Table in the Wilderness? Towards a Post-Liberal Agenda forOld Testament Studv.

J

Crais Bartholomew

Pages 19-47 in Making the Old Testament Live; From Curciculum to Classroom.Edited by R. Fless and G. Wenham. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1998.

Posted online by permission of the publisher.This essay is printed in Making the Old Testament Live; From Curriculum toClassroom (http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key:97808 02844279)and may be pr-rrchased frorn www.eerdmans.com.

RICHARD S. HESS

sive exposure. Therefore, Hebrer.r' reading modules are offeredthroughout the acadernic year and the student is encouraged to refrneand develop reading and interpretive skills. A variety of Old Testamentliterature is chosen. Initially the student is introduced to narrative lit-erature. Then the more challenging. poetic and prophetic texts arestudied. Because the texts read are never repeated, students are able toregister for and to participate in Hebrew reading modules throughouttheir stay at the coilege.

As in the second half of the introductory level, the reading mod-ules are mainly composed of student participation. However, an acldi-t ional component is added to reading, translation, and grammaticalanalysis- At this level the students also interpret the biblical text anddiscuss its meaning in its original context. This incorporates the variefyof mcthods introduced at levels II and III of the Enelish Bible corecurriculum.

The assessments focus on the student's ability to read, translate,and analyse the Hebrew texts, both orally in class and in written formrn examinations and essays- The examinations include texts studied inclass and require the student to analyse and evaluate various interpreta-tions in the light of the Hebrew text. Thev also assess the abilitv tosynthesise various methods and to creatively integrate methods of in-terpretation to make sense of the Hebrew iext.

A Table in the Wilderness:Towards a Post-Iiberal Agenda

for OId Testament Study

CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

Craig G. Bnrtholomezu is post-doctoral fellow in Old Tesfnmenthernteneutics at tlrc Cheltenhnm and Gloucester Collcgc of HigherEducntion. He lns slst't taught Old Testament at Ceorge WhitefieldCollege in Cape Toztttt, Soutlt Aftica.

A Table in the Wilderness?

'Is there anyone among vou u'ho, if your child asks for bread, willgive a stone?' Matthew 7:9

jesus uses the metaphor of bread and stones in his teaching on prayer.The good father can be relied on to give that n'hich is healthy andnourishing in response to his child's reqnests. If r.r'e think of Old Testa-ment studies as something rvhich is served up to studcnts in our uni-versities, colieges, and seminaries, then n'e conld appropriate this meta-phor by asking, Is Old Testament studies in its present state bread orstones? Are the Old Testament curriculums of our day healthv andnourishing?

In his preface to Thomas Oden's recent book, Requiem, Richard|ohn Neuhaus declares that rvhile Christianitv does offer a feast. muchtheological education iends to operate a long way from that feast:

t8 19

,6CRAIC G.I]AI?THOLOMEW

More and more 'young fogeys' like Oden are discovering the truththat is 'ever ancient, ever ner+,' (Augustine). It is called the catholicfaith, and it is a feast to which he invites us. It is a movable feast, stilldeveloping under the guidance of the Spirit. Oden is Like cinema's'Aunhe N4ame,' rvho observed that l i fe is a banquet and most poorslobs are starving to death. Origen, Irenaeus, Cvril of Alexandria,Tl-romas Aquinas, Teresa of Avila, lr4artin Luther, John Calvin, Johnl{esiey - the names fall trippinglv from Oden's tongue like a gour-met surveying a most spectacular table. Here are arguments you cansink vour teeth into, conceptual flights of inioxicating complexity;and truths to die for. Far from the table, over there, wny over there isAmerican theological education where prodigal academics feed stan,-ing students on the dry husks of their clcvcr unbelief.l

The Christian hradition offers a table in the wilderness, but, ac-cording to this view, much contemporary theology has so succumbedto the wildemess that it has moved away from the table. For Oden,who has recently returned from the wildemess of avant-garde, mod-emistic theology to evangelical orthodoxy, the contemporary wilder-ness has been the lure of modemity. Oden's htle Requiem relates notonly to his move away from modemistic theology, but primarily to thedeath of modernity. Part of Oden's critique of theologv is that it hasbought far too strongly into the spirit of modemity, a spirit which Odenmaintains is now on its last legs.

