Methods of Reading Scripture

The Patheos site, back in 2010, posted an interview with Karen Armstrong on her book The Bible: A Biography (Books That Changed the World), which is written as a “biography” of the Bible. In the posted interview, she describes how during much of the existence of the Bible, there was no single, “correct” method for reading and interpreting the Bible. She describes how throughout history, the text of the Bible was read and interpreted in attempts to describe things that are ineffable and inexplicable.

Among the ways the pre-modern peoples used to interpret the Bible, Ms. Armstrong says,

“People always took the literal sense of the Bible seriously, but a literal reading was only one of the senses in which they took the Bible.  Jewish and Christian traditions had sophisticated, metaphorical, mystical, and allegorical ways of thinking about the Bible.”

Where the interview touches this blog is found on page 3 where she talks about John Nelson Darby and his “new” way of reading and interpreting Revelation, a process that took place in the 19th century. The excerpt:

David [the interviewer]: We should make it clear to readers of our conversation that your book provides lots of examples of what we're talking about here. You've really written a fascinating history. We just talked about Catholics, so let me mention a Protestant example from your book: the evangelist John Nelson Darby, this 19th-century guy who came up with the concept of the Rapture.

Karen: Darby is interesting. He was a Brit who developed this entirely new reading of the book of Revelation. I don't need to go into the Rapture theory for people. People in this country know about that idea particularly well, don't they?  But, Darby had no takers in the UK, so he came to America where he was a resounding hit. In a sense, as bizarre as it may sound to say it: This was quite a modern way of reading the Bible. As strange as that may sound, Darby's whole idea about how the Bible was divided into eras was in line with scientific thought that was current in his day. Just as Darby based his ideas on great ages and great stages of history, this is what scientists were uncovering in that era in their studies of cliffs and rocks.  And, then, he took a very literal reading of the book of Revelation and, hence, he was modern in that respect, too. The traditional reading of Revelation was highly allegorical. Darby pointed to a literal reading. If there was going to be a Battle of Armageddon, then this would happen in a given place, a given time.  Until the modern period, people didn't see Revelation in this way as some kind of program outlining the last days. The book was seen as a highly obscure pattern of symbolism.

The point I want to make is found in the last part of Ms. Armstrong’s response, which I underlined. What I am doing in the journey through Revelation recorded on this blog is to set aside both types of reading that are described and attempt a third: what did it mean to the original audience? How did they understand it? The reading I take is symbolic but not allegorical. And unless there is an obvious case for literalism, it is rejected as a default method of interpretation.