What do you think?
Rate this book
The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture
In 1517, Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to the door of Wittenberg's castle church. Luther's seemingly inconsequential act ultimately launched the Reformation, a movement that forever transformed both the Church and Western culture. The repositioning of the Bible as beginning, middle, and end of Christian faith was crucial to the Reformation. Two words alone captured this emphasis on the Bible's divine inspiration, its abiding authority, and its clarity, efficacy, and sufficiency: sola scriptura. In the five centuries since the Reformation, the confidence Luther and the Reformers placed in the Bible has slowly eroded. Enlightened modernity came to treat the Bible like any other text, subjecting it to a near endless array of historical-critical methods derived from the sciences and philosophy. The result is that in many quarters of Protestantism today the Bible as word has ceased to be the Word. In The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture, Iain Provan aims to restore a Reformation-like confidence in the Bible by recovering a Reformation-like reading strategy. To accomplish these aims Provan first acknowledges the value in the Church's precritical appropriation of the Bible and, then, in a chastened use of modern and postmodern critical methods. But Provan resolutely returns to the Reformers' affirmation of the centrality of the literal sense of the text, in the Bible's original languages, for a right-minded biblical interpretation. In the end the volume shows that it is possible to arrive at an approach to biblical interpretation for the twenty-first century that does not simply replicate the Protestant hermeneutics of the sixteenth, but stands in fundamental continuity with them. Such lavish attention to, and importance placed upon, a seriously literal interpretation of Scripture is appropriate to the Christian confession of the word as Word--the one God's Word for the one world.
724 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2017
18 people are currently reading
155 people want to read
About the author
Iain W. Provan
30 books22 followersMarshall Sheppard Professor of
Biblical Studies (OT) at Regent College (Vancouver) and formerly senior lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament Studies at the University of Edinburgh.
Biblical Studies (OT) at Regent College (Vancouver) and formerly senior lecturer in Hebrew and Old Testament Studies at the University of Edinburgh.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews
August 8, 2023
Masterly and magisterial. This tome is long but overall enjoyable to read and thoroughly compelling. There are already some excellent reviews out there but I would just say this is a book I would compel my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends to read for its critique of some questionable patristic interpretation and its presentation of Protestant (particularly magisterial) hermeneutics.
October 23, 2019
4.95 stars.
After 3 months, I finally finished this.
Yes, it is long, and that is why I am giving a 0.05 stars penalty to the final score.
The book begins with an assessment of hermeneutics "before there were Protestants" in order to stablish that, contrary to what some may argue, the "reformed" reading of Scriptures stands very much in line with the tradition of the whole history of the church. This part has a place in the book, but I confess that I skimmed through some sections because I do agree with the main proposal of this part, namely that the Reformation did not invented a new way of reading the Scripture but simply recovered the centrality of Scriptures in the life of the church.
He then proceeds to evaluate the reading of the magisterial Reformers (Calvin and Luther), taken as the major representatives of the Reformation, and evaluates the causes of the "eclipse" of the biblical story as the major reference point for Western society. This serves as an introduction to his analysis of the modern developments in biblical hermeneutics, all of which came after the Reformation but already in a milieu where the biblical narrative had lost its centrality.
In the third part, and as one commentator wrote, at times it does feel like it is missing the forest for the trees. However, it seems to me that the book is actually describing the forest by describing EVERY tree in it. Every major branch of modern hermeneutics was engaged at length with, and this accounts for about a third of the book. The word count could have been trimmed in this part, but I also feel that if this engagement with the development of modern hermeneutics was shorter, the book would loose its power. For I think that one of the major strengths of this work is in the clarity and balance that it deploys when evaluating the stregths and weaknesses of each school of biblical hermeneutics.
Moreover, the proposed 5th way is a programatic approach to the whole Bible that takes seriously all the developments in biblical stydies brought forward by modern scholarship. Brevard Childs' canonical approach plays a major role, but Provan thinks that we should engage more deeply with more than the historical-critical approach. Source and form criticism, redactional and rhetorical approaches, structuralism and (to a lesser degree) post-structuralism, narrative criticism, social-scientific and feminist readings, all have a place at the table and may contribute (some more than others) to the final goal: "the illumination of the Great Biblical Story as a canonical whole" and "to cast light on the multifaceted ways in which this God breathed story remains 'useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2Tim 3:16-17)."
Finally, I am glad to see that one the courses I enjoyed the most at Regent College, where Provan is currently teaching, has become a book. I do think that his passion comes through in the book. Well... at least as much passion a Scottish is able to express in a proper manner.
Highly recommended.
After 3 months, I finally finished this.
Yes, it is long, and that is why I am giving a 0.05 stars penalty to the final score.
The book begins with an assessment of hermeneutics "before there were Protestants" in order to stablish that, contrary to what some may argue, the "reformed" reading of Scriptures stands very much in line with the tradition of the whole history of the church. This part has a place in the book, but I confess that I skimmed through some sections because I do agree with the main proposal of this part, namely that the Reformation did not invented a new way of reading the Scripture but simply recovered the centrality of Scriptures in the life of the church.
He then proceeds to evaluate the reading of the magisterial Reformers (Calvin and Luther), taken as the major representatives of the Reformation, and evaluates the causes of the "eclipse" of the biblical story as the major reference point for Western society. This serves as an introduction to his analysis of the modern developments in biblical hermeneutics, all of which came after the Reformation but already in a milieu where the biblical narrative had lost its centrality.
In the third part, and as one commentator wrote, at times it does feel like it is missing the forest for the trees. However, it seems to me that the book is actually describing the forest by describing EVERY tree in it. Every major branch of modern hermeneutics was engaged at length with, and this accounts for about a third of the book. The word count could have been trimmed in this part, but I also feel that if this engagement with the development of modern hermeneutics was shorter, the book would loose its power. For I think that one of the major strengths of this work is in the clarity and balance that it deploys when evaluating the stregths and weaknesses of each school of biblical hermeneutics.
Moreover, the proposed 5th way is a programatic approach to the whole Bible that takes seriously all the developments in biblical stydies brought forward by modern scholarship. Brevard Childs' canonical approach plays a major role, but Provan thinks that we should engage more deeply with more than the historical-critical approach. Source and form criticism, redactional and rhetorical approaches, structuralism and (to a lesser degree) post-structuralism, narrative criticism, social-scientific and feminist readings, all have a place at the table and may contribute (some more than others) to the final goal: "the illumination of the Great Biblical Story as a canonical whole" and "to cast light on the multifaceted ways in which this God breathed story remains 'useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work' (2Tim 3:16-17)."
Finally, I am glad to see that one the courses I enjoyed the most at Regent College, where Provan is currently teaching, has become a book. I do think that his passion comes through in the book. Well... at least as much passion a Scottish is able to express in a proper manner.
Highly recommended.