Personally I think Oden mav be too quick to lament modemrty;in my view the post-modern turn is not truly post-modern but rathera manifestation of the tensions and contradictions within modemitv2and what we are seeing is better described as late or high moderniby.Either wa1', lvhat the post-modem tum has done is to expose some ofthe prejudices of modemitv and to call them to account. What n'as oftencalled 'bread' in modernity is now being exposed as 'stone'by many,and of colrrse, where theology has succunrbed to the agenda of mod-emity, it too incvitably shares in that crisis. It is another of those situa-tions about which Dean Inge wamed - whoever is married to the spiritof this age is destined to be a widow in the next.

1. Forcrvord in T. Oden, llequient (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), p. xx.2. See C. Bartholomew, 'Post/t-ate?

Modernity as the Context for ChristianSchcrlarship Today,', Thenrelios 22,2 (1997), pp. 25-38.

Towards a post_liberal Agenda for Old Testnmenf Sttdy

In the academy one of the results of the crisis of modemity rs asituation of increasing pluralism in which a 'ariety of approaches com-pete for adherence. In this pluralisLic context there is increased pressureto account for one's approach. It is no longer, for examplc, so easy toassume the autonomy of reason as the final arbiter of tnrth. tn myopinion this sifuation is to be welcomed because it encourages Chris-tians to have a close look at the extent to rvhich their scholarship hasbeen shaped bv and rooted h moderniry and, l ike Oden, to ask horvcompatible modernity is with Christianity.

Modemity is, of course, a complex phenomenon to rvhich lve areall indebted in too many ways to mention. A Christian approach tomodemity ought not to be the attempt to recreate the pre-moclemsituation, as critics of modernity like oden, Newbigin. and Lyon rec-ognise.3 Nevertheless, it remains true that the basic roots or rvoild vie'vthat underlies modernify is profoundiy at oclds with a transformatrvechristian perspective upon the world.4 Few scholars have exposed thisas clearly as Lesslie Newbigin.5 Christianity is public trutir and tlieCartesian lcgacy that Descartes bequeathed to the west is antitheticalto a biblical approach to knowledge. I do not have time to argue thish detail here, but suffice to say that if Nern'bigin's type of anilysis rscorrect, as I belie'e it is, then oden is right. The more theology' suc-cumbs to the agenda and world view of modernity, the further it movesfrom the table in the n'ildemess.

But what, you may wondet has this got to do rvith Old Testamenistudies? To a large extent the modem discipline of old resiament studiesis a product of modernity; and, as with theology, one of the questions wewill need to ask if we are to assess the extent to which it is 'bread,. is. ,to

3. see Bartholomew, 'Post/Late? Modernity', for hrll references to these auth.r.s.

A select bibliography of Newbigin's writings can be found in L. Newbigin , Lrnf nishcdAgada: An llpdated Autobiography (Edinburgh: St. Andrerv press, 1g3), pp . 2M-67 .

I am assuming Ln this argument that the tra'sformative understanding ofthe Christ-culture relationship is the most biblical .ne. see H. Reinhold Niebuhr,C-fuist and crilfrrre (London: Harper Colophon, 1975), for a discussion .f the differentChristian paradigms for underitanding this rerationship, and A. wolters, CrettirtnRegained (Leicester: InterVarsitv press, ilgs;, for a supeib statement of this type .fapproach. It is undoubtedly true that, if one has a iifferent understanding of theChrist-culture relationship, one may rvell evaluate nrodernitv ouite diiferentlv.

^. : See, for example, t.. Nervbigin, proper ConJtdsnce. Faith, Doubt and Ceitnittt,Ll

in Christian Discipleship (London: SPCK, 1995).

