The Nature of Biblical Criticism Author: John Barton ISBN: 9780664225872 Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press         Release: May 2007 Format: Paperback         Pages: 206 My Rating:

Over the weekend I finally read the above. I had picked it up at SBL last summer, in Vienna, and skimmed parts of it thereafter, but I only just blocked out time to read it carefully from cover to cover.

I resist the urge to say much about it yet, or even to rate it. I'll have to interact with the book in my dissertation and I don't want to pre-empt what I'll say there. I do note, however, that this essay of Barton's, which originally heralded The Oxford Bible Commentary in September 2001, anticipates themes in the book at several points. This is especially true of the last two sections, "A Turn to Theology" and "'Advocacy' Readings." Under the former, for instance, Barton states

Every so often there is a movement to ‘reintegrate’ biblical studies and theology, or to ‘give the Bible back to the Church’. I personally believe that scholars have never really taken it away from the Church, and have often indeed been if anything too ‘reverent’, avoiding hard critical questions. But there can be no doubt that many people do feel there is a division between the scholar in the study and the worshipper in the pew, with the preacher in the pulpit uneasily wedged between them. And a repeated reaction to this perception has been to try to develop some way of making biblical study more ‘theological’.

Similarly in the book he concludes: "There is a battle going on at the moment between those who believe that biblical criticism is too much in the grip of a secular and skeptical spirit and those who think it has still not managed to escape the hand of ecclesiastical and religious authority. My sympathies lie on the whole more with the second group" (185).

Barton's dissent from the many advocates of theological exegesis makes his new book essential reading for those with an interest in the same. He sees his program as closer to the essence of true religious reading, which makes it especially provocative. That his thoughts show evidence of long reflection (themes from his classic Reading the OT [1984] are also present in 2007) makes the argument all the more important.

Of course, not all will agree with Barton's diagnosis, let alone his prescription. Regarding canonical approaches he writes (in the online essay, but again in line with the book):

Older biblical criticism was often practised by scholars who did have a high commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. But they thought the proper way to study it was first to analyse it critically in the ways I have described, and only then to move on to questions of its religious significance. This was true of Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike. The newer movement denies that this division of labour is desirable, or even possible.

But practitioners of the canonical approach are likely to reply that any division of labor will be different simply because the task envisioned is different. In short, Barton's work aims at the very core of the confessional exegesis movement (if it is proper to speak of such a thing). In particular he targets Brevard Childs, Chris Seitz, Francis Watson, and Walter Moberly. And debate with these figures (indeed, among them) has long been underway.

Finally, I understand that a response to Barton's book, by Moberly, is already due to appear this year in JTI (issue 2/1). One hopes that engagement from all parties will turn up fresh soil where the ground has already so often been plowed.

Tags: Barton, Theological Exegesis, Moberly

What does it mean that "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6)? Dawson, through Origen, explores several suggestions. And a fellow student of mine at St Andrews, who successfully defended his PhD mid-December, focuses a different but related set of considerations through an "Augustinian" reading of Jer 31.

Restitutio ad Integrum: An 'Augustinian' Reading of Jeremiah 31:31–34 in Dialogue with the Christian Tradition Author: Johshua Moon ISBN: Publisher: PhD         Release: Oct 2007 Format: Hardcover         Pages: 325 My Rating:

