Some DBH

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2007/12/christ-and-nothing

I can't help it. I do think David Bentley Hart is fantastic. I know there are all the DBH fanboys, especially in the apologetics arena, but I think he's more interesting when he's talking about heidegger and nietzsche and the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The linked essay Christ and Nothing is about as good as it gets. I really recommend reading it in the eerdmans published collection of DBH essays 'In the Aftermath'. On a side note, First Things is a fantastic rag.

'This slave is the Father’s eternal Word, whom God has vindicated, and so ten thousand immemorial certainties are unveiled as lies: the first become last, the mighty are put down from their seats and the lowly exalted, the hungry are filled with good things while the rich are sent empty away. Nietzsche was quite right to be appalled.'

Theological Interpretation Part 3

(1) TIS is a reactionary movement

To understand TIS it is important to recognise that it is, at least in part, a reactionary movement. TIS practitioners express disillusionment with the longstanding dominance of historical criticism as well as the more recent prevalence of ideological criticism in the academy.¹ Neither of these options are seen as accommodating of theological readings of Scripture that presuppose a relatively conservative-confessional view of the Bible. The emphasis placed on discovering 'what actually happened' behind the biblical texts, and interpreting everything in terms of naturalistic human phenomena that is typical of historical-critical approaches has led to a situation where attempting to read the Bible as the word of God is seen as leaping from the realm of reason to the opposing realm of grace.² At the other end of the spectrum, the rise of ideological or advocacy criticism is seen to have resulted in the relativising of all interpretations. According to Kevin Vanhoozer, such an approach emphasizes the location of the reader, and typically denies that one can escape the interpretative constraints of their own context, be it history, culture, class or gender. In a very oversimplified sense, the goal of interpreting Scripture is to discover its meaning for the interpretative community. On this view, the plurality of possible interpretations are not adjudicated by any independent or absolute standards for determining which are acceptable, right or even true. Consequently, even historical-critical approaches are seen as merely one ideologically informed perspective amongst the many.³ The result of this is that the chasm between biblical studies (conceived in historical-critical terms) and theology has been widened.

In response, theological interpreters seek to bring biblical studies and theology into closer dialogue and mutual inter-dependence, whilst avoiding the excesses of both historical-critical and ideological approaches to the Bible. At the same time, TIS aims to place biblical interpretation back in the hands of the Church and away from the naturalistic impulse of the academic realm. At this stage, however, the influence of TIS seems to have been limited almost entirely to the academy.⁴

As with any trends that emerge in response to problems, theological interpreters run two risks. Firstly, some TIS authors are more cogent when highlighting the weaknesses of the positions they oppose – usually historical-criticism – than when advancing a positive description of TIS.⁵ Secondly, reactionary movements tend to involve some degree of caricaturing their opposition. The extent to which TIS practitioners do this, especially with regard to historical-critical approaches will be assessed in the second part of this study. At least in principle, however, TIS does not reject the practising of historical, literary, grammatical or sociological methods. They will all to varying degrees be appropriated by different theological interpreters, but as Christopher Spinks observes, with theology as the principle interest, these other practices take on 'a cooperative, pragmatic or secondary role.'⁶ In this respect, TIS need not be seen as a replacement for other interpretative postures, but as something additive, or as a reordering of existing methods under a new framework. If theological interpreters are to convince others of the merits of their trajectory, their handling of historical and ideological criticism needs to be accurate and fair, and they must be committed to a careful appropriation of any benefits that such views offer.

1Robert L. Plummer, 40 Questions About Interpreting the Bible (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2010), 314.

2Kevin J. Vanhoozer, “Introduction: What is Theological Interpretation of the Bible?” in Dictionary for the

Theological Interpretation of the Bible, ed. Kevin J. Vanhoozer, 20 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005).

3Ibid., 21.

4Charlie Trimm, “Evangelicals, Theology, and Biblical Interpretation: Reflections on the Theological Interpretation

of Scripture,” Bulletin For Biblical Research 20, no. 3 (2010): 312.

5This is of course a subjective point based on this writer's reading of the literature. An example of this problem is

Stephen E. Fowl. Theological Interpretation of Scripture: A Short Introduction (London: Paternoster, 2010).

6D. Christopher Spinks, The Bible and the Crisis of Meaning: Debates on the Theological Interpretation of Scripture

(London: T&T Clark, 2007), 6.

Theological Interpretation Part 2

Part 1

What is the Theological Interpretation of Scripture?