January 28, 2021
So much could be said, it’s 640 pages of text after all, but suffice it to say this is a masterclass in Protestant hermeneutics. A seminary course (maybe two), and not a shoddy one either, in a book. And on top of all that, and perhaps surprisingly in light of the above facts, it’s incredibly enjoyable to read.
This will be a book I return to often and I dare say should be on the shelf of every handler of the word of God.
This will be a book I return to often and I dare say should be on the shelf of every handler of the word of God.
February 2, 2020
Debates continue to circulate on how to best read and interpret the Bible. Historical critics seek to identify the traditions and sources which lie behind the text as we now have it. Postmodernists emphasize meaning as a product constructed by the reader. In reaction to these first two, conservative Protestants, especially those among the “Chicago constituency” have emphasized authorial intent as well as the complete inerrancy and infallibility of the Biblical text on a very wide range of matters. Counter-Reformational Protestants seek to reemphasize the role of tradition in proper interpretation against the rampant “interpretive pluralism” unleashed at the Reformation. In "The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture", Iain Provan advocates his own “fifth way” approach to biblical hermeneutics. Fueled by a disagreement with long-time fellow Regent professor Hans Boersma (himself a leading “Counter-Reformational Protestant”, on this see esp. pgs. 416–23), Provan asks, what emphasis do we give to the literal sense of the text? And what does it mean to read the Bible literally?
The book is organized historically, evident in the three titles of the major sections. The first section, “Before There Were Protestants” examines early Jewish and Christian approaches to questions of canon and hermeneutics, seeking to demonstrate that the Reformers stood in a long line of tradition which was attentive to the literal sense of Scripture (202). The second section, “Now There Are Protestants” examines the Reformers emphasis on the perspicuity and authority of Scripture, as well as the beginnings of modernity and the subsequent “eclipse of biblical narrative.” The third and final section, “Still Protesting” examines more recent critical approaches in the field of hermeneutics, with the goal of discerning their lasting contributions to proper “reformed” Bible reading in the 21st century. Throughout over 600 pages, Provan works diligently to retrace and relocate the contemporary Protestant “ancestral line” in order to help us live consistently with our identity as “reformed people” (442).
Throughout his work, Provan seeks to teach Bible-readers both how to read, and what to expect from the biblical text. He asserts that reading Scripture “literally” means “to read it in accordance with its various, apparent, communicative intentions as a collection of texts from the past now integrated into one Great Story, doing justice to such realities as literary convention, idiom, metaphor, and typology or figuration” (85–86). Attending to the literal meaning of the text means paying attention to various literary methods employed by the biblical author. Crucial to reading well is the importance of learning the biblical languages—demonstrated by Provan’s constant appeals for Hebrew and Greek study throughout the book. In tracing the aims and intentions of Scripture, 2 Tim 3:16, (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”) is very important for Provan, also evidenced by his frequent appeals to the passage throughout the book.
Through wide-ranging historical analysis, coupled with countless examples, Provan is able to demonstrate that modern issues—such as what to make of the emerging insights of modern science—were actually faced by past interpreters, including the Reformers. He writes with careful sensitivity to the broader culture, both of today and throughout his historical analysis. On this he adds, “one of the more important reasons for this ‘eclipse’ of biblical narrative was that the Great Story came to be regarded by many as incapable of embracing all the newly discovered truths about the world (truths scientific, historical, and so on) and at the same time as a major cause of violence, war, and intolerance and a major obstacle to human rights, freedoms, and ultimately, well-being. Our contemporary response must include, among other things, repentance and a renewed commitment to robust Christian education” (348–49).
Provan himself models a warmth and openness towards new knowledge. He writes, “It is not clear to me, however, that the Church every truly derives any benefit either in herself or in the eyes of the watching world, when what appears to be the truth in any aspect of reality is ignored or even supressed” (275). It is precisely this attitude that leads him to endorse not merely a wholesome adoption of Protestant hermeneutics, but rather to argue for hermeneutical continuity with the Reformers (and with the long tradition which they stand in), aided by judiciously applied new knowledge from the field of biblical studies.
Just as he weighs the merits of more modern scholarship, so too is Provan critical in his assessment of the Reformers teaching and practice. He is not afraid to distance himself from them where he deems them unhelpful (see particularly pgs. 217–224). He is even willing to both admit and even advocate for the necessity of interpretive pluralism, as a result of a “reformed” hermeneutical approach. At the same time, he defends Luther against unfair charges of rogue interpretation by highlighting Luther’s frequent appeals in his writings asking his readers (including the Church authorities) to show him where he might be in error (291).
At times, and undoubtedly due to the massive subject range of the book, Provan depends quite heavily on secondary sources. Some chapters are stronger than others (see esp. 4, 9 & 16), which is also due to the book’s length and the time required to build such a sustained argument. One would like to see the work’s key insights distilled into a shorter publication that could appeal to a much larger audience. In addition, Provan appeals to the Reformers on the perspicuity of Scripture. In an effort to read the Reformers better, should we not learn their languages to best grasp what they are trying to convey—in this case, on the topic of perspicuity? What is the German word for perspicuous? Does that mean the same thing as what we mean by it in English? One wonders what insights this might yield.
In "The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture", Iain Provan advocates for “fifth way” hermeneutics. A pro-Reformation, “reformed” approach, standing in continuity with both the Reformers and a long line of Bible interpreters, judiciously incorporating the advances in modern biblical studies. One comes away with a sense that, the vibrant, interdisciplinary spirit of Regent College—a spirit that has both shaped and been shaped by Iain Provan—helped to produce this terrific book. The book features cheeky-chapter titles (and subtitles!), as well its fair share of Scottish wit. All in all, "The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture" is one massive, impressive, sustained argument for “seriously literal hermeneutics.”
4.5/5
The book is organized historically, evident in the three titles of the major sections. The first section, “Before There Were Protestants” examines early Jewish and Christian approaches to questions of canon and hermeneutics, seeking to demonstrate that the Reformers stood in a long line of tradition which was attentive to the literal sense of Scripture (202). The second section, “Now There Are Protestants” examines the Reformers emphasis on the perspicuity and authority of Scripture, as well as the beginnings of modernity and the subsequent “eclipse of biblical narrative.” The third and final section, “Still Protesting” examines more recent critical approaches in the field of hermeneutics, with the goal of discerning their lasting contributions to proper “reformed” Bible reading in the 21st century. Throughout over 600 pages, Provan works diligently to retrace and relocate the contemporary Protestant “ancestral line” in order to help us live consistently with our identity as “reformed people” (442).
Throughout his work, Provan seeks to teach Bible-readers both how to read, and what to expect from the biblical text. He asserts that reading Scripture “literally” means “to read it in accordance with its various, apparent, communicative intentions as a collection of texts from the past now integrated into one Great Story, doing justice to such realities as literary convention, idiom, metaphor, and typology or figuration” (85–86). Attending to the literal meaning of the text means paying attention to various literary methods employed by the biblical author. Crucial to reading well is the importance of learning the biblical languages—demonstrated by Provan’s constant appeals for Hebrew and Greek study throughout the book. In tracing the aims and intentions of Scripture, 2 Tim 3:16, (“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work”) is very important for Provan, also evidenced by his frequent appeals to the passage throughout the book.
