biblical theology ~ canon and plain sense - j. g. mcconville

7/24/2019 Biblical Theology ~ Canon and Plain Sense - J. G. McConville

1/25

The Biblical Theology Briefings www.beginningwithmoses.org

Biblical Theology: Canon and Plain Sense

J. G. McConville

Professor of Old Testament Studies at The University of

Gloucestershire (www.glos.ac.u!

The Context

"i#lical Theology is a somewhat sli$$ery creature% which at times #ass in the sun

and at other times retreats &uietly% or even ignominiously% into the shade. 'f it

seems at first glance to have a sim$licity a#out it% this is dece$tive% and it has a

ha#it of changing its form when it reemerges for another $hase of its life. )t

$resent% "i#lical Theology shows signs of reaching its $rime% after a s$ell in the

wilderness. The last active $eriod of its life was associated with G. *. +right,s The

God Who Acts% -/ and also with the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament%

edited #y 0. 1ittel. This emergence of "i#lical Theology was ended% #y all

accounts% #y James "arr,s criti&ue of 1ittel% es$ecially in The Semantics of Biblical

Language-2/. 'n its wae% "revard Childs s$oe of a 3crisis, in "i#lical Theology%

and develo$ed what is variously nown as canonical criticism and canonical

theology -4/. 'n doing so he e5$ressly intended to find a new way of doing theology

for the church #ased on the two testaments. The s$irit of it was close to that of

"i#lical Theology% and the story of the latter over the last three decades must

unfold the former too.

'n these last days% however% there have #een sightings of "i#lical Theology itself%

a#road again in the theological landsca$e% a newly invigorated creature. ) leading

e5am$le is 6rancis +atson,s Text and Truth% -7/ in which he aims to reesta#lish

the genre% #eginning with a criti&ue of "arr,s attac on 1ittel% which he regards as

a tour de force. 8ot only so% #ut "arr himself has weighed in with a ma9or volume
http://www.glos.ac.uk/http://www.glos.ac.uk/


2/25


entitled The Concet of Biblical Theology% -:/ which turns out to #e a defence of

the idea (he $refers 3$an"i#lical Theology,!% though he understands it in a way

&uite unlie Childs or +atson.

+hat% then% is "i#lical Theology; )t the sim$lest level% it is letting the "i#le s$ea

today. The story as ' have introduced it has focused on the world of academic

theology.


3/25


The title of this su#section seems to hesitate #etween two designations. "oth are

used% however% to refer to the method of inter$retation advocated #y Childs% with

good reason% #ecause the a$$roach not only aims to do theology% #ut also to

revise the way in which 3critical, reading of the #i#lical te5ts is done -=/. Criticism of

historical criticism is at the heart of the enter$rise. This is not 9ust a matter of

leaving those (historicalcritical! issues on one side while we get on with what

really matters% nor of 3moving #eyond, historical criticism% since in either case the

im$lied recognition of that method will return to $ut s$oes in inter$retative wheels.

So the criti&ue is more $ointed and severe. 6or +atson% historical criticism has

failed #ecause it has not led to contem$orary actuali>ation of the te5t. That is% it

fails #y its own standards% namely to $rovide the illumination of te5ts necessary to

their accurate inter$retation. This is $artly #ecause of the multi$licity of $ro$osed

solutions to $ro#lems $osed #y the method% so that the $romise of rogress in

understanding is ultimately illusory -?/. Christo$her Seit> argues too that the

method delights in so$histication% so that $ro$osed 3real, meanings% unearthed #y

historical and sociological study% run counter to what the te5ts seem to say on a

$lain reading -@/.

The conse&uence of this failure is that the canonical te5ts have a right to #e heard

as what they are% the Scri$tures of the church. The $oint can #e made in slightly

different ways. The stress can #e $ut on the right of the church to inter$ret the

"i#le as Scri$ture #ecause that is how it has received it and is related to it (the

tendency of Childs!. +atson% finding a 3formalistic tendency, in Childs% wants to

add that the canonical form of the te5t is the most suita#le for theological use%

#ecause of 3the theological 9udgment that the su#9ectmatter or content of the

#i#lical te5ts is inse$ara#le from their form, -A/. Though this thought is inde#ted to


4/25


inter$retation% it was secondary to the te5t in its final form. )nd in addition% the

as$ect of the te5t,s $osthistory (Jewish and Christian! #ecame $rominent% in a

move that has $roved im$ortant and influential. These wors% however% left o$en

the larger &uestions of how individual #oos contri#uted to a theology #ased on

the wider canon% and indeed how that wider canon might #e defined.


