A CRITICAL REVIEW OF JAMES BARRS THE BIBLE IN THE MODERN WORLD

David Bradnick
Regent University, Virginia Beach, VA

Tentatively venturing into personally uncharted water, Barrs in The Bible in the Modern
World attempts to examine and evaluate methods of biblical interpretation for the purpose
of theological reflection, thus offering a meditative proposal in the muddled landscape of
hermeneutics. Trained as a biblical scholar there seems to be no justification for his
hesitancy to address the theological world; this book continues to speak to the current
situation even though thirty years has passed since his first edition. Perhaps this
statement can be taken as praise for the invaluable insights proposed by Barr, or maybe it
can be offered as criticism to the shortsightedness and lack of dynamism within the field
of biblical interpretation. No matter what stance one may take regarding this issue, Barrs
book stands as a dominant prolegomena that demands recognition by any who dare to
venture into the interpretive task. The Bible in the Modern World is informally divided
into three major sections: (1) a brief overview of recent historical trends within biblical
interpretation, (2) an evaluation of the implications regarding interpretive methodology
upon the theological process, and (3) a proposition for an overarching framework that
embraces a variety of theological constructions and hermeneutical methodologies. With
these objectives in mind the purpose of this paper is to give the reader an overview of the
primary issues covered by the author and offer a critical evaluation of his interpretive
model in light of this authors contemporary context.
1. Summary and Evaluation by Chapters
1.1. Chapter 1: How We Reached Our Present Situation
Giving proper credence to the historical context, Barr introduces the situation of biblical
interpretation in the middle of the twentieth century by giving an overview of the
oscillating views regarding the centrality and authority of scripture. Beginning with the
post-World War II era he analyzes the far reaching influence of Karl Barth and neoorthodox theology to move the theological pendulum close to the centrality of the bible
within theological reflection. Once vigorously contested because they seemed to generate
speculation concerning applicability of the bible, historical critical methods were being
reintegrated into emerging theological approaches. Theologians began to readopt these
methodologies because they believed that they could still advocate the legitimacy of the
biblical narrative and continue to view it as a harmonious whole. Ecumenical
conversations also saw a shift towards the centrality of the bible, and new hope emerged
in the bible as the center piece around which Christians from different traditions could
find common ground.
Writing in the early 1970s Barr observed a drastic change in the theological situation
described above where the bible was no longer being viewed as a continuous and
complementary narrative. Theologians began applying various degrees of importance to
different sections of scripture, and the myriads of interpretations that could be applied to
any particular passage also led to a decreased confidence in the authority given to the

2
biblical text. The bible as the unifying force between different denominations came into
question, and pressure was placed upon the World Council of Churches to modify its
statements on the harmony of scripture. In light of these developments Barr sees several
areas in which the bible was being questioned: relevance to the contemporary situation,
communicability, the limitations of a set cannon, isolation from other sources of insight,
and personal responsibility to pass on the faith. Barrs purpose in writing is to address
how the bible can function to address these issues, thus giving the reader an alternative
approach to biblical interpretation.
1.2. Chapter 2: Some Leading Concepts
Before presenting his interpretive model, Barr deals with a few major hermeneutical
concepts: inspiration, the Word of God, and authority in an attempt to show how they
have functioned within twentieth century theological conversations. Dealing with
inspiration, Barr engages 2 Timothy 3:16, a text commonly employed in biblical
hermeneutics to validate the divine source of scripture concluding that no definitive
statement can be made regarding the understanding of this passage. The ambiguity of the
term inspiration as well as scripture does not justify the classic fundamentalist
understanding of inspiration as infallibility and inerrancy of scripture. In Barrs view
fundamentalists hold on to the verbal inspiration of the bible, even the perfection of its
grammatical structure, because if the bible contains errors, then theology which is derived
from the bible is also suspect. According to their perspective any historical or theological
error calls the entire bible into question, thus destroying a primary foundation upon which
their belief system is structured. Barr explicitly rejects these radical views, understanding
that in some sense inspiration signifies the derivation of the bible from God, but the
fundamentalist understanding of inspiration has tainted this term, causing contemporary
theologians to shy away from its usage. He appropriates notes that as a result a void has
been created regarding a common vocabulary to refer to the function of the bible in a
contemporary context.
From this point Barr explores the usage of the terminology Word of God in the
Barthian school of thought, explaining that from this standpoint the bible itself is not the
Word of God, rather Jesus is the one and only Word of God. The bible functions to testify
about the revelation of Jesus, but the bible itself is not revelation; therefore it is not
ontologically the Word of God, but only functions in this regard. Barr correctly
summarizes this view when he writes, Thus, though the Word of God is not identical
with the Bible, the Bible is an essential and appropriate access to the Word of God, and
one cannot hope to hear the Word of God except through the mediation of the
Bible . . .The Bible is Word of God only through its function of witness to God in his
self-revelation; and it is Word of God only as it is received in faith and proclaimed in the
church (Barr 19). Barr criticizes this Barthian view as an alienation from the world of
scholarly exegesis, suggesting that this perspective, being too theologically oriented,
does not seriously apply exegetical methodologies (Barr 21). He sees this approach as a
noble attempt to bridge the gap between conservative views of scripture and mainstream
Protestant Christianity, but in the end he thinks its ambiguity leaves the term open to a
wide range of interpretation and ultimately possible abuse.