Through wide-ranging historical analysis, coupled with countless examples, Provan is able to demonstrate that modern issues—such as what to make of the emerging insights of modern science—were actually faced by past interpreters, including the Reformers. He writes with careful sensitivity to the broader culture, both of today and throughout his historical analysis. On this he adds, “one of the more important reasons for this ‘eclipse’ of biblical narrative was that the Great Story came to be regarded by many as incapable of embracing all the newly discovered truths about the world (truths scientific, historical, and so on) and at the same time as a major cause of violence, war, and intolerance and a major obstacle to human rights, freedoms, and ultimately, well-being. Our contemporary response must include, among other things, repentance and a renewed commitment to robust Christian education” (348–49).
Provan himself models a warmth and openness towards new knowledge. He writes, “It is not clear to me, however, that the Church every truly derives any benefit either in herself or in the eyes of the watching world, when what appears to be the truth in any aspect of reality is ignored or even supressed” (275). It is precisely this attitude that leads him to endorse not merely a wholesome adoption of Protestant hermeneutics, but rather to argue for hermeneutical continuity with the Reformers (and with the long tradition which they stand in), aided by judiciously applied new knowledge from the field of biblical studies.
Just as he weighs the merits of more modern scholarship, so too is Provan critical in his assessment of the Reformers teaching and practice. He is not afraid to distance himself from them where he deems them unhelpful (see particularly pgs. 217–224). He is even willing to both admit and even advocate for the necessity of interpretive pluralism, as a result of a “reformed” hermeneutical approach. At the same time, he defends Luther against unfair charges of rogue interpretation by highlighting Luther’s frequent appeals in his writings asking his readers (including the Church authorities) to show him where he might be in error (291).
At times, and undoubtedly due to the massive subject range of the book, Provan depends quite heavily on secondary sources. Some chapters are stronger than others (see esp. 4, 9 & 16), which is also due to the book’s length and the time required to build such a sustained argument. One would like to see the work’s key insights distilled into a shorter publication that could appeal to a much larger audience. In addition, Provan appeals to the Reformers on the perspicuity of Scripture. In an effort to read the Reformers better, should we not learn their languages to best grasp what they are trying to convey—in this case, on the topic of perspicuity? What is the German word for perspicuous? Does that mean the same thing as what we mean by it in English? One wonders what insights this might yield.
In "The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture", Iain Provan advocates for “fifth way” hermeneutics. A pro-Reformation, “reformed” approach, standing in continuity with both the Reformers and a long line of Bible interpreters, judiciously incorporating the advances in modern biblical studies. One comes away with a sense that, the vibrant, interdisciplinary spirit of Regent College—a spirit that has both shaped and been shaped by Iain Provan—helped to produce this terrific book. The book features cheeky-chapter titles (and subtitles!), as well its fair share of Scottish wit. All in all, "The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture" is one massive, impressive, sustained argument for “seriously literal hermeneutics.”
4.5/5
March 11, 2025
The scope of this book is truly impressive. Iain Provan attempts to lay out the foundations of a thoroughly "reformational" hermeneutic. By this, he means a method of interpreting Scripture that is rooted in the Protestant Reformation. While having reservations about multiple incidental aspects of his argument, I would say that Provan is successful in his goal. At the beginning of the book, Provan lays out four modern Protestant "ways" of approaching Scripture. The first is the higher critical approach to Scripture with roots in the Enlightenment. Second, is Postmodern approaches to Scripture that are more focused on reader response and dynamics of power in reading than historical and theological questions. Third is what Provan calls "the Chicago School" which refers to primarily American evangelicals who hold to inerrancy as summarized in the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. Fourth are those Protestant scholars who wish to return to "pre-critical" biblical hermeneutics, the exemplar of which for Provan is Hans Boersma. In contrast to these preceding visions, Provan suggests his "fifth" way, which is a "Reformed" hermeneutic that is interested in "seriously literal interpretation."
It is difficult to rate a book of this size because there will inevitably be parts that are phenomenal and others that are problematic. Yet, despite the problems I will list below, this is a magnificent piece of biblical scholarship and deserves five stars even if there are parts I have problems with. To begin with, it is just a fascinating and helpful way to lay out a book on hermeneutical theory. Provan basically traces both the foundational questions of interpretation throughout the history of the Church to the modern period, while interacting with the historical practice of the Church along the way. Thus, he first asks the question of Canon. Are Protestants justified in the canon which they adopt as the basis for interpretation? He then spends multiple chapters demonstrating that the Protestant canon (mainly of the OT) has the best support in the biblical period and the early Church. His arguments are nuanced and scholarly and very helpful. He then asks the controversial question of whether one should interpret the text "literally." This was one of the best explanations of "literal" interpretation I have ever read. In short, he argues that we should seek to interpret whatever the author was seeking to communicate, which is to interpret "literally." This is not to interpret "literalistically,"which leaves no room for genre and the normal flexibility of human language. Provan then proves that this approach to Scripture was not novel in the Reformation, but has been present I throughout all of Church history. I cannot stress how helpful these chapters were in showing that a "Reformed" hermeneutic is not a novelty but is actually just responsible "Christian" interpretation. He also has a section cosidering whether the original languages ought be the basis for our interpretation. I will skip his second section for now, which was the most problematic in my mind. When Provan comes to the modern period, he spends several chapters laying out the advances in interpretation over the past three hundred years including postmodern approaches to the Bible. This section was excellent. Provan strikes the perfect balance of taking what is good in these modern approaches while pointing out serious flaws in the whole-sale acceptance of such approaches. For anyone interested in understanding the categories that modern bible scholars are working within, this is an invaluable resource. Even if one does not read this book cover to cove, I would highly recommend having this book on your shelf and referencing the various chapters as needed.
