I took two other classes during the last semester, but the class I took in January fits much better with my last post, so I'm going to take a look at this one first.
The class I took was Issues in the Theology of Scripture, a class which, according to the professor, was aimed at bridging the gap between Biblical Studies and Theology. I was really excited for this class, since one's view of Scripture affects so much of one's methodology in theological inquiry. In order to do theology, you have to know where to get your information, and Scripture is (obviously) the primary (perhaps only) source of this sort of knowledge for Christians.
Given the importance of the topic, its shocking to me that this was the first time the class has ever been taught at PTS. Surely students have been forced to form their thinking about Scripture before 2009. Scripture is so foundational, how could we not have a class where we explore what we want to say and believe concerning Scripture?
The class itself was enjoyable, if a bit confused at times. Like I said, it was the first time it was taught and it showed. I felt that a few days were wasted here and there, and some topics covered likely reflected the area of "comfort scholarship" (to make up a term) for the professor. Shane Berg is a NT and 2nd Temple Judaism scholar, and so we spent some time with the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. He is a fantastic prof (either my favorite or second favorite I've had so far), but it was difficult in my mind to justify the time we spent on his pet areas.
I gained several important insights through this class, which should serve me in good stead going forward. First, Dr. Berg offered some very encouraging and helpful insights into the nature of textual variants, different textual traditions, and the state of textual criticism in general. Basically, I feel like my confidence in the basic reliability of the NT is largely justified, even if there are minors issues with bits and pieces. These discrepancies can't be ignored, but neither are they nearly significant enough to derail my faith in and use of the Scriptures.
Second, I was exposed to the deep gulf which lies between the fields of Biblical Studies and Theology. Biblical Studies departments are lucky it the OT and NT faculty enter into substantial dialogue; discussion between the Systematic Theologians and the Biblical Scholars is even less likely. Theologians are also guilty, or at least can be, for they often fail to make use of or acknowledge the helpful and important findings of biblical scholarship. The result is Biblical Scholars who fail to recognize the unique nature of Scripture and fail to study the Bible with this uniqueness in mind (I view this as a fault, others do not) and thus study of the Christian Bible ceases to be Christian at all, or Systematic Theologians who fail to deal adequately with the serious challenges and insights of Biblical Scholarship. Neither is an enticing option. Morever, both have a dubious relationship with historians and historical inquiry (I tend to see this more as an issue in Biblical Studies, but I'm sure it exists everywhere), with the result that scholars make historical claims which go beyond the scope of legitimate historical inquiry.
I also gained some new language for how I would speak about the basic nature of the Biblical writings and reaffirmed my personal bias for focusing upon the canonization of Biblical writings as opposed to the original authorship of those writings, but that would require a much longer explanation and I want to get to a thought that I've been pondering ever since I encountered it in this class.
One assignment we were given was a case study centered around Joshua 6, the conquering of Jericho. We had a panel of professors come in and speak, and the case study was put to them. Joshua 6 is a hot bed of various issues (the command to kill everyone comes to mind), but the one I'm concerned with is the historicity of this story. Scholars and archaeologists struggle with this story, citing various bits of evidence that lead many to the conclusion that the story couldn't have happened historically the way described in Scripture. When asked about the meaning of this passage, my OT prof from the previous semester gave a wonderful exegesis of the passage which he called the "plain sense" (a term historically loaded) of the passage. Basically, he took the story at face value and drew out a beautiful lesson (I could have used a bit more of this in OT, by the way, but that's a different quarrel).
My question for him afterwards was how he justified this reading if he didn't believe that the story really happened (I'm fairly certain he doesn't, but I don't know for sure). I thought his answer was intriguing, and I want to see what anyone who has persevered thus far thinks about it.
