Brevard Childs and the treasures of darkness

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Collin Cornell

AbstractContemporary biblical studies is populated by ‘comparativists’ and ‘theological interpreters’: scholars who read the Bible in the context of ancient artefacts, and scholars who read it in the context of Christian theology, respectively. These camps relate to one another mostly by feuding – or by mutual avoidance. The Old Testament theologian Brevard Childs is usually taken as a champion in the cause of theological interpretation, and so also as reinforcing one side of the disciplinary division. But under certain conditions, Childs also authorised the use of ancient artefacts (‘the treasures of darkness’) for reading scripture theologically. This article reactivates the latter possibility within Childs’ interpretive programme, especially through two cases studies: the first by Childs himself, when he uses the Sargon Legend to interpret Exodus 2; and the second a reprise of Childs’ procedure, using the Mesha Inscription to interpret 1 Kings 22.

2015 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 125-134
Author(s):  
Bernd Schröder

Abstract “Tora” is to be seen as an originally Jewish key concept interpreting the first section of the Hebrew Bible. Adopting this concept within Christian Theology offers a range of fresh learning opportunities to Christian learners - it would help them to appreciate Jewish reading of the Bible, it would stress a canonical approach as well as a theological interpretation of the Hebrew Bible. The author of this contribution underlines such an adoption to be a helpful tool for raising the status of Old Testament texts in RE.


1948 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-73
Author(s):  
R. Stuart Louden

We can trace a revival of theology in the Reformed Churches in the last quarter of a century. The new theological interest merits being called a revival of theology, for there has been a fresh and more thorough attention given to certain realities, either ignored or treated with scant notice for a considerable time previously.First among such realities now receiving more of the attention which their relevance and authority deserve, is the Bible, the record of the Word of God. There is an invigorating and convincing quality about theology which is Biblical throughout, being based on the witness of the Scriptures as a whole. The valuable results of careful Biblical scholarship had had an adverse effect on theology in so far as theologians had completely separated the Old Testament from the New in their treatment of Biblical doctrine, or in expanding Christian doctrine, had spoken of the theological teaching of the Synoptic Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the Johannine writings, and so on, as if there were no such thing as one common New Testament witness. It is being seen anew that the Holy Scriptures contain a complete history of God's saving action. The presence of the complete Bible open at the heart of the Church, recalls each succeeding Christian generation to that one history of God's saving action, to which the Church is the living witness. The New Testament is one, for its Lord is one, and Christian theology must stand four-square on the foundation of its whole teaching.


Author(s):  
John R. Spencer

Within the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament there is a provision for six cities of refuge (“cities of intaking” [ערי מקלט]), where someone who has unintentionally committed murder can go and not be subject to blood revenge (Exodus 20:12–14; Numbers 35:9–28; Deuteronomy 4:41–43, 19:1–13; Joshua 20; 1 Chronicles 6). This practice has been described as refuge, asylum, and sanctuary, and the cities have been given all three of these labels, which has resulted in differing understandings of the intention of these cities. The basic legal issue is the distinction between intentional and unintentional killing. For most societies in the ancient Near East, including ancient Israel, the idea of “blood revenge” (an “eye for an eye”; lex talionis) was the way in which the killing of a member of your clan or family was avenged (Exodus 21:23). The distinction made in association with the cities of refuge/asylum was how to deal with an individual who accidentally, without intention, killed another (Exodus 21:12–14; Number 35:16–28). Also associated with this idea is the nature of sanctuary or asylum that one can obtain when one reaches a cultic center with an altar (1 Kings 1:50–53; 2:23–24). One should also note that all the cities of refuge are also Levitical Cities (1 Chronicles 6), but it is not clear what the role of the Levites was in such a city of refuge. Among the issues associated with these cities are the following: Did they actually exist, or were they simply a fiction created at a later period of time? If they were real, what was their historical context? Was it premonarchic, the time of David and Solomon, related to the centralization of Josiah, or postexilic? When were the texts composed (a question associated with the previous issue and raising wonderings about different hands in the composition of the texts associated with the idea of asylum cities)? What is the connection between altars of sanctuary and the cities of refuge, and why the apparent replacement of altars with cities? Who and how was the validity of the claim of unintentional killing (Numbers 35:24–25; Joshua 20:4) decided, even if the killer was a “sojourner” (gēr) (Joshua 20:9)? What was the consequence of the death of the high priest (Numbers 35:27; Joshua 20:6), and how it was related to some concept of atonement? What was the relationship between the different biblical presentations of refuge or asylum? What was the connection with the Levites (See Oxford Bibliographies in Biblical Studies articles Levi/Levites) and Levitical Cities? Finally, what is the relevance to today’s society with its issues of sanctuary for immigrants and sojourners?


