A few weeks ago I asked myself a couple of questions: (1) Do I think that the Scriptures are the church’s Scriptures? (2) If I was reading Scripture for the pastoral task how would I do it?
Oddly enough the answers that came to my mind made me reconsider how I was reading Scripture. In previous years I have built a library with books by people like Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, James D.G. Dunn, Richard Horsley, J.P Meir, N.T. Wright, and others. I have gleaned much from reading these scholars, but I found myself more frustrated than excited. Why? There are no two so-called “historical Jesus” figures or “historical Paul” figures that even remotely mirror each other. Likewise, the historical-critical approach to Scripture often leaves commentary after commentary from series after series that do not seem to agree on the basic historical-grammatical meaning of any text!
Now I am not denouncing historical-critical studies nor the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Those have their place. But I cannot read Scripture seeking to be an “objective historian” (something that doesn’t exist in my opinion). I cannot read Scripture in order to get “behind the text” to events that shaped the text. I’d rather have the text itself. At this juncture of my life I distrust these more “scientific” approaches to Scripture for one very simple reason: what kind of science has such inconsistent results?!
Christianity claims that the triune God speaks through the biblical texts; not the events “behind the text”; not the socio-political climate; not the author’s inner thoughts. Again, those are worth pondering, speculating, and debating to some extent. But we do not have those things. We have the text.
If all we have is the text then I ask myself what do we do with these other approaches. I think Kevin Vanhoozer is correct when he says, “Critical tools have a ministerial, not magisterial, function in biblical interpretation.” [1] So I respect my fellow evangelicals who venture into these fields. We need the N.T. Wright, the Nicholas Perrin, the Craig Blomberg.
Sadly, our current climate has made the Bible more the university’s book than the church’s and it has made it more a historical relic than locus where people meeting the living, speaking God. When I answered those two aforementioned questions I realized that (1) I do think that the Scriptures are the church’s Scriptures and that while others can observe and read these texts, there is more to “understanding” the text than their methodology allows and (2) if I was reading through pastoral eyes I must read the text as a place where God speaks; as a living, active medium of the Spirit.
How did I get here? Well, it began as I read Hans-Georg Gadamer’s Truth and Method. I haven’t finished digesting that work, but thus far his philosophical hermeneutics have displaced the Schleiermachean approach and now I am hearing more about another philosopher named Paul Ricoeur that I intend in reading soon. These philosophers have shaken my confidence in historicism.
Another philosopher would be Jacques Derrida. I don’t say this because I follow his whole project of deconstruction, but rather because it gave me insight into the arrogance of modern, historicist hermeneutics. It showed me that it is as contextualized as any other approach. Its proclamation to be the objective, trans-cultural, historical approach appears, to me, to be a fraud. Again, Vanhoozer says it well:
“A host of postmodern thinkers has slain the giant assumption behind much modern biblical scholarship that there can be objective, neutral, value-free readings of biblical text. Postmodern thinkers have charged modernity’s vaunted historical-critical method with being just one more example of an ideologically motivated approach. The critical approach only pretends to be objective, neutral, and value free. Modern biblical critics are as rooted in the contingencies of history and tradition that begins with a faith in reason’s unprejudiced ability to discover truth.” [2]
There are others. My Th.M. advisor Marc Cortez taught the philosophy class where I encountered Gadamer and Derrida and a year prior he taught a course on the Greek Fathers where I met Athanasius, Basil, the Cappadocians, and others. As I watched them interact with the canon it became apparent that for all the good and bad of patristic exegesis they heard the text better than many modern scholars.
Also, I have been in a seminary (Western Seminary) that refuses to separate theology from the life of the church. That means most of my classmates have been pastors and other church leaders in the making. As I sit with them in class I am forced over and over again to ask if Scripture speaks to their vocation and to their calling.
Some of the people who read this blog have contributed to my unrest: James Tucker, Rodney Thomas, Bobby Grow, and Nick Norrelli to name a few (there are many).
