Theology in Rhetorical Mode

David S. Cunningham’s book Faithful Persuasion is a defense of doing theology in a rhetorical mode. Among other things, he offers a devastating deconstruction of an argument for the historical critical method of exegesis. First, he quotes Benjamin Jowett:

It may be laid down that Scripture has one meaning — the meaning which it had to the mind of the prophet or evangelist who first uttered or wrote, to the hearers who first received it. Another view may be easier or more familiar to us, seeming to receive a light and interest from the circumstances of our own age. But such accommodation of the text must be laid aside by the interpreter, whose business is to place himself as nearly as possible in the position of the sacred writer.

Now Cunningham:

Gently rebuking the reader who would choose the “easier” or “more familiar” route, Jowett advocates a more rigorous and businesslike (one senses that he almost wants to say: “manly”!) method of historical analysis. He casts aspersions on any temptation to “accommodation,” which only “seems” to offer “light and interest.” Finally, Jowett concludes by sanctifying the method of historical science, praising the “sacred” writer. That writer’s intentions must be respected, if the interpreter is correctly going about his “business.” Jowett’s rhetorical coup has been echoed for a century; we are inundated with appeals to intellectual honesty, rigorous methods of interpretation, and the willingness to submit all interpretations to testing.