Baby Got Book

For some reason I've lost the YouTube link to this video, so check it out here.

This dude knows where it's at!

Hermeneia's Hermeneutics

Hermeneia - A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress) utilizes a common preface for all its volumes, written by Frank Moore Cross and Helmut Koester, in which it is said:

"The editors of Hermeneia impose no systematic-theological perspective upon the series (directly, or indirectly by selection of authors). It is expected that the authors will struggle to lay bare the ancient meaning of a biblical work or pericope. In this way the text's human relevance should become transparent, as is always the case in competent historical discourse" (emphasis added).

Could someone explain to me the logic behind the words in italics?

A Trinitarian Approach to the Bible

Christopher Seitz (2001) cites the following words of wisdom, spoken at a point in American history when attempts to utilize historical-criticism theologically were in full swing (1964). Can you guess who said them?

"All Christian use of the Old Testament seems to depend on the belief that the One God who is the God of Israel is also the God and Father of Jesus Christ."

"All our use of the Old Testament goes back to this belief. What is said there that relates to "God" relates to our God. Consequently, that which can be known of our God is known only when we consider the Old Testament as a place in which he is known."

"It is an illusory position to think of ourselves as in a position where the New Testament is clear, is known, and is accepted, and where therefore from this secure position we start out to explore the much more doubtful and dangerous territory of the Old Testament ... [This] is not possible, for quite theological reasons. ... Insofar as a position is Christian, it is related to the Old Testament from the beginning."

"In this sense, if one wishes to express the argument in terms of classic theology, our approach to the Old Testament is Trinitarian rather than Christological. The direction of thought is from God to Christ, from Father to Son, and not from Christ to God."

"It should also be noted that, where we have a Trinitarian structure, we can proceed to a Christological one".

Netanyahu on the Status of Zion

In an interview with Ynet, Benjamin Netenyahu, chairman of Israel's conservative Likud party, made the following criticism of Prime Minister Olmert's stance on Jerusalem and his willingness to make concessions:

"Jerusalem isn't just any city. The Western Wall isn't real estate and the Temple Mount isn't any piece of land. These concepts are at the root of our identity and national existence. The unbearable lightness with which a government – that has no mandate or support from the Jewish people – surrenders Zion shows the deterioration of the values of Israeli society".

What do people make of that?

The Theological crisis of Biblical Criticism

Stefan recently linked to Michael Bird's review of J. Barton's book The Nature of Biblical Criticism. Michael's concern is the role historical-criticism should play in the Church's appropriation of Scripture. He believes that traditional historical-critical theory does not take into account the post-modern critique and suggests that other methodolgies are needed, especially if one is to read the ancient texts in an ecclesial context. To quote:

What is really needed is a realistic epistemology of how we know things from texts, a literary theory explaining how texts do things to readers, a hermeneutical explanation for how authors communicate through the signs/symbols of language, and a definition of history and historiography.

Anthony Thiselton, N.T. Wright, Kevin Vanhoozer, and Scot McKnight are recommended reading for each of these areas.

I'm all for a reappraisal of the way humans know, the nature of texts, the nature of reading and definitions of history (the last being a central concern of Childs'). However, as far as theological reading is concerned, I'm not sure whether the proposed areas of research really get to the heart of the crisis which the church is currently facing, and has been facing for quite some time now. The following thoughts on this issue are taken from C. Seitz's book, Figured Out.

Vanhoozer and Wolterstorff talk of the contemporary crisis as a hermeneutical one. In their works they attempt to address topics such as divine speech, inspiration, and authorship. This is done from the perspective of general hermeneutics (the philosophy of language; speech-act theory). Seitz wonders to what degree they focus on the long-standing problem of the relationship between the two testaments of Christian Scripture. To quote:

"Hermeneutics as a science of reading and interpretation could simply speak about matters of authorship, reader, text, inspiration, divine speech, and so forth, in the manner of Vanhoozer and Wolterstorff, and never once address the difference between Old and New Testaments on historical, theological, canonical, literary/genre, or specified audience/ecclesial grounds. The Bible would be one big book, whatever its differences, and the problems of talking about author or reader or text could go on in general terms without much regard for the divide separating two distinct literatures (Old Testament, or Tanak, and New Testament). And we could still plausibly argue that a hermeneutical crisis existed and buffeted the field and not be wrong.” (pp. 13, 14).

Seitz goes on to point out how a series of crises already existed in biblical studies before the advent of post-modernism and post-critical theology. They focused not on general hermeneutics (text, reader, author, world) but on quite specific matters: the historicality of individual writings, literary methods and their compatibility, dating texts properly, social-historical reconstruction, the history of religion and so forth. Always sitting close to these questions were serious subisidiary or even more up-front concerns. Is there unity to Christian scripture? How is the Old Testament Christian scripture? In what way does the New Testament function as scripture, especially given its fourfold gospel record and what would come to be known as "quests for the historical Jesus" behind this fourfold account?