Where to go from here? I have two concerns: (1) How to relate biblical studies to Christian theology (i.e balancing exegesis, historical studies, and a theological conviction that God speaks in Scripture and that canon shapes doctrine)? (2) How do I do Christian theology that speaks to the church?
I don’t know if this ramble is coherent, but that is what is on my mind.
__________
[1] Kevin J. Vanhoozer. “Introduction: What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible?” in Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey. 22.
[2] Ibid. 19.
the archives near Emmaus 
Thanks for the transparency, and it was certainly coherent. Three thoughts for you to add to what you’re considering:
1. The writers of the New Testament seemed to abide by a certain hermeneutic that is relatively uncommon today (some call it Christological) and it seemed to work well for them.
2. Just as the churches might say that the OT belongs to them as well as to the synagogues, so the world at large could say that the OT and NT alike belong to everyone as much as they belong to the synagogues (OT) and churches (OT and NT).
3. The Holy Spirit is spoken of as the enabler of the reader to understand as well as the enabler of the writer to write. While His ways might not be as easy to catalog as mere human methods, we do well to at least acknowledge this difference-maker.
Hey Brian, you said…
“Christianity claims that the triune God speaks through the biblical texts; not the events “behind the text”; not the socio-political climate; not the author’s inner thoughts.”
I resonate with most of your post, thank you for it. I guess I don’t like this statement above. 🙂
The biblical text was given to us within a particular historical situation. While we would both agree that the Lord is capable of speaking without a readers knowledge of the immediate context, it isn’t advisable and it’s actually a bit careless, if not laziness disguised as spirituality. Unfortunately, we are separated by years of history, and we bring our own biases and misconceptions, which means that we can’t always just read and hear it (as the first-century audience) without doing some digging. The Holy Spirit’s role isn’t to fill us in on Second Temple Judaism or the history and culture of the Greco-Roman world in the first century. That’s not the role of the Triune God. Biblical interpretation is a community event–co-participation-human & divine.
Even though biblical interpretation (e.g. behind the text–author’s inner thoughts) is often like trying to hold warm jelly in your hands, it’s not a thing I want to even hint at finding irrelevant, unhelpful, or unnecessary. I do know that’s not what you’re saying (you made that clear), that’s why I don’t think your statement above helps your point.
What do you think?
@David: I would return to the Vanhoozer quote I shared. Those things can have a ministerial impact, but not a magisterial. If magisterial then not only has century after century of Christian interpreters had no ability to hear the message of the text, but neither do we, since there will always be more opinions, more discovers, more theories overthrown as relates to what may have influenced Paul, or how Greco-Roman religion and politics may have shaped things. Interesting and sometimes helpful? Yes. But the grounds for doctrine and our interaction with God? Not necessarily.
Gadamer notes that of the two horizons (modern and historical) the best we can achieve is a third horizon. We will never recover the historical moment, nor should it be purely reader based, but some third place.
Even that process includes the “reception history” of a text. Sure, Calvin’s questions and Luther’s questions and Barth’s questions were not Paul’s, but Paul’s writings are not his own. They have been given to the community.
Those who drafted our Constitution in the United States had not pondered how this relates to Blacks, or women, or homosexuals, or the many other States that would be added to the country over time. But as a founding, living document authorial intent is secondary. We can discuss it and debate it, but it doesn’t finalize how we interpret and apply it. Especially if canonization shapes Scripture.
These thoughts are a work in progress.
I do share your views that historical studies have not proved to be conclusive. But there are couple of things that make me not to want to dismiss them. First off i do agree all we need is the scripture. But the scripture itself has historical events in it. For example, a lot of times in the OT and NT, it mentions during the reign of so and so. Also places are important. Even the epistles have the names of the cities where the churches are located in. I do not think that God put them there just an FYI. I think he did want us to do some research if we wanted to go deeper and understand the scripture within it’s historical context.
