Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition: Recovering the Genius of Premodern Exegesis

by Craig A. Carter

The rise of modernity, especially the European Enlightenment and its aftermath, has negatively impacted the way we understand the nature and interpretation of Christian Scripture. In this introduction to biblical interpretation, Craig Carter evaluates the problems of post-Enlightenment hermeneutics and offers an alternative exegesis in harmony with the Great Tradition. Carter argues for the validity of patristic christological exegesis, showing that we must recover the Nicene theological tradition as the context for contemporary exegesis, and seeks to root both the nature and interpretation of Scripture firmly in trinitarian orthodoxy.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction, Church History, Philosophy

304 pages, Paperback

Published April 17, 2018

Reviews

[Jared Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

You like boom sauce. You want boom sauce. This is boom sauce.

[Peter Dray · Rating 4 out of 5]

When I've taught Bible exegesis to students and to student ministers in recent years, I've used three reads - exegesis as science, exegesis as art, and exegesis as spiritual discipline. If they've ever received any formal training before, most people are used to the 'scientific' approach of interpreting the Bible - i.e. applying certain rules which allow the exegete to find the human author's intention, which - when rightly contextualised - provides the meaning for today.

Craig Carter not only sees the deficiencies in this approach (his emphasis is much more upon exegesis as art and especially as spiritual discipline), he also views this approach as bad science, built as it is upon naturalistic and ultimately anti-supernatural assumptions. Breathing the same air as the culture, Carter believes that many Christians have imbibed the assumptions of such exegesis and have silenced the voice of God, especially in the Old Testament Scriptures. In many ways, he calls Christians to return to a truly Christian way of approaching the Bible - taking seriously its its divine inspiration as well as human authorship, and having confidence that all Scripture really does extol Christ. He provides a tour of pre-Enlightenment church history, examining how believers in other eras interpreted Scripture, and calling Christians today to adopt the best of these approaches and practices. Some of these approach will be familiar to thoughtful Christians today; others will feel stranger.

There's much that's very helpful in this book - and it has caused me to reflect on my own approach to the Scriptures. Next time I teach sessions on exegesis, I will place more emphasis on the divine authorship of Scripture and the necessity of prayerfulness and a holy life to hear the Spirit's voice. I've realised that I can often pay only lip service to these things.

However, I can't help but think that some of the terminology Carter employs could have been clearer or less provocative (the category of Christian Platonism a key case in point) and he says nothing about Scriptural genre. No doubt the more imagistic genres - prophecy and the psalms, for example - benefit more neatly from Carter's observations. I think some nervousness around Carter's thesis (especially the idea that divine authorial intention could differ from human authorial intention) might be quelled if Carter qualified his thesis around those genres that are less imagistic and which demand precision in the reader.

[Kyle Grindberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading this was both a vicariously cathartic experience as well as a balm for my soul. I have been frustrated with much I've read in seminary, and as well as many of the assumptions I've encountered from some of my professors, but haven’t been able to clearly express the essence of my frustration. The book came out of nowhere for me. During our first day of Hermeneutics (the class it was assigned in) in our class discussion about Iraenaus's "On the Apostolic Preaching," I brought up how I want to be rightly rebuked by the hermeneutics of godly men of the past, that we just think the grammatical-historical or possibly redemptive-historical, through inevitable progress of history, is the culminating achievement of Biblical hermeneutics. My professor told me to table the discussion for our next class after we read Interpreting Scripture by Carter, and wow was my question answered! Highly recommend this book.

[Gwilym Davies · Rating 2 out of 5]

I knew that I wouldn't want to agree with this book before I read it. I was worried that it might be a very good book. Certainly, it came with all-star reviews from people who ought to know. But the truth is, I was very disappointed.

There's lots in the book that I'd agree with. Carter hates the distortions of historical-criticism. So do I. He abhors secularism and its romantic counterparts. So do I. He rejects the practical atheism of Spinoza, Kant, and generations of biblical scholars. So do I. He loves the Bible, he loves the Lord Jesus, he loves the best of the church's theological traditions, he loves the Old Testament. So do I.

But this isn't a very good book.

Partly, that's because I don't like his thesis. Carter is part of the current wave of scholars - liberal, evangelical, and Catholic - who want to advocate the Theological Interpretation of Scripture. There's much in their agenda that I do like. I agree that the church is the primary interpretive community, not the academy. I agree with their rejection of historical-critical presuppositions. I agree with their desire to uphold a Christian worldview whilst interpreting the Bible as the word of God. I agree with the desire to respect the best of the exegesis of the past. I agree with Carter's desire to intrepret Scripture as God's Word. But I can't agree with Boersma's regret of the Reformation, or with the exaltation of the patristics over the Reformers, or with the desire to rehabilitate spiritual reading strategies that violate the intentions of the text. And it's here that I disagree most vehemently. For Carter, there are two villains: the Enlightenment, and single-meaning hermeneutics. Anyone who holds that there is 'one meaning, the (human) author's meaning' is either a witting or unwitting heir of Enlightenment skepticism and godlessness. And whilst I'm as happy as anyone to kick Immanuel Kant whilst he's down, I can't go along with this attack on Scripture's human authors.

