The question that I would bring to the table is what can the pastor out in the jungle do? Can he interpret the Scriptures well? Perhaps this raises other problems with an approach to Scripture that isolates it from other doctrines...
I think Piper and Carson are dancing around something which must be deeply troubling to any Evangelical, myself included. There is unlimited historical data, and the reader can choose what context to place a story in. This implies there is no single correct way to read a biblical text.
Michael I'm afraid to say that I don't share your sympathy for Piper in this discussion, as there seems to me to be something driven about his point: "if you tell the average pastor ...", and so on. This is an argument with a chip on its shoulder about scholarship, and it speaks ill of the evangelical movement that this is felt, still, after all this time, to be a strong and necessary statement.
Carson's point is plain enough --- and I am impressed by his patience in this discussion --- that one will make unnecessary mistakes if one does not attend to the historical background. And the counter-argument is what exactly? "But you'll make more mistakes if ...": this is not a serious argument; it is rather a will to disaffirm someone making a clear point.
Sorry to return to the blog after so long an absence with so negative a remark, but: really. Isn't it past time that Piper's line of argument be "retired"? To put this another way: when I am as old as these gentlemen are now, will I still be hearing this discussion? If so, why? And if not, then why cannot we be done with it now, rather than waiting for another 25 years?
Karl: Would it be OK to drop the "unlimited" and "infinite" and consider some particular Biblical text or other? And why not "Philemon", for the sake of discussion. Clear enough what the letter is about; clear enough that knowing at least a few things about the slavery of the day, and of the wider thought on the subject, will also be a help. What if the plantation slavery of the South had been your only picture of the institution, for example?
Maybe with this (or with some other example) we could discuss what the problem is here.
Luke asks: "Which historical data is best and who decides?"
Umm ... one begins with historical information that seems relevant --- taking professional advice if necessary --- and then starts a conversation?
Again, I think it would be helpful to discuss an actual example, rather than considering this matter in the abstract. At that level of generality it looks indeterminate and open-ended, and for whatever reason this is causing the discussion to snag.
However for what it is worth, it is in the nature of a real-world discussion to be indeterminate and open-ended, both because everything is connected to everything else; and because other people (with different perspectives to our own) are involved: but this is neither mysterious or sinister. The same is true of a conversation with a friend about (say) managing your son's interest in soccer. But, like conversations with friends, some matter are easy to discuss in practice, while others are vexed and others are confused. And some contain pitfalls for the unwary, or are disorienting to someone who comes in "half-way through" some dispute.
We already have a tool to help the interested believer in these matters: the evangelical Bible commentary. This is still a fairly lively institution ...
Bruce, I don't know if Philemon is a great example, mainly because I think the amount of historical data we have around it is approximately an unlimited zero... lots of guesses can be made, and there is data "inside" the text... but very little if any historical context.
A better example might be Luke's Parables. Should we place them, as someone like Kenneth Bailey does, in the context of what we know about Mediterranean Peasantry, reconstructed from ancient societies still living in Palestine? Or, try to fit them into what we know about the Jewish leaders from Josephus? Alternatively, we could contextualise them in reconstructions of the historical Jesus - perhaps as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, or as a Jewish mystic, or as a radical social prophet, or as a hellenistic Cynic philosopher such as were so popular in the decapolis in the centuries around Jesus' time. OR we could contextualise them from what we know about Luke's gospel - perhaps saying Luke was written in Caesarea and fitting the parables into issues surrounding that city in the 80's and 90's... the list goes on!
Each of those contexts will give you a different interpretation of each parable.
So far as I can tell, the only way to avoid this pandemonium is a strict literalism - what would this parable have meant if it was written yesterday, in English?
"pandemonium [or] a strict literalism - what would this parable have meant if it was written yesterday, in English"
Karl these are choices you are imposing on the Biblical material, rather than Scripture forcing them upon you. I suppose you feel the need to do this for some reason, but I put it to you that this need is not coming from the text, or even from the historical background. (Maybe society is to blame?)
The parable was not written yesterday, and neither was it written in English, so what you are proposing is a fiction: an as-if construction. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but what happens when you break bread with a brother, equally English-speaking, from South Africa or somewhere in India? Will their "English", or their understanding of the meaning, be the same as yours? I think not: and so you have not escaped the variation which you claim as your goad.