5/25


#y segregating the $arts of the Old Testament and stressing their distinctiveness.

6or Childs% in contrast% e%erything is 3witness,. 6or e5am$le% on the Second

CommandmentD 3'n many ways% the story of the Golden Calf (*5. 42! offers the

most e5tended canonical witness regarding the use of images, ($. =?!.

+hile $TTCCis an e5am$le of an a$ologia for Old Testament theology% Childs

taes u$ the challenge of Biblical Theologyin BT$NT. )lready in $TTCC% "i#lical

Theology and Old Testament theology were distinguished in this wayD 3the tas of

#i#lical theology is to e5$lore the relation #etween these two witnesses -Old

Testament and 8ew Testament/% whereas the tas of Old Testament theology is to

reflect theologically on only the one $ortion of the Christian canon% #ut as Christian

scri$ture, ($TTCC% $. A!.

To see how the main section of the argument o$erates -4/ we tae as an e5am$le

the treatment of covenant% $eo$le of God% election. 6ollowing historicalcritical

reconstructions of covenant (742!% he turns to the way in which the testaments

relate. This is not 9ust a matter of noting contrasts #etween them. 0ather a

dialectical $attern emerges within #oth testaments (e.g. in the Old Testament%

#etween 'srael as 3a concrete% historical nation% as well as a transhistorical% even

ideal% reality,% 772!. The 8ew Testament,s relation to the Old% however% is

conceived as an 3a$$ro$riation, of it% or rather of certain strands of it. 'f there is

continuity #etween the testaments% it is attri#uta#le to such a$$ro$riation% and

furthermore% there is also discontinuity% that is% where the 8ew Testament has

declined to follow a $articular Old Testament line (for e5am$le% 3the early church

remained somewhat critical of the covenant theology of the Old Testament and

develo$ed only the one as$ect of the new covenant in the Syno$tic $assion

accounts% in Paul and in


6/25


of canonical #i#lical theology for Childs. The relationshi$ #etween the testaments

is conceived according to a $articular $attern% in which the movement is clearly

from Old Testament to 8ew Testament% yet in which the manner in which the

3discrete, voices unite in a common witness is never &uite articulated. The

section,s closing 3dogmatic reflections, identify the to$ics of Church and

synagogue% the sha$e of the modern church (assimilating indigenous forms!% and

the challenge of $olitical involvement. "ut it is not clear how these are identified

out of the foregoing.

't may #e that Childs has res$onded effectively to the charge of formalism% #y

esta#lishing that canonical theology involves theological reflection on the

interaction of the $arts% all oriented towards the central su#9ectmatter% Jesus

Christ.


7/25


a$$roach to the Old Testament in the wor of 0. )l#ert> -:/. )l#ert> is convinced

that religious statements cannot #e understood a$art from the historical conte5t in

which they are made. This does not mean that )l#ert> is interested in mere

descri$tion of what was true in the $ast. "arr% in a sym$athetic treatment of the

wor% $oints out that its intention is to do inter$retation $recisely for the church%

and in the #elief that canonical tendencies 3ghettoi>e, inter$retation -=/. 'n

attem$ting to let the Old Testament s$ea% )l#ert> has chosen a very different

method from canonical theology. +hile he resists the synthesi>ing of varying

religious statements% which he sees as a $rocess of a#straction% canonical

theology demands synthesis. The issue% then% is $erha$s more a matter of

methodology than of intention. The recurrence of a history of religion a$$roach is

testimony to the demands of the historical nature of the material. ) similar $oint

might #e made a#out Stendahl,s distinction in inter$retation #etween 3what it

meant, and 3what it means,.