20 27

CRAIG G, BARTHOLON1EW

what extent has i t been integral ly shaped by the world view of moder-

nity?' Among liberals and conservati"'es there is widespread acknowl-

edgement of this shaping. Henry Vander Coot argues as follows:

The integration of faith and leaming in the discipline of biblical

studies means that the rvorld view investigated in the text must also

be accepted as the world viert' from the vantage point of n'hich the

text is investigated. Only under such circumstances is the Bible's total

claim properly acknorvledged. Where the biblical framework is not

taken to be the context for scientific study, the only other option seerns

to be the acceptance of a fact-value, science-faith distinction in which

the two tracks of life in the ecclesia and scholarship in the university

are Krupulously kept apart. \A/here scientific theology is not eccle-

sially funded, it nonetheless continues to be funded pre-theoretically

and that usually by the climate of opinion which happens at any

given moment to reign within the discipline. Where this latter sifua-

tion obtains, one finds specifically that the conduct of theological

scholarship often takes place on rmconscious foundations not so

easily reconcilable wiih the Christian story because in the modem

centuries secularism has taken possession of the intellectual field.

Unfortunately much modem scientific study of the Bible as an his-

torical source i l lustrates this al l too well .6

In his Oxford inaugural Ernest Nicholson is quite clear about the

historical roots of the historical-criticai method that has dominated Old

Testament studies over the past two hundred or so vears. The name of

the historical-critical method indicates its source; it emerged from the

historical ihinking that came out of the Eniightenment, received further

impulses ftom Romanticism, and burgeotred rn the German historical

school of ihe nineteenth century.

To a remarkable extent, indeed to a greater extent than has often beenrealized or acknowledged, it was this historical thinking that pro-vided the basis of biblical hermeneutics in the nineteenth century,

and more than the theologians and biblical scholars themselves it wasthe leading figures of the German historical school - BartholdGustav Niebuhr, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Leopold von Ranke, Johan

6. H. Vander Coot,The Bible hTheologtl and the Clturch (Nerv York and Toronto:Edrvin Mcllc-n Press, 1984), p. 83.

Tozuards a Post-liberal Agendn for OId Testament Study

Gustav Droysen, Theodor Mommsen, and others - who created theinterpretl,e framework and provided the method.T

Of course, Nicholson and Vander Goot would evaluate thisrootage of the historical-critical method very differently. But both wouldagree that contemporary Oid Testament studies have been far more

deeply shaped by modernity than most of us realise. In his inaugural

Nicholson wonders whether historical criticism could be a Sisyphean

toil, never reallv making progress, bui he soon rejects that possibiliry-.

Ten years down the Iine that possibiliq' cannot be so easily rejected.

Historical criticism is in crisis and there is broad recognition among

Cfuistian scholars that changes need to be made in the hermeneutic we

use in reading the Bible. While few would deny that immense Progresshas been made through historical analysis of the Old Testament, Alister

McGrath is right to speak of the 'Babylonian Captiviry of the Bible':

Formerly undertaken within the community of faith, it [the study ofScripfure] has been banished to a community with its olvn definite- although often unacknowledged and unstated - sets of beliefsand values. As a result, it is held in bondage. it is not free to challengethose beliefs, but is judged in their light.E

This captivity has resulted in much Old Testament sfudy serving up

stones rather than bread.g In a volume of this sort on teaching the Old

Testament it shouid also be noted that this captivitv is as true of the

7. lnterpreting the Old Testammt: A Caiury of the Oriel Prot'essorship (Oxford:Clarendon, 198i), p. 16. See also W. S. Vorster, 'Ton'ards a Post-Critical Paradigm:Progress in New Testament Scholarship?', in J. Mouton, A. G. van Aarde and W. SVorster (eds.), Parodigtns and Progress in Theology (South Africa: Human SciencesResearch Council, 1988), pp. 31-a8.

8. A. McCrath, 'Reclaiming Our Roots and Vision: Scripfure and the Stabilityof the Christian Church', in C. E. Braaten and R. W. Jenson, Ileclaining the Bible lorthe Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), pp 63-88,69.

9. I will not here argue in detail hovu'contemporary Old Testament study is

often 'stone' rather than 'bread'. ln my Reading Ecclesiastes: OT Exegesis and Herne-neutical Theory (forthcoming) (Analecta Biblica, Rome: PBi, 1998) I track in detail the

negative effect of historical criticism upon the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. In

section four of this paper I sct my proposals in opposition to the effect of modemityupon Old Testament interpretation, thus exposrng some of the 'stone' of contemporan Old Testament studies.