Secondly knowing how we got our scriptures also helps. Our scriptures come out off an oral tradition. I do not think once the scriptures were penned, the authors said well now we do not need an oral tradition. The tradition fell out of use gradually but that was accelerated with Greek Philosophy and modernism. It was the oral tradition which carried with it, the historical context through which we should understand the scriptures.
Finally the idea that when we come to the scriptures, it is just us, the scriptures and God’s spirit is fantasy. Usually when we read scriptures, it involves God’s spirit and us and all the baggage we bring with ourselves. Historical studies have helped open our eyes to see all the baggage we bring with us when we read scriptures.
I have found historical studies to helpful in finding many wrongs in my interpreting of the scriptures. So while they are not conclusive, they are still extremely useful.
@Mike: These are great insights. I agree that the hermeneutic of the biblical writers is Christ-centered. Luke 24, after which this blog is named, has always made me think about how I read Scripture.
The synagogue analogy is interesting. Would you say it is the Spirit that separates how Scripture functions in the church and in the world?
@Sam: Indeed, these various historical elements do function as a ministerial enhancement to our reading of Scripture. I’d like to think of them as another voice in the conversation between the God that meets us in Scripture, the church past, and the church present. This dynamic of dialog is God’s way of reforming and reproving us from our sometimes misguided dogmatic slumber.
So I should clarify that I am not against historical studies, per se, but historicism, which I find boast more of itself that it can deliver and that has become the final authority for many Bible readers even when it is as reliable as Ba’al.
@Brian: Regarding the Spirit, I would only say that when we read the Scriptures He leads us to know Christ and to do righteousness irrespective of whether we are in the church or outside it.
As for your attachment to the Christ-centricity taught in Luke 24 and its influence in the naming of your site, I am thrilled. Literally thrilled.
Brian –
What I have been willing to welcome, though it would be easier to close my ears to these people, are those who are challenging (somewhat ‘deconstructing’) the typical western (and reformation) approach to the text. This is why I appreciate those on the new perspective (i.e. Wright, Perriman, though Perriman goes even further) and those in the emergent-emerging conversation. At times, it can feel like a refreshing glass of water to drink from than your typical reformed, systematic approach.
What I realise (and we probably all do) is that the OT text is an ANE text and the NT is in a second-temple, first century context. And the writers lived in a more ‘eastern’ than ‘western’ setting. Finally, they all lived in a pre-western Christendom setting. All of this is challenging the way I approach the text, though it is difficult. As I have mentioned before, could I ever approach Romans 5 without an Augustinian-reformed concept of ‘original sin’? It is dang hard.
I don’t want to deconstruct just to deconstruct. But I do want my box opened more to what God was actually communicating in the text, not what I think He is communicating.
I know you agree (I think).
How would you define magisterial and ministerial function? I have not read Vanhoozer’s book, so i am wondering how legit is the distinction.
I can see what you are saying and it’s not incoherent. I agree that historicism isn’t good and am glad you can see that historical context studies are still needed and beneficial to helping us understand the text and through that meet the living God of the text (for a text without a context is a pretext and leaves too much room for abuse and miscontrual). Indeed the Bible belongs to the Church and no one else. Other than that, what everyone else said! (especially mike, Sam and Scott!). 🙂
Brian, I have Vanhoozer’s book, but haven’t read it yet. I do know that Kevin is very much a systematic theologian… not so much a historian/biblical scholar.
I’m just not feelin’ ya on “Greco-Roman religion and politics may have shaped things. Interesting and sometimes helpful? Yes. But the grounds for doctrine and our interaction with God? Not necessarily.” Can’t go there, bro. It sounds like something a theologian like Vanhoozer would say. 😉
Also, I don’t think authorial intent is “secondary” and that it must be so for the document to be living within a community of interpreters. As elusive as it often may be to us, we should keep it right there along with the local ekklesia’s communal attempts at biblical interpretation and spiritual imagination.