8/25


sim$ly that one must do the historical wor first% then $roceed to inter$retation% a

view a$$arently im$lied #y Childs, re$rofiling of historical criticism in Biblical

Theology of the $ld and New Testaments% and a$$arently es$oused #y +.

"rueggemann -2B/. 't is rather that theological nowledge de$ends not only on

what the "i#le says% #ut also in some degree on historical nowledge. 6or

e5am$le% when we as what is meant #y 3God, in the Old Testament% of course it is

true that we now this #y reading the Old Testament story. +e get to now who

God is #y the story of the deliverance of 'srael from *gy$tian ca$tivity (Christo$her

Seit>,s essay on the meaning of the divine name as revealed to Moses is very

insightful on this $oint -2/!% and indeed in the $rolegomena to this in the Genesis

accounts of creation and of God,s encounters with the $atriarchs. That account%

however% is com$letely entwined with factors that we now #y means other than

merely reading the "i#le. 'n Genesis and *5odus% *l who meets )#raham% 'saac

and Jaco# is found to #e Iahweh% God of 'srael -22/. Iahweh is introduced #y

reference to a deity a#out whom we have nowledge from history and

archaeology. 'n other $arts of the Old Testament% Iahweh is nown in relation

(now in contradistinction! to "aal (or the #aalim!% a#out whom% again% we have

su#stantial e5tra#i#lical nowledge. *ven the central creedal affirmation of the Old

Testament% 3


9/25


$re$aration for theology% #ut that there is a ind of theological nowledge that

comes #y 3natural, means% that is% other than #y 3revelation, as that is usually

meant in theological discourse.


10/25


is the voices of the #i#lical writers that have the final say. "arr,s other main

argument for natural theology H that the "i#le itself uses it H does not resolve the

tension #etween the two a$$roaches% for the $assages which may #e cited in

favour of the conce$t aim in fact to esta#lish #elief in the God $roclaimed #y the

#i#lical writers (so +atson,s criticism of "arr on this $oint! -2=/.

'f "arr were right in his #elief that theological nowledge can #e derived from

sources other than the "i#le% that might strengthen the case for a religious

historical reading of the Old Testament% in which the various voices of the #i#lical

writers could #e measured against a host of other voices in the #acground. 'f one

taes his contention out of the e&uation% however% we are still left with the

interde$endence of religion and theology. +e have seen this at the level of

e5egesis of $articular te5ts% and it is therefore clear why there is a com$licated

issue of methodology at the highest level of organi>ation (that is% a canonical

theological a$$roach or a religioushistorical one!.

Canonical Methodology

+hat is decisive for a canonical a$$roach to "i#lical Theology% in my view% is the

$ro#lem of the Old Testament. This $ro$osition may not seem immediately

$ersuasive% since wors of "i#lical Theology have #een conceived along

3historical, lines. The classic e5am$le is von 0ad,s $ld Testament Theology% -2?/

which has $roved more influential on inter$retation than its main methodological

rival% *ichrodt,s Theology of the $ld Testament-2@/. Kon 0ad,s wor is in reality a

wor of "i#lical Theology% #ecause it traces the action of God in history from the

Old Testament to the 8ew. Though von 0ad distinguishes his Theology from a

historyofreligions a$$roach% it has a certain affinity with the latter #ecause of its

method% #ased on historicalcritical e5egesis% of e5amining each cor$us of the

material in turn% in a historical se&uence. The $icture is #uilt u$ #y a series of

accounts of 'srael,s distinct faith e5$eriences of Iahweh. The methodology is

com$osite% as has #een well shown #y M. Oeming% who identified four categories

used #y von 0adD $romisehistory% traditionhistory% salvationhistory and


11/25


languagehistory -2A/. "ut the common denominator is history% and there is a

forward develo$ment from Old Testament to 8ew.

One of the $ro#lems with von 0ad,s analysis is the uneasy relationshi$ #etween

the history of 'srael discovered #y historical criticism and the understanding of it

e5$ressed #y 'srael,s faith. The $ro$osed a$$rehension of the meaning of history

#y faith $uts in &uestion the $recise role of historical criticism in discovering

theological truth. )s Oeming e5$resses it% von 0ad,s method 3transcends, historical

criticism% and in res$ect of the role of faith in inter$retation% he goes on to identify

and e5$ound the closeness of von 0ad to Gadamer,s hermeneutic -4B/.