Yet, I must also note the flaws in this book. The glaring one in my opinion is Provan's criticism of his "third" way interpreters, namely those who hold to inerrancy. The second section of his book is primarily concerned with proving that the Reformers and Christians throughout history have never held the Bible to be an authority on matters outside salvation. Ultimately, this sounds very similar to the Rogers-McKim proposal which from what I understand has been debunked by Woodbridge (Although I have not personally read Woodbridges book). Essentially, Provan wants to find a way that modern Christians can accept things like evolution without abandoning biblical authority. I put to the side the merits of that enterprise in this critique, and would rather merely like to address the poor and unfair argumentation of Provan against those with whom he disagrees. The first problem in my view is that Provan seems to have a near uncritical acceptance of the "assured" results of modern science. He very happy to question the results of critical historical scholarship and point out the presupposition of such views, but he does not seem to recognize that science as much as historical criticism is built upon presuppositions and able to err. Yet, Provan basically lays the fault for the eclipse of Christianity in the west at the feet of those who a reticence to eagerly accept the "assured" results of science in areas such as evolution. Provan claims that this is the same as issue of changing cosmology in the renaissance. Some Christians resisted Copernican cosmology because of the Bible, but no one would do such a thing today. Yet, this is, historically and theologically speaking, an abysmal oversimplification. It also thoroughly ironic because Provan spends many pages refuting fourth way interpreters (such as Boersma) for subscribing to a philosophy foreign to Scripture and then reading Scripture through that lens when Provan does the exact same thing with modern science! He does not seem to recognize that modern science is a model, just as Platonism and Ptolemaic cosmology were models. The modern model may be better than those, but it is not infallible. It seems Provan is self refuting at this point because he believes we must allow modern scientific conclusions to guide certain interpretive conclusions even though he critiques Boersma and others for doing the same. Essentially, Provan replaces a Christian-platonist synthesis with a Christian-Modernist synthesis. This is directly related to is utterly unfair characterization of those who subscribe to inerrancy. It is all the more frustrating becuase it does seem that Provan gives almost every other view he interacts with a genuinely fair interaction. Essentially, Provan equates believing in inerrancy with interpreting "literalistically." Yet, this is an juvenile logical mistake that should not have made it into print. For, inerrancy is not a statement about how to interpret Scirpture, but a statement about the nature of Scriptures claims. Thus, saying there are no errors in the claims of Scripture makes no statement about HOW one should interpret said claims. In my view, Provan is utterly unfair the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. He refutes a poorly crafted straw man. Yet, there are deeper issues in his view. Provan wishes us to believe that biblical statements ought to be reinterpreted in light of modern science. Yet, modern science would tell us that people can't rise from the dead. Is Provan willing to reinterpret the resurrection in light of this? Of course not. He would appeal to the fact that "modern science" has stepped outside of its bounds and can't make claims about such things. Yet, this opens the door to question of whether science might be wrong or overstepping in other areas as well. Provan uncritically accepts the claims and presuppositions of modern science, yet does not think critically about what texts are open to reinterpretation and which aren't. In sum, it is a sad and surprising fact that this part of the book seems so unthoughtful. As I have said above, I found the rest to be phenomenal. As I already stated, this book is an excellent reference resource in that one can read the various chapters as essays on different topics and read them as needed. For those interested in how modern Christians ought interpret the Bible, this is a must read.
It is difficult to rate a book of this size because there will inevitably be parts that are phenomenal and others that are problematic. Yet, despite the problems I will list below, this is a magnificent piece of biblical scholarship and deserves five stars even if there are parts I have problems with. To begin with, it is just a fascinating and helpful way to lay out a book on hermeneutical theory. Provan basically traces both the foundational questions of interpretation throughout the history of the Church to the modern period, while interacting with the historical practice of the Church along the way. Thus, he first asks the question of Canon. Are Protestants justified in the canon which they adopt as the basis for interpretation? He then spends multiple chapters demonstrating that the Protestant canon (mainly of the OT) has the best support in the biblical period and the early Church. His arguments are nuanced and scholarly and very helpful. He then asks the controversial question of whether one should interpret the text "literally." This was one of the best explanations of "literal" interpretation I have ever read. In short, he argues that we should seek to interpret whatever the author was seeking to communicate, which is to interpret "literally." This is not to interpret "literalistically,"which leaves no room for genre and the normal flexibility of human language. Provan then proves that this approach to Scripture was not novel in the Reformation, but has been present I throughout all of Church history. I cannot stress how helpful these chapters were in showing that a "Reformed" hermeneutic is not a novelty but is actually just responsible "Christian" interpretation. He also has a section cosidering whether the original languages ought be the basis for our interpretation. I will skip his second section for now, which was the most problematic in my mind. When Provan comes to the modern period, he spends several chapters laying out the advances in interpretation over the past three hundred years including postmodern approaches to the Bible. This section was excellent. Provan strikes the perfect balance of taking what is good in these modern approaches while pointing out serious flaws in the whole-sale acceptance of such approaches. For anyone interested in understanding the categories that modern bible scholars are working within, this is an invaluable resource. Even if one does not read this book cover to cove, I would highly recommend having this book on your shelf and referencing the various chapters as needed.
Yet, I must also note the flaws in this book. The glaring one in my opinion is Provan's criticism of his "third" way interpreters, namely those who hold to inerrancy. The second section of his book is primarily concerned with proving that the Reformers and Christians throughout history have never held the Bible to be an authority on matters outside salvation. Ultimately, this sounds very similar to the Rogers-McKim proposal which from what I understand has been debunked by Woodbridge (Although I have not personally read Woodbridges book). Essentially, Provan wants to find a way that modern Christians can accept things like evolution without abandoning biblical authority. I put to the side the merits of that enterprise in this critique, and would rather merely like to address the poor and unfair argumentation of Provan against those with whom he disagrees. The first problem in my view is that Provan seems to have a near uncritical acceptance of the "assured" results of modern science. He very happy to question the results of critical historical scholarship and point out the presupposition of such views, but he does not seem to recognize that science as much as historical criticism is built upon presuppositions and able to err. Yet, Provan basically lays the fault for the eclipse of Christianity in the west at the feet of those who a reticence to eagerly accept the "assured" results of science in areas such as evolution. Provan claims that this is the same as issue of changing cosmology in the renaissance. Some Christians resisted Copernican cosmology because of the Bible, but no one would do such a thing today. Yet, this is, historically and theologically speaking, an abysmal oversimplification. It also thoroughly ironic because Provan spends many pages refuting fourth way interpreters (such as Boersma) for subscribing to a philosophy foreign to Scripture and then reading Scripture through that lens when Provan does the exact same thing with modern science! He does not seem to recognize that modern science is a model, just as Platonism and Ptolemaic cosmology were models. The modern model may be better than those, but it is not infallible. It seems Provan is self refuting at this point because he believes we must allow modern scientific conclusions to guide certain interpretive conclusions even though he critiques Boersma and others for doing the same. Essentially, Provan replaces a Christian-platonist synthesis with a Christian-Modernist synthesis. This is directly related to is utterly unfair characterization of those who subscribe to inerrancy. It is all the more frustrating becuase it does seem that Provan gives almost every other view he interacts with a genuinely fair interaction. Essentially, Provan equates believing in inerrancy with interpreting "literalistically." Yet, this is an juvenile logical mistake that should not have made it into print. For, inerrancy is not a statement about how to interpret Scirpture, but a statement about the nature of Scriptures claims. Thus, saying there are no errors in the claims of Scripture makes no statement about HOW one should interpret said claims. In my view, Provan is utterly unfair the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. He refutes a poorly crafted straw man. Yet, there are deeper issues in his view. Provan wishes us to believe that biblical statements ought to be reinterpreted in light of modern science. Yet, modern science would tell us that people can't rise from the dead. Is Provan willing to reinterpret the resurrection in light of this? Of course not. He would appeal to the fact that "modern science" has stepped outside of its bounds and can't make claims about such things. Yet, this opens the door to question of whether science might be wrong or overstepping in other areas as well. Provan uncritically accepts the claims and presuppositions of modern science, yet does not think critically about what texts are open to reinterpretation and which aren't. In sum, it is a sad and surprising fact that this part of the book seems so unthoughtful. As I have said above, I found the rest to be phenomenal. As I already stated, this book is an excellent reference resource in that one can read the various chapters as essays on different topics and read them as needed. For those interested in how modern Christians ought interpret the Bible, this is a must read.
