and truth are in fact irrational, a disguise for Western power. Right wing
postmodernism assumes modernity is wrong and traditions can be self-
critical, the proper and necessary context for rationality.
Protestantism tends to be distinctly modern in its view of tradition as
irrational. This causes problems in its approach to biblical interpretation.
The Reformed tradition is a particularly important example of this, because
Calvin’s great success as an exegete resulted in his interpretation of
scripture becoming transparent, as if it were hardly an interpretation at all.
A transparent interpretation is one that appears to owe nothing to anything
but the text itself, in particular, to owe nothing to a tradition of interpretation.
Hence when interpretations become transparent, an interpretive tradition
has succeeded in making itself invisible by making its interpretation
seem obvious.
Protestant traditions of biblical interpretation depend on a certain kind
of obviousness called the perspicuity of scripture, which the tradition
itself generates. The perspicuity of scripture is a Protestant doctrine that
teaches that the truths necessary to salvation are taught plainly enough in
scripture for anyone to understand. Although some passages of scripture are
admittedly obscure, Christian doctrine is based on these plain or perspicuous
passages, or proof texts. The problem with the doctrine of perspicuity is that,
while truth is not relative, obviousness is. What is obvious to some people
is not obvious to others, primarily due to differences in skill and expertise,
which are products of education in a tradition. The perspicuity of scripture,
on which Protestant exegesis relies, is thus dependent on the theological
sensitivity of its readers, which is in turn a product of the teaching of the
Christian tradition.
An orthodox Christian reading of scripture that survives after modernity
will need to believe in its own tradition. It will need to recognize that it is
a tradition, which means giving up the outdated modern quest for scienti¿ c
certainty. Trusting in the apostolic tradition of the New Testament, it will
need to reject the notion that there is a deep difference between the Jesus
of history and the Christ of faith. In scriptural interpretation, it will need to
reject the project of getting from what it meant (as determined by historical
science) to what it means (for the tradition of faith today). It will need to start