The am#iguous relationshi$ to historical criticism in von 0ad is well e5$ressed #y

C. Seit>. Kon 0ad uses ty$ology as a means to #ridge the ga$ #etween an event

in the $ast (that is% 'srael,s historical e5$ressions of faith! and Christian theological

inter$retation in the $resent. That is% the ongoing 3tradition, #roadens the

significance of older events into the ty$ical. 'n Seit>,s view% however% this is

insufficient% #ecause other ty$ologies are thina#le than the 8ew Testament

3fulfilment,% and #ecause the category of ty$ology struggles to co$e with the fact

that the later writers of the Old Testament% ca$tivated #y the glory of the event%

3manifestly misdraw the historical $icture, -4/.

The $ro#lem also emerges starly in connection with the category of tradition

history. The $remise in this case is that the Old Testament,s writers engage in a

rece$tion of and reflection on e5isting theological traditions. 'n doing so% they ada$t

it according to fresh insights arising from new revelatory events. "y ado$ting this

$ers$ective von 0ad is a#le to argue that the decisive event of salvationhistory

that occurs in Christ is neither a#solutely new% nor an illegitimate move% since the

recognition of this latest saving act of the God of 'srael is sim$ly the last in a line of

reinter$retations of tradition in the light of new revelatory events -42/. 'f this seems

cogent on the surface% the small $rint should not #e missed. 'n a sense the new

insights achieved #y the #i#lical writers are rereali>ations of e5isting traditions%

and thus im$ly a validation of the tradition.


12/25


is &uietly $assed over% and so re9ected% #y the $ro$hets, -44/. The issue raised #y

this is not the status of historical criticism as such% #ut of the Old Testament as

revelatory% since $arts of it here seem to #e in $rinci$le su$erseded.

This discussion of von 0ad therefore leads on to the &uestion of the relative status

of the testaments in "i#lical Theology. +atson% while a$$reciating von 0ad,s

3ty$ological inter$retation that sees the enfleshed +ord as the goal of God,s

history with 'srael,% critici>es him for largely not $racticing it -47/. Perha$s #ecause

he ultimately cannot #rea out of the traditional division #etween the disci$lines of

Old and 8ew Testament studies% he is almost e5clusively concerned with Old

Testament inter$retation as such% and 3he em$hasi>es the forwardmovement of

salvationhistory -his italics/ towards a final actuali>ation% at the e5$ense of the

retros$ective movement% starting from the final actuali>ation in Jesus% that is

essential to the $ractice of a Christian ty$ological e5egesis, -4:/. 'f Christ is 3the

+ord that was with God in the #eginning,% this im$lies not merely that the forward

movement of the Old Testament must #e com$lemented #y a retros$ective

movement from fulfilment #ac to antici$ation% #ut actually $receded #y it -4=/. )n

o$enended forward reading% not grounded in the centrality of Christ as witnessed

#y the whole of Scri$ture% is #ound to lead to relativism and $luralism. (The $oint

finds an echo in "rueggemann,s advocacy of $luralism in Old Testament

inter$retation% and his reluctance% accordingly% to allow Christology a $rivileged

$lace in it -4?/!. +atson,s claim% then% is that von 0ad,s declared $rinci$les are

indeed 3canonical,% #ut that in $ractice he has sim$ly failed to carry them through.

+atson articulates the relative status of the two testaments further in a $assage

that critici>es Childs, concern to maintain the inde$endent status of the Old

Testament% which% he finds% is #ound to lead to 3a radical 9udai>ing of Christianity,

-4@/.


13/25


allowed to sha$e our understanding of the reality revealed #y ChristD 3'f the sco$e

of the Christevent is the whole of reality% then there is no danger that any of the

#readth and de$th of the e5$erience reflected in the Old Testament will #e lost.,

-7B/ This seems to me to #e entirely right. (' thin it is $refera#le to a remar of

Seit>,s% in a review of +atson,s #ooD 3The Old Testament has a hori>on that is not

e5hausted in what we can say a#out Jesus, -7/. This is true only in a certain

sense% that is% if Christology is not taen to em#race and e5$ress the $ur$ose of

the whole #i#lical revelation. The disagreement #etween +atson and Seit> at this

$oint is over definitions of 3Christological, and 3Trinitarian,!.

