book review – dale martin, pedagogy of the bible: an analysis and proposal

8/12/2019 Book Review Dale Martin, Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal.

1/5

ReviewMARTIN,Pedagogy of the Bible

FrD Mar 14

1

Book Review Dale Martin, Pedagogy

of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal.Dale Martin introducesPedagogy of the Bible: An analysis and Proposalvery much as

his own book1, a single mans effort, containing his own perspectives and thoughts about

the education of future Protestant Christian leaders across the United States of

America. In this book Martin sets out to analyse the current trends in theological

education at seminaries paying particular attention to how Biblical interpretation is

approached and taught. Consequently, the author offers a proposal again, very

personal in naturefor curricular changes with a double aim in mind.

First, Martin wants to provide a suggestion, a tentative blueprint, which could start the

conversation about ministerial formation as something centred on Biblical

interpretation. Secondly, the author aims to redirect the current educational trends

towards a more comprehensive curriculum which would provide the students with a

versatile and varied range of interpretative skills that will prove useful tools in on-the-

job interpretations of the Bible.

Although Pedagogy of the Bible is inspired by the authors own vision for more

imaginative Biblical hermeneutics, this book also benefits from Martins research among

various training institutions that provided him with valuable opinions from those

actively engaged in ministerial formation.

After the brief introduction where Martin presents the perceived problem at hand and

his research method, in chapter one the author moves on to outline his concerns about

both the use and the interpretation of the Bible in theological education. For Martin the

predominant interpretative method employed in seminaries is historical criticism orthe historical-critical approachwhose hegemony has grown, particularly in Protestant

institutions, at the expense of other interpretative methods.

Broadly, the historical-critical approach emphasises the historical consciousness of

modern readers, highlighting the differences between the present human condition and

the life at the time of the redaction of the Biblical books. Thus, this method seeks to be

impartial, striving to find the original meaning of Biblical texts which sometimes may

seem buried deep underneath layers of denominational biases. However, because of the

wide and sometimes multifaceted usage of this approach, the author spends a few pages

1Dale B. MARTIN,Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal(2008) x


2/5


FrD Mar 14

2

to identify more precisely what strand of historical criticism he is trying to dethrone2

through his work. Later in the chapter Martin also outlines other possible

interpretative models which could be taught more widely envisaging them as equal

working partners to historical criticism. This is a varied and not necessarily exhaustive

assortment in which one finds literary, feminist, social-scientific, reader-response, and

theological approaches. It is to the latter two models that Martin dedicates more time

thus opening the way for his curricular considerations in later chapters.

In chapter two, Readers and Texts, Martin furthers his argument for the deposition of

the historical-critical regime in favour of a more theological and imaginative way of

interpreting the Bible. The chapter opens with some general considerations about

reading texts and interpretation as a social product3thus revealing the unsustainability

of any claims about impartiality attached to historical criticism. After this, the author

proposes some reflections about reading Biblical texts in a Christian way that is,

theologically. Martin examines the example of Psalm 22, a key text for the faith-based

interpretation of the crucifixion of Jesus, which is mostly read by Christians in aChristological sense that does not reflect original Jewish meaning interpreted using

historical criticism. Through these considerations Martin reinforces his thesis about the

historical-critical approach; it is useful and it allows the readers to understand various

aspects of the text whilst distancing themselves enough to obtain a clearer picture, but

it is not strictly necessary for understanding, Christianly, the foundational event of

Christianity4contained in Bible. Finally, the author argues that a theological reading of

the Bible would be better served by learning from premodern interpretations of

Scripture, rather than by historical-critical readings.

In chapter three, Premodern Biblical Interpretation, Martin moves on to examineselected examples of theological interpretation which predate the introduction of the

historical-critical method. These seem rather arbitrarily selected and drawn from a very

limited number of writers; Origen, Augustine, Bede, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas

Aquinas. Jesus, in a sense, should also be included in this list5. However, they

demonstrate clearly the point that Martin is trying to make; seminaries should

rediscover the wealth of Biblical interpretation which has been accumulated in the

eighteen centuries predating the introduction of historical criticism. Moreover,

theological colleges should foster the same approaches to the Bible shown in the sample

writese.g. allegorical and theological methodsas useful interpretative tools.

In chapter four, Theological Interpretation of Scripture, Martin puts forward the

theological model as the fundamental interpretative tool to be used by future Christian

leaders on a day-to-day basis. The author constructs this argument first by examining

the meaning of Scripture and subsequentlyby putting forward certain ground rules

about the theological method; these will set the framework for theological interpretation

and provide the student with the skills necessary to improvise Biblical hermeneutics

once leaving the seminary. Its worth noting that the guidelines given here are drawn

from three other writers: Walter Wilson, Charles Cosgrove, and Jack Rogers.

2

ibid.33ibid.384ibid.425ibid.48


3/5


FrD Mar 14

3

The fifth and last chapter, Curricular Dreams, provides the reader with the blueprint

for the radical curricular restructure promised in the introduction ofPedagogy of the

Bible. The chapter opens with mild suggestions for curricular changes gathered by

Martin in his research among Biblical scholars. However, on the whole these reveal

themselves not quite as ground-breaking as the author would have expected them to be6

all perhaps except Luke Timothy Johnsons which seems more concerned about thephysical structures and the life of prayer of seminaries, than their curricula; a concern

that, shared also by Martin, complements well the strictly academic proposition of his

blueprint.