February 20, 2021
I really like this book. I like Provan's thesis: the right reading of Scripture is the grammatical-historical reading of Scripture. The spiritual meaning of Scripture is the literal meaning of Scripture.
I like his definition. 'Literal' means 'seriously literal.' No messing around with historical-critical slicing and dicing that claims to be expounding the meaning of the human authors of Scripture whilst disfiguring their books, stripping out the supernatural and speculating about a composition history to which we have no access (and which, in any case, is deeply unlikely to bear the most fleeting resemblance to historical reality). It's time to be serious. No messing around with 'literal' interpretations that force the Bible to answer questions it never means to answer, pretending that we're just being literal when we problematize Jesus' words about the smallest of the seeds. It's time to be serious. No messing around with exegesis that ignores philology, or hard work. It's time to be serious. 'Literal' interpretation must mean interpretation that operates at the level of whole books, that includes the significance assigned by the redactors, that takes the canonical self-consciousness of the Bible authors seriously. 'Literal' interpretation is broad, expansive. It means hard work. It means listening to the exegesis of others. But nonetheless, the right reading of Scripture is the literal one. The literal reading of Scripture is the one intended by the human author or redactor. And the reason it matters is that the literal reading of Scripture is the spiritual reading of Scripture. I like his definition.
I like his agenda. Whilst I've heard this book (inexplicably) summoned as an ally in the apology for Sensus Plenior and a return to pre-modern exegesis, that is precisely what Provan is opposing. Against counter-reformational protestants, Provan insists that the Reformation happened for a reason. It's no coincidence that Luther's hermeneutical method changed before his theological position clarified. It's no coincidence that - whatever concessions he may occasionally have made to medieval allegorizing (and in my mind, they're infrequent at best) - the overwhelming preoccupation of Calvin's commentaries was to unearth the intention of Scripture's human authors. It was only when the human authors were allowed to 'bite back' that all the aggregated traditions of medieval Catholicism could be challenged. It was attention to the historical meaning of words - Greek and Hebrew words - that launched the Reformation. At times, Provan is cutting: allegory is what you do to authoritative texts when you no longer respect them for themselves. It's what the Greeks did to Homer to try to salvage something worthwhile from the wreck of his paganism. It's what Philo did to Moses to try to retrieve a Platonic kernel from the husk Jewish ritualism. It's what Origen did to the Bible for much the same reason. So why in the world would we do the same thing? TIS advocates are fond of asking the question: can you have patristic doctrine without adopting patristic exegesis? Well, quite. Are we sure we want patristic doctrine? Or do we think the Reformation - for all its significant continuity with the theology of Augustine and Athanasius and Aquinas - happened for no reason? Of course we like the creeds. Of course we're catholic. Of course we're Trinitarian. Of course, we owe the patristics a debt of gratitude. But we're also Reformed. We're also Protestant. Or at least, I am. And anyway, Provan argues, the Reformation's return to the plain sense was a return: in their better moments, this was what the patristics always wanted. I like his agenda.
I admire his ambition. He has a go at summarizing the New Testament's use of the Old, tracing a history of exegesis through the patristics and into the Reformation. He stops to defend the study of original languages, to retrieve the best in critical methods, to push back against the overwhelming TIS rejection of the Enlightenment (a little harder than I might, it should be said!) He expounds Isaiah, Jonah, Psalms and Kings along the way. He outlines, and defends, the clarity of Scripture. He explains, and defends, the extent of the canon. Throughout, he outlines and evaluates what he sees as the 5 protestant approaches to Biblical interpretation - 4 of which he'd like to put to rest. I admire his ambition.
It's not that I think he's perfect. I wish he were more careful in his discussion of inerrancy, and that he picked a better representative of the 'Chicago' position than he does. I'd like him to devote less time to his survey of critical methods (some of which hardly add enough value to be worth more than the most cursory discussion), and give a little more to develop his position on the New Testament's use of the Old. I can't think that his failure to deal with Hebrews is likely to convince his opponents. I think he's probably a bit soft on the Enlightenment, he's too appreciative of the academic guild. He's too long. Or at least, he's long on things that could be shorter (the last 200 pages, for example), and short on things that need more proof. I wish he believed Isaiah of Jerusalem is responsible for his whole book. His last chapter feels like a bit of a pulled punch. And my guess is that he won't persuade many of the TIS guild. They'll pick holes in his critique of Christian Platonism, or his failure to make much of Hebrews, or his sloppiness in talking about accommodation. They won't like his flexibility on evolution (I'm not sure I do either). And they will have a point. If it weren't for the fact that this book needed to be written, I might knock a star off for those inadequacies. I don't think this book is perfect.
But I really like it. I like it because I'm fed up of the lie that no one believed in something like 'single-meaning' hermeneutics until Immanuel Kant and Baruch Spinoza dreamt it up in their anti-Christian thinktank. I'm fed up with some TIS advocates' failure to distinguish - to distinguish between grammatical-historical and historical-critical, between Liberalism and Evangelical orthodoxy, between the Proclamation Trust and secular materialism. As though anyone who disagrees with Sensus Plenior is a signed-up member of the local Atheist Society. I'm fed up of the intellectual laziness and logical fallacies that litter Carter's 'Reading Scripture with the Great Tradition.' Frankly, I'm fed up with abandoning a quest for a single meaning because, deep down, at heart, we don't really believe that the Old Testament is actually about Christ. We need Sensus Plenior to rescue a spiritual meaning that isn't really there. We need Sensus Plenior for the same reason Philo needed allegory - because Moses' intentions aren't good enough for us. Well, they're good enough for me. The literal sense - the serious literal sense - is the spiritual sense.
In the end, I like this book because Provan thinks the Reformation was a good idea. A good idea for our doctrine. A good idea for our exegesis. And I like this book because I agree.
