I was nurtured theologically in an approach to exegesis that cut off any evidence after the 1st Century though I learned to “cheat” by grabbing stuff from the Mishnah, Talmud and Tosefta.
That is beautiful... I am neither of these, and I didn't know there was a difference between being a theologian or a bible scholar (sorry, Dr. Scot -I've called you a theologian in the past.) This model is basically civil discourse. Saying one side isn't right or wrong, they are equally worthy of consideration, worthy of it's own "book", a body of work to be used by the other side to build a bridge to the common goal.
This is certainly lacking today in the political arena today with both sides viewing the other as the 'enemy' and people in the middle afraid to speak up and take a stance on anything. These are the people that are weighing both sides and SHOULD speak up, to build a bridge to unity in the US.
1. Biblical scholars want theologians to know that at the end of the day, although they may have done an awful lot of work, and said a lot of very interesting things, whatever they have said pales into insignificance to that BIG question 'what does the Bible say'?, and it is only the Biblical scholars who have this gnostic knowledge.
2. Good Theologians want Biblical scholars to know that Jesus' presence as Word of God through His Spirit is the pearl of great price for this broken and desperate world, and it is the embodiment of His word through worshipful and sacrificial living that brings hope and salvation to the world, not 'right thinking'.
One of the most fascinating works I have read recently has been Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, in particular the second volume, which was the first one written. In the forward there is a methodological discussion about the dialogue between historical critical studies, theology (and in particular the Patristic writings) and spirituality/pastoral practice (which, of course, was the purpose of many of the original authors). As I read through the forward or preface I felt like I was being made whole. Ot came together. And as I started through the book I realized that I was seeing a master at work, an integrated master. I might add that I presently listing to his biography in audiobook form and then one understands how God formed that master (using WWII as part of the process). Yes, I was nurtured in the same biblical studies approach. I heard F. F. Bruce comment about Clark Pinnock that he had wasted his time in Manchester for he was now leaving biblical studies and going into theology. I believe he said something similar about Bruce Demarest. But that left us half-formed, unable to do what Paul and the rest did when they did more than biblical studies in fully forming disciples in the various churches. How wonderful that such a dialogue is going on. As for me, in the integration I have learned I feel like I have received a fuller second life.
After a lifetime reading both the theologians and the scholars, I've discovered that the best thing I can do is read the biblical texts carefully, closely, and thoroughly. SURPRISE! It seems that too often both the scholars and the theologians have used their own constructed modern lenses through which they look at the biblical texts (sometimes simply for corroboration of what they've already concluded). Of course that's not true of you, Scot. But it sure has been a problem elsewhere! It turns out that Moses, the prophets, even Jesus said things that tossed all those theological and biblical theories into a cocked hat. But even as I write that, I remind myself that translations can be as problematic as the theologies and scholarly discourses based on them. Thank God we also have the Holy Spirit to help us navigate the "helps" that often don't help.
Great questions! This question surfaced for me most recently re-reading Amy-Jill Levine's Short Stories of Jesus. My two biggest hesitations about this book, which I greatly admire, stem from the way she underplays scriptural literacy among Jesus' first audiences. She thinks Jesus' parables would have been heard plainly, with no scriptural echoes or resonances. I think she is just way off on this. Second, and perhaps not quite so obviously, some of her readings are untenable as a Christian. And that's what I think we all need to keep in mind on this topic: Christians being read by God's Word are not the same thing as scholars reading an ancient text - the two activities don't fit into each other without remainder.
Perhaps a better resource for this discussion might have been something from the Return to Scripture movement - maybe even something on Scriptural Reasoning. While I don't bristle at being labeled a fideist, I also don't deny the role of reason in coming to scripture. I just think we reading more faithfully if we attempt to discover and follow the way scripture reasons rather than impose external reasonings onto scripture.
So what would I have the scholar and the theologian say to each other? (Or, as a scriptural theologian, what do I say to myself?) It would be that, with all due respect to NT Wright, we don't need to travel back in time to hear and respond to the good news. As Meister Eckhart pointed interrogates us, what good is it if Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago if he is not born in me? On the other hand, with all due respect to those who think scholarship is superfluous, I would say that the trip back in time is worth the effort.