22 ZJ

CRAIG C. BAITTHOLOMEW

philosophies of education that shape most of the modem inst i tut ions

within which Old Testament shrdies are taught.10 Price sums r:p the

lr istory of the phi losophy of education in the fol lorving way:

The historv of phi losophy of education ref lects a mor.ement evidentin other phases of thought - a successive contr ibution on the part ofantiquity to the Christ ian icleal for trarrsmittrng cr.r l ture from one

generation to another and then a gradual el imination from that ideal

of supematural and Christ ian elements. . . one n'ay of understand-

ing the history of phi losophl ' of educ.rt ion is to regard the att i tude

of phi losophe'rs tow'arc1s the just i f icat ion and explanation of edu-

cational theory as having be'en expressed f irst in Plato's classic su-

pematural ism, next in Augustine's Christ ian supernatural ism, and

therr in undergoing a gradrral alterat ion into the r.vhol ly non-Christ ian

and natural ist ic vierv represented by John Dew'ev.l l

In a recent art icle Ruth Jonathan acknon' ledges that modern l ib-

eral education's

overarching aim has been the maximal development of the rat ionalautonomy of each . . . to the eventual benefi t of al l . In ordrnary lan-guage/ liberal education in modern times has aimed at the freeing of

each from ignorance, prejudice and superstition, so that the maximaldevelopr.rrent of their talents and tastes would gir.e rise to a fairer,freer, more reasonable and decent - and also a r icher (both cultural lyand mater ia l l v ) - wor ld . l2

Any Christ ian assessmell t of the currcnt state of Old Testament

studies must therefore take account of the relationship betrveen Old

Testament str"rdies and modernitl', and of the philosophy of education

shaping the tcaching of the Old Testament. This is a large task, and rn

this art icle rr 'e wi l l confine ourseh'es to the curr iculum of Oid Testamenr

10. At lcast in the U.K. Phi losoohv of education :s also undergorng the crisisin its idenfity t_vpical ot the post-mfflern turn, as recent cclihons of the Journal oj tlePlrtlosophr1 of Education make quiie clear.

11. K. Price, 'Historv of Phi losophy of Educatron', in P Edwards (ed.), TheEttcYcloltedia of Philosophy, r,ol. 6 (Nery York/London: !lacN,lillan and Free/Collier-MacN{ilieur, 1967 ), p p. 230-{3, 212.

12. R. lonathan, 'Libcral Phi losophv of Educahon: r\ Paradigm Under Strarn',Jourrnl of Plilosoplnl o.f Edurntiott 29, 1 (1995), pp. 93-10S, 97.

Toutards a post-liberal Agenda for OId Testament Study

studres, retuming briefly to thc question of the philosophy of educationat thc cnd. The post-modem turn and the resulting pluralism in oldTestament studies necessitate ihis sort of examination, but even moreso does the ^ature of Christianity as public truth. Not only does thepost-modem tum call many of the roots of modemity into question,but those roots are largely anhthetical to Chrisfianity. This does not fora moment mean that nothing good has come out of modemily or thehistorical-crit ical method. Quite the contrary. But it does mean that aChristian evaluation of the contemporary staie of old Testament studiesra'ill need to be alert to the shaping influence of modernity.

Required: A Post-liberal Agendafor Old Testament Studies

-

The preceding discussion provides a perspective on the current state ofold restamerrt studies bv arguing ihat mainline old restament studieshas generally been too closely and unhealthily associated with mo-demitv.l3 Mv suggestio' is that the way for old restament studies toreco\.er its health is fbr it to pursue a post-iiberal agenda. C,eorgeLindbeck appears to have coined the phrase ,post-liberal

theology, asa way of describing the family resemblance of the work of a numberof Yale theoiogians.ll william Placher sums up the concerns of post-l iberal theology as follows:

Postliberal theology attends to the biblical narrati'es as narrativesrather than simply as historical sources or as symbolic expressions oftruths lvhich could be expressed non-narratively. But unlike some othertheologians interested in narrati'e, postliberals do not iet the stories oforrr li'es set the primary context for theology. Thev insist that thebiblicalttarratir,,es Frrovide the framel,york rvithin which Christians understandthe r,r'orld. Christian theology describes how the world looks as seenfrorn that standpoint; it does not claim to argue from some ,neutral, or

13, In ax unpublished paper, 'Reading the Bible in postmodem llrnes,, I have

argued that conser'ati'e biblica) studies ha'e often also ber:n as deeplv and un-healthily shaped bv moderniry as libc.ral scholarship.