And let us have some precision, please. I don't really know what "approximately an unlimited zero" means, but we do know some background to Philemon itself, and there are some ancient traditions concerning it, and we certainly know relevant general information about the time and the institution of slavery, and the involvement of slaves in early Christian churches: I challenge you to deny that this is relevant, and that you yourself would be forced to fall back on this (implicitly if not explicitly) if confronted by someone interpreting the letter solely out of (say) their understanding of 18th century plantation slavery.
As for the parables, whatever else they are, they are stories, and there are many of them, so one's understanding of story-telling --- and the comparison with other parables --- should be important guides here. And the evangelists have placed them in what they think is the relevant context, namely, their gospels. Which is a point about "pandemonium", come to think of it: the ancient church recognised four gospels as authoritative, four books written by men filled with the Spirit to record the gospel according to Matthew (as the older way of speaking had it), to Mark, and to Luke, with differences of theme, presentation, and emphasis evident even to a casual reading; and, very different in both atmosphere and kind, the gospel according to John. So if having different takes on the same material presents an unbearable problem, this is not a quarrel you have with Carson, Michael, or myself: you need to take that one up with the faithful of the early centuries.
"the list goes on [and each] of those contexts will give you a different interpretation": but don't we regard some of these things as more relevant than others, some as more plausible than others, and some as better-warranted than others? And are not attempts to reconstruct "the historical Jesus" themselves grounded (in part) in readings of the parables? So then: are those readings compelling?
The parables are in any case a poor place to look for a "single correct way to read", since good stories tend to be richer than that (and these are more than "just stories"). And the effect of background on reading is seldom all-or-nothing, which is one reason I asked to make this discussion more specific. So, to take the Good Samaritan for example: an understanding of purity concerns, and how they structure life and behaviour, will enrich one's understanding of the story. (As it happens, I know, at second-hand, of a real-life analogue in another present-day culture to the priest and the Levite's behaviour in the parable.) But one can still get the story without that, and millions have. And yet: if you know more about the background, you, well, know more about the background. Surely we should not pretend to be ignorant? How is this obediant or faithful behaviour?
Sorry to jump in late (been away and sick). I agree and understand where you are coming from Bruce, but I'd probably err on the side of John Piper. I do look up historical material in sermon preparation, but it is nearly always from a secondary source. If I was to master primary sources would this take me away from my focus on biblical scholarship (Piper's concern). And how much is enough? E. P. Sanders doesn't seem to enter arguements unless a complete understanding of 1st century Palestine is held. I think that an understanding of history is important in biblical studies, but I'll probably rely more on secondary sources and focus on mastering the Bible
Phill, to quote Carson, "You are giving me the antithesis again," but I should make it clear that I have no problem with the use of secondary sources.
I don't think Carson has a problem with this either ... as someone who has invested time in preparing Bible commentaries for the use of the amateur, it would be strange indeed if he were opposed to the use of secondary material!
Which reminds me of another point: it is not entirely sensible to consider this question only via individuals. The church is a body, as the Scripture also teaches. Scholarship has its place, and it plainly has its uses ...
The point at dispute here is an important one, because once the issue is cast as "mastering Scripture" over against broader enquiry, we have set ourselves up for a pious competition over who is more committed to Scripture over against other things. (I follow Paul, I follow Cephas, ... but I follow Christ. Whereas, as Paul says, Christ is not divided.) To take up Carson's point, revelation takes place in time and in particular places and cultures: we are committed (notice: "we") to taking an interest in such things.
While I am, as I say, impressed with Carson's patience in this discussion, I think he concedes too much by admitting scholarship as a "footnote": it is too easy to deprecate a footnote, and then to omit it altogether, something Piper is keen to do, or to pretend that he does, for whatever reason. The argument appears powered by reaction ... whereas we should try to be free of such things.
12 comments:
The question that I would bring to the table is what can the pastor out in the jungle do? Can he interpret the Scriptures well?
Perhaps this raises other problems with an approach to Scripture that isolates it from other doctrines...
