"You Search the Scriptures" - How has the democratization of access to the scriptures affected biblical hermeneutics? (John 5:33, 39)

Question

John 5:33, 39

You sent emissaries to John, and he testified to the truth...You search the scriptures, because you think you have eternal life through them; even they testify on my behalf.

Looking further at John 1, we find that those who were sent to John the Baptist were priests, Levites, and Pharisees. These were the educated classes who, unlike the "people of the land" had the time and training to search the scriptures. For most of the Christian era, "searching the scriptures" was reserved for clerics and a small number of wealthy elites fortunate enough to have reading skills and possess copies of biblical books. That changed with the Reformation, as the scriptures became more widely available and literacy increased dramatically. Catholic and Protestant scholars and laypeople searched the scriptures for themselves. New hermeneutical tools evolved through source criticism and textual criticism in the 19th century. In the 20th century, scholars often spoke of Literal Interpretation, Moral Interpretation, Allegorical Interpretation, and Anagogical Interpretation. Today, not only can virtually anyone "search the scriptures" but they can also publish their views on the Internet and engage in debates/discussions about the Bible on social media.

How has the democratization of scriptural access affected biblical hermeneutics? (I am particularly interested in recent trends but would also be grateful for insights into previous developments.)

---

Note: this post is a reworking of What are the benefits and/or disadvantages of democratization of interpretative space of the scriptures?, which was closed as off-topic. As I understand the rules, neither of the tags I've used here requires a biblical reference to avoid being closed, but I did include a relevant quote as insurance against close votes.

Answer 1

The making available of sundry tools and helps and vast amounts of information has had no effect whatsoever in regard to the verse referenced which quotes the words of Jesus of Nazareth.

Jesus' point was that though certain 'searched' (not just read or heard, they worked hard at this) yet, nevertheless, their hard labour, in the flesh, was wasted. For they imagined that the letter on the page had some power to it and , having assimilated it, they felt that they must, therefore, possess eternal life.

But they, as Jesus makes clear, had utterly missed the point of the scriptures themselves. Jesus said in another place that 'Moses wrote of me'. Studying hard at the Hebrew scriptures, yet not perceiving Christ, the Rock that followed in the wilderness, they achieved nothing.

And so it is today, with all the so-called advantages of electronics, data transfer, artificial intelligence : it gains nothing if Christ himself is not perceived, laid hold of, believed in and received into the soul.

Absolutely not at all, therefore, is my answer.

---

I have answered in the context of the scripture quoted. But the header question seems disconnected to the text quoted.

The verse referenced does not speak of hermeneutical analysis of the text : Jesus speaks of searching the text and yet missing the raison d'etre of the text itself.

So I have to suggest that the question itself has fallen into the very trap that Jesus speaks of. For the question has focussed on searching the text and has not focussed on Christ himself . . . of whom the scriptures testify.

Answer 2

One would be hard-pressed to be able to prove that the * democratization* of access to scripture really changed much at all.

Dottard's point is valid: that, on the one hand, with more access to scripture, more weirdness had arisen. But also, there has been more access to the truth of scripture.

Nigel's point is also valid: The Jewish leaders had so very much access to scripture. It didn't help them. A person can have as much scripture piled up in front of them, what Paul says is true: “The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV11-GKE)

My thoughts coincide with these ones. But, in my own research, I don't really find that the early church was that lacking in scripture as we might think. The libraries (both personal and more public) that early church fathers had access to were staggering in their scope. But even more than that, we shouldn't discount the role of the "people in the pew"—their role in making sure their teachers stayed on track. Hurtado writes:

The regular liturgical reading of the four canonical Gospels also helps to account for the abundance of harmonizing variants, especially frequent in Mark.

But repeated public reading of New Testament writings would also have set real limits on how much a writing could be changed, at least in a given circle, without people noticing (and probably objecting), as anyone familiar with what happens when liturgical changes are introduced can attest.

(Transmission and Reception; New Testament in the Second Century. p. 13)

Hurtado's article is a fascinating read. For it dispels the notion that, in the context of the possession of scripture, the leity were helpless pawns in a misguided struggle that was out of their reach.