'n this connection% however% it is im$ortant to o#serve that +atson has argued% in

the same volume% for a recovery of the 3literal sense, in inter$retation% su$$orted #y

s$eechact theory. 'n that conte5t he offers a $ersuasive reading of Psalm 72% in

which he esta#lishes a connection #etween its original communicative intention (or

illocutionary force! and that which it has when used in modern conte5ts -72/.

#oth

affirm the need for this (though +atson $refers the term 3literal sense,!% #ut they

a$$ly the $oint differently% Seit> #eing critical of +atson,s overruling of one $art of

Scri$ture #y another -7=/.


14/25


Plain Sense! oly "ar! and Canonical Method

Can the $lain sense of Scri$ture #e defended in the conte5t of a canonical

reading; The &uestion is scarcely new% and it has e5tensive ramifications%

including one of consistency #etween theory and $ractice. Seit>% in an essay on

3$lain sense, in relation to the to$ic of se5uality% finds a unanimity in the two

testaments on the to$ic of homose5ual acts% and ass in conse&uence for a #older

stance on this in the contem$orary atmos$here -7?/. This e5am$le has the

advantage% from a 3$lain sense, $oint of view% that the Old and 8ew Testaments

s$ea with the same voice (although it may #e o#9ected that nevertheless the te5ts

in &uestion raise hermeneutical issues that are not easily sidelined!. The idea of a

3$lain sense,% in my view% faces a more immediate test where the Testaments

a$$ear to disagree. Psalm 4?% and #ehind it Joshua and the


15/25


with the Old Testament,s own critical stance towards violence% he res$onds to the

o#9ection that if illing is wrong today it must have #een wrong then #y sayingD 3The

difficulty with this a$$roach to theology is that such a nonhistorical way of thining

is foreign to the "i#le% which does not wor with a#stract ethical $rinci$les, -7A/. ed in the critical theory that$laces it at the head (after Eeuteronomy itself! of the 3Eeuteronomistic


16/25


Strong narrative threads% however% lin Joshua to the $receding #oos% a factor

recogni>ed in the critical theory of the ed the $romise of land that had run through the

Pentateuchal story since God,s encounter with )#ram in Genesis 2D4. 'n the

light of the recent tendency to thin of Genesis1ings as the 3$rimary history, of the

Old Testament (#ased on narrative continuity% and also congenial to a canonical

a$$roach!% Joshua has a liminal function. +hile this term might #e used more

strictly of Eeuteronomy% it is true of Joshua too #ecause it mars the end of the

wilderness $eriod and non$ossession% yet is itself only a $relude to $ossessing. 't

is not yet the story of 'srael,s life in the land.

+hen this liminal $osition of Joshua is understood its relations to its canonical

environment can #egin to #e e5$lored. 6acing #ac towards the Pentateuch%

Joshua is the story of a $romise fulfilledD 3So Joshua too the whole land%

according to all that the O0E had s$oen to Moses,(Josh. 24!. The $relude to

this includes the e5odus% with its Passover victory over the $owers aligned against

God% echoed in Joshua :DB2% the first Passover feast held in the new land. The

con&uest itself is a counter$art and continuation of the overcoming of the *gy$tian

forces that tried to $revent the esca$e from slavery in that land. The #reaing of

the $ower of the *gy$tian &ing-:/ finds an echo in Joshua,s defeat of a host of

&ingsin Canaan (Josh. 2D?27!. This defeat of tyrannical ingshi$ is in turn% as

6retheim has well shown% a reassertion of God,s creative $ur$ose in contention

with the forces of chaos -:2/. Therefore the esta#lishment of 'srael in Canaan

#elongs to the divine $ur$ose to recreate that is signalled in the #i#lical story at