Barr continues this chapter by critically analyzing the move to replace the term
inspiration with authority, thus seeing the replacement of terms as having potential
because authority can remove preconceived notions regarding the origin of scripture. In
addition it can also counteract attempts to absolutize or idolize the bible by
demythologizing the perceptions that scripture is free from error. Barr recognizes that this
shift in terminology is not free from its problems, for example, traditional Roman
Catholic and Protestant understandings of authority can be problematic, and again there
are practically limitless shades of diversity along this spectrum. Even within Protestant
theology, disagreements over what is authoritative creates inconsistency across
denominational boundaries. Within this chapter Barrs problem with fundamentalist
views of scripture are apparent, and he purposefully attempts to shy away from using
words that may infer fundamentalist views regarding the nature of scripture. Vocabulary
plays an important role, and he endeavors to expose the dangers and vulnerability of
these perspectives that could be easily hijacked by extremists. One can appreciate the
deconstructive task engaged by Barr engages in this chapter and his hesitancy to reconstruct these terms in any form.
1.3. Chapter 3: Cultural Relativism and the New Radicalism
In this chapter Barr candidly addresses the issues surrounding cultural relativism and
new radicalism that could be viewed as the precursor to postmodern biblical
hermeneutics. He gives a brief summary of the basic arguments prominent in theological
studies regarding the authority of scripture: (1) there is no authority outside Christians
that can lead one to make specific decisions. Although one must take into account all
possible insights, none is the a priori standard. The bible is still relevant to contemporary
culture but it must be filtered through modern lenses; (2) the church speaks to the modern
situation, but the ancient church does not hold a position of prominence over any other
time period as all can equally provide valid insights. Within this strand of thinking the
church becomes the interpreter of scripture; (3) each culture is different, so what is
authoritative in one context does not carry weigh in another situation. The interpretation
that one gives to the bible will be different from the intentions of the biblical writers, and
even the biblical writers interpret historical events according to their own situation. Barr
admits that he stands in close agreement with the second perspective, but his aim in this
chapter is to explicate the basic principles of the third view and offer his own assessment.
According to Barr, cultural relativism insists that only when one moves away from an
authoritative view of the bible can scripture be viewed in its essential nature-something
culturally conditioned and quite different from the contemporary context. While Barr
does not agree with the assessment of this third group, he does maintain a healthy and
honest assessment of cultural relativists when he states, but I do think that they have
brought us to a new stage of the discussion, which is likely to be stimulating and fruitful,
and it has to be admitted that some elements in them are justified in part (Barr 44). He
even admits at several places within the text that he does not have adequate answers to
address some of the issues and points made by the relativitists, but he does not shy away
from criticizing their lack of a developed framework (Barr 44, 48). He questions the