• First, it is amazing (and somewhat shocking when you think it through) how much circulation of texts there was in the very early stages of the NT. The assumption of the existence of so-called 'text types' is dead today because there was this real and ongoing transporting of scripture from one part of the Roman Empire to another.

• Second, It is amazing to see the role that liturgy plays. And this is a point that is, for the most part, lost on American society that has large chunks of its Christian grouping that are non-denominational. And even those that are Denominational are not liturgical. In the early church, the Lector was a big deal. The one who went up and read scripture publicly, up in front of the people, was trained for the position. And every word he said was held up to scrutiny precisely for the reason that so many of the people could not read. So they memorized large chunks of scripture. And if the lector deviated, he was called to account.

So the thesis that, in the early NT, there wasn't much democratization of access to texts is offset by the actual history in the early stages of the NT itself.

We also add to this the fact, that in the early stages of the church, there was a massive democratization of access to scripture. The proof of this is found in John's epistles: “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 John 4:1 NIV11-GKE)

All of the apostles aren't even dead yet, and, seemingly, every heretic that can get his hands on a portion of the NT, comes out of the woodwork to promote their own brand of Christianity. That sound very much like today. Today, there are so many 'instant experts' who, without guidance from either scripture itself or from studying the struggles that happened in the past, promote their own ideas. And for a time, they have a following. But what Paul writes is true:

“<11> For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. <12> If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, <13> their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.” (1 Corinthians 3:11–13 NIV11-GKE)

At the end of the day, What Solomon wrote so long ago is true: ”וְאֵ֥ין כָּל־חָדָ֖שׁ תַּ֥חַת הַשָּֽׁמֶשׁ“ (Ecclesiastes 1:9 HMT-W4) ("There's nothing at all new under the sun.")

Answer 3

In a nutshell, it leaves all who think they are making diligent search without excuse.

The text in question is John 5:33-40 (so as not to truncate the last sentence.) The relevant parts quoted below actually demonstrate one effect of us now having different translations, and therefore, different understandings of what the ancient texts actually meant. Jesus said to those scholars of scripture that they had heard John's testimony about himself. They were also now hearing the words of Christ, face to face, the one sent by the Father. That is the context. Now, consider:

"But these things I say, that ye might be saved... And ye have not [God's] word abiding in you: for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not.

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and these are they which testify of me, and ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." John 5:34, 38-40 A.V.

Most modern translations do not have Jesus stating an imperative - "Search the scriptures" - but make it seem as if those scholars were searching the scriptures. If they truly were searching the scriptures, and believing the testimony of them, and of John the Baptist, and of Jesus, they would come to Jesus for life eternal. But they rejected the One to whom the scriptures were pointing. They'd missed the whole point.

Given that Jesus told them that, to their faces, in their hearing, and that everyone who has read that written account in the scriptures also have that witness to Christ, then those who study the texts as an academic exercise, in order to pick it to shreds before reconstructing them, may also have missed the point. First, students must come in faith to Christ as the only-begotten Son of God, the Messiah, in whom alone is life eternal. They then must abide in Christ, as he stated, and only then will they bear much good fruit, to God's glory (John 15:1-8). Then their study of scripture and relationship with the living Christ will enable them to bear witness to Christ to others - to point them to Christ, that they might be saved.

Finally, "the democratizing of access to the scriptures" is not the problem with understanding what they mean. There was no democracy at work back then, nor does democracy enable people all over the world to come to saving faith in Jesus. Even people who are denied access to the scriptures, or who cannot read, still come to saving faith in Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit. They still 'see' just who the Christ of scripture is, because others proclaim the gospel of Christ - God's chosen means of saving souls:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek." Romans 1:16 A.V.

This means that we are all without excuse. Whether we are academics or illiterate, and thus have no access to scripture; the scriptures show that the gospel of Christ saves all who believe - believe Christ, not what others say by way of textual criticism. And democracy has nothing to do with that. Democracy won't save anybody. Only by turning in faith to the living Christ can anybody be saved.