least from the floodnarrative (Gen. =D:AD?!. Joshua conceives of 'srael as a

$eo$le whose ing is Iahweh and which is constituted #y an act of deliverance

from slavery into freedom% a $eo$le whose unity is e5$ressed in its common

worshi$ of Iahweh (Josh. @D! while its $ossession of land and wealth is #y

divine gift and distri#ution. Iahweh,s ingshi$% furthermore% is mediated% not #y a

human ing (since neither Moses nor Joshua is succeeded #y his own heir!% #ut #y

Iahweh,s Torah% as taught #y Moses% de$osited #eside the ar of the covenant%

and made Joshua,s rule of life (Josh. D?@!. This vision is a $artial reali>ation of

the ingdom and salvation of Iahweh in the earth. The connection #etweencreation and covenant is forged #y the covenantrenewal with which Joshua ends


17/25


(Josh. 27!% with its e5$licit allusion to the $rimeval history% Terah% )#ram% and the

$olytheistic world in which the recreative $lan was conceived (Josh. 27D27!% and

its #asis once again in the 3#oo of the torah of God, (Josh. 27D2=!. The con&uest

of Canaan #elongs to this $icture of a reali>ation of the ingdom% #ecause it affirms

Iahweh,s victory over contesting $owers% the $relude to Iahweh,s rule in this $art

of the created world.

The "oo of Joshua faces forward to the continuing story of 'srael in its land. That

story is characteri>ed ultimately #y the loss of all that was gained under Joshua.

('n fact it #egins within Joshua% in a strain in the #oo that insinuates a measure of

failure to con&uer fully% an echo of the failure of faith that caused the first failure to

tae the land recorded in Eeuteronomy . Te5ts include Josh. 4D :D=4 -:4/!.

The worshi$ of Iahweh is com$romised #y the worshi$ of "aal. The ings of

Canaan find s$iritual successors in the ings of 'srael and Judah. *ven the

reforming 1ing Josiah is a ind of antity$e to Joshua% who remains a minor

$otentate even as he commands the reform% #ased on his rediscovery of the 3#oo

of the Torah, (2 1gs. 22D@!. on

to Iahweh,s universal rule (Pss. A4AA!. ) similar trend is found in 'saiah% which

contains a dis$ute with Psalm 2% in 'saiah 2D27.


18/25


now no #ounds.


19/25



20/25


must #e nown #efore the 'ncarnation with its 3vindication of the moral order,. The

violence of Joshua is thus #rought under the 9udgment of Christ. 'n the Gos$el

there has #een a vindication of the whole created order% far #eyond what was

antici$ated in Joshua. Joshua,s victory is assigned to contingencies of the $ast%

along with other Old Testament institutions% while 3Christ turns these fragmentary

utterances of God,s voice% in warrior trium$hs and legislative order% into a history

which culminates in the divine manifestation and vindication of created order, -=/.

Presuma#ly a similar case might #e made in relation to Psalm 4?. 'ts function in

the "oo of Psalms has some similarity to the Oracles against the 8ations of the

$ro$hetic #oos% es$ecially Jeremiah% where the


21/25


the historical character of the #i#lical te5ts and su#9ect matter. ' have tried to mae

a case for a canonical method% however% on the grounds that it is im$lied in the

conce$t of "i#lical Theology itself% whose central methodological $ro#lem is

$recisely that of the twotestament canon. The canonical a$$roach% however%

cannot entirely dis$ense with a historical dimension% #ecause of the historical

nature of the te5ts% and the im$ossi#ility of distinguishing ultimately #etween

religion and theology. "ut it is essentially in innercanonical relationshi$s that

"i#lical Theology is constructed.

The &uestion of canonical method has to do $artly with strategies of reading. +hat

is the $ro$er 3direction, of canonical reading% that is% should the Christian read

forward from Old Testament to the 8ew; 'f so% does one try to read the Old

Testament first as if without nowledge of the 8ew% as might #e im$lied #y a

commitment to the 3$lain sense,; Or does one e5$licitly read 3#acward to, the Old

Testament from the 8ew; To as these &uestions is to set u$ an im$ossi#le

alternative. 'nevita#ly Christians read the Old Testament in the light of the 8ew%

and towards the 8ew #ut e&ually a forward movement is structured into the Old

Testament $art of the canon% and to fail to o#serve this could only lead to a

misreading (thus with 6rei!. 6urthermore% the contours of an answer to any

$articular &uestion in "i#lical Theology are liely to vary according to the nature of

the &uestion -=4/.