2012 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 402-420
Author(s):  
R. W. L. Moberly

AbstractInitially I briefly expound Martin Buber's Two Types of Faith so as to clarify Buber's sharp contrast between Jewish faith (Hebrew Emunah) and Christian belief (Greek Pistis). I suggest that Buber's polarisation of Emunah, a trust and existential engagement with God, over against Pistis, an intellectual acknowledgement which lacks immediacy with God, has certain resonances with Wilfred Cantwell Smith's distinguishing between ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in his attempt to overcome the Enlightenment tendency to reduce religious faith to propositional belief. I also acknowledge that Buber's conceptually alert and religiously constructive engagement with the Bible in its own way embodies many of the concerns in the current attempts to bring Bible and theology together via ‘theological interpretation’ or ‘a canonical approach’. However, Buber's account of the Old Testament overlooks the presence of the idiom ‘to know that’ (Hebrew yada( ki), which points to the importance of cognitive content in relation to knowing Israel's God. I consider a number of narratives which feature the deuteronomic idiom ‘to know that Yhwh is God’ (or closely comparable formulations) – Elijah on Mount Carmel (1 Kings 18), Rahab (Joshua 2), Naaman (2 Kings 5) and David and Goliath (1 Samuel 17) – and consider the function of ‘knowing that Yhwh is God’ in each passage. By way of conclusion I reflect on the complementarity of ‘knowing God’ and ‘knowing about God’ and the problematic nature of tendencies, represented by Buber, to set these over against each other. I also suggest that there is fruitful work to be done through a comparative and synthetic biblical and theological study of the relationship between the Old Testament concern that people should ‘know that Yhwh is God’ and the New Testament concern that people should ‘believe that Jesus Christ is Lord’.


Author(s):  
John A. Maxfield

Scholarly analysis of biblical interpretation and commentary in the history of Christianity has become an important subfield in history as well as biblical studies and theology. From the Reformation and into the modern era, Martin Luther has been appreciated first of all as an expositor of the Bible and a confessor of its teachings. His vocation as a theologian called to teach in the University of Wittenberg was especially focused on the exposition of scripture, and his development as a theologian and eventually as an evangelical reformer was deeply tied to his experience in interpreting the Bible in his university classroom, in the Augustinian cloister, and in his household. His interpretation of scripture was the basis of his “Reformation discovery” of justification by faith, and his conflict with the papal church was largely the result of Luther’s conviction that the message of scripture, in particular “the gospel,” was being overwhelmed in the theology and churchly practice of his time by “human teachings” not supported by and contradicting scripture. As a result, Luther and other evangelical reformers of the 16th century appealed to scripture alone (sola scriptura) as the highest authority in shaping their theology and proposals for reform. Luther’s teachings and leadership in the Reformation were shared and celebrated not only through his doctrinal and polemical treatises and catechetical writings, but also through the many sermons, biblical commentaries on both Old and New Testament books, and prefaces on the books of the Bible that were published in his lifetime and thereafter. Old Testament commentary was an especially important genre of Luther’s published works, as it encapsulated much of his work as a university professor of theology and evangelical reformer.