And finally, my primary guide in reading scripture, other than the Holy Spirit, comes from Augustine and his advice on teaching Christians. Any reading of scripture that violates the rule of faith or the rule of love cannot be a faithful one. God's Peace, - Dawg
'Any reading of scripture that violates... the rule of love cannot be a faithful one.'
Hmm - tricky. Any serious engagement with God's dealing with the world - think the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of Jerusalem - reveals a 'God of love' who does things that we find very difficult to cope with. Our liberal friends want to deny that their god did them, claiming it is inconsistent with 'love'. That won't do! So we need to be VERY careful if we ever make that sort of claim!
But that, surely, is mostly a matter of agency and perspective, is it not? We aren't the ones sending flood or fire. It's not about emulating God's judgement, which belongs to God. Rather, how do we read these stories in ways that build up rather than tear down? How do we read and preach the stories you lift up as good news? And the river of interpretation has two banks, not just one. Without both banks, the river looses force and direction. And the rule of faith tells us that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. There is no denying judgment just as there is no denying (shout out to Calvin at this point) that our judge is no other than our redeemer - the one who gives his life for the world (and a shout out to Schmemann). Besides, I don't think loving too much is really our problem...
Wearing my church historian hat, it is clear to me that the major feature of revivals is that the fear of God overwhelms people and they respond to the sins in their lives by seeking God's grace. By contrast too much of what passes for evangelism in our churches today seems to focus exclusively on the love of God for us and, at times, ends up ignoring the need for repentance.
As a result I am always sceptical whenever someone talks about 'the law of love' as a test they are seeking to offer; in our culture where 'love' is too often a sentimental excuse for doing what I want, it is potentially dangerous language - it is certainly the excuse offered for ignoring the bible on divorce and remarriage and the gay issue.
Theology at its best is a tool to enable the discernment of what is truly of God and what is merely the experience of the moment. Of course the pastoral disaster that is the church's homophobia - in the sense of believing that a same sex attracted person can't be a Christian - was a failure of theology and love. Sadly too many pastors seem to have chosen to avoid the topic completely...
"what good is it if Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago if he is not born in me"
With due respect to N. T. Wright, I think he would say (and has said) something similar about the gospel not just being an antiquarian interest, but without suggesting the goodness of God's restoring purposes in Christ depend on any one persons reception of this (in other words, it stays just as profoundly good that Jesus was born 2000 years ago whether any specific "I" believes or not!)
I wonder how many scholars have been as popularly misunderstood/misrepresented as Wright? It doesnt help that he can get a bit sharp and polemical in his approach when questioned. I've heard Luther as well in the ways he's used as a foil for the Pauline readings of the last forty years (though its hard for me to get into Luther). Perhaps a series from interested scholars and theologians would be good: "five common misunderstandings of the work of <theologian/scholar>"
Fully recognizing that the writer is also responsible for being misunderstood, not trying to offload misunderstandings just to readers. I wonder if Scot has a list of things he wishes he werent misunderstood or misrepresented in his work, either from practitioners or other academics?
Thank you, Brother Jonathan, for gently rebuking my less than accurate and less than kind characterization of Wright as someone who thinks the NT texts are solely the stuff of dry scholarship devoid of current meaning or accessibility. Having said that, despite what he may say, Wright frequently reasons as if Eckhart's point doesn't obtain, which, better stated is that the Nativity of Christ is more than an historical event towards which we can point and about which we can investigate but is also a clear and present reality available to us through the church - through the Eucharist and the proclamation of the Word and in mission. But to set quibbles about Wright aside, doesn't this raise the question, is the Church necessary to read the Bible?
Some of my more hard core Return to Scripture buddies insist that the the only time we encounter scripture is in its public proclamation during worship. I think that's overstating the case, but it does give me pause. Peace to you!
I don’t have a comment on your questions but I hear a third book in this idea: What Practitioners Wish Academics Knew.
Hear, hear.
And the converse: What Academics Wish Practitioners Knew.