“Schleiermachean approach”
Brian,
Have you actually ever read Schleiermacher’s major works? I think it is extremely misleading to use Schleiermacher as shorthand for what you’re calling the historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Pick up “On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Dispisers”. His inductive approach grounded in human religious experience. It’s fundamental character is phenomenological not historicist. In fact his approach is much less historicist than any reading “from the church”.
“(1) How to relate biblical studies to Christian theology (i.e balancing exegesis, historical studies, and a theological conviction that God speaks in Scripture and that canon shapes doctrine)? (2) How do I do Christian theology that speaks to the church?”
1) I think you’re already worked this point out a bit in your previous conversations with me about this issue. I think you would say that a biblical theology is necessary to be counted among the church. This would be why Marcion, Valentius, Nestorius etc. would be excluded from any type of theology within the church. In a very real way biblical theology, and thus the historical grammatical method, is still normative.
2) I think in order to answer this question you’ve got to tackle the sticky wicket of what, exactly, is the church?
@Sam: By “ministerial” I mean it can enhance and assist us in our reading of Scripture, but I don’t see it as valuable as theological readings which interact more between text and reader. “Magisterial” would be a reference to how biblical studies have been controlled by historicism over the last several decades.
@Brian F.: That is why I like what Vanhoozer says about the “ministerial” v. “magisterial” function of historical studies!
@David: Authorial intent is interesting because we can never really recover what was going on in the mind of the author. If we are honest we note that our study of “authorial intent” is always grounded in the text itself. So the text is the sole determination of authorial intent since we do not have the author.
So authorial intent has some place, though it is an awkward, hard to define place. I am still wrestling with that though I think I give less place to it that you. Again, I return to a constitutional analogy which is something I hope to unfold more in the coming days.
@Dan: Schleiermachean as it has been popularly dubbed focusing on the static, historical meaning. Whether or not this is fair to Schleiermacher himself is another issue that I am not as qualified to address since I have not given him as much attention.
Defining the church will be a keep point and I am exciting about wrestling with that as I think through this issue.
I think a genealogy can be noted wherein an “Evangelical” Trinitarian hermeneutic is present throughout church history. Starting with the Apostles, of course, working through Patristics (like Irenaeus, Augustine) working into early Medieval (like Bernard of Clairvaux), further into late Medieval (early Modern) (like Luther, Calvin, John Knox), then into the post-Reformed orthodox (like Richard Sibbes, Jonathan Edwards, Jonathan McLeod Campbell) and into the Modern/Contemporary (like Barth, Childs). Funny, most of these guys would be considered “theologians” 😉 .
None of these characters denied the importance of “history,” just the opposite (they affirmed that “history” finds its ‘history’ in Christ and allowed that to have a huge bearing on the way they interpreted the “Text!”).
We all really do Theological exegesis; the next question is, is it good or bad? And the question after that must be, do we have good theology or bad theology? Even NT Wright does Theological exegesis (as much as Barth); clearly his personal discipline is different than someone like Barth (as a historian). Nevertheless, it’s clear after reading NT Wright that he is engaged in a Covenantal reading of the Text, which is a theological reading of the Text. I’m just noting this to illustrate my point.
I think more than Church reading, it’s Christian reading that is more the point. I believe in authorial intent, because I believe that just as Christ by the Spirit broke into time-space-history in the Incarnation (and even, of course before); He continues to have the ability to break in on all the various modes of “history.” My point. If we ground the telos of authorial intent in the res or reality that it was always intended toward; then we are sure to “get at” or “lay bare” the original intent (since its “living”).
I think Biblical Interpretation is its “own unique reality,” (not gnostic) — its different, for example than interpreting the US Constitution because of its ultimate reference point. I do think that the Constitution, for example is a “horizontally” located historical document; and thus its original intent is bound by its location (even if it provides principles that we can still “apply” to our various cultural contexts today). The Scriptures, for sure, have a horizontal aspect to them; but the “reality” they bear Witness to in fact is Living, and thus vertical.