In some ways, Carter's aim is to move the conversation on. He doesn't share the desire to vilify the Reformers along with the Enlightenment, and he wants to bring Calvin into the fold of 'pre-modern' exegesis. He doesn't want to overthrow the literal meaning of the Old Testament, but to add layers. An expanded literal sense. But the problem is, he just isn't very convincing. He wants to argue that the tragedy of the modern world is that we have let go of Christian Platonism. But then he defines Christian Platonism in such vague terms that it's really very hard to work out what the point of the 'Platonist' bit is. If his definition of Christian Platonism stands, of course we should believe it. I just don't believe we need to give Plato much credit for it - let's just call it Christianity. He wants to hold on to the 'Great Tradition' - without anything much in the way of acknowledgement of the diversity in pre-modern thought. But maybe that's another way of saying that his definition of Christian Platonism is so broad as to cover everything and describe nothing. He wants to argue that Calvin was in basic sympathy with the allegorical reading strategies of the patristics and the Middle Ages. But then none of his quotes from Calvin prove any such thing - Calvin permits an allegorical intepretation in Exodus 3, he opposes allegorical interpretations 6 times in the Institutes without denouncing allegory as such, he explains how Paul's 'allegorical interpretation' in Galatians 4 is sympathetic to the literal sense (having denounced Origen's allegories first!), and this amounts to a defence of allegory? This is a very weak case indeed. Why is it that when I read Calvin's commentary on Isaiah, his persistent preoccupation is what Isaiah, the prophet, actually meant? Even in chapter 53. Why is it that Calvin corrects Augustine's interpretation of Genesis 1:1 on the basis of the fact that it isn't what Moses meant? Carter is at pains to say that we should construct Augustine's hermeneutics from his practice, not his stated principles (and Augustine systematically stated his principles). Perhaps it'd help if we showed Calvin the same courtesy. He argues that the Old Testament prophets understood their predictions only partially by quoting from 1 Peter - but never notices that his interpretation of 1 Peter is not at all what Peter actually says. He puts forward prosopological interpretation as the answer to the Old Testament, and we're left to infer that this is what Calvin did. Well, show me where he does it then! His interpretation of John 16 leaves a lot to be desired. This isn't very good history. Or exegesis.

And then there are the fallacies. Excluded middle, straw men, implied ad hominem attacks. Carter sets up the entire interpretive endeavour as a dichotomy. Either you believe in allegorical interepretation, or you're an Enlightenment secularist. Either you accept sensus plenior, or you're a practical atheist. Either you agree with me, or you're an enemy of the gospel. Is it not possible to believe in a single meaning because we think that the Lord invites his prophets into his counsel? Is it not possible to think that the spiritual sense is the literal sense? Certainly, Blocher and Kaiser and Waltke and Sailhamer - and I'd suggest Calvin himself - seemed to think so.

Undoubtedly, there are complex issues here. There are things to be said about Hebrews' use of the Old Testament. There are things to be unpicked about the New Testament's use of the Old in general - because even if the NT authors understood the OT according to the human author's sense, they didn't just reproduce it. Somewhere, there is progressive revelation (quite right!). There is mystery - at least one of them! Some 'single meaning' advocates have formulated their position badly. And it's possible that that's because the position itself is untenable (although this is not what I think). It's not that the issues aren't complex, and that there aren't things to be said for sensus plenior or something like it.

But this book won't help us to navigate them. "Unhelpfully polemic" was the description one acquaintance gave it. Quite. And inaccurate with it. Insofar as that polemic is aimed at the liberal academic establishment, I'm entirely sympathetic. But when the guns get turned on evangelicals - and whatever Carter's own intention (does that matter? I think so), that is where his guns have been turned in this country - the inaccuracies, excluded middle, straw-man arguments really matter.

And one more thing matters. Because although Carter and his allies would never want to downgrade the Old Testament, I'm left wondering what they really think of the Old Testament authors. The whole way he sets up the matter seems to imply that if you don't believe in sensus plenior, you can't preach Jesus from Isaiah 53. The human authors don't do what we want them to do, and so we need to adopt a reading strategy that will get us there. We allegorize because we can't accept the text as it seems to be. Let me be clear, I don't think anyone really wants to say this. But in Carter's binary world, it's what we seem to end up saying - the only way to retrieve the gospel from Isaiah is sensus plenior. Well, ok. But I'd preach the gospel from Isaiah 53 because I'm convinced that that's what Isaiah, the human author, meant to say. Inadvertently, I think sensus plenior and TIS can end up conceding much too much to the very liberals and atheists they want to oppose.

In summary? My enemy's enemy. But not my friend.

[Drake · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really wrestled with this book, as it challenged my thinking in many ways. Carter launches a direct assault on modern hermeneutical teaching, arguing that the overall philosophy and methodology of hermeneutics taught in academia are driven by Enlightenment presuppositions and actually obscure the true nature of the biblical text. The solution, he argues, is to return to the spiritual and christological hermeneutics of the Great Tradition, as exemplified in figures such as Irenaeus, the Nicene fathers, Ambrose, Augustine, Aquinas, and Calvin (who all in turn strived to imitate the example of the apostles in how they read the OT). Only by recovering our spiritual roots (what he calls "resourcement") can we return hermeneutics to its rightful place as a spiritual discipline designed to enable Christians to encounter God in His Word, rather than an exact science driven by naturalistic philosophy that treats the Bible just like any other book.

