The uniqueness and the scandal of the Christian religion rests on the mediation of revelation through historical events. Christianity is not just a code for living or a philosophy of religion. It is rooted in real events of history. To some people this is scandalous because it means the truth of Christianity is inexplicably bound up with the truth of certain historical facts. And if those facts should be disproved, Christianity would be false. This, however, is what makes Christianity unique because, unlike other world religions, modern man has a means of actually verifying Christianity’s truth by historical evidence.

George E. Ladd, I Believe in the Resurrection (Downers Grove: Eerdmans, 1975), quoted in Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan (Baker, 1998), p. 24 [im not sure which book this page number is from...]

• Formal Contradiction – “Formal contradiction involves a difference at the level of words which is not a difference at the level of substance.” (16)
• Contextual Contradiction – “Contextual contradiction denotes a difference reflecting the variety in circumstances which different statements address.” (19)
• Substantial Contradiction – “Substantial contradiction involves a true divergence in viewpoint on the part of the speakers whose disagreement is neither merely verbal nor merely contextual.” (21)
• Fundamental Contradiction – “Fundamental contradiction denotes a disagreement which is a matter of substance and which indicates a basic disharmony at the level of “ethical stance” or “religious outlook”.” (24)

Much of the evidence for contradiction marshalled by scholars falls in the first two categories.

[1] Theological Diversity and the Authority of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 15-25

The gospel focused on the individual

In my experience the most pervasive ‘gospel’ presented in New Zealand (and i suspect in the West in general) is characteristically individualistic. It is typical to focus on the individual or personal aspect of God’s redemptive mission. It is the news of God’s love for you enacted in Jesus’ death on the cross. Of your personal relationship with God. Of your eternal future in heaven rather than hell.

The consequences

This ‘positioning’ of the individual at the center/forefront of the gospel neglects and pushes the cosmic and social dimensions of God’s redemptive mission to the periphery/background. Furthermore, the cosmic scope is distorted and shrunk. The ‘eschaton’, the summing up of God’s purposes for creation in the future is no longer seen as the establishment of God’s reign over all creation, the presence of his glory throughout, and moral, social, and physical transformation of humankind. Instead the eschaton, if it comes into view at all, becomes the moment of final individual judgment where ones eternity in ‘heaven’ or ‘hell’ begins. More often than not this event is located at the point of death (‘where will you go when you die?’).

An individualizing of the gospel thus has the effect of distorting both ecclesiology (in belief and practice) and eschatology.

This coincides with a concentration on the cross and a neglect of the proleptic character of Jesus’ resurrection which, as a re-affirmation of the goodness of creation, grounds God’s promise of the redemptive transformation of creation, not its abandonment.

Perhaps the most destructive consequence is that where the ‘gospel’ is about God’s forgiveness for my sin and the resultant personal relationship between me and him, from the get go we can get the idea that it is about what God has done and can do for me. It is then all too easy to incorporate God into my life rather than his incorporating me into His mission to the world.

I have heard many testimonies where the believer expresses their joy at now having God on their side. Now, lets not get this wrong, God’s love for us extends to all aspects of our lives. But their is something fundamentally wrong about the orientation to life which is expressed in such a testimony.

The gospel in eschatological perspective

Perhaps in evangelism we should begin with the cosmic dimensions of God’s mission, which will then provide the proper context for the individual dimensions of God’s mission. Rather than announcing God’s forgiveness for the individual, we announce God’s forgiveness for the world. Rather then inviting one to accept Jesus as ‘personal Lord and Savior’ we need to invite people to embrace Jesus’ vision of God’s reign as Lord of the world. The individual aspects should not be lost in a violent swing of the pendulum, but the cosmic dimensions should provide the proper context for the individual dimensions.

The decision to follow Jesus is therefore an acceptance of God’s invitation to be part of his promised future and to become a part of its anticipation in the present through the power of His Holy Spirit.

