The very same Bible—which biblicists insist is perspicuous and harmonious—gives rise to divergent understandings among intelligent, sincere, committed readers about what it says about most topics of interest. Knowledge of “biblical” teachings, in short, is characterized by pervasive interpretive pluralism.
What that means in consequence is this: in a crucial sense it simply does not matter whether the Bible is everything that biblicists claim theoretically concerning its authority, infallibility, inner consistency, perspicuity, and so on, since in actual functioning the Bible produces a pluralism of interpretations.
I am only a short way into the book. Among recent multipart reviews see Daniel Kirk, who helpfully links to all parts in his last instalment, and Roger Olson, who doesn’t. Olson also has a useful summary of narrative theology, which he thinks may prove a better option than Smith’s solution.
Comments
I found book very useful and you will likely find it picks up more in the second half. It took a bit of work to get through the first bit but once I hit the second half, I couldn’t put it down. I happen to think that PIP is unavoidable no matter what method you use – and frankly, doesn’t have to be considered a bad thing. The recent movement in some scholastic circles towards a more spiritual/narrative theology naturally both allows and necessitates a certain amount of PIP especially in applying the text to present contexts. Granted, there are always “better and worse” interpretations – or perhaps we should say “more or less plausible/useful” interpretations based on better or worse hermenuetical methods – but I disagree with Smith on what seems to be his position that PIP in and of itself is somehow inherently a bad thing. What PIP of course DOES do well is to prove his point that biblicism is a dead end approach to scripture.
I found his sociological perspective on the issue at hand to be refreshing and insightful.