I have been reading John Goldingay's Old Testament Theology: Israel's Gospel which is the first of three volumes in a planned OT Theology. To my mind, every Christian theologian of whatever stripe ought to at least have OT theology as a hobby - bearing in mind that OT Theologies as such have only been written in the last century or so. And 'OT theology' is a far more fruitful and interesting approach to the OT than reading commentaries on individual books. For one thing, it shows just what a complex - and rich - entity the Hebrew scriptures are.
Anyhow, Goldingay writes a very interesting appendix to his first volume, on the matter of history and criticism. As he puts it:
Modern historical study has presupposed that we are in a better position to determine where the facts lie than the authors of premodern narratives were, as well as having the motivation to do that. The trouble is that the resuts of a historical approach to the First Testament narratives are disappointing... First, in the 2000s we know much less than we knew in 1900 or 1950 about the origin of most of the narratives. p. 866
Speculation, as Goldingay shows, has repeatedly become confident assertion in one generation only to be exposed and overthrown in the next. And the real business - of asking 'what are these texts actually saying?' becomes further obscured. Gerhard von Rad's work is an interesting example: I find his interpretations and insights almost always fascinating and helpful and he writes with rare power. But you have to pass over or take with some grains of salt his source-critical and historical material which has not stood the test of time.
9 comments:
you really are a nerd ;)
And proud.
Welcome back Michael.
FYI I've started my own blog, although I don't know yet how often I'll post to it (or on what subjects).
In the passage you quoted from Goldingay: he doesn't put scare quotes around "know"?
Hello Michael,
Your comments reminded me of what D. M. Gunn wrote ("New Directions in the Study of Biblical Hebrew Narrative," JSOT 39 [1987] 66):
"It is no exaggeration to say that the truly assured results of historical critical scholarship concerning authorship, date and provenance would fill but a pamphlet."
First, in the 2000s we know much less than we knew in 1900 or 1950 about the origin of most of the narratives.
So, like, does he mean we thought we knew a lot but now have discovered that we didn't, or just that we have worked out that all we had thought is wrong, or that there was a big fire and all the hard work was lost?
Hope you had a nice holiday in France. I expect you to post some pics.
Just out of interest - if it just get's revised every few years or so - what sort of role do you see source-criticism playing in the day to day lives of grass-roots, evangelical Bible teachers?
Well I wouldn't want the comment from Goldingay to be an excuse for obscurantism (nor would he)...the temptation of the 'grass-roots Bible teachers' is to take short-cuts because they are often pragmatists and always busy. Also, the tendency there is to gloss over the text as if it it were all penned by single authors without editing at all. That there ARE different sources combined together in the Pentateuch is not in dispute. Just what that says about the world in which the text was created is certainly in dispute.
Genesis 1 and 2 is a great example, because you can see that there is comment and development and expansion going on: and that is quite enlightening I think of just what we are supposed to make of the two accounts - and you can do this without speculating.
Another thing I would say is that it certainly IS useful to imagine the pentateuch or the psalms being read during the exile, and what it may have meant for those readers then.
Well spoken.
In my own experience I've run into teachers who will acknowledge all these things when pressed, but not spontaneously refer to them in their own teaching. I think this is a mistake on all sorts of levels, but for now let me put in a plea on behalf of The Smart Kid in an unassuming grassroots evangelical church somewhere. If these sort of "footnote" details never make it into pulpit teaching, then less-informed Bible study leaders will either not acknowledge them at all, or (hearing of them by distant rumour) stake out a position against them, on behalf of orthodoxy. It is spiritually and socially miserable to be 16 in such an environment, and to know better.
In 2000, I was Visiting Prof. of Christian Ethics at Fuller and got to know Goldingay slightly. I was fairly impressed with him. Of course, he seemed to have taken his transition from Oxfordshire to Pasadena a little too much to heart--wearing Hawaiiam shirts and sandles to class! :-)
I remember him describing himself as caught between Childs and Brueggemann: Childs' description of the OT as Scripture delighted his evangelical soul, but Brueggemann actually allowed Scripture to trump all tradition and so had his vote for how evangelicals SHOULD approach Scripture. :-)
Post a Comment