A presentation of the gospel with a proper eschatological perspective (orientation towards God’s promised future) may prevent the assimilation of ‘God’ into ones life, as often occurs atleast in part because of an individually oriented gospel (if not only because it does not challenge consumer culture). One’s life is transformed by the call toward’s God’s promised future by the power of His Spirit among his people in the present. This ‘call towards promised future’ replaces whatever orientation to life was previously formative for one’s life.

Your thoughts please…

Love is patient; love is kind; love is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known.

In terms of goals, we can compare it with what we might call Historical Criticism which tries to look ‘behind’ the text in order to learn about author and audience, and Literary Criticism which looks at the text to understand and appreciate the way the text is put together and works. [1] In contrast Theological Interpretation seeks to read the text as an instrument of discipleship, to have the reader transformed by the text (so the term Scripture which is often attached). [2]

Lets look at the term theological first. This draws attention both to the fact that the Bible–to make a very general claim–is primaily about God, and that our concern as the Church is with growing in the knowledge of God which results in our transformation. 

I think this works as a label in combination with interpretation, if by interpretation here we do not mean the study of individual passages so that we are always looking for what a text might communicate or at least imply about God (such an activity is suggested by the term ‘theological exegesis’ and I think is better suited to this term), but rather a larger project within which our study of indivudal passages and writings needs to be placed. But this latter meaning is not the most natural way to use the term interpretation. Furthermore, within discussions on Theological Interpretation the term ‘interpretation’ is often extended beyond its normal usage to include something like the embodiment of the fruits of interpretation in the life of the Christian community and beyond. Our acted appropriation of Scripture is our interpretation of it.

Interestingly Theological Interpretation stands out in terminology from literary or historically focused study because of the term ‘interpretation’ where the others typically have ‘criticism.’ [3] Criticism more naturally  suggests a larger project (within the field of biblical studies and theology at least). Might it be more appropriate to append this latter term so that we are talking about Theological Criticism. It ain’t pretty but would this be a more fitting term? Or are some of the connotations of ‘criticism’ too negative (and perhaps too elitist) for it to be an attractive label for the church whom the project/task is for? And would this suite the acted appropiation that is often included within the project?

Your thoughts please…

—

[1] Literary criticism is also used to refer to reader focused study such as reader-response criticism where the focus is upon the varied ways readers have interpreted a text and what this can tell us about both the reader and the text. I have simply chosen terms to help illustrate differences.

[2] Note that this a contrast of goals and not necessarily methods and questions asked. I believe that if Theological Interpretation is going to achieve its goal then it will need to appropriate many of the methods and findings of interpretation which has focused on historical and literary questions.

In the intro Powell outlines a reader-response oriented reading strategy.[1] It is a simple fact that people read the Bible differently–they take texts to mean different things–and reader-response criticism is about appreciating and exploring the nature and reasons for these differences. Thus, unlike Historical criticism, its interest is not in ascertaining an author’s intention but rather in accounting for the varied responses of readers. [2] Powell outlines four steps he employs for such study of the biblical text (pp.8-9):

1. The first step he calls “descriptive reader-response criticism”, and is concerned with gathering “the responses of real readers” to a text and collating them within subcategories such as gender, ethnicity, etc. that can reveal trends.
2. The second step involves comparing these actual responses with a “continuum of expected responses” (or implied readings) within which they can be placed or if not, identified as “unexpected readings.” [3]
3. The third step is to “account for these readings” by asking what it is about the text or each reader that has led to their particular response, particularly those which are “unexpected.” Is the “narrative’s rhetoric flawed”? Do the readers lack implied/assumed knowledge? Is social location an influence?
4. The final step, which he states goes beyond his work as a Scholar but is necessary for him as a Christian, concerns evaluating “expected and unexpected readings to determine whether they should be regarded positively or negatively.” (8) Note that this is not about evaluating the correctness of readings according to whether they fall within the continuum of expected/implied readings (those intended by the implied author), but about evaluating all potential readings according to an external “value system.” [4]

This sounds like a very worthwhile and illuminating task and I look forward to the case studies later in the book where he puts this into practice.