Author(s):  
Pan-chiu Lai

This essay offers an analysis of the relationship of Sino-Christian theology, a cultural qua theological movement flourishing in contemporary China, with the Bible. Based on a survey of the articles published in Logos & Pneuma: Chinese Journal of Theology (Dao Feng), the organ journal of Sino-Christian theology, and some other relevant publications, it argues that due to the political atmosphere, the institutional restriction, and the intellectual as well as religious orientations of the relevant scholars, Sino-Christian theology had made very limited efforts in developing biblical studies as an academic discipline in mainland China until the mid-2000s or so. Since then, the publications related to biblical studies proliferated dramatically in mainland China, and some approaches to biblical studies with certain Chinese characteristics have been developed. It is expected that some innovative approaches to the Bible as well as biblical studies will be further developed in the Chinese-speaking world.


Author(s):  
Thomas H. McCall

Recent years have seen the flowering of something called the “theological interpretation of Scripture.” This is, very roughly, what happens when biblical scholars and theologians alike read the Bible to see what it tells us about God. For several centuries, the discipline of biblical studies has been not only distinguished but also separated from theological discourse. There have been many notable exceptions, of course, but the all-too-common results have been these: biblical scholars often interpret the texts with other aims in mind (sometimes reading with a theological lens has been discouraged as unscholarly and thus improper), and theologians often do their work of constructive theology without serious engagement with biblical scholarship or even with the Christian Scriptures. Recent years have also seen the rise (or perhaps re-birth) of something now called “analytic theology.” Analytic theology is, very roughly, what happens when philosophers who are interested in doctrine and theologians who think that there is (or might be) value in the appropriate use of philosophical tools get together. It is now a burgeoning movement, and analytic theologians are making contributions on a wide range of issues and topics, and from a variety of perspectives and approaches. We have not, however, witnessed a great deal of interaction between those who engage in the theological interpretation of Scripture and those who practice analytic theology....


2016 ◽  
Vol 128 (6) ◽  
pp. 276-285
Author(s):  
George G. Nicol

Following some general remarks on recent significant trends in biblical studies, I note that these will exacerbate the gulf between church and academy with respect to biblical interpretation. A brief introduction to the official documents of the Church of Scotland shows that they provide little indication of how the Bible should be interpreted as a document of the church. In view of the ideological nature of many of the biblical texts an argument against too ready recourse to theological interpretation is outlined.


2011 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul E. Capetz

One salient characteristic of our current situation is the emergence of a growing consensus among theologians and biblical scholars alike that the time has come to “dethrone” historical criticism as the reigning paradigm of scriptural exegesis for the sake of recovering a theological interpretation of the Bible on behalf of the church.1 To illustrate this new development, I have chosen to focus on the arguments of three prominent biblical scholars, each of whom has made a sustained case about the negative effects of historical criticism upon theological exegesis: They are Brevard S. Childs, Christopher R. Seitz, and Dale B. Martin. All three scholars have close ties to Yale and, not surprisingly, they bear a sort of family resemblance to one another inasmuch as their work partakes of theological themes and concerns that have been prominent at that school in recent decades. Notwithstanding their antagonistic posture toward historical criticism, all three are gifted practitioners of the very method whose dominance they seek to overturn. Since I am not a biblical scholar, I must enter into discussion with them as a theologian who is equally concerned about the relations between biblical studies and theology. At the outset, however, it is necessary to clarify that my own theological orientation prevents me from embracing their call to depose historical criticism. As a liberal Protestant for whom historical-critical interpretation of both the biblical and the post-biblical tradition is constitutive of theology's proper task, their initial premise that historical criticism is somehow inimical to a theological treatment of the Bible strikes me as false and misleading. Contrary to the impression given by their explicit formulations, it appears that the real target of their polemics is not historical scholarship per se but, rather, the normative uses to which it is put in theologies informed by it.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document