I think Piper and Carson are dancing around something which must be deeply troubling to any Evangelical, myself included. There is unlimited historical data, and the reader can choose what context to place a story in. This implies there is no single correct way to read a biblical text.
But there isn't unlimited historical data...
It certainly the case that the issue presents itself at different levels of complexity. But the only result is not bewilderment!
Well, clearly.
Michael I'm afraid to say that I don't share your sympathy for Piper in this discussion, as there seems to me to be something driven about his point: "if you tell the average pastor ...", and so on. This is an argument with a chip on its shoulder about scholarship, and it speaks ill of the evangelical movement that this is felt, still, after all this time, to be a strong and necessary statement.
Carson's point is plain enough --- and I am impressed by his patience in this discussion --- that one will make unnecessary mistakes if one does not attend to the historical background. And the counter-argument is what exactly? "But you'll make more mistakes if ...": this is not a serious argument; it is rather a will to disaffirm someone making a clear point.
Sorry to return to the blog after so long an absence with so negative a remark, but: really. Isn't it past time that Piper's line of argument be "retired"? To put this another way: when I am as old as these gentlemen are now, will I still be hearing this discussion? If so, why? And if not, then why cannot we be done with it now, rather than waiting for another 25 years?
Not unlimited historical data? OK, so what is the limit of historical data?
I could agree there is not infinite historical data... but infinite and unlimited are different things.
Karl: Would it be OK to drop the "unlimited" and "infinite" and consider some particular Biblical text or other? And why not "Philemon", for the sake of discussion. Clear enough what the letter is about; clear enough that knowing at least a few things about the slavery of the day, and of the wider thought on the subject, will also be a help. What if the plantation slavery of the South had been your only picture of the institution, for example?
Maybe with this (or with some other example) we could discuss what the problem is here.
Which historical data is best and who decides?
Luke asks: "Which historical data is best and who decides?"
Umm ... one begins with historical information that seems relevant --- taking professional advice if necessary --- and then starts a conversation?
Again, I think it would be helpful to discuss an actual example, rather than considering this matter in the abstract. At that level of generality it looks indeterminate and open-ended, and for whatever reason this is causing the discussion to snag.
However for what it is worth, it is in the nature of a real-world discussion to be indeterminate and open-ended, both because everything is connected to everything else; and because other people (with different perspectives to our own) are involved: but this is neither mysterious or sinister. The same is true of a conversation with a friend about (say) managing your son's interest in soccer. But, like conversations with friends, some matter are easy to discuss in practice, while others are vexed and others are confused. And some contain pitfalls for the unwary, or are disorienting to someone who comes in "half-way through" some dispute.
We already have a tool to help the interested believer in these matters: the evangelical Bible commentary. This is still a fairly lively institution ...
Bruce, I don't know if Philemon is a great example, mainly because I think the amount of historical data we have around it is approximately an unlimited zero... lots of guesses can be made, and there is data "inside" the text... but very little if any historical context.
A better example might be Luke's Parables. Should we place them, as someone like Kenneth Bailey does, in the context of what we know about Mediterranean Peasantry, reconstructed from ancient societies still living in Palestine? Or, try to fit them into what we know about the Jewish leaders from Josephus? Alternatively, we could contextualise them in reconstructions of the historical Jesus - perhaps as a Jewish apocalyptic prophet, or as a Jewish mystic, or as a radical social prophet, or as a hellenistic Cynic philosopher such as were so popular in the decapolis in the centuries around Jesus' time. OR we could contextualise them from what we know about Luke's gospel - perhaps saying Luke was written in Caesarea and fitting the parables into issues surrounding that city in the 80's and 90's... the list goes on!
Each of those contexts will give you a different interpretation of each parable.
So far as I can tell, the only way to avoid this pandemonium is a strict literalism - what would this parable have meant if it was written yesterday, in English?
"pandemonium [or] a strict literalism - what would this parable have meant if it was written yesterday, in English"
Karl these are choices you are imposing on the Biblical material, rather than Scripture forcing them upon you. I suppose you feel the need to do this for some reason, but I put it to you that this need is not coming from the text, or even from the historical background. (Maybe society is to blame?)