Answer 4

Great question that I am not qualified to answer, So let me offer some general remarks on the basis of considerable experience with extremists - overly enthusiastic people, with what they believe is "new light", who often quickly pass away.

Very few modern theological ideas are original - most are reworked older ideas that have either been revived, or more commonly, have been re-invented by modern micro-extremists not well enough informed to know that many were anciently condemned already. Thus, theological democratization has created confusion because such historically untrained extremists do not realize the consequences (logical destination) of their reasoning.

For example, I have read dozens (possibly hundreds?) of different Christologies, but I have yet to find one that has not had its roots at least 500 years ago, most are more than 1000 years old; many unintentionally re-invented by the historically uninformed.

Another consequence of theological democratization is the new plethora of two sets of ideas:

1. conspiracy theories that pretend to offer the "true reasons" for the latest political development or war. This approach is not new and still popular among those who take a "cafeteria" approach to history - choose only the facts they like and ignore most of the rest. In such circles the following a very popular, Freemasonry, the Illuminati, The Knights of Malta, etc. All these shadowy organizations are deemed to be still active and somehow directing events that only the initiated cognoscenti have the keys to understand.
2. ego-centric (ie, now-centered) prophetic interpretations. Most are truly fantastic (used in its technical sense). This has become especially true, in some circles, of time prophecies and second advent prophecies. Somehow, such imaginative exegetes manage to make the fulfilment of such prophecies center on themselves, their little movement, or in just a year's time.
3. A modern fascination with gnostic mysticism. Thus, there has been a revival of interest in the Nag-Hamadi documents and numerous other pseudepigrapha. These are touted as information to "correct" and "clarify" the Bible message when it is often diametrically opposed to it.
4. A rising tide of cults whose narcissistic teachers must teach ever-more extreme and esoteric ideas to overcome the general education of their followers. This occurs on both the far left (extreme libertarianism and Gnosticism) and the far right (extreme legalism, etc).

Thus, there has developed an explosion of weird ideas which are only vaguely related to the message of the Bible. Further, all these affects were still present when theology was fully professionalized and "protected" by wide-spread illiteracy. One does not need to look far among the church fathers to discover truly fantastic ideas.

The difference in modern times is the sheer quantity/volume of such material, facilitated by the internet and social media that creates large followings and gives a fig-leaf of credibility.

However, democratization has not been all bad; on balance, I believe it has done great good. The main reasons for this are,

• is that it has enabled the common person, untrained in theology, the become a Berean (Acts 17:11) - all can now test the Scriptures for themselves (Matt 21:42, John 7:42, Acts 18:28, Mark 12:24, etc) and this has provided a bulwark against misleading preachers and leaders.
• it has largely banished the superstition and unwarranted influence of the medieval church

Answer 5

Before answering the title question, it may be more important to address a prerequisite question: "Does the Lord want us to read His words ourselves?" If the answer is 'Yes', then it is essential to have the freedom of access to the scripture, regardless of the consequences of its universality.

In Psalm 119:105, the poet wrote 'Your word is a lamp for my feet, a light on my path'. While this was true in ancient time when books were rare, it did not restrict the general public's access to scripture, because the law did not restrict people's access to the priest. Reading Scripture was a general practice on the Sabbath (e.g. Jesus in Nazareth Luke 4:16) and in early churches (1 Timonthy 4:13).

In Jeremiah 31:34, the Lord said, "No longer will they teach their neighbor, or say to one another, 'Know the Lord', because they will all know me." Jesus said in John 14:26, that the Advocate would be send in His name to teach His disciples all things. All these words are aimed at the personal level. Therefore, printing technology fulfills the will of the Lord by allowing everyone to have convenient access to scripture. Similarly, network technology further enhances it.

As the OP indicated, while it is true that everyone can publish their views on the Internet and engage in debates/discussions about the Bible on social media, it is essential to remember the Lord said, "No longer will they teach their neighbor", and "the Advocate will tell us the truth". It is important to analyze these words carefully. It is not equivalent to 'Liberal Interpretation'. We do need to hear from others, but pray to the Advocate to teach us whether it is true.

