Brian Brock examines in detail Augustine's exegesis of the Psalms, and Hannah's Song. As he concludes:...Hannah's Song is paradigmatic for Augustine for understanding the Psalms because it is a text that, because of its narrative location, tells us something essential about biblical Psalms - that they cannot be 'read'. Therefore, there is no such thing as a 'reader' for Augustine, unless this describes the activity of those who make this song an 'objective' text devoid of any personal claim because they see human strength as determining of world events. This distancing stands in contrast to those who affirm Hannah's praise of God by singing with her...the form of Scripture that is called a psalm, and the interpretive ontological claims Augustine brings to this form, work together to question a basic commitment of contemporary hermeneutics: that we can describe a general hermeneutical strategy that is appropriately applied to the biblical texts. Because this is not simply a text, but Scripture, to read the Psalms as a text is to consolidate our self-emasculation in deciding in advance that they point only to human activities. The psalm form is thus correctly understood only when it appears as an invitation to the community of faith to sing God's praises.
That is: you can't just read the Bible. You must sing it (well the Psalms, anyhow).
6 comments:
I assume that he means that "consolidat[ing] our self-emasculation" is a bad thing.
ie not to be compared to taking up our crosses.
An earlier comment by Brock may clarify:
'The humility-exaltation maxim is not a method of self-improvement but a description of God's killing of humans by denuding them of their sense of self-reliance to raise them in Christ by the power of God. Augustine's interpretive maxim is thus not a moral program but a Christology with moral implications.' p. 120
The psalm form is thus correctly understood only when it appears as an invitation to the community of faith to sing God's praises.
Sure, but this "appearing" is a kind of complication of the hermeneutical process for the reader isn't it? I'm really sympathetic with the point that's being made. But the claim cannot be that we only understand the Psalms, for example, when we sing them; at most it is that we are already understanding them correctly when we sing them, and therefore the reading of the Psalms must imaginatively appreciate this if it is to make sense of the text (i.e. do good hermeneutical work).
In other words, I don't think this is a big obstacle for hermeneutics as a theory. (And of course there is interpretation going on in the singing too, let's hope! Although not self-reflexively). But it does highlight a basic feature of the Psalms which can obviously be overlooked in a reductive reading.
Just a thought.
if i read the lyrics to a modern song without the benefit of music, i'm thinking i stand as good a chance of understanding it as i would if i also heard notes. in the absence of music, what i will miss is the full impact to my other senses affecting mood, energy and emotion... which can be powerful motivators of action.
i'm wondering if an understanding of the corporate nature of praise... once sung and shared... gives us pause to reflect on how it is that we praise God today? is praise meant for silent prayers in quiet places? or should we be belting it out, as it were, in the company of others...?
(am i on topic or did i flip the channel? sometimes i can't tell :)
On topic fer sure! I think what Brian is trying to do is to say 'we can't keep a critical distance from scripture'. You gotta be in it up to your ears!
But even reading critically requires the presence of God, whether we realise it or not. Why not claim the high ground and affirm both involvement and critical distance?
Post a Comment