What Story is this Anyway?: Paradigmatic Interpretations and Narrative Conflict

Jacob Neusner, the late Jewish Biblical historian, defines Hebrew understanding of the Bible through a framework of “paragdimatic interpretation”. This term boils down to interpreting any text through set narratives. In many Biblical Hermeneutics classes there are red flags to this methodology of exegesis. First, it seems to lend itself to allegory: (Look up Origen’s interpretation of the Good Samaritan, here. Or here). Second, as most allegorical interpretation does, it makes the “paradigmatic” narrative the “real” scripture, and the Biblical text secondary or subjective to it alone. Third, this result, in itself, often leads to the reader’s supremacy in interpretation (the text means whatever we want it to mean).

Here is a question, if Jewish scholars do this, if historical Christian leaders have as well, what makes a Protestant evangelicals immune to doing this? Also, especially when we hold certain narratives up high as the “meaning of scripture” or the “divine story of history,” how do we know we are not taking advantage of these “paradigmatic interpretations”?

In Christian mission, and Biblical theology, scholars and practitioners often focus on divine narratives to elucidate purpose and reason for transmission of faith. NT Wright and Michael Bird’s new survey of the New Testament, utilizing much of Wright’s past scholarship, reiterates how mission, narrative, and Biblical studies intertwine for Evangelicals. Christians and their leaders through out history and from around the world do this as part of the indigenization process. Among Southern Baptists, recent work from Bruce Ashford and Heath Thomas, Matthew Emerson, and Steve Smith share a desire to have Biblical studies and theology flow from an interpretive narrative (hopefully distilled from rigorous hermeneutics). The good that comes from Thomas and Emerson’s work is the nuanced and proper handling of scripture to inductively draw out the narrative that is consistent in scripture, with scripture being the one telling the story, rather than us decoding it any way we prefer. Smith’s work, focusing on an interpretation of Acts and what it speaks to personal growth and growth of the church, seems to lean on a narrative that draws conclusions on either through a more homiletic hermeneutic (preaching focusing more on motivationally persuasive argument), and seems to apply one particular method as the true practice from the narrative.

The thing with a story is that without it we have no way to judge the importance of anything on our lives today. This desire to interpret any pericope (small portion or passage of a text) to fit any predefined narrative is copious in the past and in present World Christianity. “By His stripes we are healed” though a prophetic passage of the “Suffering Servant” in Isaiah often fits into the interpretive narratives among Christians in Nigeria or China to mean a promise of physical healing (and to plenty of Westerners, including Swedes, N. Americans, and New Zealanders to name just a few I have encountered). All this to say, discovering the important “divine narrative” in scripture is a natural, and automatic, response of Christians. Thankfully, works such as Thomas’ and Emersons’ are available to Westerners for those traversing the rigors of Biblical interpretation. Also, thankfully, the field of World Christian Studies exists to engage those Christians who are journeying this rocky path on their own, and have important warnings and encouragements (and, at the risk of sounding too mystical, prophetic) for World Christianity. To understand more of how Christians globally are tending to interpret the Bible, and follow those narratives in their lives, reading Philip Jenkins is a good place to begin.