I like his definition. 'Literal' means 'seriously literal.' No messing around with historical-critical slicing and dicing that claims to be expounding the meaning of the human authors of Scripture whilst disfiguring their books, stripping out the supernatural and speculating about a composition history to which we have no access (and which, in any case, is deeply unlikely to bear the most fleeting resemblance to historical reality). It's time to be serious. No messing around with 'literal' interpretations that force the Bible to answer questions it never means to answer, pretending that we're just being literal when we problematize Jesus' words about the smallest of the seeds. It's time to be serious. No messing around with exegesis that ignores philology, or hard work. It's time to be serious. 'Literal' interpretation must mean interpretation that operates at the level of whole books, that includes the significance assigned by the redactors, that takes the canonical self-consciousness of the Bible authors seriously. 'Literal' interpretation is broad, expansive. It means hard work. It means listening to the exegesis of others. But nonetheless, the right reading of Scripture is the literal one. The literal reading of Scripture is the one intended by the human author or redactor. And the reason it matters is that the literal reading of Scripture is the spiritual reading of Scripture. I like his definition.
I like his agenda. Whilst I've heard this book (inexplicably) summoned as an ally in the apology for Sensus Plenior and a return to pre-modern exegesis, that is precisely what Provan is opposing. Against counter-reformational protestants, Provan insists that the Reformation happened for a reason. It's no coincidence that Luther's hermeneutical method changed before his theological position clarified. It's no coincidence that - whatever concessions he may occasionally have made to medieval allegorizing (and in my mind, they're infrequent at best) - the overwhelming preoccupation of Calvin's commentaries was to unearth the intention of Scripture's human authors. It was only when the human authors were allowed to 'bite back' that all the aggregated traditions of medieval Catholicism could be challenged. It was attention to the historical meaning of words - Greek and Hebrew words - that launched the Reformation. At times, Provan is cutting: allegory is what you do to authoritative texts when you no longer respect them for themselves. It's what the Greeks did to Homer to try to salvage something worthwhile from the wreck of his paganism. It's what Philo did to Moses to try to retrieve a Platonic kernel from the husk Jewish ritualism. It's what Origen did to the Bible for much the same reason. So why in the world would we do the same thing? TIS advocates are fond of asking the question: can you have patristic doctrine without adopting patristic exegesis? Well, quite. Are we sure we want patristic doctrine? Or do we think the Reformation - for all its significant continuity with the theology of Augustine and Athanasius and Aquinas - happened for no reason? Of course we like the creeds. Of course we're catholic. Of course we're Trinitarian. Of course, we owe the patristics a debt of gratitude. But we're also Reformed. We're also Protestant. Or at least, I am. And anyway, Provan argues, the Reformation's return to the plain sense was a return: in their better moments, this was what the patristics always wanted. I like his agenda.
I admire his ambition. He has a go at summarizing the New Testament's use of the Old, tracing a history of exegesis through the patristics and into the Reformation. He stops to defend the study of original languages, to retrieve the best in critical methods, to push back against the overwhelming TIS rejection of the Enlightenment (a little harder than I might, it should be said!) He expounds Isaiah, Jonah, Psalms and Kings along the way. He outlines, and defends, the clarity of Scripture. He explains, and defends, the extent of the canon. Throughout, he outlines and evaluates what he sees as the 5 protestant approaches to Biblical interpretation - 4 of which he'd like to put to rest. I admire his ambition.
It's not that I think he's perfect. I wish he were more careful in his discussion of inerrancy, and that he picked a better representative of the 'Chicago' position than he does. I'd like him to devote less time to his survey of critical methods (some of which hardly add enough value to be worth more than the most cursory discussion), and give a little more to develop his position on the New Testament's use of the Old. I can't think that his failure to deal with Hebrews is likely to convince his opponents. I think he's probably a bit soft on the Enlightenment, he's too appreciative of the academic guild. He's too long. Or at least, he's long on things that could be shorter (the last 200 pages, for example), and short on things that need more proof. I wish he believed Isaiah of Jerusalem is responsible for his whole book. His last chapter feels like a bit of a pulled punch. And my guess is that he won't persuade many of the TIS guild. They'll pick holes in his critique of Christian Platonism, or his failure to make much of Hebrews, or his sloppiness in talking about accommodation. They won't like his flexibility on evolution (I'm not sure I do either). And they will have a point. If it weren't for the fact that this book needed to be written, I might knock a star off for those inadequacies. I don't think this book is perfect.
But I really like it. I like it because I'm fed up of the lie that no one believed in something like 'single-meaning' hermeneutics until Immanuel Kant and Baruch Spinoza dreamt it up in their anti-Christian thinktank. I'm fed up with some TIS advocates' failure to distinguish - to distinguish between grammatical-historical and historical-critical, between Liberalism and Evangelical orthodoxy, between the Proclamation Trust and secular materialism. As though anyone who disagrees with Sensus Plenior is a signed-up member of the local Atheist Society. I'm fed up of the intellectual laziness and logical fallacies that litter Carter's 'Reading Scripture with the Great Tradition.' Frankly, I'm fed up with abandoning a quest for a single meaning because, deep down, at heart, we don't really believe that the Old Testament is actually about Christ. We need Sensus Plenior to rescue a spiritual meaning that isn't really there. We need Sensus Plenior for the same reason Philo needed allegory - because Moses' intentions aren't good enough for us. Well, they're good enough for me. The literal sense - the serious literal sense - is the spiritual sense.
In the end, I like this book because Provan thinks the Reformation was a good idea. A good idea for our doctrine. A good idea for our exegesis. And I like this book because I agree.
February 21, 2023
I'm torn as to what rating to give this. This is an excellent defence of historical Protestant exegesis over against alternatives which are today coming to the fore within Protestantism.
This book is carefully written and very nuanced. However, disappointingly, when the issue of interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis comes into focus, suddenly everything becomes very hasty and broad brush. In a work elsewhere fair to a fault, it seems strange to read Provan equating a reading of Genesis 1 as historical with believing in a geocentric solar system based on the sun being said to stand still (Joshua 10) or a flat earth (based on references to the four corners of the earth - Isaiah 11:12) - see p. 434.
The simple fact is that in the case of Joshua the description is phenomenological, in that it describes how the event appeared to Joshua and we may well use similar language today even as those committed to heliocentrism. Equally, in the case of Isaiah, the language is clearly poetic and the communicative intent is clearly not directed at cosmology. When one comes to Genesis 1, however, the issues are not so straightforward. It is not at all clear that the communicative intent is not directed at an accurate description of origins. It is quite possible for honest and careful exegesis (based on Provan's principles) to come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 leaves no room for anything other than historical narrative and it is not simply obscurantism which refuses to accept Provan's position - I do not believe the same could be said of Joshua 10 or Isaiah 11:12.
I appreciate that this is an honest point of disagreement between Provan and the Chicago Statement, although I would side with the Chicago Statement. However, my greater criticism is that in a book which is generally very nuanced, this section suddenly piles up things as comparable when they are not and is disappointing.