Comments/Quotes: “In his anti-Pelagian writings, emerging at the height of his influence, Augustine put forward a reading of Jer 31:31–34 that contrasted belief and unbelief—a state of affairs deserving judgment and salvation ('Heil und Nicht-Heil'). The point at issue for Augustine’s reading was the claim by Julian of Aeclanum that the Holy Spirit was tied to the novum testamentum, and thus was absent in the vetus. In an argument that shifted the point of contrast in Jer 31:31–34, Augustine made a distinction in the use of vetus testamentum—the popular use (referring to the era or part of the Christian canon from before Christ), and the use of Scripture. In this latter the members of the vetus testamentum are distinguished form the novum in an absolute or ‘salvific’ sense—the possession of the Spirit, regardless of the era in which one lives. The contrast involved in Jer 31:31–34 was for Augustine the contrast of unbelief apart from the Spirit, and faithfulness with the Spirit. Though Augustine’s reading would remain overshadowed by uses of the contrast with reference to the mutatio sacramentorum or a similar contrast of two successive religio-historical eras, Augustine’s influence can be seen at a number of significant moments in Western theological history… In modern interpretations the discourse shifted significantly, so that many theological concerns of the previous era were distanced from the consideration of a ‘historical’ location of the oracle. But the central issue remained the same: to what is the ‘new covenant’ contrasted?” (284–285). Moon argues that the contrast is with the “broken covenant” (cf. in particular Jer 11, 7). “What is made the case in the oracles of salvation is an idyllic state—everything is made the way it always ought to have been. What we find in 31:31–34 is precisely this contrast: the universal infidelity bringing judgment is overturned in a promise of universal fidelity to Yhwh. The people of Yhwh are restored to their proper state (restitutio ad integrum), and a world is projected in which all is as it always ought to have been” (286).

Moon provides some really excellent details in his reading of the tradition, from Augustine, to Thomas, to the reformation period, through the break typified by Duhm, and on to Lohfink, Dohmen and Levin. I'm glad I took the time out to read through it today. Somebody needs to publish the thing soon!

Tags: St Andrews, Theological Exegesis

Early tomorrow I depart for home (hooray! it's been too long!), and I'm leaving the blog behind until I get back from SBL. So with an eye to SBL already, I offer a few top picks after a glance through the program guide. It's massive, so I'm sure to have missed something. The first things that stand out to me fall into four groups:

1. Giants of the Recent Past
2. Psalms
3. Theological Exegesis
4. Canon

Giants of the Recent Past

The Brevard Childs session has collected quite a list of participants:

Christopher Seitz, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Presiding
Gary Anderson, University of Notre Dame, Panelist
Erhard Gerstenberger, Philipps Universität-Marburg, Panelist
Richard Hays, Duke University, Panelist
Alan Cooper, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Panelist
Kavin Rowe, Duke University, Panelist
Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Panelist
Ephraim Radner, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Panelist

That's 11/18/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Room: 30 E - CC.

And a session for James Barr was more recently put together, with the following panelists:

Samuel Balentine, Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, Presiding
William Abraham, Southern Methodist University, Panelist
Joseph Blenkinsopp, University of Notre Dame, Panelist
Douglas Knight, Vanderbilt University, Panelist
Archie Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Panelist
Mervyn Richardson, Leiden University-The Netherlands, Panelist

Meets 11/19/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM, Room: Manchester A - GH.

Psalms

In addition to my own session (and see a new translation of Psalm 102 on this site), I noticed two sessions in particular.

S19-83, Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, in a joint session between Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity and Book of Psalms, meets 11/19/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM, Room: 28 D - CC. The Theme is Psalms in Judaism and Christianity: Studies in the History of Interpretation of the Psalter, and the schedule is:

Esther Menn, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Presiding
Medieval Jewish Psalms Interpretation
Adele Berlin, University of Maryland College Park, Panelist (30 min)
Alan Cooper, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Panelist (30 min)
Moshe Bernstein, Yeshiva University, Respondent (10 min)
Heidelberg Psalms Project
Manfred Oeming, Panelist (20 min)
Andreas Wagner, University of Heidelberg, Panelist (20 min)
Joachim Vette, Panelist (20 min)
Discussion (20 min)

A second joint session of the same groups, S19-126, also on Psalms in Early Judaism and Christianity, meets 11/19/2007, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Room: 23 B - CC. Participants:

Rolf Jacobson, Luther Seminary, Presiding
Scott R. A. Starbuck, Whitworth University
Afterlives of Royal Psalm Lyrics (30 min)
Tze-Ming Quek, University of Cambridge
"I will Give Authority over the Nations": Psalm 2:8-9 in Revelatiom 2:26c-27 (30 min)
Scot Becker, University of Aberdeen
The Magnificat among the Biblical Inset Psalms (30 min)
Aaron Canty, Saint Xavier University
The Nuptial Imagery of Christ and the Church in Augustine's "Enarrationes in Psalmos" (30 min)
Janet A. Timbie, Catholic University of America
Psalm Recitation in the White Monastery (30 min)