Pros:
Carter's study of the hermeneutics of the Great Tradition is simply outstanding. He demonstrates clearly that, rather than the naive subjectivism they are often accused of (and which I grew up thinking they were guilty of), the great theologians of church history practiced an extremely sophisticated hermeneutic. Their spiritual/christological interpretations of the OT were grounded in their firm belief in the divine authorship of Scripture (i.e., inspiration), which was further grounded in their belief in the transcendence and imminence of God (what Carter refers to as "Christian Platonism"). Carter's critique of the typical "grammatical-historical" model (with its restriction of all meaning/significance to the authorial intent of the human writer and its emphasis on "literal interpretation" of the text) is devastating as he exposes the naturalistic view of history that undergirds such thinking. His critique also highlights the arrogance of claiming that the church's greatest teachers for the first 1,700 years of its history were all seriously misguided in their hermeneutics. Why do we accept the trinitarian doctrine of the Nicene fathers, for example, while rejecting their exegesis? Why is our generation the supposedly "enlightened" one (pun intended)? Carter rightly shows that, contrary to popular wisdom, seeing spiritual/christological significance in the OT that goes beyond the human author's intent does not lead to sheer subjectivism; instead, the best exegetes of the Great Tradition have been careful to ground any such interpretations in the literal sense, viewing them as an extension of the original author's meaning rather than a contradiction of it.

Two more things to be said as far as strengths go. First, Carter's call (echoing the Great Tradition) for hermeneutics to be a spiritual discipline rather than a science is much-needed, and one that I found personally convicting. Second, Cater is a winsome and compelling author. He makes no attempt to downplay either his passion for the Lord and His Word (which I found stirring) or his disgust at modern naturalistic philosophy (I literally lol'd at some of the jabs he takes). This was a thoroughly enjoyable read.

Cons:
Perhaps the biggest weakness of the book is its lack of exegetical arguments. While Carter occasionally does cite the NT to make his case, his focus is primarily on the preachers and teachers of the Great Tradition. If the book had simply been a study of Great Tradition hermeneutics, this would not be a problem. But given the polemical nature of the book in calling the reader to drastically change their hermeneutical mindset, it would have been wise to demonstrate clearly how the apostles, not just the church fathers, practiced this approach to the OT since a Christian's final authority rests with the former rather than the latter. I also didn't find every hermeneutical method of the Great Tradition fully convincing. I'm still not completely on board with "prosopological exegesis," as it would seem to bypass the human author completely. Thus, I would be more inclined towards reading passages like Hebrews 10 (in its use of Psalm 40) typologically rather than prosopologically. I'm also not entirely sold on the use of allegory that goes beyond simply a christological/spiritual layer of meaning grounded in the literal meaning (though I have no qualms with said meaning going beyond the human author's understanding).

There are times when Carter seems to overstate his critique in order to make his point, leading him to take aim at concepts like "typological interpretation" and "bridging the historical and modern contexts" when, in practice, he actually does incorporate both into his hermeneutical approach. Finally, while Carter's discussion of the history of "literal" interpretation is extremely helpful, I found that he himself used the term inconsistently throughout the book, making it hard to follow his argument at times.

Conclusion:
Overall, this is a book that was challenging in all the best ways. It caused me to rethink almost every aspect of my hermeneutic. In some cases, I was persuaded to see things differently and change my approach. In other cases, my position remained the same, but my thinking on it became far more sharpened than it was before. For both of these reasons, I am grateful for this book and will likely revisit it.

[Nate Jacques · Rating 5 out of 5]

Profound, exhilarating and refreshing: "Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition" is perhaps my most loved book on exegesis I have read so far. It is a precious jewel that I stumbled upon accidentally. A friend recommended it a few years ago and it remained confined somewhere in my Amazon bookmarks until I decided to finally read it. As I did so, I found my paradigms challenged, my mind engaged, and my soul refreshed.

This book covers a lot of ground, but each component builds an additional layer to the argument which is quite convincing. The thesis is essentially that we must set aside exegetical philosophies that are grounded in naturalistic Enlightenment thinking and return to the exegetical philosophies that the authors of scripture and the early church fathers had. The conclusion is that we ought to read and view the Bible as a unified, Christo-centric, supernatural revelation grounded in history that can only properly be interpreted by Christians in whom the Holy Spirit dwells.

I have so many personal takeaways from this book, that it is impossible for me to accurately recount them all here. Carter articulates this subject matter with clarity that I found nothing short of cathartic. I finished this book with greater joy in the author of Scripture and not just the material pages themselves.

However, I do bring a few criticisms to this book. To put it lightly, Carter is quite abrasive towards those whom he disagrees. From the very beginning of his introduction, he is very heavy-footed and lacking in grace. At times, the way he disagrees with others is shameful in a way that almost makes me wish I did not agree with him. One may argue it is necessary, as he is taking on nothing short of all western thinking for the last 400 years. Nonetheless, I believe that if he wrote with more grace and patience he might actually persuade his opposition into agreement rather than simply alienating them. Another "criticism" is that this book is certainly academic in nature. It really straddles the line between heavily academic and easy to read. I found it exhilarating to read and it was quite the page turner. However, I believe most readers might be unfamiliar with a lot of the academic jargon and deep history that Carter uses.

In all, I loved this book. I definitely will read again and keep it on my shelf. I recommend it to all, with the caveat of it being academic in nature. I would also give the encouragement to hear out his whole argument, because the first chapter or two are quite abrasive.

[Jake Stone · Rating 5 out of 5]

Craig Carter will challenge you! I’ll confess I had seen several friends read this and one gave me a copy of the book because he thought it was that important. The first few chapters were challenging to me as Carter deals with Nicene metaphysics. That’s an area that is not my specialty. However, it does lay the foundation for the gold that I found in chapters 5-7.