This book is carefully written and very nuanced. However, disappointingly, when the issue of interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis comes into focus, suddenly everything becomes very hasty and broad brush. In a work elsewhere fair to a fault, it seems strange to read Provan equating a reading of Genesis 1 as historical with believing in a geocentric solar system based on the sun being said to stand still (Joshua 10) or a flat earth (based on references to the four corners of the earth - Isaiah 11:12) - see p. 434.
The simple fact is that in the case of Joshua the description is phenomenological, in that it describes how the event appeared to Joshua and we may well use similar language today even as those committed to heliocentrism. Equally, in the case of Isaiah, the language is clearly poetic and the communicative intent is clearly not directed at cosmology. When one comes to Genesis 1, however, the issues are not so straightforward. It is not at all clear that the communicative intent is not directed at an accurate description of origins. It is quite possible for honest and careful exegesis (based on Provan's principles) to come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 leaves no room for anything other than historical narrative and it is not simply obscurantism which refuses to accept Provan's position - I do not believe the same could be said of Joshua 10 or Isaiah 11:12.
I appreciate that this is an honest point of disagreement between Provan and the Chicago Statement, although I would side with the Chicago Statement. However, my greater criticism is that in a book which is generally very nuanced, this section suddenly piles up things as comparable when they are not and is disappointing.
January 28, 2022
Provan's book is (mostly) well-argued and impressively learned. His chapters on canon formation (ch. 2-3) were excellent and, for my money, the most helpful treatments of the topic I have yet read. His survey of critical methods (453-639) and how they fit in with a "seriously literal reading" was illuminating, offering me a far more capacious view of how critical methods, though often meant for interpretive evil, can sometimes be used for good. Chapter 13 is excellent, very helpfully explaining what the Reformers did and did not mean by sola Scriptura. I appreciated some of his more incisive comments about the Chicago Statement and some theologians' tendency to treat it as a cudgel. Overall, there is a lot to commend in this book, though there is a good bit about which I feel ambivalent.
In the end, I find myself mostly unconvinced by his project. He commends the Reformer's instincts (though, quite frustratingly, he limits any talk of the Reformers/"reformed" hermeneutics to Calvin and Luther--by no means the sum total of the Reformed tradition!), though regularly denounces how they apply their instincts, causing him to encourage their love of the literal sense but not their practice of it. Therefore, it's not always clear what a "reformed" reading of Scripture is. For example, "It is the Reformers' commitment to reading Scripture according to its literal sense that should be honored, and not their articulation of exactly what that involves" (224). Well . . . okay. But the chapters before this (ch. 7-8) basically argued the same thing: there were a group of theologians who honored the literal sense theoretically, but not always in their practice--so why locate this book's sensibilities in the Reformation if the Reformers demonstrated such continuity (right theory, wrong practice) with the medieval and patristic tradition? (As a brief aside, Provan, unfortunately, skips over the medieval exegetical tradition, making brief comments on Hugh of St. Victor, Aquinas, and Nicholas of Lyra.)
Though I agreed with some of his criticisms of Norman Geisler, I was confused that Provan seemed less interested in appraising the work of others who hold to the Chicago Statement (427n44). His discussion of CSBH (esp. 428-29) itself made it sound as if the drafters did not acknowledge the relationship between interpretation and genre, causing him to state that CSBH requires a reader to disagree with Prov 10:4. This is, of course, not true. I think his criticisms of CSBH certainly lands on a certain segment of folk--but by no means all, or maybe even most.
Similarly, I don't think Hans Boersma would find Provan's criticisms of his project very convincing. And Provan's blunt and unspecific comment, "Plato does not help; he hinders" (417) is simply not going to overturn the (admittedly) trendy Christian Platonism today. Whereas Boersma's project sufficiently deals with the metaphysical entailments of Scripture, Provan's flounders on this very point, contenting himself mostly with the "humanity" of Scripture.
Perhaps most frustratingly is that I am simply confused about what Provan means by a "literal" reading of Scripture. If he is interested in "lenses for reading Scripture that actually help . . . to understand what Scripture is saying" (418) and also able to commend Northrop Frye's fascinating and fantastical structuralist reading of Jonah (634-637) as a useful lens, well, I'm simply not sure what literal means. Especially since, at other points, his notion of "literal" also relies on vague notions of "communicative intent": "In essence [to read literally] means to read [Scripture] in accordance with its apparent communicative intentions as a collection of texts from the past" (105).
It would be hard to give this book anything less than four stars. My hang-ups (and probable confusions!) don't really serve as demerits for Provan's impressive work. This book is a must-read. It is brilliant, learned, well-written, and engaging. It is basically an entire seminary class in book form. I learned so much from this book and am grateful for Provan's scholarship. I look forward to reading more of his work.
In the end, I find myself mostly unconvinced by his project. He commends the Reformer's instincts (though, quite frustratingly, he limits any talk of the Reformers/"reformed" hermeneutics to Calvin and Luther--by no means the sum total of the Reformed tradition!), though regularly denounces how they apply their instincts, causing him to encourage their love of the literal sense but not their practice of it. Therefore, it's not always clear what a "reformed" reading of Scripture is. For example, "It is the Reformers' commitment to reading Scripture according to its literal sense that should be honored, and not their articulation of exactly what that involves" (224). Well . . . okay. But the chapters before this (ch. 7-8) basically argued the same thing: there were a group of theologians who honored the literal sense theoretically, but not always in their practice--so why locate this book's sensibilities in the Reformation if the Reformers demonstrated such continuity (right theory, wrong practice) with the medieval and patristic tradition? (As a brief aside, Provan, unfortunately, skips over the medieval exegetical tradition, making brief comments on Hugh of St. Victor, Aquinas, and Nicholas of Lyra.)
Though I agreed with some of his criticisms of Norman Geisler, I was confused that Provan seemed less interested in appraising the work of others who hold to the Chicago Statement (427n44). His discussion of CSBH (esp. 428-29) itself made it sound as if the drafters did not acknowledge the relationship between interpretation and genre, causing him to state that CSBH requires a reader to disagree with Prov 10:4. This is, of course, not true. I think his criticisms of CSBH certainly lands on a certain segment of folk--but by no means all, or maybe even most.
Similarly, I don't think Hans Boersma would find Provan's criticisms of his project very convincing. And Provan's blunt and unspecific comment, "Plato does not help; he hinders" (417) is simply not going to overturn the (admittedly) trendy Christian Platonism today. Whereas Boersma's project sufficiently deals with the metaphysical entailments of Scripture, Provan's flounders on this very point, contenting himself mostly with the "humanity" of Scripture.
Perhaps most frustratingly is that I am simply confused about what Provan means by a "literal" reading of Scripture. If he is interested in "lenses for reading Scripture that actually help . . . to understand what Scripture is saying" (418) and also able to commend Northrop Frye's fascinating and fantastical structuralist reading of Jonah (634-637) as a useful lens, well, I'm simply not sure what literal means. Especially since, at other points, his notion of "literal" also relies on vague notions of "communicative intent": "In essence [to read literally] means to read [Scripture] in accordance with its apparent communicative intentions as a collection of texts from the past" (105).