His response, basically, was that the justification for viewing this story as true lay not with the historical event, but with the historical community. If Jericho never happened, for him it doesn't change or illegitimize the "plain sense" reading of the text which he presented. The community of believers told this story to illustrate and teach about the sort of God they served, a God who works powerfully for those who obey (or something similar, the exact reading of this passage is beside the point). The justification for the teaching embodied by this story is that the community experienced this God and continued to use the story to explain the power of God they had experienced in different yet similar ways. The historical justification and basis of the teaching need not be the event described, but could possibly be the historical experience of the community of believers embodied by the story.
So, for my OT professor (Dr. Olson), if a Biblical story were proven to be historically inaccurate it wouldn't render the teaching illegitimate nor would it eradicate the historical basis for that teaching. The point of the story is to teach something about God, humanity, and the relationship between the two, and it can do so without being based on historical event. Or, rather, it need not be based on the historical event described; the historical basis could be the historical experience of the community who continued to teach this story which reinforced and legitimized the teaching contained therein. Construing the historical basis for the teaching of Scripture in this way, if accepted, allows one to deny that the teaching is lacking in historical backing or evidence while relocating to source of this evidence to a place less easy (probably impossible) to attack by historical criticism.
I'm not committed to this position, but I do think its interesting and presents some interesting possibilities. Taken to an extreme I think it is problematic (the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus must be real, historical events, and I would not want to deny the historicity of all the Biblical narratives), but used in certain cases, such as Joshua 6, it might be helpful. Thoughts? Criticisms? Does this suggestion avoid the problems of historical criticism or does it simply concede ground to the detriment of the authority of Scripture? All thoughts welcome!
Your post is what I would call "strong meat." It is, I would say, the kind of very sophisticated shift in perspective that those of us who study these sorts of issues often make. If Joshua were written centuries after these events would have taken place, then even the original meaning of Joshua has more to do with what its creation was doing at that time than what was going on at the time of the historical Joshua. And its significance for Christians is something different still.
ReplyDeleteBut let me also say that most Christians in our circles, including most Wesleyans, are in no position to appreciate the depth of what you are talking about here. This is especially the case when we are talking about a Sunday School story. It is perceived as a lack of faith in Scripture and those who are aware of the fights of the past will immediately connect it to some dismissive label.
Those are my initial thoughts. These are great ways to keep faith in Scripture without having to answer all the questions archaeology and the many issues raised by scholarship these last 150 years. But others will see them as hostile to true faith and will fundamentalize.
Thanks for your thoughts. I do realize that many Christians in my circles (at least back home) will be turned off by this sort of thing. The question becomes, if this is a legitimate option, how to provide it to those who will lose faith in Scripture otherwise. Many people out here talk about ramming the archaeological evidence and scholarly conclusions of historical criticism down the throats of those they teach to disabuse them of their "naivete." I'm not sure one need try to dislodge someone's faith in Scripture in the name of providing a more sure foundation, but it might be useful to have this option to present to those who struggle with these issues.
ReplyDeleteDenying the historicity of the OT and NT narratives is problematic. Here’s a good quote that addresses some of the concerns you’ve mentioned.
ReplyDelete“If we grant that the writing of Israel’s history and the writing of the history of any other people are on entirely different planes precisely because, in the former case, history and theology cannot be separated, we must assert that the kind of negative skepticism that is a necessary part of conventional historiography has no place in our work. By virtue of our confession that we are under the authority of the very sources we are investigating, we have already surrendered our right to reject what we cannot understand or what we find difficult to believe.
“This does not mean, however, that a modern-day history of ancient Israel should be nothing more than a retelling of the biblical story. The very fact that the Old Testament relates ancient events as sacred history, as primarily theological rather than social or political phenomena, is enough to justify repeated attempts to reconstruct the story according to the canons of normal historiography. This book represents such an effort. Our purpose is to understand the history of Israel as an integration of political, social, economic, and religious factors, and to do so not only on the basis of the Old Testament as Scripture but also with careful attention to the literary and archaeological sources of the ancient Near Eastern world, of which Israel was a part” (Eugene Merrill, Kingdom of Priests, p. 20).
I really appreciate Merrill’s scholarship. As you can see, he correctly understands that Christian historiography ought to utilize both Scripture and other sources (literary, archaeological, etc), and he does so without compromising the historicity of Scripture. Also, he doesn't uncharitably dismiss scholarship he disagrees with.