Carter really stirred in me a greater appreciation for the Bible and interpretation of the Bible. Yes, I’m a pastor but I can get complacent about the beauty of Scripture. Carter shows you the importance of “christological literalism” in reading the Bible. This hermeneutic book is so needed. I have a much greater appreciation for Patristic exegesis and understand it better. Carter does a masterful job of showing how Protestants should embrace the riches of seeing how reading the Bible is sacramental.

This book will require some labor but it is worth it!

[Levi Friesen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fantastic book. Puts words so well to the tensions that I felt in trying to navigate the relationship between more critical hermeneutical approaches in Bible college and the task of preaching Christ from all of Scripture. Also the footnotes are worth whatever you'd pay for the book itself.

[Tim Michiemo · Rating 5 out of 5]

4.7 Stars

"Interpreting Scripture with the Great Tradition" by Craig A. Carter is a grand work of scholarship that seeks to reform modern exegetical theory by resourcing the hermeneutics of the Great Tradition. Carter's central argument is that the modern historical-critical exegesis has not delivered on its promise of explaining the actual "meaning" of the text. This is because historical-critical exegesis is based on Enlightenment thinking that rejects a Biblical "Christian Platonist" metaphysic and embraces an un-Biblical naturalist metaphysic. Carter explains that the hermeneutics of the Great Tradition offers us a better method of Biblical hermeneutics. It's only when we embrace the exegesis of the Great Tradition which is based on a Christian Platonist metaphysic, Nicene dogma, and Christological literalism that we can actually understand the meaning of the Biblical text.

Carter's book has a long list of strengths. He has written a highly academic book that is both engaging and interesting. Carter writes in a manner that is personal and dynamic rather than dry and cerebral like many scholarly works. Another strength is the vast amounts of historical riches Carter has resourced to offer light on modern hermeneutical methods. Carter has done a great job explaining and showing how Irenaeus, Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and many others interpreted the Scriptures in a manner that embraced a Biblical metaphysic and Christological focus. Yet, I think Carter's greatest strength is his critique of the historical-critical method. In the first part of his book, Carter offers a scathing yet Biblically faith critique of the historical-critical method, how it is not informed by a Biblical worldview and is more influenced by a naturalistic Enlightenment worldview. Carter's main thesis of his book is based upon this critique of this modern method of interpretation that is so prevalent in the academy, but interestingly so absent from churches.

One of the weaknesses of Carter's book is his embrace of prosopological exegesis and critique of typological exegesis. The problem is that Carter defends prosopological exegesis based more on the interpretive methods of Augustine than on how the actual text of Scripture works. He critiques typology as embracing historical criticism's view of history but doesn't go any farther than that. Unfortunately, Carter does little to analyze whether typology actually faithfully embraces a Christocentric view of Scripture, a Nicene dogma, and a Christian Platonist metaphysic better than prosopological exegesis.

Probably the greatest lesson that I learned from this book is that theology should form our exegesis, and our exegeses should inform our theology. It's not eisegesis to allow our theology to inform our reading of the text, as long as our theology is informed by the Scriptures themselves. And the pastors and theologians of the Great Tradition did exegesis in this way, and we would do well to follow their example.

So, in sum, this is a great academic book for those engaged in Biblical scholarship. Many pastors and Bible students will read this book and say, "I do this already," but will also benefit greatly by seeing the dangers of the historical-critical method and the riches that can be found in resourcing the Great Tradition. This is a good read for pastors and Bible students and a must-read for Bible scholars in the academy.

[Alan Fuller · Rating 2 out of 5]

Literally doesn't mean literal, it means spiritual. Spiritually doesn't mean spiritual, it means literal. History isn't history unless it includes supernatural events in the Bible. Allegory can be thought of as "double literal" or "Christological literalism."

"As we have seen throughout this book, terminology is extremely varied and difficult to pin down." Carter, (p. 222).

That seems like an understatement. Why does the author have to redefine terms so radically? It's because he wants to reject modern interpretation while clinging to it. To Carter, modern interpretation is the historical-critical method which he rightly criticizes for its rejection of the supernatural. Carter accepts other modern methods that started gaining popularity after Nicholas of Lyra (1270-1349) brought rabbinic methods into the church. Calvin (1509-1564) is the greatest exegete for Carter. He depends heavily on the concept of salvation history (Heilsgeschichte) which is itself a modern term coined by Johann Bengel (1687-1752).

(1Co 10:4)  And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

"When Paul says “and the Rock was Christ” (1 Cor. 10: 4), he is using a figure but is nonetheless speaking literally." (pp. 175-176).

If this makes sense to you then you'll love the book.

[Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating study on what David Steinmetz called “the superiority of precritical exegesis.” Carter ultimately makes a case that evangelicals reject the acids of modernity for the “Christian Platonism” of catholic exegesis (what he calls the “Great Tradition”).

The key contribution this book makes is how Carter shows that often evangelical exegesis and preaching is largely in continuity with the majority of the Great Tradition, while higher criticism is not. In addition, Carter brings together an interesting list of characters to highlight this continuity (Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, etc.)

Since this is essentially a work of prolegomena (Carter is writing a book on pro-Nicene trinitarianism), Carter tries to do a lot. Some sections feel a little weaker than others, and I’m not as keen on some of the theologians he utilizes to make his case (e.g. all the talk about “sacramental ontology”), but all in all, this is a really fun, fascinating book. I wish evangelicals — especially those in ministry — would read and think deeply on Carter’s arguments.