4
positive contributions that such a perspective can make to the interpretive process and
theological world. In Barrs opinion the relativists do not offer a developed methodology
for interpreting scripture, and this dearth may lead to a completely relativized theology.
Barr does admit that one will have to wait to see the byproducts of this approach in order
to give a fair evaluation, but at the time of this writing he is skeptical of its contribution.
To an extent the criticisms offered by Barr in this chapter still hold true today, but one
must refrain from placing anachronistic criticisms on his position as postmodern biblical
hermeneutics have had the opportunity to develop and create a more developed
framework. In light of this it is intriguing to read Barrs evaluation of cultural relativism
at its infancy and compare it to the contemporary context; however, one must give credit
to Barrs insight to discern the potential positive contributions offered through this
interpretive approach.
1.4 Chapter Four: The Bible as Literature
Beginning with this chapter, Barr explores the strengths and weaknesses of applying
modern literary critical studies to scripture, explaining that there are three primary
methods of studying scripture: referential, intentional, and poetic/aesthetic. He suggests
that biblical scholars have primarily employed the intentional method in which the main
objective is to discern the original intent of the biblical authors while the referential
examination of scripture is mainly concerned with major themes, entities, and characters
within scripture. The second view has lost some popularity among contemporary
hermeneutics because fewer and fewer theologians were accepting the unity of the bible,
but Barr suggests that typological or allegorical methods of interpretation may in fact be
beneficial. Recognition of the use of typology and allegory within the production of
scripture may help to reclaim the unity of scripture, similar to the phenomenon present
within liturgical uses of the bible. Having said this, though, Barr is cautious in applying a
narrow literary hermeneutic because he thinks that it could diminish theological
reflection; therefore he still sees value in applying historical-critical methods, but literary
methods may offer a complimentary approach, thus a more robust interpretation.
1.5. Chapter Five: Event and Interpretation-The Bible as Information
Here Barr examines the perspective that employs the bible as information. This
perspective attempts to recognize the historical nature of the bible and its applicability to
the contemporary situation, but despite its emphasis on historicity, this view recognizes
that the historical reliability of the bible has limits. In many ways Barr finds common
ground with this view, and he writes, The high status of the Bible does not come from its
being an inspired book, given by God, but from its testimony to these events. It is not
revelation but a record of revelatory acts, a testimony to them, a commentary on them
(Barr 76). While Barr appreciates the importance and authority of scripture adhered to by
this approach, he criticizes its ambiguity regarding what is authoritative. He questions
what characteristics sets the bible apart and what prevents other texts from being
canonized. Barr extrapolates that the underlying principle of this view is salvation history,
and anything which testifies to this divine plan essentially can become revelatory and

5
authoritative. Alternatively there are many sections of scripture that may be classified as
non-revelatory regarding salvation history (i.e. geographical, social, legal information),
therefore this perspective can bring into question the authority of these passages. Barr
deduces that the logical implications are the construction of a theological framework and
not the authority of the bible. In a sense ancient perspectives become the norm, thus
diminishing the value of the contemporary mindset. At this point it becomes apparent that
Barr is hesitant of any proposal that places theology before hermeneutics. In his view
scripture must dictate theology and not vice versa. Barr is quite aware of the dialectic at
work within the interpretive process, but he seems to be too optimistic in thinking that
ones biases and theological lenses can be easily shed.
1.6. Chapter Six: The Bible in Theology
This is a major turning point in Barrs book in which he begins relating principles of
biblical interpretation to the methodology of theological construction in route to
developing his own recommendations. He writes, Since no one now supposes that the
true theology can be straight-forwardly read off from the pages of the Bible, any
theological use of the Bible requires some distinctions of status, function, and
application (Barr 110). Having made this statement, his next task is to question: what is
the best suited approach to scripture and on what basis? Barr continues his analysis by
looking at the way in which three major theologians applied scripture to the theological
task: Barth, Tillich, and Bultmann. Barth, for example, excluded any use of natural
theology and used philosophical approaches very sparingly, if at all, giving primacy to
the exegetical task. On the other hand, Tillich used philosophy as an insight into
theological reflection, giving little attention to exegesis in order to address broader
categories. Barr gives us some insight into his personal opinion when he writes, it
would seem possible that a more general and less exegetical form of theology would
actually leave more freedom to the Bible, because it would provide a general framework
within which the biblical scholar would handle the biblical material itself (Barr 95). The
author moves on to explain Bultmanns differentiation between first order statements and
second order statements, but for him even first order statements, the kerygma, are
theological in nature and cannot be taken at face value. Barr attempts to make no
conclusions in the chapter, in fact he produces more questions which will be dealt with in
the later portions of this book.
1.7. Chapter Seven: A Basis for Construction
In earlier chapters the reader was able to catch glimpses of Barrs views on scripture, but
in this chapter he explicitly lays out what he calls an open theological situation which
he hopes will be an applicable hermeneutical approach, incorporating a wide range of
theologies, including natural and philosophical theology. His approach is not completely
unregulated, but he does provide a broad Christian framework from which to work: (1) it
must place Jesus as a central feature, and (2) it must recognize God as the God of Israel.
This emphasis on tradition plays a very important role in Barrs thought as he writes,
the Bible itself grew out of the tradition of Israel and of the early church. Tradition comes
before scripture, as well as following after it. How can it be possible to restrict the