In John 5:39, Jesus rebuked the teachers of the law, who studied the Scriptures diligently, but did not know Jesus. This can be true for us today as well. Therefore it doesn't have to worry about 'the democratization of access to the scriptures'. What matters is whether the heart of the reader carries a 'heart of stone' or 'heart of flesh' (Ezekiel 11:19; 36:26)

Answer 6

I will add my own answer since I asked this question mainly because a similar previous one, which I had started to answer, was closed as off topic.

During the Reformation scholars such as Calvin and Luther pioneered hermeneutical approaches that challenged the former monopoly of the Catholic church on the study of scriptures and emphasized the principle of "sola scriptura" versus clerical tradition. No longer was it presumed that the Church's magisterium was infallible in its scriptural interpretation. Luther and Calvin both downplayed allegorical approaches to hermeneutics. They emphasized letting the scripture "interpret itself" and criticized approaches that failed to deal with the literal sense of the the text. On the other hand, the demise of the doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility led Luther to question whether biblical books such as James and Revelation should be considered authoritative, opening the way for Christians to give greater weight to some books than others. Indeed, the entire corpus of the Apocrypha, considered as Scripture by the Catholic Church, was now excluded from the Protestant canon and thus largely ignored for purposes of biblical hermeneutics.

William D. Dennison identifies four principles of Reformist hermeneutics:

• The Bible is the blueprint of the Holy Spirit.
• The Bible is to be understood literally, meaning that the words are to be understood within the domain of its historical con­text.
• The Spirit intends us to re­ceive one meaning from a given text.
• Christ is the focus of the entire Bible.

As the Bible was read and interpreted by increasing numbers of people, the hope that the Spirit would lead Protestants to derive "one meaning" for a given text could not be sustained. Various hermeneutical emphases contributed to a proliferation of sects and denominations. Wesley, though he did not disagree the Reformers’ principles, developed a more subjective hermeneutical approach, with added an emphasis on "cleansing and a new birth, and a continuing relationship with God after salvation." According to Robert A. Love, for Wesley and the Methodists "hermeneutics includes the application of Scripture to Christian experience (sanctification) and conduct (morality)." Baptists, meanwhile, diverged dramatically from the Reformed churches in their understanding of the Church and God's dispensation of his Word. While the Reformers saw the church as existing since the earliest days of the Old Testament, Baptists insisted that the church has existed only since the Pentecost and is consists only of believers. In Jewish tradition, the kabbalists developed a special type on anagogical hermeneutics as they interpreted the Hebrew Bible based on the principle Tikkun Olam.

In the 19th century the Stone-Campbell movement developed a hermeneutical approach that downplayed the effects of original sin, which it considered to be non-biblical result of medieval pessimism . Meanwhile, the widespread availability of previously unknown ancient biblical manuscripts led to the quest to uncover the original text of the Bible - textual criticism - especially important for those who held the this text to be inerrant. At the same time, source criticism questioned issues of authorship, audience and agenda. The Reformers' hermeneutical principle that Christ is the focus of the entire Bible was no longer universally recognized; and the door was opened for Christians to doubt biblical inerrancy. In the late 1800s liberal theologians, stressing practice over creeds, developed the Social Gospel and pursued a hermeneutics of ecumenism, while conservatives insisted on sticking to the basic principles of the Reformers and promulgated Christian Fundamentalism.

Such proliferating trends continued in the 20th century, leading to literally hundreds of denominations in the United States alone. Many of these use hermeneutical approaches similar to those of the Reformers, while others, such as Pentecostalism, are open to prophetic inspiration and continuing Revelation. In the secular world, both Freud and Jung applied anagogical hermeneutical principles to interpret the Bible. Freud's Moses and Monotheism is a striking example, while Jung analyzed biblical books in a more mystical and personal way, e.g. Answer to Job. Some, such as feminist theology and liberation theology, approach the text with special emphasis on their particular ideological concerns.

With the advent of the Internet and social media, non-experts as well as trained scholars have been able to publish their hermeneutical work online. While this has led to a proliferation of esoteric exegeses, it has also enabled amateurs and experts alike to benefit from reading a wide variety approaches and engaging in hermeneutical cross fertilization.