[Richard Lawrence · Rating 3 out of 5]

"This book tries to restore the delicate balance between biblical exegesis, trinitarian dogma, and theological metaphysics that was upset by the heretical, one-sided, narrow-minded movement that is misnamed 'the Enlightenment.'" - page 26

Craig Carter argues that "biblical exegesis", the study of scripture, has historically been 1 part of a 3 part system with the other two parts being "theological metaphysics" and "trinitarian dogma".

He argues that modern "Historical Critical Exegesis" which has been promoted in many academic institutions is a result of the enlightenment or "the liberal project" which has been attempting to explain all things with only the natural or material and by bringing these faulty assumptions to the Bible results in faulty conclusions such as denying that Isaiah 53 is about Jesus.

What does this book promote?
That the Bible is not like any other book and hence should not be studied like other books, but the Bible should be interpreted:
- as written by the Triune God (not primarily the work of man)
- as a unified work that is all about Jesus
- from within a Christian Platonist Metaphysic
- by believers (as spiritual truths are spiritually discerned, a failure of sanctification can hinder understanding)

Written by the Triune God?
If scripture is written by God then our question in studying it is "What is God trying to teach us?" and this may not be the same as the message the human author God used had for his original audience. This fuller meaning or "sensus plenior" must be sought by studying the passage in light of all of scripture. God could design historical events to teach us a message and so a historical section of scripture may be intended to teach doctrinal truths - even if the human author was merely recording history.

Other parts of scripture may have double meanings - an ultimate meaning focused on Christ and a more limited meaning focussed on the events when the passage was written.

Considering scripture as primarily the work of God, not man, means asking different questions when we study it. (2 Peter 1:21)

A unified work that is all about Jesus
The Bible had many human authors BUT if we approach them as working together under the guidance of God then we can look for connections those human authors may not have been aware of. We can see a message about Jesus on every page (John 5:39).

A Christian Platonist Metaphysic?
A "metaphysic" (also called a "world view" or a "reality tunnel") is a way of understanding the world, if physics tells us what things do, metaphysics tells us why they do it.

Platonism was a broad greek philosophical movement that existed in various forms, Carter draws on the work of Lloyd P. Gerson to define an underlying "Ur Platonism" which was shared by all of these forms this is defined based on 5 commitments (see pages 79-82):
- anti-materialism - a belief in entities that are neither (physical) bodies not properties of such
- anti-mechanism - a belief in immaterial explanations - the physical universe is not a closed system/mechanism
- anti-nominalism - the belief that existence is not limited to individual entities
- anti-relativism - the belief that man is not the measure of truth - knowledge and goodness exist independent of our understanding of it
- anti-skepticism - the belief that knowledge is possible

To these 5 commitments is added an implication; if the world is not just material, and knowledge and truth exists- there is a purpose (a teleology) to things, everything (people, events, animals, texts etc.) is to be seen as existing for a reason and aiming at a purpose or goal.

Carter asserts that a christian metaphysic ought to fit within this anti-naturalist framework. This is a framework that sees the supernatural intimately involved in everything - far from looking for a diminishing God of the gaps the Christian Platonist sees God involved absolutely everywhere.

When interpreting scripture within this metaphysic there is nothing unusual or surprising about predictive prophecy, miracles, or theophanies.

By believers
Drawing on analysis of Ambrose of Milan, Carter argues that spiritual truths are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14) and therefore implies strongly (though does not state outright) that christians should not be basing their understanding of scripture on the work of unbelievers AND that further if we are not living out the truth we know then we should not expect to do well at studying or understanding scripture.

What does this book Oppose?
This book opposes the study of scripture:
- from a materialist world view
- historical critical exegesis

Materialist world view
A materialist worldview or a metaphysic is one that seeks explanations of everything in terms of natural or material processes. It seeks to explain away miracles and cannot allow for prophecy.

Within such a world view there is no divine revelation as either there is no God or God is distant and not involved in our lives. Such a worldview is functionally atheism and yet Carter argues that the assumptions of this worldview have been shaping how the academic study of scripture is done for over a hundred years including in believing institutions.

Historical Critical Exegesis
Study of the Bible based on the natural history of the writing of each separate text. I found Carter's definition of this unclear.

In some circles "Historical Critical Exegesis" is study of scripture denying all supernatural and attempting to analyse how scripture was put together from disparate natural sources (i.e. form criticism/higher criticism) as opposed to "Historical Grammatical Exegesis" which assumes the final form is correct (even allowing that it is from God) but is generally understood to seek to study it based solely on the intent of the human author.

Carter does not make a distinction between "Historical Critical" and "Historical Grammatical" and many of his criticisms seem to apply equally to both.

Strengths
- An excellent case that what we believe and how we study the Bible must be interrelated - one must inform the other.
- A quick introduction to some excellent historical insights (Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm and Calvin figure prominently).
- A reminder that the preaching of truth in the church is the lifeblood of christianity. And not the deliberations of secular scholars.

Weaknesses
1. A lack of clear concise definitions
A glossary would have really helped, this book uses a lot of unusual vocabulary and in some cases it's unclear if the usage is consistent. A glossary could have nailed these down and provided helpful reference for a reader.

"Christian Platonism" for instance is used repeatedly but the closest thing to a definition is spread over several pages. But also terms like "metaphysic", "Ur Platonism", "res", "Epicureanism" and the like could have done with reference definitions.