The parable was not written yesterday, and neither was it written in English, so what you are proposing is a fiction: an as-if construction. Nothing wrong with that in itself, but what happens when you break bread with a brother, equally English-speaking, from South Africa or somewhere in India? Will their "English", or their understanding of the meaning, be the same as yours? I think not: and so you have not escaped the variation which you claim as your goad.
And let us have some precision, please. I don't really know what "approximately an unlimited zero" means, but we do know some background to Philemon itself, and there are some ancient traditions concerning it, and we certainly know relevant general information about the time and the institution of slavery, and the involvement of slaves in early Christian churches: I challenge you to deny that this is relevant, and that you yourself would be forced to fall back on this (implicitly if not explicitly) if confronted by someone interpreting the letter solely out of (say) their understanding of 18th century plantation slavery.
As for the parables, whatever else they are, they are stories, and there are many of them, so one's understanding of story-telling --- and the comparison with other parables --- should be important guides here. And the evangelists have placed them in what they think is the relevant context, namely, their gospels. Which is a point about "pandemonium", come to think of it: the ancient church recognised four gospels as authoritative, four books written by men filled with the Spirit to record the gospel according to Matthew (as the older way of speaking had it), to Mark, and to Luke, with differences of theme, presentation, and emphasis evident even to a casual reading; and, very different in both atmosphere and kind, the gospel according to John. So if having different takes on the same material presents an unbearable problem, this is not a quarrel you have with Carson, Michael, or myself: you need to take that one up with the faithful of the early centuries.
"the list goes on [and each] of those contexts will give you a different interpretation": but don't we regard some of these things as more relevant than others, some as more plausible than others, and some as better-warranted than others? And are not attempts to reconstruct "the historical Jesus" themselves grounded (in part) in readings of the parables? So then: are those readings compelling?
The parables are in any case a poor place to look for a "single correct way to read", since good stories tend to be richer than that (and these are more than "just stories"). And the effect of background on reading is seldom all-or-nothing, which is one reason I asked to make this discussion more specific. So, to take the Good Samaritan for example: an understanding of purity concerns, and how they structure life and behaviour, will enrich one's understanding of the story. (As it happens, I know, at second-hand, of a real-life analogue in another present-day culture to the priest and the Levite's behaviour in the parable.) But one can still get the story without that, and millions have. And yet: if you know more about the background, you, well, know more about the background. Surely we should not pretend to be ignorant? How is this obediant or faithful behaviour?
Sorry to jump in late (been away and sick). I agree and understand where you are coming from Bruce, but I'd probably err on the side of John Piper. I do look up historical material in sermon preparation, but it is nearly always from a secondary source.
If I was to master primary sources would this take me away from my focus on biblical scholarship (Piper's concern). And how much is enough? E. P. Sanders doesn't seem to enter arguements unless a complete understanding of 1st century Palestine is held. I think that an understanding of history is important in biblical studies, but I'll probably rely more on secondary sources and focus on mastering the Bible
Phill, to quote Carson, "You are giving me the antithesis again," but I should make it clear that I have no problem with the use of secondary sources.
I don't think Carson has a problem with this either ... as someone who has invested time in preparing Bible commentaries for the use of the amateur, it would be strange indeed if he were opposed to the use of secondary material!
Which reminds me of another point: it is not entirely sensible to consider this question only via individuals. The church is a body, as the Scripture also teaches. Scholarship has its place, and it plainly has its uses ...
The point at dispute here is an important one, because once the issue is cast as "mastering Scripture" over against broader enquiry, we have set ourselves up for a pious competition over who is more committed to Scripture over against other things. (I follow Paul, I follow Cephas, ... but I follow Christ. Whereas, as Paul says, Christ is not divided.) To take up Carson's point, revelation takes place in time and in particular places and cultures: we are committed (notice: "we") to taking an interest in such things.
While I am, as I say, impressed with Carson's patience in this discussion, I think he concedes too much by admitting scholarship as a "footnote": it is too easy to deprecate a footnote, and then to omit it altogether, something Piper is keen to do, or to pretend that he does, for whatever reason. The argument appears powered by reaction ... whereas we should try to be free of such things.
Post a Comment