Theological Exegesis

In this category session S17-28, Theological Interpretation and the Canon of Scripture, could go into two of my categories. Hopefully the separation from Sanders and McDonald (see below) will not truncate dialog between the groups. This session meets 11/17/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Manchester F - GH. The agenda is:

Edith Humphrey, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Presiding
Stephen B. Chapman, Duke University
The Canon Debate: What It Is and Why It Matters (20 min)
Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Spring Arbor University, Respondent (10 min)
Discussion (15 min)
Daniel J. Treier, Wheaton College
A Looser "Canon"?: Relating William Abraham’s Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology to Biblical Interpretation (20 min)
William Abraham, Southern Methodist University, Respondent (10 min)
Discussion (15 min)
Richard Paul Thompson, Northwest Nazarene University
Scripture, Community, and Conversation: Rethinking Theological Interpretation Canonically (20 min)
Jacqueline Lapsley, Princeton Theological Seminary, Respondent (10 min)
Discussion (15 min)

Papers were to be posted at http://fc.asburyseminary.edu/~theological_interpretation/index.html — but I can't get the link to work.

S17-82, on Christ in/and the Old Testament, is notable. It meets 11/17/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Room: Cunningham - GH. The lineup is:

Christopher Seitz, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Presiding (10 min)
Kathryn Greene-Mccreight, St John's Episcopal Church, Panelist (10 min)
Robert Wall, Seattle Pacific University, Panelist (10 min)
John Goldingay, Fuller Theological Seminary, Panelist (10 min)
Christopher Wright, Langham Partnership International, Panelist (10 min)
Murray Rae, University of Otago, Panelist (10 min)
Discussion (45 min)

S17-130, on Reading the Book of Genesis Theologically as Christian Scripture, meets 11/17/2007, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Room: 28 C - CC. Lineup:

Bill Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary, Presiding
J. Richard Middleton, Roberts Wesleyan College
The Significance of the Call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) for a Canonical Reading of Scripture (30 min)
Discussion (15 min)
R. R. Reno, Creighton University
Satan, Temptation, and the Fall (30 min)
Discussion (15 min)
Jeffrey L. Morrow, University of Dayton
Genesis 1-3 in a Liturgical Context: The Role of Liturgy in Christian Theological Interpretation of Scripture (30 min)
Discussion (15 min)

S19-138 is a book review session of Christopher R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Baker Academic, 2007), meeting 11/19/2007, 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM, Room: Santa Rosa - MM. Reviewers and respondent are:

Gary Anderson, University of Notre Dame, Presiding
Martti Nissinen, University of Helsinki, Panelist
David Petersen, Emory University, Panelist
Marvin Sweeney, Claremont School of Theology, Panelist
Christopher Seitz, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Respondent

Finally, S20-04, under Christian Theology and the Bible, considers New Proposals in Christian Theology and Bible. It meets 11/20/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Randle A - GH, and features:

Stephen Fowl, Loyola College in Maryland , Presiding (10 min)
Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland
Theological Insights on and from Leviticus 1-7 (30 min)
Gregory W. Lee, Duke University
Calvin and the New Perspective: Covenant as Ground for a Nuanced View of the Law (30 min)
Break (10 min)
Clayton Libolt, River Terrace Church
A Conversation with Nicholas Wolterstorff's Divine Discourse (30 min)
George C. Heider, Valparaiso University
Atonement and the Gospels (30 min)

I also just noticed an early session, S16-55, The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, which meets 11/16/2007, 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM, Room: 28 A - CC. On tap are:

Michael Bird, Highland Theological College
The Faith of Jesus Christ: Problems and Prospects (15 min)
Stanley Porter, McMaster Divinity College
Lexical and Semantic Reflections on Pistis (30 min)
Douglas Campbell, Duke University
The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (30 min)
Preston Sprinkle, Aberdeen University
Pistis Christou as an Eschatological Event (30 min)
Break (15 min)
Ardel Caneday, Northwestern College, St. Paul
The Faithfulness of Jesus as a Theme of Pauline Theology (30 min)
Francis Watson, University of Aberdeen - Scotland
The Faith of Jesus Christ (30 min)
R. Barry Matlock, University of Sheffield
The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (30 min)
Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland
The Faith of Jesus Christ in the Church Fathers (30 min)
Benjamin Myers, University of Queensland
The Faithfulness of Christ in the Theology of Karl Barth (30 min)

Canon

The last of these three sessions is the one I'm most looking forward to, though as I say I hope the physical separation from the first session under Theological Exegesis, above, doesn't mean the groups wind up talking to themselves.