Perhaps another good read for these types of issues would be Gordon H. Clark’s Historiography: Secular and Religious, which I found helpful the summer before last.
Curt,
ReplyDeleteLet me try to explain myself a little better, because I think I am in agreement with what you've said. My concern in pondering the move I've described is not to deny the historicity of Scripture. My "default" (for lack of a better term) position is to assume that the events described in the Bible are historical and happened as described. My concern is avoiding the common view that historical and critical inquiry are antithetical to the authority of Scripture. I think Merrill has articulated the same concern, and I assume you share it.
What I hope the move I've described offers is a way to affirm the authority and even the historical nature of Scripture's teaching without being forced into conflict with the legitimate findings of historical criticism (which ones are legitimate is a separate, yet important, issue).
I think Merrill's point about viewing Israel's writings (historical and otherwise) in light of other culture's writings is helpful. Obviously, if Israel's writings describe a historical encounter and relationship with the true God then much of the material must reflect that historical reality. As far as I am aware, however, other ANE cultures wrote about historical events with a fair degree of liberty. I would want to allow Israel the same sort of liberty without denying the validity of their writing.
I also appreciate the comment about negative skepticism. This skepticism is exactly what I'd like to avoid. I'd also like, however, to avoid being forced into a similar position with regard to the findings of the various fields of scholarly study. The position I articulated is an attempt to be charitable to both scholarship and the authority of Scripture, since I don't believe they must necessarily be in conflict.
All of this represents my attempt to take the best and most helpful parts of my seminary education and integrate them without denying or losing those aspects of my faith that I view as essential (such as the authority and historical validity of Scripture). This post is that process in action, and I need people like yourself to tell me when I've gone too far. Please, correct me where necessary!
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond!
Thanks for including me on this! I read your last two posts and enjoyed them both thoroughly. Let me start by giving you a little background into my encounter with this topic. During my sophomore or junior year at IWU, I was deeply concerned with the historical foundation of Christianity, and so I created an independent study on Historical Methodology of the Gospels. I tried to read as much of a range of scholarship as I could (from Crossan to Witherington), but I have to admit I was most deeply impacted by a series of lectures I listened to by Bart Ehrman. Ehrman tore the virgin birth accounts in Matthew and Luke to shreds in one of his lectures, and I have never been able to piece them back together. (Fortunately, I wasn't nearly as persuaded by his attempts to historically undermine the resurrection of Christ.) Anyway, a lot of my postmodern postulating senior year was an attempt to rebuild a theology of the Bible in a way similar to how you're doing. You certainly know MUCH more than me about Old Testament critical issues (I am vaguely familiar with all the ones you mentioned, but have never really studied any of them), but it doesn't take much more than a cursory reading of the first chapters of Genesis to realize that a detailed inerrancy perspective is problematic.
ReplyDeleteA good chunk of my theory is a "negative" postmodern critique: a genealogical critique of the meta-narrative of Inductive Bible Study and a critical evaluation (I am tempted to say "deconstruction" here, but I'd probably be abusing it like everyone else does) of the Inductive Method itself, revealing how arbitrary and deceitful it is. However, I have also been trying to develop a "positive" view of Scripture, where I explain how it can still be "the word of God", and currently, two positive understandings are emerging for me.
(continued on next post...)
(continued from last post...)
ReplyDeleteYou suggest rooting the value of Scripture in its "historical community", which sounds similar to the "first" way I understand Scripture. I wish I had the advantage of better theological language like you do! Forgive me for being "out of the conversation" (perhaps I can fix this in seminary), but my best terms currently are "narrative" and "myth". I have come to appreciate how much the "mythology" of the Old Testament shaped a communal understanding of God that perhaps reflected his character better than anything else on planet Earth. Just to provide a brief example, let's consider the mythology of Genesis 1. Regardless of the historicity of the story, that story framed reality for the Jewish community so that they saw the physical world as good but not divine and orderly instead of chaotic; that they believed in a God above nature and a time/history that moves forward; and that humans were distinct from the animal kingdom and made in God's image. So I agree with your professor, that the inspiration doesn't depend on the historicity (although, as you noted, one can only take this so far...)