I guess, after my ramble here; my point is that the TEXT of Scripture was never intended to be collapsed into a patchwork of propositions wherein we could plunder the spoils to create “our versions” of history, ethics, philosophy, etc.. Instead their primary “intent” is to point to their reality, which is beyond the Text, that being Jesus. And of course none of this “intent” is w/o or able to be abstracted from its “point;” viz. to say that the history of redemption (OT/NT) finds its reality in a person instead of a proposition.
Here’s one more quote from Torrance on Barth’s approach to “history,” and how that fits into a Dominical reading of the Text (albeit the discussion in the context of the quote is more about “theology” but still applicable):
@Bobby: I am drawn to both Barth’s and Torrance’s emphasis on Scripture—> Christ. It is more 3D that my constitution analogy which has obvious limitations (though I think there may be some partial truth worth further exploring by way of analogy, even if it only helps us think of the horizontal aspect). In part, and maybe you can fill this in, I am wondering how Scripture —> to the church community. OR
Christ Church
I agree 100% that is speaks of and about Christ. Where do you see its role in speaking to and guiding the church?
Let me think more about that question, Brian.
I think, though, my answer will be shaped by the idea that it speaks to the Church, because the Church has ears to listen, eyes to see; and that this is directly related to our union (and ontologically change, i.e. new heart) in Christ’s humanity for us. So I think the fact that the Church is the Church presupposes that our center is found in Christ, and therefore our readings will always be bound to and through Him. Just as the author of the Hebrews says (paraphrase) “that He is the anchor of our souls” — likewise He is the anchor of the Text. I think the role of the Text for the Church should be (in principle) that it acts more on us than we act upon it. These kinds of statements will bother the “pure exegetes” amongst us (I know because I’m trained that way too); I just think reading the Text in the Church has a very dynamic reality to it (not the “Meaning” who is Christ), but the “impact” that the Text should have upon us as we encounter the Living Word to whom the Text bears witness. I’ve accepted a Theory of Revelation, at this point, Brian, that probably many of the other commenters here might not accept (a more Barthian/Torrancean albeit qualified towards a more “conservative” approach 😉 ).
Brian,
Do you think that the Reformational hermeneutic somehow removed itself from the Tradition of the Church Catholic & Orthodox?
@Bobby: This is part of what has peaked my interest in a theological reading. I agree that we seek Christ in the Scriptures believing that the Triune God acts upon us in and through the text. Now I am trying to ponder what that means.
The Drama of Doctrine has provided an interesting take on the Text —> Church side of things.
@Fr. Robert: Interesting question. I don’t know if it “removed” itself. It does seem to give Scripture itself a more authoritative voice (as in where God meets us) then the Catholic/Orthodox tradition that levels the field with more emphasis on tradition, bishops, and for Catholics, the papacy.
@Brian, you said:
. . . Now I am trying to ponder what that means.
Me too! 😉
Brian,
I am innocent until proven guilty.
Rod: Rod, I need you to be accountable to all the unrest you have caused me! 😉
Yes, yes, and AMEN!
This too has been my experience, “In previous years I have built a library with books by people like Marcus Borg, J.D. Crossan, James D.G. Dunn, Richard Horsley, J.P Meir, N.T. Wright, and others. I have gleaned much from reading these scholars, but I found myself more frustrated than excited.”
Brilliant thoughts. This could well be one of your best posts.
@Mark: Thanks!
Brian asked,
(2) How do I do Christian theology that speaks to the church?
Just a few thoughts (realizing that I’m on this ride with you 😉 ).
1) This one is obvious, and I know you know this, but you try to live it by the Spirit in front of people (of course what does that mean when sitting in the pew on Sundays like I do).
2) I think though the way, in principle, that we do “Church speaking theology” is from within the context of the Church; and that means not having a view of “Church History” that started in the 1950’s or whenever, but having an expansive view that is intent on Listening To the Past. I think this is the point that folks often make in regards to thinking catholically. Assuming that Christ has given His Church teachers, and that a wealth of hueristic power has been provided for us through them. I really don’t think doing theology “churchly” has as much to do with construing “meaning” (like for the Text); as it does for providing a constant orientation towards living in Christ.
