4 Creating a Unified Meaning for the Bible

It might seem strange at first glance that the title of this section is creating a unified meaning rather than finding such a meaning. But that is exactly the point I wish to show in this section. Both theory and history demonstrate that it is possible, indeed almost certain, that different individuals and groups will claim to find unified meanings to Scripture that differ from one another. What we will show is that, because words take on different meanings depending on the context against which they are read, we must consider these different unified meanings equally valid in terms of the text alone. It is only when a specific context is specified that we can begin to evaluate certain unified meanings as more or less valid.

The process goes as follows: 1) an individual or group will have a controlling concept or text on a given matter; 2) texts that cohere with this controlling concept or text, or whose meaning can be made to cohere with it, are prioritized; 3) texts that do not cohere as well or are potential threats to the controlling interpretation are reinterpreted and deprioritized.

Here the postmodern philosophers of choice are Thomas Kuhn and Michel Foucault. Kuhn's name will be familiar to many here for his popularizing of the word paradigm in the 80's. Dealing with the philosophy of science, Kuhn discussed the "structure of scientific revolutions." According to Kuhn, "normal science" proceeds in accordance with certain paradigms. So currently, some dominant paradigms are relativity, quantum mechanics, evolution, etc... The bulk of scientists operate under the basic assumptions of these paradigms. They will not, for example, look at the fossil evidence to determine if evolution is the best hypothesis--it is the assumption under which they operate. Instead, they will work to fill in the details of evolution or to explain data that doesn't seem to fit.

But normal science will assume the data does fit. It will not throw the dominant paradigm out simply because of anomalous data. Indeed, normal science will fight tooth and nail to maintain the dominant paradigm, whether it be the idea that the sun goes around the earth or that packages of energy do not just simply jump from one state to the next. It is at this point that we might mention another postmodernist philosopher of science, Paul Feyerabend, who has discussed the scientific guild as a social institution. Those who even suggest something outside the dominant paradigm are often shamed by the guild, ousted or prevented from having jobs, etc... These dynamics remind us of Michel Foucault, who has pointed out that power is always involved in what is considered truth by a given group.

But Kuhn points out that eventually the anomalous data, what I call "naughty data," will eat at some young upstart (or old upstart) who begins, often secretly or on the side, to brainstorm outside the box of the dominant paradigm. If they can convince others or maneuver their ideas well enough politically, those who hold to the old paradigm will eventually die off, leaving them as the power wielders of the new normal science. So Einstein never accepted quantum mechanics. But he's dead now, and you will search long and hard to find any competent physicist who disagrees with it.

It is important to note that Kuhn is not arguing for some evolution of knowledge. Although he backpeddled a little when some suggested creation science might be as valid a paradigm as evolution, Kuhn's basic point was that science is not evolving into more accurate constructions of reality. It is just changing, in his view, moving from one paradigm to the next.

He has renegged somewhat on this extreme view, and I think he should. I have already mentioned that I view scientific claims as modern equivalents to ancient myths. But I do not in any way suggest that they are therefore false or to be discouraged in any way. Clearly some scientific myths are better expressions of the mysteries of nature than others. Clearly some scientific theories have better predictive power than others, and it would be silly to throw the baby out with the bath water.

What does all this have to do with the Bible? I wish to discuss two examples of interpretive paradigms at work to create a unified meaning in the biblical texts. I wish to start with a pre-modern example of these dynamics at work and then follow it up with an example of how they work when we are trying to read the biblical books in their original context. What we will find is that the idea of a "biblical worldview" or a "biblical perspective" always involves the operation of a particular theological paradigm on the data of the biblical text. When the child says, "Jesus loves me; this I know, for the Bible tells me so," the "Bible" here is the processing of individual texts by way of a particular theological paradigm with a resultant "biblical perspective." The idea of "the Bible" as a singular entity is thus a construct built from the combination of multiple texts plus theological paradigm.