tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post2463181663934172980..comments2024-01-09T12:59:32.666+01:00Comments on Narrative and Ontology: The Significance of the Diachronic Dimension for a Canonical Approach to the Bible as ScripturePhil Sumpterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-61042332197823022182007-12-11T18:53:00.000+01:002007-12-11T18:53:00.000+01:00He doesn't actually bring them together into one c...<EM>He doesn't actually bring them together into one coherent picture.<BR/></EM><BR/><BR/>Honestly John, I deeply appreciate that you keep coming back to me on this. It's incredibly helpful to be kept on my toes, and it gives me comfort to know that my posts don't all disappear into the ether. <BR/><BR/>All I can say for now is that I think your concerns are legitimate (these thoughts bugged me too) and please keep reading. I'm dealing with this in my current series (keep an eye out for the forthcoming post "The Text as Tradent of Authority").Phil Sumpterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16491514886782881340noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6547653347296107692.post-30604099941772219612007-12-11T17:47:00.000+01:002007-12-11T17:47:00.000+01:00Phil,You write "The interaction between tradents a...Phil,<BR/><BR/>You write "The interaction between tradents and tradition was of a certain quality, one in which the original traditions exerted a theological force which constrained the direction in which their expansion was to flow", and here, once again, we're met with Childs wanting to have it both ways. He seems to acknowledge that the tradition is justified or authorized in its origin, and yet he wants its subsequent development to be equally authoritative. I just don't see how he can pull that off, and I don't see, logically, how *anyone* can pull that off. From what I've seen, Childs just runs back and forth between posing with the diachronic aspects of Scripture, and posing with the synchronic aspects. He doesn't actually bring them together into one coherent picture.<BR/><BR/>I just don't see how it can be done without naming some standard or authority other than the apostles as the ground of biblical theology. And that's really what Childs does: he uses the evolutionary aspect of tradition (that is, the *Church*) as the ground. He's more interested in the many different voices within the Church than with the authorial voice of the apostles. And that's simply getting it all backward.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com