These questions persisted and were never completely banished from the field. Seitz believes it is proper to call these theological, and not just hermeneutical questions:

"They have to do with the way in which the testaments, each in its own specific historical and canonical way, bear witness to God. In the middle of the last century and for many decades into our own, these questions did not just hover near the fray but were first-order questions demanding first-order answers if the discipline was to have any integrity as a historically oriented one still tuned to the life of the church and an earlier history of interpretation." (14)

Seitz concludes:

"The turn to hermeneutics as a general discipline, then, has not so much offered a resolution of older theological questions, historically considered, as it has changed the subject. We may wish to judge that a good thing, but in so doing there would have to be an admission that what has counted in the history of biblical studies for the past century and a half as central was misguided from the start. The field posed the wrong questions, it would have to be concluded, and therefore got wrong answers and ended up in its present desuetude - call it a "hermeneutical crisis" - as a consequence. A cursory comparison with Westermann's Essay on Old Testament Hermeneutics, produced at a period of general critical (methodological) consensus, shows an array of concerns untouched in recent hermeneutical discussions, and any accounting of our present crisis is obliged to say why this is so." (14, 15)

I should just add that John's post on this topic has started an interesting conversation with Dave from Tolle Lege.

Quote of the day

The conversation goes on on Politics and the Religious Role of 'Canon' below, so a small quote today:

"Church history bears eloquent testimony to a few glorious periods when suddenly unexpected interest in the Bible exploded within the life of the church, and biblical scholars and theologians found themselves engaged in a common enterprise"

B.S. Childs, (1992) From the Preface

KabbalaToons!

I have a number of choices: either post extensively everyday, write extensive responses, and thus never get any of my real work done (i.e. doctorate), or post sporadically, and thus lose the regularity that I feel people may need when deciding when to check out my blog (and thus lose the thread of posts which are often interconnected). I've decided to take the 3rd way, which is to posts extensive posts followed by extensive answers as much as I can. The 'in between periods', where writing responses takes up more time then I should allow myself, will be filled with smaller posts such as an interesting quote or video link or whatever catches my fancy. Sounds fair enough I think ...

So, here's my random link for the day. Ever seen a Kabbalistic cartoon? Over on Chabad.org you can educate yourself with ease concerning the deep mysteries of the universe. Check out episode one on Filling the Hole.

Politics and the Religious Role of 'Canon'

I have claimed here that the Bible developed out of a relationship between God and his people, a relationship in which this people were elected and formed in order to witness to God's single plan of salvation. Central to this relationship is, in some sense, an authoritative Scripture become canon. As Childs says: "The heart of the canonical process lay in transmitting and ordering the authoritative tradition in a form which was compatible to function as Scripture for a generation which had not participated in the original events of revelation" (1979: 60).

The question has been raised as to whether other factors predominated in the texts' formation, such as political, economic, or even morally corrupt ones. These would undermine the nature of the text as religious literature (a kind of form-critical category) for a community of faith.

This is a significant question for Childs, as his approach depends on this theological dimension being actually present in the text. He is aware that the development of the Bible was a complex process in which political, sociological and economic factors played a role. Nevertheless, it is his claim that in these factors were subordinated to a more overarching religious end. The significance of this dimension can be seen in this quote:

"... whenever modern critical theories are proposed which would call into question the integrity of Scripture's faith claims, it is certainly appropriate to mount a reasoned defense for its support. Thus, a historical critical theory of Deuteronomy which would construe the book as a pious fraud created for propaganda reasons to support the political aspirations of the Jerusalem priesthood would, if true, raise serious questions about a canonical interpretation which claimed that the book was shaped by primarily religious concerns. Similarly, if the development of a sense of canon was only a late peripheral phenomenon of the Hellenistic period, my approach to the O.T. would be seriously damaged. For this reason, I have felt constrained to mount a reasoned case why such a politicized interpretation of Deuteronomy does less than justice to the biblical text, and why the forces associated with the canonical process lie at the heart of the entire O.T." (in his "Response to Reviewers" of his Introduction; JSOT (16) 1980: 56).

Here we see that for the canonical approach history matters and that the text should constrain our interpretation. Canonical readers have an vested interest in the results of historical analysis and as such cannot escape into a safe 'narrative' world untouched by real-life concerns. Judgment depends on the results of exegesis done in tandem with a good theoretical awareness of the nature of the project actually being embarked on.

The Complexity of "Canon"

I'm finally back home in Germany after a brief visit home in England! Blogging should resume with a tad more regularity. Thank you for your patience!

So onwards with the discussion ...

I last spoke of the biblical text as the product of a relationship between the LORD and his people (here). Within this relationship God spoke, Israel heard, responded and then passed on this word to a later generation. The purpose was that the ancient traditions should function authoritatively for those who were not present by critically "rendering the material into a form suitable for future accommodation" (1977: 93). This was a complex, multifaceted process in which different manoeuvres were made under varying conditions. Underpinning this diversity, however, is the continuity of Israel's religious use of its tradition. Childs tries to capture this unity in diversity with the term 'canonical process'.

Childs thus has a broad understanding of canon. He clarifies potential confusion as follows:

"When analyzed narrowly, there seems to an inconsistency that the canonical process includes the setting of boundaries for the literature, the combining of rival traditions and the actualization of earlier traditions to function authoritatively for later generations. However, when one focuses on attempting to understand how Israel struggled throughout its history in understanding its traditions religiously the variety of solutions and complexity of responses should not be surprising. Of course, the setting of canonical boundaries in exclusion of rival claims is different from the transformation of an ancient tradition to serve authoritatively in a new situation. No one doubts that that the juxtaposing of disparate material functions differently from closely intertwined sources. But the point to be emphasized is that there are important elements of continuity extending throughout the entire history of the literature's formation which are connected - at times loosely - with a religious concern. A careful analysis of the evidence allows one to delineate with some precsision the nature of this religious use of tradition. Clearly the process was affected by Israel's changing historical situation, but the final fixing of the Hebrew canon was only the final stage in a long process" (JSOT 16 [1980]: 53).