Some of the diagrams in Scot's book are well worth the price of the book. They are game changing, very helpul diagrams/charts
That is beautiful... I am neither of these, and I didn't know there was a difference between being a theologian or a bible scholar (sorry, Dr. Scot -I've called you a theologian in the past.) This model is basically civil discourse. Saying one side isn't right or wrong, they are equally worthy of consideration, worthy of it's own "book", a body of work to be used by the other side to build a bridge to the common goal.
This is certainly lacking today in the political arena today with both sides viewing the other as the 'enemy' and people in the middle afraid to speak up and take a stance on anything. These are the people that are weighing both sides and SHOULD speak up, to build a bridge to unity in the US.
One thought for each of the questions....
1. Biblical scholars want theologians to know that at the end of the day, although they may have done an awful lot of work, and said a lot of very interesting things, whatever they have said pales into insignificance to that BIG question 'what does the Bible say'?, and it is only the Biblical scholars who have this gnostic knowledge.
2. Good Theologians want Biblical scholars to know that Jesus' presence as Word of God through His Spirit is the pearl of great price for this broken and desperate world, and it is the embodiment of His word through worshipful and sacrificial living that brings hope and salvation to the world, not 'right thinking'.
One of the most fascinating works I have read recently has been Jesus of Nazareth by Joseph Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI, in particular the second volume, which was the first one written. In the forward there is a methodological discussion about the dialogue between historical critical studies, theology (and in particular the Patristic writings) and spirituality/pastoral practice (which, of course, was the purpose of many of the original authors). As I read through the forward or preface I felt like I was being made whole. Ot came together. And as I started through the book I realized that I was seeing a master at work, an integrated master. I might add that I presently listing to his biography in audiobook form and then one understands how God formed that master (using WWII as part of the process). Yes, I was nurtured in the same biblical studies approach. I heard F. F. Bruce comment about Clark Pinnock that he had wasted his time in Manchester for he was now leaving biblical studies and going into theology. I believe he said something similar about Bruce Demarest. But that left us half-formed, unable to do what Paul and the rest did when they did more than biblical studies in fully forming disciples in the various churches. How wonderful that such a dialogue is going on. As for me, in the integration I have learned I feel like I have received a fuller second life.
After a lifetime reading both the theologians and the scholars, I've discovered that the best thing I can do is read the biblical texts carefully, closely, and thoroughly. SURPRISE! It seems that too often both the scholars and the theologians have used their own constructed modern lenses through which they look at the biblical texts (sometimes simply for corroboration of what they've already concluded). Of course that's not true of you, Scot. But it sure has been a problem elsewhere! It turns out that Moses, the prophets, even Jesus said things that tossed all those theological and biblical theories into a cocked hat. But even as I write that, I remind myself that translations can be as problematic as the theologies and scholarly discourses based on them. Thank God we also have the Holy Spirit to help us navigate the "helps" that often don't help.
Great questions! This question surfaced for me most recently re-reading Amy-Jill Levine's Short Stories of Jesus. My two biggest hesitations about this book, which I greatly admire, stem from the way she underplays scriptural literacy among Jesus' first audiences. She thinks Jesus' parables would have been heard plainly, with no scriptural echoes or resonances. I think she is just way off on this. Second, and perhaps not quite so obviously, some of her readings are untenable as a Christian. And that's what I think we all need to keep in mind on this topic: Christians being read by God's Word are not the same thing as scholars reading an ancient text - the two activities don't fit into each other without remainder.
Perhaps a better resource for this discussion might have been something from the Return to Scripture movement - maybe even something on Scriptural Reasoning. While I don't bristle at being labeled a fideist, I also don't deny the role of reason in coming to scripture. I just think we reading more faithfully if we attempt to discover and follow the way scripture reasons rather than impose external reasonings onto scripture.
So what would I have the scholar and the theologian say to each other? (Or, as a scriptural theologian, what do I say to myself?) It would be that, with all due respect to NT Wright, we don't need to travel back in time to hear and respond to the good news. As Meister Eckhart pointed interrogates us, what good is it if Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago if he is not born in me? On the other hand, with all due respect to those who think scholarship is superfluous, I would say that the trip back in time is worth the effort.