In his proposal, Martin envisages a curriculum centred on Scripture. The students at his

dream seminary would be taught historical criticism as well as a varied selection of

interpretative approaches. The teaching of several methods of interpretation in an

environment where Christian reading of the Bible is paramount should teach students

to adopt an interpretative approach that is both critical and theological.

Martins practical suggestions however, do not appear to be greatly revolutionary. The

dream curriculum is organised in three unitsbe these years or semesterswith four

modules taught in each unit. The first unit comprises the teaching of historical criticism

and other interpretative approaches, theory of the text, the theology of Scripture, and

the Christian reading to the Old Testament. The second unit comprises the historical

introduction to the New Testament and early Christianity, patristic and early Christian

literature, medieval and early modern Christian and Biblical interpretation, and

interestingly, an entire module on Biblical interpretation through art, literature and

music. The third unit comprises the study of medieval and modern theologians,

Scripture in liturgy and preaching (from a purely theoretical viewpoint?), Scripture inrelation to other religions, and finally, ministerial matters.

Dale Martins Pedagogy of the Biblehas been reviewed several times since it was first

published in 2008 with mixed feelings. Renate V. Hood calls it a bold, daring, and

timely7 work, however Timothy Lim only affirms that the book is worthy of some

attention8, raising important questions about the only allegedly radical character of

Martins proposed curricular changes.

This review would like to draw the readers attention to a further couple of issues

surrounding Pedagogy of the Bible. First, Martins analysis is drawn both from the

authors own perception of ministerial education as well as on his research work

conducted with the support of Wabash Center for Teaching and Learning in Theology

and Religion. The research sample contains forty-eight teachers and fifty postgraduate

students from ten theological schools across the USA; a reasonable sample, but

according the Martin himself, a modest survey9. However, at times Martin seems to slip

6

ibid.937Renate V. HOOD,Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal By Dale B. Martin(2009)8Timothy LIM,Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal By Dale B. Martin, (2010)729Dale B. MARTIN(2008) xi


4/5


FrD Mar 14

4

into generalization about the prominence of historical-criticism in ministerial education

a prominence that some of his interviewees do not recognise10 and that other

academics consider a thing of the past11. Therefore, even though Martin is ready to

acknowledge insufficient data-gathering of his research12, one ought to question the

validity of his claims about historical criticism and so also about the suitability of his

analysis.

Secondly, a further question about the value of Martins contributions should be raised

due to the authors lack of experience in practical aspects of ministry 13. The curricular

proposal contained inPedagogy of the Biblerelegates homiletics, counselling, and other

everyday elements of ministry to the last part of a dream curriculum. Undoubtedly,

Martin does not want to underestimate these important parts of ministerial life, but

would like to see them thoroughly grounded in years of Biblical studies which is a

comforting thought in itself.

However, this restriction placed on preaching seems to counter the authors argumentabout theological interpretation of the Bible as something that necessarily requires

practice in order to achieve better standards14. Indeed, the example of St Bernard of

Clairvaux cited in chapter three reveals that Biblical interpretation is done through

homiletics. Homiletics as an imaginative and practical approach to hermeneutics should

be taught, engaged with, and assessed earlier than Martin suggests; thus giving the

possibility to students to experiment in a safe environment with one of the most

important parts of their future ministerial life.

Pedagogy of the Bibleis a short but difficult book to assess fully probably because of its

personal character. On the one hand it appears unclear both in its definition of Church

and in providing valuable and bespoke reflections for such a vast target audience. On

the other hand, it is a sincere and thoughtful effort to direct ministerial education

towards a more theological and imaginative approach to Biblical interpretation.

Pedagogy of the Biblepossesses a voice that sounds genuinely concerned about the state

of ministerial education even beyond the USA and Protestantism. It may sound vaguely

Congregationalist in its ecclesiology, but it speaks to Christians across denominationsinviting them to reassess the role of Scripture in the training of those individuals who

will be entrusted with the teaching and handing-on of the faith contained in the sacred

texts. In this sense, Pedagogy of the Bible appears to unknowingly echo the Council

10E.g. Stan Saunders in Dale B. MARTIN(2008) 1011E.g. Historical criticism [] wasthe dominant approach in the academic study of the Bible

from the mid-nineteenth century until a generation ago. First sentence of John BARTON,

Historical-Critical Approaches, in John BARTON(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical

Interpretation(1998) 9 (bold type mine)12Dale B. MARTIN(2008) xi13ibid.10414ibid.91


5/5


FrD Mar 14

5

Decree on ministerial formation of 1965 which affirmed that students are to be formed

with particular care in the study of the Bible,[] the soul of all theology15.

Ultimately, Dale Martins underlying desire for a comprehensive revaluation of

ministerial education could reveal itself as the lasting legacy of Pedagogy of the Bible

and a further contribution to interdenominational dialogues about the centrality ofScripture.

Bibliography

Dale Basil MARTIN,Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal,Westminster John Knox (Louisville, 2008)

John BARTON(ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation, CUP(Cambridge, 1998)

Renate Viveen HOOD,Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal By DaleB. Martin, REVIEW OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE(2009), text accessed via

www.bookreviews.org/pdf/6609_7161.pdf (November 2013) Timothy LIM,Pedagogy of the Bible: An Analysis and Proposal By Dale B.

Martin, REVIEWS IN RELIGION AND THEOLOGY, Vol. 17, No. 1, (2010First

published online December 2009)

also

Decree on Priestly Training, Optatam Totius(1965), text accessed viawww.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-

ii_decree_19651028_optatam-totius_en.html (November 2013)

15Decree on Priestly Training, Optatam Totius(1965) #16

book review – dale martin, pedagogy of the bible: an analysis and proposal

Documents