There
are a plethora of ways in which the task and process of Old Testament Theology
has been done throughout the history of the discipline. Throughout the various
stages in which the discipline has developed historically, there have also been
many questions which have dominated the minds of those set to do the task. For
as many questions that have been presented there have been just as many
approaches suggested to address the questions. It is not difficult then to
grasp the complexity of the Old Testament Theological tradition. What is
difficult however, is attempting to discern which ways are better and which
ways are not as fruitful. Throughout this paper we will attempt to understand
precisely why it is imperative not to sign on to a singular approach, rather
why it is important to hold as many approaches as possible at any given time.
Throughout our course, we have
contemplated the various aspects of Old Testament theology and the questions of
concern that orient the particular veins of thought regarding the discipline.
Which canon are we to use when we do Old Testament theology? Is the discipline
of OT theology meant to be normative or descriptive? Is there a unified theme
guiding the story of the Old Testament? Is it necessary to read the Old Testament
through the lens of the New? These are all good questions that help us
understand the direction an OT theologian is headed in his or her work. We have
also considered a number of different theologians who answer these questions in
a variety of different ways and for different reasons. My primary interest when
addressing this very wide scope of concern is in maintaining the difficult
balance of a multi-voiced theology.
As I understand it, most of the
questions that have been posited are really questions about hermeneutic. We
ask, how does the author read their Bible? With the exception of whether the
perspective leads to either normative or descriptive consequences, all the
questions we have been asking deal with the way in which the author is
approaching their Bible. Hermeneutic is a very important area of concern,
hermeneutic determines the trajectory of the theology, hermeneutic determines
the boundaries by which we can converse with others. However, hermeneutic is in
some senses used as a priori dismissal of an argument or perspective even
before that argument is able to be heard. This ultimately leads me to my
concern regarding the broader scope of theology in general, that we simply
cannot write off an argument based on their originating perspective. What does
even more violence to our theological perspective is when we limit ourselves to
only one way in which approach the concerns of the text.
This is an argument made in an essay
written by Stephen Fowl entitled, The
Importance of a Multivoiced Literal Sense of Scripture; The example of Thomas
Aquinas. Fowl argues that many modern commentators and theologians get
caught in a pitfall when they present the variety of ways in which we might be
able to interpret a passage or treatise and then determine which is the best or
primary way in which we should interpret the passage. Now, keep in mind that
Fowl is himself presenting a particular hermeneutical principle, his basic
argument is that "theology and ecclesiology should drive scriptural
hermeneutics, not the other way around."[1]
However, I believe that this hermeneutical principle is one that can be shared
with the particular vein of theology we are now concerned with. Fowl continues
on to present Aquinas' understanding of the multi-voiced literal sense of
Scripture. The basic premise of Aquinas' multi-literal sense of Scripture is
that the literal sense of Scripture is the meaning by which the author was
meaning to portray. If the ultimate author of Scripture is God and God knows
and comprehends all things at once, it is not expecting too much that there are
many things meant to be found in one passage of Scripture. What I would propose
is that the same perspective can be taken up for our task as Old Testament
theologians, that a multi-voiced theological perspective is in some senses
necessary, and in many senses fruitful. The benefits of maintaining a multi-voiced
theological perspective are many. However, there are two primary benefits of
holding this multi-voiced perspective: The first is that this position
circumvents the issue of theologically arrogant anachronistic conclusions. The
second is that it enables us to converse with all manner of voices, theological
and otherwise.
When we refer to arrogant
anachronism what we are concerned with is a popular trend in theological
reflection where we say that our interpretation has finally arrived at the
final conclusion of the discipline. We read the rather dry work that was
presented throughout the modern period, work that was developed outside the
confines of the church when the academy ruled the roost of biblical
interpretation. We read of the medieval scholars and their unscientific outlook
regarding their method, work that merely assumed truths unstated. We read of
the unorganized early church how many of the theological developments undergone
in that time were reactions against 'heretical' thinkers. We read of the
criteria by which canon was developed and are disappointed that Scripture was
sacred not so much for the meaning conveyed in the text, but because the
Scriptures contained the holy tetragrammaton. If we can maintain a
multi-faceted theological perspective, we circumvent the dangerous arrogance
that comes with identifying the one true hermeneutical method. We are enabled
to hold the questions that theologians have asked from the text throughout the
centuries of theological development without discrediting a wealthy legacy of
theological thought. After all, we cannot validate many of our current readings
of the text if we use the early church as a litmus test. I would wager that
Irenaeus and Jerome would read some of the current theological work that has been
done recently and be utterly confused by the conclusions drawn.