6
influence of post-biblical tradition when the Bible itself grew up out of the tradition?
(Barr 127). He rejects a biblicist approach to scripture, avoiding any reference to
supernatural inspiration or revelation; instead, Barr sees scripture arising out of human
production in which personal experiences are recorded with no intention of making
absolute, unchallenged statements of doctrine. The author is quite open to the possibility
that contemporary theological statements can be more clear, accurate, and helpful than
parts of the biblical narrative, advocating for a critical evaluation of scripture. Naming his
theological approach open is somewhat misleading in that Barr is quite aware that it
directly challenges a fundamentalist view, and as a result his proposal is purposefully
closed to this perspective, although he is correct in that those from naturalist and
philosophical views of scripture could adopt many of these principles.
Barrs two-pronged understanding of what constitutes Christian cannot go unchallenged
though as there remains a level of subjectivity. Perhaps he intentionally desires to veer
free from absolute criteria at this point, thus leaving the historical Jesus and the ancient
Israelite view of God free to interpretation, but if in fact he is doing this, then his original
statement is empty and meaningless as any interpretation can be inserted as long as it can
justify its relation to these two historic notions. Additionally, Barr essentially ascribes to a
salvation-history interpretation of scripture by placing the crux of biblical interpretation
into these two historic events, thus contradicting his previous reservations.
1.8. Chapter Eight: Theology and Interpretation
In this chapter Barr takes up the question of the function of theology in order to clarify
the nature and role of scripture. In a nutshell he states, The task of a theology is to guide,
to inform and to discipline the affirmations of faith made by Christians (Barr 133);
however, he emphasizes that the beliefs of the Church must be reworked in order to speak
to the contemporary situation. In light of this, theology cannot simply restate what has
been said before but must reconstruct these statements in order to make them relevant for
today. As a result theology is entitled to draw upon a variety of sources outside the
biblical text while remaining within the tradition of the Church. Barr warns against
interpretations which attempt to make a perfect correlation between contemporary
problems and those expressed in the bible. While the bible can illuminate the present
context, its allusiveness, circumstantiality, and many-sidedness make it a slippery
document with no clear cut answers for us. Additionally, the author cautions against the
use of progressive revelation as an apologetic because it has no hermeneutical
foundation, thus it tends to downgrade particular sections of scripture while uplifting
others, doing an injustice to the biblical text.
Barr recognizes the contribution that other religions and ancient schools of thought on the
development of the biblical narrative and sees no need to shy away from accepting this
phenomenon. His view can be best summed up when he writes, The question at issue is
not what is orthodox, or what is heretical; it is rather whether we, in reading the Bible,
have somewhere at the back of our minds the view that there is an orthodoxy and that the
Bible will in the end express just that orthodoxy (Barr 146). Remaining consistent with

