This is from the Preface to Ben Meyer's Critical Realism and the New Testament:
The more [the biblical tradition] revealed its breaks, tangents, oddly angled continuities, and the more I thought of the stunning shape taken by the fulfillment of its hopes, the more striking became the constant biblical affirmation of precedent and the triumphant achievement of ties with the past. The sustained effort of biblical authors to trace and affirm these ties was a hallmark of the tradition. The result in the New Testament was to project horizons allowing the elements of a rich, long history to be brought into deep coherence--a condition of the possibility of a truly 'biblical' theology. p ix
So well put! The fallacy of ignoring or downplaying the "breaks, tangents," and "oddly angled continuities" in favour of a straight-line coherence results in a grossly perverted and virtually impotent biblical theology--one that is of much less service to any attempt to think deeply about the world and our times.
7 comments:
Thanks for posting this quote, Nick. I agree that some evangelical theologies have appeared to treat the canon as a book of propositions to be re-assembled in a systematic theology text-book (for example, Charles Ryrie or Wayne Grudem).
I'm curious about where you might point us to find an example of a biblical theology that is not, in your opinion, so "grossly perverted and virtually impotent," one that does not downplay the "breaks, tangents, and oddly angled continuites," and that thinks "deeply about the world and our times"?
I also wonder what you might think of the potention of the Church's confessional/creedal statements to provide something of a clue for how we might read the coherence of these diverse texts.
Dustin, Thanks for these very good questions. Regarding the first, I should preface my answer with the fact that I am woefully under-read in this regard; so my suggestions/recommendations should not be taken as an implicit critique of anything I fail to mention. I have been most impressed with Brevard Child's program for biblical theology, a short treatment of which is presented in the Facets series, entitled, "Biblical Theology: A Proposal." It has been in the back of my mind to blog on this proposal; perhaps I'll get to it in the near future. As far as thinking deeply about the world and our times, this is not exactly the aim of biblical theology, but of theology proper, in my understanding anyway. Nevertheless, I think that theology, if it is to be Christian, must work in tandem with Biblical Theology (hence, I spoke of biblical theology as being a "service" to thinking about the world), being shaped by as well as extending its program.
As for the church's confessional statements, I think that they are exactly where we should look for a guide as to the coherence of the texts. Nevertheless, I want to guard against any reading, especially of the OT, that reduces it to the "fulness" of the NT revelation, that reduces the context of the OT to that supplied by the creeds. The OT must be allowed to have its own distinct voice(s) in the context(s) that it itself supplies.
Such a good book.
David, The little bit that I've read so far would lead me to agree!
I'm glad that the request came up for an example that reflects Ben Meyer's comments. It's one thing to criticize a viewpoint and another to give alternate examples of how things should really be done! The next time I'm over I'd like to take a look at Brevard Child's work. Sounds interesting.
My questions may be naive because I'm not as familiar with Ben Meyer and most of what I'm asking is more for my own personal educational purposes rather than actually questioning his conclusions.
1) What exactly is Ben Meyer referring to when he says "biblical tradition"? Is he including the canon texts, extra-biblical texts, and texts from church history (i.e. Church Fathers, etc)?
2) Does Ben Meyer give examples of the "breaks, tangents, oddly angled continuities" in the biblical tradition
Hello Ian:
You're quite right that critique should be followed by constructive proposals. Meyer himself points to a condition of a different sort of biblical theology: one which is attuned to the "deep coherence" of the Scriptures; clearly this a coherence that obtains beneath the tangled, broked surface.
I have not gotten to the chapter of Meyer's book that deals explicitly with Biblical Theology, where he might give such examples. Perhaps when I do, I'll comment on it. I've come across an illustration of these sorts of problems and how they mind be handled from a biblical theological perspective from Goldingay's commentary on Daniel that I will post when I get the chance.
I'm pretty sure Meyer is talking about the biblical tradition as in the canon.
Well, keep posting! I really enjoy this kinda dialogue. I don't have to many people doing this even though I just graduated from a bible college!
Looking forward to more on this topic.
Post a Comment