I suppose everything I’m saying still sounds rather abstract vs. concrete, but sometimes I think the Church (esp. us Evangelicals) try to over-think; try to be too intentional, or assume that we’ve already got the “basics” of Christianity figured out so now we need to be about the business of “really” doing church stuff (like learning how to be relevant or something). I think the church and thus theology needs to major on the basics more (like thinking about who God is), and allow that to shape the minors and our approach to engaging each other and the world.
For me anyway, “theology”.. the study and desire of God, can and must be dogma-doctrine or teaching. For Christianity can really only be expressed by dogmatic theology. But this theology must be “Christ”-like, and centered in His own Person – God-Incarnate…the Son of Man. The Incarnation models everything! And the true Church is always something of the extension of this incarnation. And when we look at Scripture, we see still an incarnate life. And the Church also incarnates the Word itself, for out of the prophetic Church, the Holy Scripture lives! And thus even the death of Christ is a Christus Victor, in the Resurrection and the Ascended life itself. (Eph. 1:20-23)
This post is exactly what my sentiments were leaving my early Christianity class just a few moments ago. It seems as you say, that “objective” historians don’t really exist and that Biblical scholarship has relied much more on modern-day reasoning than anything else. With all the recent studying I’ve done, it seems that there is no longer a standpoint of faith to evaluate the Scriptures in the scholarly world. Yes, there are scholars who do believe in Jesus, but few seem to study the Scriptures from that faith; they seem to remove any personal convictions to “better” evaluate the Scriptures we have. This is a problem for me. It kills the life of the text to remove one’s faith in the risen Lord. I would not come to the Bible the way that I do had I not been interrupted by Jesus. My faith is the lens through which I understand the Scriptures.
Granted, I am at a liberal university (U of O), but even still, we’re reading from scholars who claim a faith in Jesus, but yet seem to cast more doubt upon the reliability of Scripture in their search for the historical Jesus. I wish scholars would, instead of declaring a standpoint of objectivity, admit their bias, confess their faith, and admit that there isn’t really such a standpoint as “pure objectivity.” I was thinking of the recent post on Ehrman; that he has kind of gone off in his own arrogance with his version of the “historical Jesus.” It seems that there is an endless number of “historical Jesus(es)” in the scholarly world and it has led me, much like you Brian, to distrust historical criticism.
I come to the Scriptures for guidance from God, Jesus, and the Spirit. When all three of these are thrown out the window and all of one’s trust is placed in one’s own ability to decipher the truths of Scripture, I think of Proverbs 3:5 and how dangerous it is for one to trust in one’s own understanding of that which comes from God. It doesn’t make very much logical sense for me to try to understand God solely from schools of criticism which were created by the minds of men with little or no guidance from God. Paul says that the Spirit searches all things and knows the mind of God; therefore I find it best to seek the Spirit’s guidance rather than my own.
If it sounds like I’m just ranting it’s because, well, I am. My early Christianity class has been exhausting and frustrating because it’s assumed that we could understand Christianity apart from Christ, when it’s quite clear to Paul the Apostle that Christ is the central figure. I’m just annoyed that this seems to be not even considered in modern-day biblical scholarship (but then again, I could be only reading into the liberal scholars’ arguments – I can’t wait to look into N.T. Wright just to get some balanced perspective 🙂 ).
Brian,
I know I’m joining this awesome post and discussion late, but I’m grateful for where you’ve been and your willingness to share.
|As I watched them interact with the canon it became apparent that for all the good and bad of patristic exegesis they heard the text better than many modern scholars.|
This is good.
@Jeremy: It seems that we Christians have placed ourselves in an awkward position. We have accepted Scripture as (1) a valuable, historical canon of documents that are limited the particular eras and world-views in which they were written and (2) canonization and tradition have no place at the table when discussing the “meaning” of Scripture.