S17-25, Rethinking the Concept and Categories of 'Bible' in Antiquity, meets 11/17/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Salon 5 - MM. Participants:

James E. Bowley, Millsaps College, Presiding
K. L. Noll, Brandon University
Rethinking Literary Function in the Emerging Hebrew Canon (25 min)
Francis Borchardt, University of Helsinki
Concepts of Scripture in 1 Maccabees (25 min)
Ian W. Scott, Tyndale Seminary
Is the Bible always Scripture?: The "Low" View of the Pentateuch in the Letter of Aristeas (25 min)
Sara Parks, McGill University and Aaron Ricker, McGill University
Harry Potter Canon Discourse and the Biblical Canons (25 min)
Robert A. Kraft, University of Pennsylvania
Finding Adequate Terminology for "Pre-canonical" Literatures (25 min)
James E. Bowley, Millsaps College
Terminating Terminology (25 min)

S17-119, Orality, Textuality, and the Formation of the Hebrew Bible, meets 11/17/2007, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Room: Del Mar A - GH, to discuss the theme Rethinking Business as Usual in Light of Orality and Textuality. On tap:

Susan Niditch, Amherst College, Presiding
Joachim Schaper, University of Aberdeen
The Textualisation of Israelite Religion in the Context of the "Orality and Literacy" Debate (30 min)
Frank Polak, Tel Aviv University
The Voiced Text in the Hebrew Bible: From Epic Song to Biblical Narrative and Midrashic Exegesis (30 min)
William M. Schniedewind, University of California-Los Angeles
Rethinking Inner-biblical Exegesis and Biblical Criticism in Light of Orality & Textuality (30 min)
Werner H. Kelber, Rice University
Implications of the Oral-Scribal Approach to Tanach Studies (30 min)
Discussion (30 min)

And finally, S19-16, Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and Early Christianity (through 3rd to 4th centuries CE), meets 11/19/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Manchester H - GH, on the theme Theoretical Issues. The schedule is:

Lee Martin McDonald, Acadia Divinity College, Presiding
James A. Sanders, Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center
Non-Masoretic Literature in Early Judaism and its Function in the New Testament (20 min)
Craig Evans, Acadia Divinity College, Respondent (5 min)
Discussion (5 min)
James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary
The Book of the People from the People of the Book (20 min)
Discussion (5 min)
Lee Martin McDonald, Acadia Divinity College
What Do We Mean by "Canon"?: A Look at Some Ancient and Modern Questions (20 min)
Loren Johns, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Respondent (5 min)
Discussion (5 min)
Ken M. Penner, Acadia Divinity College
Citation Formulae as Indices to Canonicity in Early Jewish and Early Christian Literature (20 min)
Jonathan Soyars, Princeton Theological Seminary, Respondent (5 min)
Discussion (5 min)
Sarah L. Schwarz, Haverford College
Pseudepigrapha Among the Pagans?: Exploring the Boundaries of Audience (20 min)
Discussion (5 min)

If you're going to be there, look for me and say hello.

Tags: Childs, Psalms, Theological Exegesis, Canon

John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry has recently performed a deep crawl of blogs related to the Bible. His attempts to map them have garnered some attention (Iyov wonders, "what am I?") and if the attempt is open to challenge, I can at least note with gratitude my own inclusion.

Yesterday John cataloged a few bloggers indebted to Childs in a post preliminary to the final mapping, which he later followed up with a charge to let canonical exegesis take a wider view. One worry of his may be that conversation in this camp (if it is even proper to speak of such a thing) is insular. He writes, "It bothers me when Bible blogdom becomes a monologue among like-minded Christians." John does a good job taking his own advice, however, and omits to name names:

Scholar-bloggers fall into two categories. Those that keep a blogroll and interact with a community of other bloggers, and those that don't. Those that don't abuse the genre. Here is a list of the worst offenders: [omitted by a thoughtful editor].