2. Overly simplistic narratives
One significant example of this is the implication Carter makes at times that until the enlightenment christendom was incredibly unified due to their shared metaphysic and shared doctrine of God. I was left wondering what he thought of the splits after Chalcedon or the different East/West conceptions of the trinity leading to the filioque clause or medieval voluntarism or the little thing called the reformation.

Similarly his description of the history of biblical interpretation has, as I mentioned above, no space for a difference between "Historical Critical" and "Historical Grammatical".

3. Some unclear criticisms
By the nature of the book trying to argue against something current and argue for the recovery of something old this book is full of criticisms but some of them seem rather unclear.

For instance "Vosian biblical theology" that is theology that looks upon the Bible as a whole building on the work of Geerhardus Vos, is mentioned (pages 156-157) as a broadly good thing BUT limited by it's failure to sufficiently connect with the exegesis of the early church and its failure to recover Christian Platonism, but it is unclear what would differ in the approach/what different conclusions it would draw if it used Christian Platonism similarly it is not said what world view it is apparently using instead of Christian Platonism - I don't think anyone would call Vos or any of his heirs (e.g. Gregory Beale) materialists.

4. An unclear Biblical Foundation
For a book focussed on how to do biblical exegesis I was surprised at how little deep exegesis there was, whilst I believe the conclusions advanced (including the premises of Christian Platonism) can be brought out from scripture this was not done clearly or systematically.

5. Limited practical examples
After advocating so strongly that Christ should be seen in all of scripture two examples were given:
i). Augustine's exegesis of certain Psalms as words of Christ
ii). Isaiah 53

Whilst the messages brought out from these passages were good, I'd be more interested in seeing how this approach plays out in less "obvious" passages such as historical narratives.

Concluding thoughts
I really liked what Carter was trying to do with this book. And it's certainly a worthwhile read for anyone seriously into the study of scripture.

It is clear that a lot of excellent research has gone into the writing of this book.

BUT some parts of the argument feel incomplete or unpolished, and as noted some of the definitions, narratives and criticisms are a little unclear - all of these points together made the book overall somewhat abstruse - reading this was really hard work.

[Rodrigo Sanchez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very good. Points out the need to hold metaphysics, confession, and exegesis together. Challenges us to be reflective on our metaphysics and recognize a Christian interpretation of Scripture is not possible within the modern materialism in which much of critical-historical methodology stands. The idea of "christological literalism" to combine the literal and spiritual senses of the text is helpful. Carter's brief engagement with Vanhoozer and Carson in the last chapter is constructive and encouraging. His definition of "theological interpretation of Scripture" is helpful in its simplicity: "interpreting the meaning of each passage in the context of the overall theology of the Bible as a unified whole centered on Jesus Christ." This definition depends on Carter's excellent arguments for interpreting the Bible based on our Christian confession of the Triune God and the inspired nature of Holy Scripture.
One major drawback for me was the lack of any concrete critic of premodern exegesis as practiced by the Fathers. Carter acknowledges several times in passing the dangers of allegory in abandoning the literal sense of the text but does not stop to consider the issue further nor gives examples from primary sources. The "Antiochenes are better understood as a corrective to Alexandrian excesses and mistakes than as a totally opposite tradition" but Carter does not explain the errors or excesses of Alexandrian interpretation. Similarly, Carter describes the trajectory of premodern interpreters to move away from allegory, such as in the case of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Aquinas, Nicholas of Lyra, John Calvin, and even Augustine himself. However, Carter does not explain the reason for this move away from allegory other than, in the case of Augustine towards the end of his career, the error of some who use allegory as an excuse for irreverent interpretations. I agree with Carter that typology, as practiced by Vosian biblical-theological interpreters, is compatible with the Christian Platonism metaphysics proposed in the book. Why then insisist on using the term allegory instead of typology or figural interpretation? Insisting on allegorical interpretation will not help bringing evangelicals together to do biblical and theological exegesis of Scripture for the church as Carter rightly and convincingly proposes.

[Linus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Carters Hauptthese ist, dass Metaphysik, Exegese und Dogmatik unmittelbar miteinander verbunden sind. Die Prä-Moderne Kirche hielt zum „Christlichen Platonismus“ und theologischer Exegese, was sie zum Nicäum und insbesondere der Trinitätslehre führte. Durch die Aufklärung wurde der „christliche Platonismus“ vom epikureischen Naturalismus verdrängt und die historisch-kritische Exegese hat Einzug gehalten. Konsequenter Weise müsse man daher die Dogmen der Prä-Modernen Kirche aufgeben…

…oder die Aufklärung mit ihrer Metaphysik und ihrer Exegese ablehnen, wir Carter vorschlägt. In einem ersten Teil erklärt er den „christlichen Platonismus“, in einem zweiten Teil die Exegese der Prä-Modernen Kirche. Von Origenes über Augustinus bis hin zu Calvin versucht er aufzuzeigen, dass die biblischen Texte einen mehrfachen Schriftsinn haben. Allegorische Schriftauslegung führe nicht zum Subjektivismus, sondern sei der eigentliche wissenschaftliche Ansatz, da er nicht nur den menschlichen, sondern auch den göttlichen Autor ernst nimmt.