Why do we do this? I think it has to do with respectability. To go back to my Barth quote the other day: We feel obligated to defend. But that is not the only problem. We have accepted a naturalistic, closed universe where God has not spoken, at least in any definitive way. So we must play according to the rule of historicism, reading texts like they do, accepting the “laws” they have established.
While I do not have all the answers I have come to a place in my life where I do ask one thing: Why? Why must we play by those rules? Why must we forsake our premise of “faith seeking understanding?” Why should we deny Christ guides his church by the Spirit?
Maybe we shouldn’t!
@TC: Thanks T.C. It should be an interesting next couple of days here as I toss out a few more thoughts on Scripture!
Wonderful post! Lots to think about. I like where you’re going and I hope you continue sharing these thoughts. Here are a few of my initial reactions if you’re interested (sorry if this ground has already been covered).
(1) In your post, you appear to suggest that historical-critical studies and historicism are synonymous or at least very closely related. But surely that’s not always the case. Just because one employs historical-grammatical tools doesn’t mean one is attempting to replace the text with something other than the text or something that’s “behind the text.” Perhaps you intend to critique an overarching methodical approach we could call historical-critical that includes an embrace of historicism rather than the mere use and reliance on historical-grammatical tools. If so, then we should note that there are biblical scholars, including some that you mentioned, that use historical-grammatical tools without embracing the historical-critical approach.
(2) While historical-critical studies can certainly frustrate one looking for consistent results, I seriously doubt you’ll find that by appealing to “just the text.” In fact, one could argue that this kind of approach would lead and has led to even more “options” to choose from.
(3) I’m certainly not well-read on patristic exegesis, but I do know that within three to four hundred years of Jesus, the church adopts two major creeds that say next to nothing about the Israel story and Jesus’ connection to it. Now perhaps the church fathers you mentioned spoke much about this and I’m just ignorant of that fact, but if they didn’t, then they illustrate the danger of detaching “just the text” from history.
(4) For what it’s worth, I tend to think theology should be done within biblical studies rather than outside of it, if that makes sense. So instead of abstracting timeless principles from the text about the nature of God for our own Western philosophical questions, we enter the story of the text to learn of and encounter the God of Abraham who makes covenants, changes his mind, waits patiently, enters and suffers with the world, etc. In fact, the text itself is a record of God’s people doing theology as they live with God, a task the text models for us and invites us into.
I look forward to reading more posts along these lines.
@Tom: You’re qualification in (1) is very welcome. Last night I was with JohnDave Medina (who also blogs here) discussing these things, and one thing I realized I need to qualify is that I am not against historical studies but rather historicism. I acknowledge that this post seemed to blur those two.
As regards (2) an important nuance I should add is historical studies assist our understanding of the text, and not the other way around. What has happened in many circles of biblical studies is that, for example, the Gospel of Matthew is read because the really interesting subject is the events that formed the gospel, form criticism issues, the community that first read this, the reason why the author may have written, and so forth and so on. What I am trying to say is that the Gospel of Matthew itself, and its theological interpretation of Jesus, is the first priority, while the history “behind the text” is, at best, good for clarifying the text itself.
As regards (3) I agree that at times they disconnected things from Israel’s story. They weren’t infallible. But I think their “theological reading” was more in line with how Scripture is meant to be read and heard that the pure historicism of much of modern scholarship.
That being said, the Father did well at keeping the church connected to Israel’s story. Remember, it was people like Irenaeus and co. who fought against the Marcionite idea of Israel’s God be evil and distinct from the Christian God. They fought to maintain unity between the testaments.
Finally, as regards (4), I am in complete agreement. But I think the common trend in biblical studies circles is to try to be “objective” and “historical”, thereby disqualifying theological readings which ends up being a dead end. That said, biblical studies and theological studies should not be distinct. That is what I am arguing for to some extent—a reintegration of the two.
Thanks for the interaction!
@Jeremy:
Your frustration is appropriate. I’m glad Brian responded positively and clearly to what you said. You and he may well lead the way out of the wilderness for many others!