The complaint leveled at canonical exegesis links to B. Sommer's review of Michael Fishbane's Haftarot commentary to reinforce the point that canonical reading should learn from Jewish as well as Christian history of reception.

I confess that I try to keep something of a low profile as a blogger, not for fear of conflict, but because as an impoverished grad student time is about the only commodity I have to my name. Having had a Childs-related (because research-related) online presence for not quite three years, it was with bemusement, but not envy, that I noted Phil's success in launching a vigorous debate about Childsean hermeneutics just this September. I have followed the discussion there as best I can, but have confined myself mostly to posting links in my sidebar/blogroll. In Phil's own words, "I've been having online dialogues of the most colossal proportions. So involved, in fact, that I have no time or energy to write anything substantial today." Which is a major reason I've had to keep my distance.

Nevertheless, John's post managed to draw me out this morning. I have commented on it already (with a PS), and I repeat my remarks here as well, in part so I can link them up:

Hi John,

I have been very reluctant to get drawn into the debates that have recently surfaced online even though, as you note in the sidebar, there has been some "astoundingly thoughtful comment." That's because (a) I'm working against several deadlines at the moment, (b) I've been working on the particular problem of Childs' reception too long probably, so little seems fresh on the Q to me, and (c) I have some doubts about blogs as a medium for advancing the state of the Q here when so much energy has been expended on it in more traditional media over the last 2.5 decades. Also, though the reasons why I was drawn to my PhD topic are complex and rightly point to an appreciation of Childs' work on my part, this is not uncritical. I find myself wondering about how to get out from under this first project in the next.

Nevertheless, you have drawn me. I'm still facing immanent deadlines, so I'll have to get to it.

James makes a good point, and so do you, John, in response. It has often been claimed that Childs frequently changes his mind (so Barr above all, but by no means exclusively), and typically I think this perception has been overstated. On this precise point, it is unquestionably true that Childs had to rethink some of his initial work on what he calls "the mystery of Israel" (see chapter 4 of my forthcoming dissertation). Fishbane is a great figure to bring up at this juncture.

Rolf Rendtorff, as a self-professed Christian canonical reader, is another. He fell out with Childs over precisely this issue (see his review of BTONT in JBTh 9). I don't know if you've seen his Leviticus commentary yet, but it represents a career-long effort to give the Jewish reception of the Hebrew Bible its due. For Rendtorff this is an imperative for Christians reading the OT.

On the other hand, though Childs moved from talk of midrash (Jewish in his view) to allegory (the traditional Christian reading strategy—I know that can sound over simple, but its how he sees it), he still strove to be a student of the Jewish tradition. When I interviewed him in Cambridge I pushed him exactly here. Why no midrash anymore? His answer came out as advice to a student—you'll never master the material; trust me, I've tried. Also, Jewish readers themselves don't agree on these things.

To my mind the best further reading here is Childs' 1999 essay "The Almost Forgotten Genesis Commentary of Benno Jacob." Not only does it tell the the story of Jacob's Genesis commentary, it also alludes to Jacob's Exodus commentary, which Childs used heavily in his own commentary of 1974. The astonishing thing is that Childs, when in Jerusalem [in 1963], secured a copy of the then almost unknown manuscript and brought it back to Yale. He was making serious use of it decades before it was printed (first in English translation [1992], and only very recently in its German original [1997]). There is a deep commitment to Jewish readings which really never leaves, even though he gains clarity over the years on what an explicitly Christian reading of the tradition entails.

Personally I haven't sorted out where I stand on these issues. At the seminar paper I gave on the topic last week there seemed to be quite a bit of sympathy for Rendtorff's position over against Childs'. Still, the latter is (in a sense) the lectio difficilior. Should a Jewish and Christian scholar really come to different results on that basis? (If no, why not?) I agree with your general point, however. It would be ironic indeed if Childs became a warrant for "canonical readers," what ever that may mean, to neglect Jewish reception in preference for Christian. Fortunately, some of the best theological readers today (who follow Childs at times and do not follow Childs) avoid this: Walter Moberly, Markus Bockmuehl, etc.