Some details to note and comments to make. Powell uses the terms “reading” and “response” interchangeably. By these Powell intends not only the discernment of a message within the text but also the effect that the text has on the reader, its impact. Furthermore, within this method the readings/responses looked for are initial impressions (Powell does not use this language). That is to say, they have not yet been put to the test through a closer and repeated examination of the text, or a critical reflection on the hermeneutical moves made in relating the text to oneself, ones world, etc.

The terms “expected” and “implied” readings/responses are also used interchangeably, although a preference for the term “expected” reading/response over “implied” reading/response arises quite quickly and I suspect this is because it softens the call of the narrative towards a particular reading or continuum of readings, and so helps to avoid deligitimizing “unexpected” readings.

Finally, in regards to his fourth evaluative step wherein he does not wish to submit “real” or “actual” readings to a sort of evaluation based upon “expected” or “implied readings,” but rather both according to his Christian moral standpoint, this looks like a case of current convictions judging Scripture rather than Scripture reshaping current convictions. For me this is somewhat backwards, but we will see where he takes us in this regard as the book progresses.

—

[1] Powell refers to this as a “reading strategy” because he does not see at as the only legitimate way to interpret Biblical literature (7). Like Stephen Fowl he does not wish to privilege establishing authorial intent as the only legitimate goal of biblical interpretation or the only legitimate meaning of biblical literature (2-4).

[2] Powell is well aware that this is a very general statement, qualifying it with the appended footnote (see 199).

[3] Within narrative criticism, “implied readings” are those which a narrative invites or calls for, and as such are those that the “implied author” can be said to have intended. The story is told in such a way as to effect a particular range of responses by readers, and the “implied reader” is the hypothetical reader who by following the lead of the text is led to experience such a response/s.

[4] ‘Expected readings are not necessarily “right,” and unexpected readings are not necessarily “wrong.” Still, I do believe that some interpretations are right and that others are wrong. I know that I can only believe this by imposing my value system on both the texts and those who interpret them.’ (8)

24 This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. (John 21:24-25 NRSV)

Andreas J. Köstenberger, ‘‘I Suppose’ (oimai): The Conclusion of John’s Gospel in Its Literary and Historical Context,’ in Williams, P.J., Andre D. Clarke, Peter M. Head, David Instone-Brwer (eds.), The New Testament in its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in Honour of B. W. Winter on His 65th Birthday (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2004): 72-88.

In this article Köstenberger takes a fresh look at the term oimai (‘I suppose’; John 21:25) in the context of debate over the authorship of the gospel; specifically, how the term oimai needs to be given due weight in the debate concerning the status of vv.24-25 as an original part of the gospel or a later addition(s) by a different author(s). After briefly surveying the various interpretations of the first person plural in v24 (“we know”) and first person singular in v25 (“I suppose”) as they pertain to judgements on authorship, Köstenberger turns to extrabiblical usage of the term. He offers a sample of instances from Greek literature from the first centuries BC and AD (Diodorus of Sicily; Dionysius of Halicarnassus; Josephus; Plutarch)[1], and summarises his findings as follows (87):

the term oimai is a literary term frequently used by historians reflecting authorial modesty in stating a claim or opinion. It is commonly part of authorial discourse, not infrequently at the beginning or conclusion of a literary unit or at points of transition. In its extrabiblical instances the term regularly forms an inextricable part of the author’s argument that cannot be easily separated from the larger context by source or redaction-critical means.

Köstenberger interprets John 21:25 in line with these as an instance of ‘authorial modesty’ which constitutes ‘an integral part of the authorial message.’ (87) It is on the basis of a lack of precedent in his survey of an instance where a later editor/group of editors use the term to authenticate ‘the message of an original author or witness,’ that he concludes that its presence in John 21:25 ‘would render redaction-critical proposals unlikely’ (87).

This line of reasoning may fault on the grounds that it disallows innovation. However, I do think that the first person singular oimai (“I suppose”) needs to be given due weight and not interpreted against its grain (and without known historical precedent) to bring it into line with hypotheses of later aditions and communal authorship/redaction.  