Doch hat das Buch auch einige Schwächen: Carter liefert keine Definition, was die „Great Tradition“ eigentlich ist. Wer nicht Carters Position vertritt, war nicht Teil der Großen Tradition. Auch die Aufklärung wird teilweise sehr einseitig negativ dargestellt. Und ob die Begrifflichkeit „Christlicher Platonismus“ klug gewählt ist, lässt sich bestreiten…

Dennoch: teilweise wohltuend, teilweise provokativ und trotz der Schwächen eine absolute Leseempfehlung!

[Drake Osborn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read last year, starting Carter's new book now. Not in simple terms an introduction to TIS (try Billings for that), but for me a good peak into the merits of Christian Platonism. Choppy and slow at times, but the appeals to the wonder of God in Scripture kept me glued. Rating it highly not because I grasped the weight of every argument fully, but because it opened me up towards greater humility I'm handling the biblical text.

[Ben Hartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book. Made me want to engage more with the Patristics, Reformers, and others in the great tradition. Hopefully a few books by these types of authors will show up on my book shelf this year!

[Adam Shanahan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Helpful discussion regarding the reclaiming of the Church's Great Tradition of scriptural interpretation that sees all of Holy Scripture as testifying to the God-Man Jesus Christ and the revelation of the Triune God in the salvation of man.

[Benjamin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was disappointed. This book won awards and I'm not sure why. Carter takes historical-critical exegesis to task for being useless for Christian preaching, especially of the Old Testament. He does that well, but his proposed explanation doesn't satisfy. He blames it all on the Enlightenment and the abandonment of what he calls Christian Platonism. His description of the definition, rise, and development of Christian Platonism strikes me a at best simplistic and at worst historically inaccurate. Then, in proposing his own solution, he says we need to go back to the church fathers. But which fathers and why he's not exactly clear on. And his solution is as unclear and unconvincing as his development of Christian Platonism. I was not impressed.

[Samuel Bierig · Rating 5 out of 5]

**Ok...second time reading this and it was even more potent and on pint than the first time I went through it.


This book is everything its been billed to be.

Challenging. Refreshing. Intense. At times Hard. Carter pokes everyone (TIS-types, grammatical-historical exegetes, critical-methodologists, NT specialists, OT specialists, etc.) in the eye, but I can't say that I disagree with him. He sweeps across (surely because of his width and depth of reading) systematic-theological, historical-theological, Biblical-theological, exegetical-theological arguments and resources. He capably drops into and assesses each century and philosophical argument

Essential reading.

[Josh Robinson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Challenging the status quo in regards to metaphysics, dogmatics, and exegesis by returning to pre-critical/pre-modern exegesis, dogmatics, and metaphysics from the Great Tradition. One of my favorites from this year.

[Lydia Payne · Rating 1 out of 5]

Easily the worst book I'd ever read--if only I could rate with zero stars. Filled to the brim with academic jargon, yet somehow Carter never shared a single iota of a significant idea or concept. I'm no book-burner, but if I was this would be at the top.

[Garry · Rating 4 out of 5]

I admit to some ambivalence here. I had to wrestle with a lot of presuppositions, which I appreciate, but I don't know if I necessarily end up in the same place as the author.

I very much appreciated his treatment of the historical/critical position. At the end of all things, interpreting Scripture is a theological/Spirit-driven activity. If one is approaching God's Word with the presupposition that God did not write it, mistakes will be made. His middle section where he briefly summarizes the history of biblical interpretation through a theological lens was also helpful.

I was frustrated though by his treatment of allegory/Augustine and interpretation. I won't get into all the salient points, but it appeared as if he conflated illumination with eisigesis. His treatment of Augustine's work with the Psalms was also at times unhelpful as he seemed to skip over those areas where Augustine was ignoring the literal sense of the text.

With all of that being said, it was a very useful volume and I plan to return to it again.

[Collin Lewis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fantastic book. The overall premise of the book is such a strong and firm confirmation of theological interpretation of Scripture. Carter did well to root this understanding in the metaphysics of Christian platonism and supplements that with Christological literalism. This was a super helpful, logical flow to make the case for this type of interpretation that is supernatural by nature and Christ-centered in its goal.

The only reason I didn’t give it 5 stars was because of the way he treats the psalms. He makes the case that every psalm is Christ speaking. He goes back to the church fathers to prove this point but biblically speaking it seems unconvincing. I could have misunderstood him since this was definitely a academic work and he was using some big words, where at times it was hard for me to follow lol.

[Jason Wilson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an excellent callback to a holistic view of the Bible which, as the title suggests, rejects modern liberalism and relativism in favour of the time honoured christological view of scripture and the Old Testament. It’s not traditional in the sense of being anti some of the important gains in humanitarian scriptural treatment of people that the church has made, just anti modern human hubris !

As Augustine has it, in time honoured fashion, the way to approach the bible is not with all our clever modernity, but in humility ; as Calvin has it, scholarship matters but to prize modern critical and anti- supernatural readings above the Bible’s status as the inspired word of God is to insult the Holy Spirit.

[Joel Zartman · Rating 5 out of 5]

Craig Carter’s argument in this book is that modernity has changed our attitude toward Biblical interpretation, and if we wish to interpret as the church whose doctrine and practice we inherit interpreted, we need to recover the premodern attitude toward biblical interpretation. He explains that originally he set out to write a book on the classic theism of Nicene Trinitarian doctrine; but then he found that before he could do so, a preliminary volume on the interpretive practices that gave rise to that theology was required.