Incidentally, I also agree with your comment on Cook's blog about the neglected works. The only real Wirkung the NT Intro got seems to have been among Roman Catholic scholars in Germany. And James Kugel explicitly mentioned the sensus literalis essay in his respectful comments at the small Childs session at SBL Vienna this summer, but who has worked with it seriously?

I'm quite happy for any discussion of this to continue on John's page, where it originates, but I did want to put my answer in a broader context as well.

I might add, too, that my focus on Childs of late is born of at least three things: his recent passing, my work locating his, and an increasing reluctance to speak too far beyond my competence. I do think the scope of Occasional Publications will broaden once I dig into the next project.

Tags: Childs, Theological Exegesis, Midrash

In preparing for the seminar discussion I'm leading tomorrow, I dug up some papers I haven't looked at for a while, including the very rare transcript of Karl Barth and the Future of Theology: A Memorial Colloquium Held at Yale Divinity School January 28, 1969—held barely a month after Barth passed away. Brevard Childs and Hans Frei were among the panelists.

Charles Scalise made a lot of the piece in his dissertation on Childs and Barth (1987), and again in a follow-up article in SJT 47 (1994): 61–88, which has sometimes been cited by those wishing to criticize Childs by associating him with Barth. (The Childs essay in question is: “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture.” Pages 30-39 in Karl Barth and the Future of Theology. Edited by D. L. Dickerman. New Haven: Yale Divinity School Association, 1969. When I first tried to get my hands on it, the librarian at St Andrews told me there was no copy in Britain.)

Childs' essay was reworked in 1989, though it remains unpublished. (It was pulled out again at the Beecher lectures, where Childs filled in for Lee Keck, who had been in a car accident.) But what Scalise, and to my knowledge everybody else too, fails to mention about the YDS colloquium volume is that, at the back, it includes a transcript of the Q&A which followed the paper session.

It's really illuminating stuff. A while back I OCRed it (it appears to have been transcribed from a cassette tape by a research assistant way back). As I think virtually nobody has seen this, and it's chatty and informal, and it highlights a number of important points, I'm posting the script here.

Points of note:

1. Childs lines up with Frei (indeed, partly learns from Frei) on "the heart of the problem: that for Calvin, the sensus literalis IS Jesus Christ. And it was only when you have the eighteenth century identification of the literal sense with the historical sense that you’re just hopelessly lost."
   
   
2. When they say this (Frei: "That's right.") nobody knows what they're talking about.
   
   
3. Allegorical readings can't be dismissed out of hand for either Childs or Frei.
   
   
4. But when it comes down to a few finer details, Childs differs from Frei on the matter of reference.
   
   
5. Specifically, for Childs the "ontology" issue at stake means "the scope of the canon; namely, the reality which is in dialectic with the text, defined by its canonical context. I don’t see how you can avoid a dialectic between text and reality, in some sort."
   
   
6. For Childs, this is why "the new hermeneutic is not only mistaken, but it one colossal cul de sac."
   
   
7. 1969 is incredibly early—the year before Childs' Biblical Theology in Crisis, and five years before Frei's Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.

The full discussion (minus a few digressions):

STUDENT: I have a question. You’ve commented tonight on the truthfulness of Barth’s use of scripture. You’ve commented on the wide-ranging homiletical force of much of his writing. But when you look at it closely enough in some respects in some places, it is not textually predicated or warranted sometimes, and may even sometimes be allegorical. How do you appropriate, still, some of this live genius that’s there, and yet at the same time remain more controlled by the text? That would probably be one question.

And the second question would be, Do you see any person on the horizon who shows promise of being as crucial, as forceful, and yet takes more seriously what the text is saying—controlling himself at this point more than Barth?

