Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal

Written by Dale B. Martin Reviewed By Michael J. Thate

Edward Farley once wrote that any discussion of theological education invariably contributes to the libraries of utopian literature (cf. p. 96). When administrators and professors of theological schools set curricula and its scope and sequence, there are more factors to consider than creating the best theological education possible. It is certainly a large part of the mix, but keeping the lights on and the books in the black are as well. For example, many educational theorists in general, and those airing their divinity desiderata in particular, speak of the mass advantages of on-site communal learning—Martin suggests a return to the monastery model in this regard—but distance education models and single-meeting sessions per week tailored for busy ministers have become cash cows for many theological schools. Moreover, owing in some measure to the shifting currents of cultural awareness, interest and sympathy to religion, and an educated clergy, theological schools have had to tinker and retool their approach. As a result, in the last several years, many seminaries and theological schools have changed their curricula—adding a spiritual formation sequence here, altering the language requirements there. Intriguingly, there has also been a rise in many churches launching their own form of seminaries or Bible colleges.

Though it would be claiming too much to say that theological education is in a state of crisis, it is simple reporting to suggest it is in a state of self-examination. Dale B. Martin, Woolsey Professor of Religious Studies at Yale University, offers his armchair assessment of the current mood in Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal. Martin is himself not connected with a theological school—he’s more or less an historian within a religion department. But he’s “committed to the life and future of Christian churches” (p. ix) and therefore has a vested interest in the education and production of theological students. The book represents his thinking after traveling to ten different theological schools (see list on p. xi), conducting nearly one hundred interviews of educators and students, and wide reading in the relevant research.

Martin’s subtitle—An Analysis and Proposal—structures the book. His analysis, and more or less critique, basically consists of the dominance of the historical-critical method to the neglect of other approaches in biblical studies and the general lack of interpretation theory within theological education. By historical criticism, Martin means the view that “takes the primary meaning of the text to be what its meaning would have been in its original ancient context” (p. 3). Martin, however, is not advocating the “jettisoning” of the historical-critical approach to Scripture, but simply that “we dethrone it as the only or foundational method taught, and that we supplement it with other methods, approaches, and theories” (p. 3). The great failure of contemporary theological education, in Martin’s view, “is the absence in almost all schools of the explicit education of students in interpretation theory” (p. 17), as well as critical attention “concerning the nature of Scripture and how it should be interpreted in the life of the church and in the lives of individual Christians” (p. 22).

Many from conservative, evangelical backgrounds will bristle at much of his second chapter, “Readers and Texts.” For Martin, “texts don’t mean; people mean with texts” (p. 31). In other words, the “meaning of a text is a result of the interpretive process itself, which is not possible apart from the activities of human interpreters” (p. 30). He therefore considers that the oft-preached distinction between exegesis and eisegesis “does more harm than good in teaching students about biblical interpretation” (p. 29). I personally find the reference to Fish’s famous chalkboard exercise unconvincing in proving or disproving this or that theory of authorial intention (see the discussion on p. 31). After all, there was something like an intent in the author’s (Fish’s) scribblings: viz., to see how the students would respond. In this case, the creation of meaning by the readers was the intention of the author. Even Martin eventually concedes a bit at this point:

We may imagine an author with intentions as one way of guiding our interpretations. We may talk about “what the text says.” We may refer to “the world revealed or created by this text.” None of these expressions need be avoided. What must be avoided is allowing those metaphors of agency to fool us into forgetting our own agency in the construction of meaning in the reading activity. (p. 38; see, too, p. 120n10)

Fair enough. The third chapter looks at “Premodern Biblical Interpretation” through brief summaries of Origin, Augustine, Bede, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas. Martin hopes to demonstrate examples of different and fertile approaches to Scripture that don’t stop at historical criticism. The fourth chapter is on the “Theological Interpretation of Scripture” and suggests that the first step in this vein is “to make explicit what one thinks Scripture is” (p. 74). Martin then creatively reworks the task of interpretation as akin to musical or theatrical improvisation (pp. 86–87).

The fifth chapter, “Curricular Dreams,” moves into an actual suggested core curriculum (pp. 106–8) that is guided by seven assumptions and goals (pp. 101–4) and aims to place Scripture at the center of the curriculum (cf. p. 98).

  1. Teach historical criticism, but as one among other ways of reading.
  2. Retain the expertise of different disciplinary scholarship and scholars, but integrate the different disciplines and use them in conjunction with one another.
  3. Teach theology of Scripture before teaching different methods of interpreting Scripture.
  4. Teach theology first by teaching theological thinking and interpretation. Teach systematic theology later, as a more advanced subject.
  5. Early in the educational process, introduce theories of interpretation, literary theory, and philosophies of interpretation and textuality.
  6. Include and integrate artistic, literary, and musical interpretations of Scripture.
  7. Introduce practical disciplines all along the way, perhaps concentrating on them toward the end.

Throughout the volume Martin humbly admits that he doesn’t pretend to have solved the theological education riddle. And, as mentioned above, there are certainly elements of disagreement and controversy some readers will find throughout. But Pedagogy of the Bible is a clarion call to think theologically about theological education and for that reason deserves a wide reading across theological spectrums. Moreover, his proposal gives many administrators and educators much to consider in their course constructions.


Michael J. Thate

Michael J. Thate
Durham University
Durham, England, UK

Other Articles in this Issue

Most of our readers are theological students and pastors...

Jürgen Moltmann observes that Christian theology and the Church face “a double crisis: the crisis of relevance and the crisis of identity...

In the prolegomena to his “approach to biblical theology,” Charles H...

Since the mid-twentieth century biblical scholars have increasingly accepted that the texts of the Bible must be interpreted in terms of their literary genres...

The present age tends to regard polemics, theological controversies, and all-round doctrinal fisticuffs as, at best, a necessary evil, at worst, one of the most revolting aspects of Christianity...