Sounds like an important title doesn't it. Basically it means interpreting the bible with the intention of finding out "what the biblical author really meant" (and from that then understanding what God is trying to communicate). Although historically it is a strongly a held way of interpreting the bible it is beginning to be criticised in some quarters.
Anyway I was just reading the Westminster Theological Journal for Fall 2006 (thank you OU), and in particular an article by Peter Enns. I thought I would quote a little from it in case anyone has time on their hands to read it.
I am not arguing, implicitly or explicitly, that Second Temple studies should control how we understand Paul over against the history of the Christian church. Rather, our increased understanding of that context should, with great joy, be brought into a deepening and broadening of how we understand Paul— even if that deepening and broadening presents challenges. The context does not control Paul, the Spirit does. But the "Paul" that the Spirit controls was a first-century Jew. And a deeper understanding of that environment cannot be ignored. Neither am I saying that the church "needs" to understand Second Temple Judaism in order to understand Paul. That is not the case, for myself or Machen or Vos, and it is quite off-topic. The issue is depth and breadth for those engaged in a serious study of Scripture. And for that purpose, what Machen and Vos model for us is this: it is not simply the OT that forms the only proper background for the study of Paul, but Paul's context, Second Temple Judaism, as well, To understand the Jewish background better is to understand Paul/better.
[...]
this historical study of Scripture is a reminder of how very near God is to us, how down and dirty he gets. We sire all prone, in an academic setting at least, to speak of God in "distant" language, as a concept, an idea, a principle, a subject of study—an occupational hazard. But we all need to be reminded—and at some times more than others—what is so foundational to the gospel, which are the lengths to which God went to bridge that distance.
(Bible in context: The Continuing Vitality of Reformed Biblical Scholarship. By: Enns, Peter. Westminster Theological Journal, Fall2006, Vol. 68 Issue 2, p203-218)
What I like about Enns on this subject is how keen he always is to bring God into the equation when he is so often tragically forgotten. In this article as in his book and other articles he draws a lot on "Calvin's" doctrine of accommodation which I have benefited so much from.
I can feel this is the kind of direction I'd need to respond to in my thoughts on history & biblical theology. So I'm going to try to read those links. thanks.
ReplyDeletebut the 2 broad reactions I have going in I think:
1) in the first instance, is it Paul or the text who is "controlled" by the spirit?
2) what is meant by "even if it brings challenges"? Of course it will be illuminating, but scripture itself is finally corrective "correcting and rebuking" in a crucial sense.
Combining these, here, I think, is the question I'd ask Enns:
would it have made sense for Paul to be corrected by his scripture?
I think so, but if we say he is the theological(single-meaning) author, it would not have made sense, making Paul God. Who then is the person we need to know? God. How? OT feeding Jesus.
Sorry for the lack of a response Chris. I am still thinking, and have no time to get down to write something. Should get round to it at the weekend
ReplyDeleteI think so, but if we say he is the theological(single-meaning) author, it would not have made sense, making Paul God.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that follows Chris.
First off, of course any ordinary preacher can be corrected by his preaching ('the word of God' that he preaches).
Secondly, Paul's whole life is held up as an model by which to live. (e.g. 1 Cor 4:6; 11:1; Phil 3:17; 4:9; 1 Thes 1:6; 2 Thes 3:9), and he would be the first to point out that this is not because of some inherent quality but because he was 'controlled' by the Spirit.
Following on from these two points, to know Paul (especially as he is presented in Scripture as an example) is to know whom he represents, that is whom he is an ambassador for. Of course there are dangers here, and I have used some provocative language, but we must not try to be God-centred at the expensive of being human-centred (see my post from a long time back).
All that has been without discussing hermeneutics, but it is the first step that has to be made.
what is meant by "even if it brings challenges"
An e.g. he discusses is how linguistic study both biblical and extra-biblical suggests a date too late for Eccl to be written by Solomon. This obviously is challenging to those with a more traditional understanding of the books authorship. Of course this is not the primary way in which Scripture should correct and rebuke, but Enns is discussing the groundwork to be done before application.