BREVARD CHILDS: Well it seems to me for the last twenty or thirty years people have been trying to combine the orthodoxy of Barth with the historical-critical approach. It seems to me that this enterprise has now come to and end and has proven unfruitful—that you are now at the turn of the road, you have to go either right or left; that the type of move that said Barth is right in seeing theological dimension, but now we have to take history more seriously and bring in the whole baggage—I don’t think this can—

In other words, I’m suggesting that the problem is far deeper than this. It’s a problem that certainly didn’t just arise with Barth. (And much of what I’ve learned about this has come from talking with Hans Frei.) But it has often bothered and puzzled me. You see, when you read Calvin, he fights against the whole medieval tradition by saying it’s the sensus literails that counts—it’s the literal sense—and you have page after page against the whole church dogma. But then you read Calvin on the Old Testament, and here’s Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ. How could it possibly be? And everybody just says that Calvin is just inconsistent.

It seems to me that this doesn’t at all touch the heart of the problem: that for Calvin, the sensus literalis IS Jesus Christ. And it was only when you have the eighteenth century identification of the literal sense with the historical sense that you’re just hopelessly lost. And it seems to me that it’s something along that line—that we’ve just been unable to understand what Barth is doing.

HANS FREI: That’s right.

JULIAN HARTT: Would you mind repeating that?

CHILDS: It sounds better in German, though.

STUDENT: Is it something we can do today?

FREI: Sure, because you see [tape unintelligible] in his exegesis he’s looking at the text. He’s not looking through the text at the person who wrote it. He is, I think, a highly literal reader—what’s set before you there—whereas I noticed that one goes back (in questioning his exegesis) constantly to and earlier version of Barth that he pretty clearly forsook very soon: namely, the Barth for whom the letter became transparent and pointed him to something deeper, something else.

I think, because one thing about Barth is that he’s very much controlled by the letter—no spirit without letter—very much controlled by the letter, and in regard to that and historical criticism, he simply made the move: when you’re doing historical criticism, you’re doing a pretty fine thing, I’m sure. But it’s just logically different from reading the text, burrowing under it, and cropping out all over it, lots of nice things. And I’m sure that there’s an awful lot of illumination to be gained by that. But you’re not reading the text, you see. Barth reads the text. It cannot be qualified with other things.

In Scripture we know that when we read a story, a historical investigation of the story is a very good thing to do. But we need to know how that text works, what’s in the text. And though we have a hard time describing how we do that, in fact when we compare about what we think it says we often find that we can agree on things, and I think fundamentally it is as simple as that. That’s how it works for Barth.

SALIERS: . . . [But the] assumption that we can treat things as a literary whole which gives us a certain critical concept of literalness, which we can then employ, is a thing that the Biblical people, at least the ones who knit their brows when you said that, are probably worrying about.

CHILDS: Well, it’s a real problem. I wouldn’t go quite with Hans in this direction. It seems to me that the problem came up very early in church history when Jerome attempted to translate the Bible from Hebrew. Augustine called him into question. He said the New Testament and the Church is receiving the Old Testament in terms of the Septuagint, and therefore this is the context and there’s no use going behind it. You can’t go behind it. And Jerome of course just killed him at this point in defending the need for seeing the original context.

Here, it seems to me that both had a point. Obviously, Augustine was right in taking seriously the fact that the Old Testament had taken another form and had assumed another context by being passed through the Septuagint. But Jerome obviously was right in claiming that the next context of the church did not obliterate the older context in which it was seen. In other words, what I’m saying is that the problem that remains the most thorny one is how the various contexts relate. And Barth, in criticizing the historical critics’ insistence that you read the original context but take seriously the theological-confessional context, it seems to me, is in the danger—just as Augustine—of obliterating the need for dealing with the original context.

[. . . After a few minutes, the discussion returns to Childs’ differences with Frei.]

CHILDS: But you see [Barth] doesn’t use the term “context,” but he talks about the canon, namely: that Scripture is the apostolic, prophetic testimony all linked together. Don’t go behind this, don’t separate it. And this is a context; in other words, this is a theological context—

ROBERT JOHNSON: You’re speaking, then, of the historical context that Barth says is in the word “history.”

CHILDS: No, no. That’s the whole point: that Barth objects to everyone who does this.

JOHNSON: So, from the point of view of what Hans is arguing, what he’s really talking about is not the historical context but the literary context.