If agreement on how to define the various theological disciplines such as biblical or systematic theology is notoriously elusive,¹ theological interpretation of Scripture (TIS) is no easier. Firstly, TIS proponents consider the practice of theological interpretation to be an ancient Christian practice, whereas 'TIS' as a recognisable movement is a very recent label adopted by a handful of scholars.² Moreover, not all who practice theological interpretation have adopted the label TIS, even though they interact with TIS and are working towards similar ends.³ Other terms such as theological exegesis, theological hermeneutics, theological commentary, and theological interpretation of the Bible appear in the relevant literature, but these terms are understood to be fairly interchangeable with theological interpretation. For the sake of consistency the different expressions will be referred to under the heading 'TIS', or as the practice of theological interpretation. A second reason for definitional confusion is because TIS, as Don Carson points out, 'is a partly disparate movement... partly a disorganized array of methodological commitments in hermeneutics.'⁴ If this sounds overly dismissive, TIS advocate Joel Green comments, 'no particular methodological commitments will guarantee that a reading of a biblical text exemplifies “theological interpretation”.'⁵ That is to say, TIS describes a set of interpretative aims and shared motivations that can accommodate a variety of methods advanced by individual practitioners.⁶ Thirdly, TIS eludes convenient definition due to the recent rise in TIS literature. Because practitioners are still in the process of clarifying and advancing theological interpretation the advantage of historical perspective is not yet available.⁷

Given the apparent difficulty with defining the theological interpretation movement, the best way forward will be to identify its key features and offer some critical comments. Following this, a working definition of TIS will be proposed.

1Max Turner and Joel B. Green, “New Testament Commentary and Systematic Theology: Strangers of Friends?” in

Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology, eds. Max Turner and Joel B.

Green, 12 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000).

2The label 'TIS' appears to originate with Stephen Fowl in The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Classic and

Contemporary Readings, ed. Stephen E. Fowl (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997).

3E.g. Markus Bockmuehl, Seeing The Word: Refocussing New Testament Study (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006).

4D. A. Carson, “Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Yes, But...” in Theological Commentary: Evangelical

Perspectives, ed. R. Michael Allen, 187 (London: Continuum, 2011).

5Joel B. Green, Practicing Theological Interpretation: Engaging Biblical Texts for Faith and Formation (Grand

Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 3.

6Ibid., 2.

7R. W. L. Moberly, "What is Theological Interpretation of Scripture?" JTI 3, no. 2 (2009): 161. As well as a vast

amount of recent literature, two study groups dedicated to TIS now meet at the Society of Biblical Literature, and two

theological commentary series have gained momentum – The Two Horizons Old Testament Commentary, eds. J Gordon

McConville and Craig Bartholomew (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008-); The Two Horizons New Testament

Commentary, eds. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005-); Brazos Theological Commentary

on the Bible, ed. R R Reno et al. (Grand Rapids: Brazos, 2005-).

Theological Interpretation part 1

Disclaimer - This is a reproduction of my MA dissertation from two years ago. It is not peer reviewed etc.. mistakes and misrepresentations are my own, as is the clunky writing style and failings in grammar and so on.

The place of Historical Criticism in the Theological Interpretation of Scripture: A Critical Assessment

Recent years have seen a growing interest in the theological interpretation of Scripture (henceforth, TIS) within biblical and theological scholarship. This interest is largely a response to the longstanding bifurcation of biblical studies and theology common to both secular academic departments and Christian seminaries. Whereas biblical scholarship since the late eighteenth century - the so called 'critical' era – typically sought to rid biblical studies of the constraining influence of Christian dogma, those in favour of theological interpretation claim that the Bible should first and foremost be read as the Christian Scripture, through which God speaks today.

The first part of this study will answer the question: 'What is the theological interpretation of Scripture?' This will be done by critically discussing six central features of TIS, distilled from the writings of its key practitioners. The second part of the study will focus on the relationship between theological interpretation and historical criticism. It will be argued that TIS is incompatible with historical criticism insofar as the latter assumes an anti-theological or anti-faith agenda. However, it will be argued that TIS has not yet provided a satisfactory account of how theological interpretation can constructively engage with historical enquiry that is not anti-theological. A case will also be made that the extent to which TIS authors value historical criticism, and history more generally, largely depends on how they view textual 'meaning'. Finally, in concluding it will be argued that historical concerns should be of great importance to TIS, and some suggestions will be made for how TIS might better appropriate the insights of historical criticism.