Köstenberger also mentions an article by H. M. Jackson[2] in which he argues that the third person singular (“this is the disciple”) and first person plural (“we know”) in v.24 reflect the ancient conventions of self-reference, and therefore can no longer be seen as compelling grounds indicating a change of authorship in 21:24-25 (73-4).

—

[1] Köstenberger’s survey was limited to occurrences of the present-tense first person singular where it is followed by an accusative and infinitive, as in John 21:25.

[2] Köstenberger both states that he is building upon Jackson’s findings even while his proposal stands apart from it. H. M. Jackson, ‘Ancient Self-referential Conventions and Their Implications for the Authorship and Integrity of the Gospel of John,’ JTS 50 (1999): 1-34.

*In the title and body of the article oimai is in greek characters. Unfortunately I do not know how to display greek fonts in WordPress, but if anyone does please let me know how*

1. Understanding the Biblical writings within their original setting as theological documents intended to be formative for God’s people (a generalisation I know)

2. Drawing together the findings of such study in order to address the questions concerning our following Jesus today that we want to bring to Scripture, in conversation with such activity from church history

I would be happy to label these Biblical Studies and Theological Studies respectively.[1]

Of course the first will in many instances be received as a fresh address to us (especially NT writings), and we should not keep them at an arms length, we should study them as living word rather than as ancient artifacts. But because in many instances we will require the whole counsel of Scripture to answer our questions, and because we do not want to inadvertently transform the text in the quest to answer our questions, we need to seperate the tasks.

How might this be embodied in an educational setting? I would have to say that those who teach should not be confined to one task or the other, for concern this may result in competence in one but not the other, and in the case of Theological Studies, knowledge of and an ability to work with the Biblical texts skillfully would be a necessity. So there would still be courses on individual biblical writings and groups of writings (e.g. prophets, Paul’s letters, etc.) which would form the backbone of the curriculum, and then courses on various themes and issues that draw on such work to shape our following of Jesus.

Let me know your thoughts…

[1] I don’t see much of a place in Christian biblical/theological education or ministry training for the sort of speculative theology or goals often persued in contemporary biblical studies such as source criticism that (I think) do not provide resources for following Jesus.

This is of course part of a post were I used this as an example of bad hermeneutics, not representitive of my own! If you know if and how this can be changed, let me know…

At the close of the colloquium Joel B. Green noted how it was the first colloquium on biblical studies to begin with prayer that he had attended in a very long time. This was both a shock and saddening, but at the same time indicated the ‘life’ that was present at this colloquium and showed that what took place was actually carried out in the Spirit of TI itself.

Some thoughts…

• What we need is study of the Biblical documents in line with their nature as confessional documents intended to proclaim, teach and shape lives. Perhaps recapturing the Bible as a personal confession (within a wider social,  geographical, and historical confession), rather than “someone elses mail”, will assist us in doing biblical studies that can more direclt speak to the church.
• Sometimes those who advocate Theological Interpretation seem to be saying that we need to set aside the ‘historical critical’ questions biblical scholars have been taking to the text and replace these with theological questions. But in my humble opinion the many questions asked of the texts–whether concerned with sources, historicity, literary features, etc.–are all legitimate. Can we not ask questions concerning the theology of the texts as well as all these and more?
• As someone who is entering into the realm of teaching within the context of a Bible college, and who has been interested in the form and function of theological education for some time, I often ponder the pros and cons of the division between Biblical studies and Theology. Does the departmental split need to stand? Or does this need rethinking? While we do not want to collapse one into the other, I think we need to reconfigure their relationship. How we should do so is of course the big question.
• My thought experiment is to retain the distinction in departments but to not associate lecturers with either one. So while retaining OT, NT, and Theology departments, gone will be NT and OT professors, and professors of Theology. Room would still need to made for particular specializations within each field, but these would be all determinative for what one teaches, researchs, and publishes on. Possible? Im not sure…