7
the previous chapter, Barr attempts to put forth an open hermeneutic that is minimally
bound by preconceived ideas or principles.
1.9. Chapter Nine: Limitation and Selection
Barr directs his attention towards surmising what sources can be brought into the
theological discussion. Barr essentially places no limits of authority upon what can be
theologically insightful as long as it stays within the previously mentioned parameters:
maintaining an association with the God of Israel and Jesus of Nazareth. Barrs approach
does not make a significant case to justify the canonization of the bible because for him
this is a historical fact that cannot be changed, neither should it be changed; however,
with this already in tact theological investigation should not be limited the Christian
scriptures. The author writes, Just as we have already asserted that the Bible is not
theologically perfect, so we have to add that the non-canonical books need not be
theologically vicious. Distinctions of theological value may indeed be drawnbut only
after the same kind of sober and careful critical reading which applies to the critical use
of the Bible itself (Barr 153). Later in the chapter he writes, it should be clear that
the traditional formulations of the canon and its boundaries are not absolute (Barr 167).
Barr realizes that the nature of the Bible (i.e. the multiplicity of authorship, differences in
cultural contexts, chronology, etc.) requires theology to systematize the contents of
scripture, but he sees no need to predetermine which methodology should be assumed;
instead, he seems to suggest that this freedom will allow for various perspectives, thus
bestowing a fuller expression of theological insight from the biblical narrative. Barr sees
this explosion of views as a springboard to an enlightening ecumenical dialogue. Despite
this openness, the author returns to the importance of critical studies for interpreting
scripture to reach moral judgments. In a sense he seems to retract everything stated
earlier in the chapter to make decisions of morality a separate issue from theological
constructions which I would question because it seems that they are directly formulated
from theological constructions.
1.10. Chapter Ten: Word and Meaning, Letter and Spirit
The final chapter of The Bible in the Modern World examines whether the terms verbal
and literal can be redeemed from fundamentalist captivity. Barr suggests that one
negative influence of its usage among fundamentalists is the tendency of theologians to
make generalizations about biblical texts, thus incorporationg little reference to the
specific details. As a result he writes, general impressions about the sense of biblical
passages tend to be passed on from one generation to another and to blanket out any real
quest after the true meaning of the passages (Barr 176). This brings Barr back to the
topic of verbal inspiration and the phrase Word of God which he sees as moot
categories because he rejects the notion of submitting the interpretation of the bible to
one dominating principle. Ultimately Barr views his proposed diversity in theological
discourse as a reflection of God in whom diversity is united. He holds onto the hope that
this multiplicity of theological reflection will not lead to polar opposite perspectives but
will more fully explicate the vastness of God. It is at this point that Barrs objective

8
becomes clear. He believes that advocating a specific method for theological
interpretation of the bible can close off new insights into the divine being.
2. General Evaluation
Barrs book provides a comprehensive overview of the challenges facing theological
constructions in relations to its usage of scripture. While Barrs work is nearly thirty
years old, a large number of the same issues he addresses are still relevant to the
contemporary situation; therefore this book can still provide a sound foundation from
which to understand the implications of hermeneutics upon the theological task.
Generally Barr offers a fair assessment of numerous approaches to the topic, but his
disdain for fundamentalist structures is obvious throughout the book. His contempt
towards fundamentalist hermeneutics appears to be a strong driving force behind the
development of this book as well as his proposal for an open interpretive methodology.
Barr appears hesitant to downplay the significance of any theological approach, being
careful to avoid any absolute statements that could suppress the creative process. He does
not make his proposal until nearly three-fourths of the way through his book, but despite
this delayed development he provides an excellent analysis of the multiple ways in which
scripture is used, addressing major theological methodologies. Barr candidly points out
numerous weaknesses within each system of thought, but he is also more than willing to
give credence to their positive aspects as well.
One weakness of Barrs book is his sometimes contradictory statement in which he
criticizes certain theological approaches for stances that they take, but in a number of
instances he seems to advocate a similar view. For example, in chapter five he warns
against using salvation history as a hermeneutical lens, but his two-pronged criteria is
nothing more than a streamed-lined version of a salvation-history hermeneutic. In
addition while Barrs attempt to free the interpretive process from fundamentalist
restrictions is respectable he sacrifices a robust proposal, the very thing for which he
condemns the cultural relativists.