Furthermore, when confronted by
voices that we do not agree with we are no longer forced to simply dismiss them
but to interact with them and determine their merit based on their own grounds
and questions. This means that we can read Waltke, we can read Childs, we can
read Barr, and Brueggemann and find valuable insight to the text. Instead of
taking sides and continuing the unfortunate consequences of talking past each
other, we should be developing the thought we are interested in without
ignoring the thought that others are interested in. Perhaps I am simply a
product of my time and the postmodern thought has ravaged my ability to reason.
Perhaps I am overly concerned with opening the circle of influence. Perhaps I
will be drowned by the cacophony of theological voices flooding my conclusions.
But if it helps me to understand God and the nature of the relationship that
exists between us and Him, I am willing to take that risk.
This multi-voiced theological
perspective cannot be without boundaries however. I am not suggesting we throw
caution to the wind and ignore the primary boundaries that have been
established and acknowledged by the church since its earliest days. Nor am I
suggesting that we cannot speak of preferences when it comes to particular
guiding questions. There are dogmatic considerations that we simply cannot go
against. If, for example we were faced with a theologian who somehow rejected
the reality of a trinitarian Godhead, we would not be offside in our concern
regarding the legitimacy of the theological work in question. Furthermore, the
approach I am suggesting has a rather significant caveat in that when it comes
to the question of whether theological reflection should produce normative
truths, and it should, a multi-voiced theological hermeneutic would be unable
to produce such truths. This is where we move towards preferential expression.
It would be inconsiderate and indeed
disconcerting for instance if I were to begin using the Anglican Book of Common
Prayer as normative within the Sunday morning worship service. The Covenant
already has a normative book with which we are encouraged to order the liturgy
of a Sunday morning. My preference as a Covenantor is to use the book already
provided for me. In the same sense, I think that there are ways in which we can
determine our preferred approaches to the discipline of Old Testament theology,
and it is to this preferential expression that the rest of this paper will be
concerned with.
As we have
already stated, there are a number of questions we are primarily interested in
and I will answer them in turn. I have already expressed that theology in
general and Old Testament theology in particular should be a normative
practice. Scripture is not a cavern of facts from which we are to mine
knowledge, but a treasure by which we should orient our lives. Regarding the
question of which canon by which we are to do Old Testament theology through,
as I am currently participating in an evangelical tradition I do not think I
could hold to any other canon than the one used by the reformers.
For the last two questions, I am going to break with popular
consensus. I do not think there is a unified theme in the Old Testament. That
is, I do not think there is a singular theme in the Old Testament. There are
too many threads in the tapestry to weave into a single braid, too many frays
for a single knot to hold together. I do think there are primary themes represented throughout the Old
Testament. It would be obfuscating if we were to ignore the strong presence of
covenant, kingship, or creation within the narrative of the Old Testament.
Whether these themes continuously work towards a grand unified motif I am
however skeptical.
Lastly, I do not think it is
necessary to read the Old Testament through the lens of the New. I have
become convinced that to do so is to do violence to the presented text and the
people who wrote it. I have seen too many times the rather bizarre use of the
Old Testament through the lens of the New: Proof of the trinity in Genesis 1,
the over allegorization of texts that make us uncomfortable, and the blatant
tradition of anti-semitism that arises through the use of the New Testament
being placed over and above the Old. The Old and New Testaments are two
separate entities written by different people, but inspired by the same God. If
we Christianize the Old Testament, we might as well consider Polycarp and
Justin Martyr evangelicals. The tension that exists between the Old and New
Testaments is similar to the tension found through the season of Advent. Advent
provides an opportunity to anticipate both the birth of Christ at Christmas and
the expectation of Christ returning to consummate his kingdom as Lord. We
already know what to expect in the birth of Christ, we know the cross that
awaits the God-king even before we celebrate His birth. In the same sense, we
cannot ignore the fact that there is a New Testament, to do so would be a
violence to the Christian tradition. But there is a way in which we can hold
these two entities as distinct, while at the same time acknowledging their
dependence on each other.
In conclusion, my primary concern is
with a multi-faceted theological approach to Old Testament theology. It is
important to approach Old Testament theology with a desire to include voices
from various traditions, not to limit our spheres of influence to only one.
With this in mind, my preferential position when it comes to major questions
concerning the task of Old Testament theology, is with a normative interest in
the reformed canon addressing the various themes of the Old Testament as a
singular entity.
Opere Citato
Adam, A.K.M., Stephen E. Fowl, Kevin J.
Vanhoozer, Francis Watson. Reading
Scripture with the Church: Toward a Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation.
Grand Rapids:Baker Academic, 2006.
[1] A.K.M. Adam et al., Reading Scripture with the Church: Toward a
Hermeneutic for Theological Interpretation (Grand Rapids:Baker Academic,
2006), 37.
No comments:
Post a Comment