblical interpretation in Kenneth Bailey’s Interpreting the Bible is the sin of Changing the Ground Rules.
Today, when we think of historical description, we equate accurate history with precision in the facts of recorded events. This was not the case with Middle Eastern accounts of history. Indeed, it has not been the case of most historical accounts in most civilizations throughout history. Only when we began to approach the Enlightenment in Western civilization do we begin to see the emphasis on precise factual reporting. Middle Eastern accounts of history are always theological interpretations of history. Utter precision is not important. The theological truth revealed by historical events is. Consequently, to read biblical history with the expectation that the author was writing with the mindset of a news reporter shifts the ground rules in interpretation.
Bailey invites to imagine a modern event and think about how we might describe it. For instance, we could say:
“On November 22, 1963, a man was shot.”
That is factually precise. But we might say:
“On November 22, 1963, the president of the United States was assassinated with a rifle shot to the head while riding through Dallas, TX, in a motorcade.”
This is more factually precise and gives some clues that this was an event of significance. But we might also say:
“On November 22, 1963, the nation’s innocence was slain and the people mourned as a bullet found its mark on the streets of Dallas.”
This last rendition tells fewer details but it communicates the significance of the event in a way the factual accounts do not. Middle Eastern writing about history had this later aim far more in mind than we do and factual precision was of secondary concern. Thus, if we are to interpret authors correctly we must be conscious of their ground rules of communication and not substitute our own.
Comments