I think his argument is sound. Carter begins with Isaiah 53, posing the interpretive problem of whether we can legitimately see Christ in that text. He points out that modern hermeneutical procedure goes against it. He also points out that Christian homiletics nevertheless harvest Christ from that classic text, having the example of Scripture to guide them. What he wants to show is the inconsistency between our actual practices on the one hand and the hermeneutical approach we get from the academy on the other.

What Carter wants is a way to bring theory and practice together. He does this first by setting up the theoretical framework and second by vindicating his framework in historical examples. The theoretical framework, he argues, must be premodern. Modernity evacuates the supernatural and metaphysical assumptions without which Scripture cannot be interpreted coherently. He defines Christian Platonism as an adaptation of Platonism which took place in the early centuries of the church. Any historian reading this section is going to feel that the historiography is a bit thin. There is plenty of room for work to be done that will make a more solid case for the adaptation of ancient philosophy to Christian purposes. But we must remember that Carter is writing a preliminary book to deal with another concern. He cannot get lost in the endless regression that is the historian’s constant temptation.

Carter sticks to Lloyd Gerson’s analysis of Platonism (Gerson who argues that Aristotle was for all practical purposes a Platonist) and defines it as: antimaterialist, antimechanist, antinominalist, antirelativist and antiskepticist (79-81, for more detail). It is not a bad definition of Platonism, but it is hardly the most satisfying one. One of the weaknesses of the book is that since Carter is trying to make a case without provoking unnecessary fights about it, he thins Platonism out so much that he has no trouble calling Calvin a Christian Platonist, nor including Vanhoozer and Carson in his Great Tradition (Great Tradition = Christian Platonism). There is a good point to be made by this, but he is opening his thesis to criticism which will destabilize, I am afraid, some of what he achieves. Still, if he is read in the spirit of his argument, it is not altogether implausible.

Carter not only sets up a theoretical framework to explain his proposal, he then goes on to defend it from history, making a series of points about how his Great Tradition is a demonstrable tradition of interpreting Scripture Christologically, responsibly controlled by the literal meaning, though not limited to it, and rather than implementing typology—which he dismisses as a modern strategy and not a premodern one—is allegorical and prosopological. Prosopological exegesis, to risk being reductive, is finding the face of Christ in Scripture by hearing his voice in the Old Testament specially.

Carter’s explanation of prosopological exegesis demonstrates one of the strengths of this book: Carter is able to synthesize and assimilate diverse and large quantities very recent scholarship. It is a great shift in biblical interpretation, or perhaps the most unanticipated aspect of what is shifting (back—as Carter would remind us). It may be bewildering, but the bibliography is generous and more than competent. Skeptics should inquire before dismissing, because Carter gives every evidence of knowing what he is doing, for all that he does seem sometimes to be rushing ahead too fast. His bibliographical support ought to be considered carefully.

Carter concludes the book demonstrating from Isaiah 53 how the Great Tradition operates, using as his chief example Alec Motyer. It is a good strategy, calculated to allay suspicions. I think Carter knows that the terminology of Christian Platonism and of an exegesis continuous with the practice of Origen and Agustine is not calculated to allay suspicion, and so his exposition and argument endeavor to do so, though sometimes with perhaps too much zeal.

Carter is right. What is happening in this book is part of the ongoing recovery of a catholic approach to Scripture and a general attitude of ressourcement in protestant theology. He very helpfully lays out the cards of his influences and where his sympathies lie in the first chapter. We need books like this because we are finding that our doctrinal formulation has no stable meaning unless it is in the context of a theological culture. That means that a bare subscription to a confession without a culture of interpretation is not enough. A theological culture is a theological tradition, and if theology is Scriptural, then it is an interpretive tradition. Carter has opened a way, and much remains to be done and to follow. Christian Platonism requires better exposition, better understanding, better definition, and it deserves much more attention. But Craig Carter is opening the way. This book is set for the rise and fall of many in Israel, no doubt about it.

[Nicholas Meriwether · Rating 2 out of 5]

In an attempt to defend premodern exegesis, I find that Carter makes abundant overstatements about how Christians using historical-grammatical exegesis actually view Scripture. He chooses to be provocative instead of nuanced. I also find his solutions of prosopological exegesis to be too narrow to the Old Testament and unsatisfying. This work is helpful in thinking about our metaphysical and theological presuppositions when we come to Scripture: what is the relation between the divine and human author? How does this relationship affect the way we approach the Bible?

[Joshua Pegram · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent.

Carter’s “classical approach to interpretation” is a welcome contribution to schools of interpretation that are often either (1) overly wooden and lacking nuance or (2) overly committed to subjective, reader-oriented authority/meaning.

Interacts helpfully with John Webster, D. A. Carson, and Kevin Vanhoozer.

“Theology must shape the philosophy that shapes hermeneutics.”

[Taylor Bradbury · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a fantastic read. Not the easiest read, at times. Carter challenges much of our common modern hermeneutical philosophies and argues for a return to premodern exegesis (why accept the doctrinal conclusions of the Fathers — Nicaea, etc — but reject their hermeneutic?). I was challenged a lot by this and greatly look forward to reading more on this topic.

4.25/5

[Matt Everhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best I’ve ever read!
Part hermeneutics, part philosophy, and part cultural-critique, Dr. Carter offers a clear and direct call to return to a more biblical way of reading and interpreting the Scriptures, and for viewing that task as part of our growth in Christ.

[Nathaniel Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Accessible and convincing. Excellent.