CHILDS: That’s where Hans and I differ somewhat. I move in a little different direction here. In other words, it seems to me that there are problems when you get—I would agree fully with Hans when he’s combatting those historical critics who would want to go behind the text, but it’s interesting when you begin to deal with the narrative text, as a context. One has to keep in mind that the early church, in the controversy with Judaism, took quite a different move. When the Jews were saying, read the text! read the text!, the Christians said, there’s something behind the text. It’s what the text points to, namely: Jesus Christ. And there was a dialectic between the reality and the text.

It seems to me, what buttresses this from getting into the kind of ontology you’re talking about is the scope of the canon; namely, the reality which is in dialectic with the text, defined by its canonical context. I don’t see how you can avoid a dialectic between text and reality, in some sort.

[. . . The conversation turns to a student, Johnson and Frei momentarily.]

CHILDS: It seems to me that this question about the Jesus that Paul—excuse me, that Barth—raises, was very much a part of the mood of the early churchmen. They are concerned: How do you know what the Old Testament is talking about? You hear the Gospel; that is, the dialectic between old and new. Who is Jesus? You don’t get it just from reading the narrative of the Gospel. That’s the whole point that the early church worked on: He’s the Servant; He’s Suffering Israel; He’s the eye of the Sun; all this sort of thing. It seems to me, therefore, that I fully agree that the new hermeneutic is not only mistaken, but it one colossal cul de sac.

[This is Childs’ last comment for the evening.]

Tags: Childs, Theological Exegesis, Frei, St Andrews

David Congdon, currently editor of the Princeton Theological Review (and from further back my wife's cousin), has announced a call for papers relating to theological exegesis. I quote from his blog:

The Spring 2008 issue of the Princeton Theological Review will be on the topic of “theological exegesis,” and we are currently accepting submissions. The PTR is a journal of evangelical theology which seeks to be academically rigorous, ecumenically sensitive, and ecclesially faithful. The current PTR is a student-run manifestation of the old PTR that was originally founded by Charles Hodge in the 19th century. We have a national and international readership, and the journal is held at a number of theological institutions.

If you are interested in submitting to the PTR for our spring issue on theological exegesis, see our submission guidelines. Articles should be between 5000-7000 words, though we can be flexible with the length if necessary. Articles can be works of original theological exegesis, or discussions of the work of others. We especially welcome any articles focusing on the work and legacy of Brevard Childs. If you would like, submissions may be sent directly to me (via email link in my profile) or to the executive editor at ptr-at-ptsem.edu.

In addition to articles, we also accept reflections on the chosen theme and sermons that demonstrate theological exegesis at work in a pastoral context. Reflections (and sermons, if possible) should range between 1200-2000 words.

I for one will be submitting a piece on Childs (who else?). Those with interest should contact either David or PTR's executive editor.

Tags: Childs, Theological Exegesis

Next Wednesday (24 October, 9:15 a.m.), at the Scripture and Theology seminar here, I am giving a paper and leading a discussion on the topic of Brevard Childs and his followers.

Discussion will proceed on the basis of my paper and two readings, circulated in advance. The first and more involved of these is G. T. Sheppard's introduction to a Puritan commentary he edited for re-publication.  Toward the end it picks up the issue the seminar discussed yesterday—whether there is an alternative to "story" for coordinating our exegetical efforts.

•Sheppard, Gerald T. “Between Reformation and Modern Commentary: the Perception of the Scope of Biblical Books.” Pages xlviii-lxxvii in A Commentary on Galatians, William Perkins. Edited by Gerald T Sheppard. Pilgrim Classic Commentaries New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989.

The second is a short piece by C. Seitz—I think originally a review of Childs' 1992 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments.  Among other things, it gives some feel for the minority position Childs' followers feel themselves to be in.

•Seitz, Christopher R. “'We Are Not Prophets or Apostles': The Biblical Theology of B. S. Childs.” Pages 102–109 in Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

If you are not a usual participant but wish to come along—on the condition I guess that you are also reasonably near St Andrews—contact me and I can circulate the readings.

Tags: Childs, Theological Exegesis, St Andrews