There are greater difficulties than this% however% and advocates of a canonical

method actually $roceed in &uite different ways. +hile all agree that canonical

theology must #e governed #y its central su#9ect matter% namely Jesus Christ% this

does not in itself solve the $ro#lem of the relationshi$ #etween the testaments. 'f

the canonical a$$roach demands that all $arts of the two testaments ought to #e

heard% it does not follow that they will% since in some accounts $arts of the canon

can trum$ other $arts. (This was true in Childs, idea of discontinuity #etween the

testaments% in which the 8ew Testament did not acce$t the Old Testament,s

conce$t of covenant in its full range% as well as of +atson,s #elief that the original

communicative intention of Psalm 4? was cancelled #y the 8ew Testament,s

themes of love and forgiveness!. The advocacy of a $lain or literal sense is avalua#le em$hasis% #ut this way too lie no guarantees of unanimity% #ecause the


22/25


intention to hear te5ts according to their $lain sense leaves the &uestion how such

te5ts relate to the 3centre, still to #e negotiated. (The whole su#9ect of

hermeneutics in general is largely left aside in this $a$er% though of course it ought

to #e develo$ed in relation to this $oint. +atson has made im$ortant contri#utions

on it% and the to$ic is the su#9ect of a ma9or $ro9ect led #y Craig "artholomew -=7/!.

0eadings are affected in the end #y factors that go #eyond the acce$tance of a

canonical method. 'n a closing $ro$osal ' have tried to show how a difficult Old

Testament to$ic% the con&uest of Canaan% might #e assimilated into "i#lical

Theology. The attem$t showed% ' thin% that such an assimilation is $ossi#le%

contrary to versions of Christian theology which $refer to filter it out as

incom$ati#le with the Gos$el of love and forgiveness. 't also showed% however%

how much more is involved in "i#lical Theology than e5egesis% since the $ro$osal

de$ended on the significant hermeneutical ste$ of su$$osing that the Old

Testament story of God,s dealings with 'srael was relevant to our understanding of

the nature of the ingdom of God as $roclaimed and accom$lished #y Christ% and

to our thining a#out the sources of $olitical authority in the world generally.

Clearly these are dis$uta#le assum$tions.


23/25


consensus% #inding Old and 8ew Testament witnesses% emerges% #ecause to do so would #e toadmit that the $lain sense had a certain $riority, Christo$her 0. Seit>% 3Se5uality and Scri$ture,sPlain Sense,% in Seit>% Word Without !nd(Grand 0a$idsD *erdmans% AA@! 422.-A/ +atson% Text" Church and World% ?.-B/ +atson% Text" Church and World% 2.-/ John "arton% 'eading the $ld Testament(ondonD ET% A@7!% $$. B4. Childs res$onds in

$ld Testament Theology in Canonical Context(Philadel$hiaD 6ortress% A@: $TTCC!% $. =.-2/ The idea of canon as the arena within which theology is done ($TTCC% $. :! is tem$ered withthe assertion of critical reflection on its contentD 3..the com$lete canon of the Christian church as theruleoffaith sets for the community of faith the $ro$er conte5t in which we stand% #ut it also remainscontinually the o#9ect of critical theological scrutiny su#ordinate to its su#9ect matter who is JesusChrist, (cf. Biblical Theology of the $ld and New Testaments-Minnea$olisD 6ortress% AA4 BT$NT/% $$. =?=@!.-4/ 'n the first $art of the #oo he deals with the sections of the two $arts of the canon one #y one.Then% in the ma9or $art% he addresses a num#er of theological themes in relation to #oth. 'n the first$art his $oints of reference are $rinci$ally historical critical. *.g. the treatment of the 9udges $eriodis hardly 3canonical, in any sense (7A:! H in s$ite of the following of a canonical order. Thereare enormous $ossi#ilities for theological inter$retation here (e.g. C. +right!% #ut not e5$loited.(Gottwald is cited in the #i#liogra$hy% #ut not mentioned in the te5t. The #i#liogra$hy is almost