And finally, my primary guide in reading scripture, other than the Holy Spirit, comes from Augustine and his advice on teaching Christians. Any reading of scripture that violates the rule of faith or the rule of love cannot be a faithful one. God's Peace, - Dawg
PS - Brevard Childs, anyone?
'Any reading of scripture that violates... the rule of love cannot be a faithful one.'
Hmm - tricky. Any serious engagement with God's dealing with the world - think the Flood, Sodom and Gomorrah and the destruction of Jerusalem - reveals a 'God of love' who does things that we find very difficult to cope with. Our liberal friends want to deny that their god did them, claiming it is inconsistent with 'love'. That won't do! So we need to be VERY careful if we ever make that sort of claim!
But that, surely, is mostly a matter of agency and perspective, is it not? We aren't the ones sending flood or fire. It's not about emulating God's judgement, which belongs to God. Rather, how do we read these stories in ways that build up rather than tear down? How do we read and preach the stories you lift up as good news? And the river of interpretation has two banks, not just one. Without both banks, the river looses force and direction. And the rule of faith tells us that He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. There is no denying judgment just as there is no denying (shout out to Calvin at this point) that our judge is no other than our redeemer - the one who gives his life for the world (and a shout out to Schmemann). Besides, I don't think loving too much is really our problem...
Wearing my church historian hat, it is clear to me that the major feature of revivals is that the fear of God overwhelms people and they respond to the sins in their lives by seeking God's grace. By contrast too much of what passes for evangelism in our churches today seems to focus exclusively on the love of God for us and, at times, ends up ignoring the need for repentance.
As a result I am always sceptical whenever someone talks about 'the law of love' as a test they are seeking to offer; in our culture where 'love' is too often a sentimental excuse for doing what I want, it is potentially dangerous language - it is certainly the excuse offered for ignoring the bible on divorce and remarriage and the gay issue.
Theology at its best is a tool to enable the discernment of what is truly of God and what is merely the experience of the moment. Of course the pastoral disaster that is the church's homophobia - in the sense of believing that a same sex attracted person can't be a Christian - was a failure of theology and love. Sadly too many pastors seem to have chosen to avoid the topic completely...
We certainly agree that love is dangerous...
"what good is it if Jesus was born in Bethlehem 2000 years ago if he is not born in me"
With due respect to N. T. Wright, I think he would say (and has said) something similar about the gospel not just being an antiquarian interest, but without suggesting the goodness of God's restoring purposes in Christ depend on any one persons reception of this (in other words, it stays just as profoundly good that Jesus was born 2000 years ago whether any specific "I" believes or not!)
I wonder how many scholars have been as popularly misunderstood/misrepresented as Wright? It doesnt help that he can get a bit sharp and polemical in his approach when questioned. I've heard Luther as well in the ways he's used as a foil for the Pauline readings of the last forty years (though its hard for me to get into Luther). Perhaps a series from interested scholars and theologians would be good: "five common misunderstandings of the work of <theologian/scholar>"
Fully recognizing that the writer is also responsible for being misunderstood, not trying to offload misunderstandings just to readers. I wonder if Scot has a list of things he wishes he werent misunderstood or misrepresented in his work, either from practitioners or other academics?
Thank you, Brother Jonathan, for gently rebuking my less than accurate and less than kind characterization of Wright as someone who thinks the NT texts are solely the stuff of dry scholarship devoid of current meaning or accessibility. Having said that, despite what he may say, Wright frequently reasons as if Eckhart's point doesn't obtain, which, better stated is that the Nativity of Christ is more than an historical event towards which we can point and about which we can investigate but is also a clear and present reality available to us through the church - through the Eucharist and the proclamation of the Word and in mission. But to set quibbles about Wright aside, doesn't this raise the question, is the Church necessary to read the Bible?
Some of my more hard core Return to Scripture buddies insist that the the only time we encounter scripture is in its public proclamation during worship. I think that's overstating the case, but it does give me pause. Peace to you!