It would be hard to give this book anything less than four stars. My hang-ups (and probable confusions!) don't really serve as demerits for Provan's impressive work. This book is a must-read. It is brilliant, learned, well-written, and engaging. It is basically an entire seminary class in book form. I learned so much from this book and am grateful for Provan's scholarship. I look forward to reading more of his work.
May 14, 2021
This book took a bit due to this being the first academic book I’ve read in a bit, and in general it being the first serious read I’ve had since 2020. It just goes to show, inconsistency yields bad results, and practice is necessary. Reading is no exception. So while it was a difficult read, it was easily five stars.
In “The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture,” Provan provides a hard-hitting analysis of what he thinks of as “the right reading of Scripture,” detailing that current readers must have an eye for Scripture as the Reformists did, with the caveat that modern readers must keep in mind the different subjects, movements and ideas (physical sciences, social sciences, the Enlightenment in general, structuralism/post-structuralism, etc.) that have been taught and written on over the past 500 years.
Provan also informs readers of different reading techniques that have been employed over the past several centuries. More text-based approaches v. more author-based approaches are discussed, as well as the reader eventually becoming the ultimate interpreter of books. He addresses other issues such as the more recent questions of whether books even have relevance and the different lenses that Western eyes read books with. If readers are looking for a better understanding of how one approaches a story and how to approach a book (not just the Bible), Provan’s book proves useful.
Provan ultimately does not take a fundamentalist/dogmatic approach that dissuades readers from approaching Scripture in a social-scientific or feminist way, but informs readers how much these modern subjects skew the truth of the texts. Provan also discusses several different criticisms developed in the 19th and 20th centuries and how useful he believes these are applied to Scripture. He does this all while offering a succinct history of the Church and how it has read the Bible.
It was a good read, but ultimately challenging. My advice: read a few books prior to reading this if you do not read consistently, because it is not a “light read,” and requires skill to navigate, and one must practice reading in order to read well. In conclusion, Provan provides a challenging and informative work of what a “literal” reading of the Bible looks like, and offers helpful commentary of what influences modern day readers to read as they do.
In “The Reformation and the Right Reading of Scripture,” Provan provides a hard-hitting analysis of what he thinks of as “the right reading of Scripture,” detailing that current readers must have an eye for Scripture as the Reformists did, with the caveat that modern readers must keep in mind the different subjects, movements and ideas (physical sciences, social sciences, the Enlightenment in general, structuralism/post-structuralism, etc.) that have been taught and written on over the past 500 years.
Provan also informs readers of different reading techniques that have been employed over the past several centuries. More text-based approaches v. more author-based approaches are discussed, as well as the reader eventually becoming the ultimate interpreter of books. He addresses other issues such as the more recent questions of whether books even have relevance and the different lenses that Western eyes read books with. If readers are looking for a better understanding of how one approaches a story and how to approach a book (not just the Bible), Provan’s book proves useful.
Provan ultimately does not take a fundamentalist/dogmatic approach that dissuades readers from approaching Scripture in a social-scientific or feminist way, but informs readers how much these modern subjects skew the truth of the texts. Provan also discusses several different criticisms developed in the 19th and 20th centuries and how useful he believes these are applied to Scripture. He does this all while offering a succinct history of the Church and how it has read the Bible.
It was a good read, but ultimately challenging. My advice: read a few books prior to reading this if you do not read consistently, because it is not a “light read,” and requires skill to navigate, and one must practice reading in order to read well. In conclusion, Provan provides a challenging and informative work of what a “literal” reading of the Bible looks like, and offers helpful commentary of what influences modern day readers to read as they do.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 30, 2019
At over 600 pages, this is a long read. I am not automatically predisposed against a large book so long as it maintains its thesis throughout and "the center holds". Unfortunately I was often lost among the trees at the expense of the larger forest.
The book is broken down into three parts. Part III is about engaging scripture in a post-modern world and it is here that the back appears to drift. Provan engages each higher critical methodology, as well as the newer socio-scientific, narrative, feminism, and canonical criticism, with each method devoted to their own chapter. Large portions of the chapters are summaries of books from scholars that hold these views followed by a critique. With several books from competing scholars done in this fashion it makes the chapters unnecessarily long, in my opinion. In reality, Part III could be edited and produced as a book in itself.
Each chapter of the entire book is comprehensive and full of cited footnotes. After having read it I will think of this book more as a reference work, reading necessary chapters as needed, rather than a coherent whole.
The book is broken down into three parts. Part III is about engaging scripture in a post-modern world and it is here that the back appears to drift. Provan engages each higher critical methodology, as well as the newer socio-scientific, narrative, feminism, and canonical criticism, with each method devoted to their own chapter. Large portions of the chapters are summaries of books from scholars that hold these views followed by a critique. With several books from competing scholars done in this fashion it makes the chapters unnecessarily long, in my opinion. In reality, Part III could be edited and produced as a book in itself.
Each chapter of the entire book is comprehensive and full of cited footnotes. After having read it I will think of this book more as a reference work, reading necessary chapters as needed, rather than a coherent whole.
July 9, 2024
Definitely a tome with a lot of information. I read it for a course. I appreciated Provan's argument that many with roots in Western Protestant Christianity no longer take Scripture seriously nor know what is meant by "sola Scriptura". Provan takes 4 main ways Christians in the 21st Century engage with Scripture, shows their strengths and weaknesses (mainly why they're inadequate) and proposes a fifth way. I'm not sure I agree with all the nuances in his fifth way approach, but liked how he set it up and took readers along to his conclusion. For non-scholars like me, though, there is a ton of information as he goes through the history behind the theories.
January 25, 2023
I cannot recommend this book enough. It is an excellent introduction to a reformed reading of scripture and how it can leverage modern biblical criticism. The author has written this book in such a way that it is incredibly approachable while still diving into some incredibly nuanced topics. This is a fantastic read.
February 25, 2019
This was really helpful and such a thorough study. I love how Provan finds honest value in every approach to Bible reading but discerns what contributes most to a right reading. It’s an enormous read. Glad I read it; glad I’m finished.
February 3, 2019
Very solid introduction to a crucial subject. Like an awesome introductory survey for a theology major. Learned but not overwhelming
Read
May 5, 2022Professor Provan managed to balance between grace and clarity in his witty take on such a huge and controversial topic.
December 22, 2023
Excellent.
May 24, 2021
Still thinking...
I feel like this massive tome would benefit from clearer summaries of the sections. There is a lot going on, but the takeaways are not as clear as I would like.
I feel like this massive tome would benefit from clearer summaries of the sections. There is a lot going on, but the takeaways are not as clear as I would like.
Displaying 1 - 17 of 17 reviews