e5clusively historicalcritical!. There is no 8ew Testament reflection. On Joshua% the canonicalreflection is in the main indistinguisha#le from redaction criticism. The reflections from the rest ofthe Old Testament are s$arse. The #i#liogra$hy is once again historicalcritical (747@!. 'n thissection% the treatments are at an introductory level% and stam$ed strongly #y traditional criticism(8" 3The Pro$hetic Traditions,% =?@B!.-7/ +atson% Text and Truth% $. 24% referring to Childs% BT$NT% ?224% where Childs e5$resslydistances himself from narrative theology% and from his own former $osition in #ntroduction to the$ld Testament as Scriture.-:/ 0. )l#ert>%A +istory of #sraelite 'eligion in the $ld Testament *eriod(2 vols.! (ondonD SCM%AA7!.-=/ "arr% Concet% $$. @24.-?/ +atson% Text" Church and World% $. 4.-@/ '#id.% $. 44.

-A/ Christo$her Seit>% Word Without !nd(Grand 0a$idsD *erdmans% AA@!% $. 422.-2B/ "rueggemann and three coauthors% in an introduction to the Old Testament% e5$ress theirintention to go #eyond historical criticism in order to inter$ret the Old Testament theologically% while#uilding on its results and remaining engaged in its $ers$ectives "ruce C. "irch% +alter"rueggemann% Terence *. 6retheim and Eavid . Petersen%A Theological #ntroduction to the $ldTestament(8ashvilleD )#ingdon% AAA!% $$. 2B2.-2/ Christo$her Seit>% 3The Call of Moses and the F0evelation of the Eivine 8ameD SourceCriticalogic and its egacy,% in Word Without !nd% $$. 22A7?.-22/ See 0. +. . Mo#erly% The $ld Testament of the $ld Testament(Minnea$olisD 6ortress% AA2!%for an account% and Seit>,s res$onse to Mo#erly in 3The Call of Moses,.-24/ Cf. P. E. Miller% 3God and the Gods,% in #sraelite 'eligion% $$. 4=:A=% es$ecially $$. 4@AABalso 0. +. . Mo#erly% 3Toward an 'nter$retation of the Shema,% in C. Seit> and 1. GreeneMcCreight% Theological !xegesis) !ssays in +onor of Bre%ard S, Childs(Grand 0a$idsD *erdmans%

AAA!% $$. 2777% who argues that 3one, may mean one uni&uely loved.-27/ This has #een well documented and inter$reted #y G. J. +enham% Genesis #(+acoD +ord%A@?!.-2:/ "arr% Concet% $. 4?.-2=/ +atson% Text and Truth% $$. 272=?.


24/25


-4/ Seit>% 3The % $. 4:! is G. von 0ad% 3Ty$ological 'nter$retation of the OldTestament, in C. +estermann% ed.% !ssays on $ld Testament +ermeneutics()tlanta John 1no5%A=4!% $$. ?4A% here $. 47.-42/ '#id.% $$. 2:2=.-44/ '#id.% $. 2:% referring to von 0ad,s Theology(vol. 2% $. 47:% German edition!.

-47/ +atson% Text and Truth% $. 2B:.-4:/ '#id.% $$. 2B:?.-4=/ '#id.% $. 2B?.-4?/ 3..recognition of the im$ortant role of the church in affirming and $assing on the


25/25


-=7/ +atson% Text" Church and World% es$ecially $$. ::4. Craig "artholomew% Colin Greene%1arl MQller eds.% 'enewing Biblical #nterretation(CarlisleD PaternosterNGrand 0a$idsD Londervan%2BBB!% is the first of a $ro9ected eightvolume series.

This 'a'er was the (inlayson Memorial )ecture! *++,! and a''eared first in

The Scottish Bulletin of #-angelical Theology! ol ,/.* 01utumn *++,2! ,345

,67. 8t a''ears here with 'ermission. $o 'art of this article may be co'ied or

transmitted in any form without 'rior 'ermission from the 'ublishers.

biblical theology ~ canon and plain sense - j. g. mcconville

Documents