But I have a second way for you to consider as well. Even a communally-oriented theology of Scripture can become naturalistic, and so I believe a theistic approach to Scripture has to be rooted in the Holy Spirit. In some ways, I see it as the Holy Spirit's body; "His" most tangible form as "He" spreads "Himself" across the world. The idea that it is "God-breathed" does not to me communicate correlation with truth-propositions but living! And despite their claims, most IBS proponents do not believe in a living Text! They try to find the meaning that was established (and therefore killed) thousands of years ago, instead of letting the Spirit use the words that have been communally revered for thousands of years to speak new words to His people. This may sound individualistic, but I am trying to combine this individualistic aspect with the other communal one for a more wholistic approach.
Also, I have lots of thoughts on the practical application of these ideas (I'd really like to talk to Ken more about why he thinks we should hide the "strong meat"), but this is already as long as your post - and it's just a comment!
Brian,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I'm not concerned with your language or lack thereof. I probably wouldn't consider myself to be "in the conversation" either. I'd much rather talk with someone who can think with or without knowing the right words.
Its funny you bring up Bart Ehrman. He actually went here and we read some of his stuff for this class. I thought Dr. Berg (who knows Ehrman personally) did a convincing job of debunking a lot of Ehrman's teaching. I just think Ehrman is too uncharitable and jaded for me to take much of his scholarship seriously.
The beauty of this position, I hope is that is allows one to side-step the question of literal historicity without denying any sort of historical justification. A given story may not be reflective of real history, but it is still reflective of the way real people encountered God in history. Again, my default position would be to affirm literal historicity if at all possible in light of evidence, but this does provide the best alternative I've been able to come up with so far.
I'm intrigued by the Bible as body of the Holy Spirit notion. I'm not sure that's sustainable exegetically (ironic, no?), but I would have to hear you out on that. It is appealing in many ways. I would definitely agree that Scripture is living. The question for me is how one defines living. Paul Tillich talks about a Method of Correlation, in which one continually participates in a process of recontextualization. Theology, for him, is a process of moving back and forth between the questions provided by the existential situation of humanity and the answers provided by Christianity. The answers change the situation, which gives rise to new questions, for which Christianity has new answers.
The idea, for me, is that the truth or answers to which we're turning in Christianity are always in need of recontextualization, or we're answering the wrong questions and the truth becomes stuck in a particular time period, i.e. "dead." The correlative, however, is that the truth also doesn't actually change, its only retranslated. I would want to affirm a living truth of Scripture without moving to a changing truth, if that makes sense.
The individualism you mentioned could be a problem, but I don't think its a problem intrinsic to a living Word. If that Word is rooted in community, both historical and living, then the community is the arbiter of these "new words" in many ways. The Word may speak afresh to an individual, but only for the sake of the community; the community will then help evaluate the "new word" and determine its validity. I think it works. If we view the community as historical, this also leaves room for allowing Tradition a large vote, which I view as a positive.
You know what you're doing for Seminary yet? You should come visit, you can sit in on a McCormack class. I guarantee you'd like it.
Logan,
ReplyDeleteYou are welcome—it is my pleasure to read and respond. And yes, you’ve explained yourself really well, and it would appear as though we are both working through the same issues, generally speaking. This parallel in thought is interesting. Perhaps we are kindred spirits of the theological variety. Which is natural I suppose, since we did sit under the same professors for our undergraduate education…well, except for your stint at Purdue—which means I will concede all arguments to you about Engineering.
All of that to say, your blog is a good read!
Also, I will hand out correction only if it is a mutual endeavor (hint, hint). We both occupy, after all, a similar station in life—preparation for Christian ministry—and I hope that we will both be better prepared for having had these conversations. Rich Blessings in Christ!