14. G. L in. lbeck, 'Toward a Post l iberal Theol .gy. , in Thc Nature of Doctr ine.Religiotr rttrtT Tlrcolttsy in a Postliberol,4ee (London: Spak, i9S4).

l,1 n

25

wCRAIC C] BAITTHOLOME\'\'

'objective'position and indeed denies the possibil i tv of such a posihon.It pursues apologctics, therefore, only on an ad hoc basis, looking forcorrunon ground with a given conversation partner but not assumng,some universally acceptable standard of rahonalit l,. l5

The crucial insight of post-liberal theologv irr my epi11en, is itsrecognition thai Christians ought to allow the Word to frame and inter-pret our world rather than our understanding of the world framing andinterpreting the Word.16 ln other u'ords, an integrally Christian agendais required in Old Testament studies, Christians find it comparativelveasy to see the need for Christian thcologv but otten find it verv difficultto see horv a Christian agenda could be important in other areas as rvell.In this respect A. Plantinga's "Advice to Christian Philosophers" isparticularlv i i luminating. Plantinga is a leading American philosopheaand he proposes a direction for Christians in philosophy ihat one could

call posi-liberal. It recommends precisely the sort of direction that i havein mind for Old Testament studies. He suggests that

Christian philosophers and Christian intellectuals generally must dis-play more autonomy independence of the rest of the philo-sophical world. Second Chrisiian philosophers rnust display moreintegrity - integrity in the sense of integral wholeness, or oneness, orunity, being all of one piece. Perhaps 'integrality' would be the betterword here. And necessary to these trvo is a third: Christian coLuage,or boldness, or strength, or perhaps Christian self-confidence. WeChristian phiiosophers must dispiay more faith, more trust in theLord; rve must put on the rvhole armour of Cod.17

Planfinga is not for a moment suggesting that Christian philosophersshould not be deeply involved in mainstream philosoph,v, but he is alsoinsisting that

15. W Placher, 'Postliberal Theologr", rn D, F. Ford (ed.), The Modern Tlieolo-gnns. Att lntroduction to Cltistnn'fheologv in the Ttttentieth Cerrtury (Oxford: Blackwell,1989), pp. 115-28,117.

16. I would not neccssarilr' \^'ant to endorse all aspects of postJiberal thmlogv.Irr tlris respect see, e.9., the critique of Lindbeck in A. McCrath,Tfu Cenesis of Doctritrc

lOxford: Blackwel l , 1990;.17. A. Plantinga, 'Advice to Christian Philosophers', Fnitlt nn,1 Pltilosophy 7,3

(1984), pp 253-71. This ar t ic le is the text of h is 1983 inaugural as J. A. O'Br ienProlessor of Philosophy at the Um'ersitv of Notre Dame.

Tcttt,nrtls a Post-libt:rnl Agenda for OIcl Testutttutt Stud1

It]he Christian philosophical communitv must work out the arrsrversto its questions; and both the questiorrs and the appropriate ways ofivorking out their answers may presuppose beliefs rejected at mostof the leading centers of philosophy. But the Christian is prro6s.4r1,quite properlv in starting from these beliefs, even if they are so rc_jected. He is under no obligahon to confine his research projects tothose pursued at those centers, or to pursue his own projects on thebasis of the assumptions that prevail therc.18

Plantinga det-ends the right of Christian philosophers to start from beliefin God in their philosophical endeavours. He reviervs theism's rclation-ship to discussions in philosophv about verifiability, the theory ofknowledge, and philosophical anthropology and concludes that theistslvould fare far better if thev lvorked From their own starting point rathcrthan trying, as has so often been done, to 'trirn their saiis to the pre-vail ing philosophicai winds of doctrine.'19

It is worth reading Plantinga's article in its entiretry-. Suffice it tomake the point here, that we need the same kind of vision in OldTestament studies. Of course Christians need to be in touch with. arrddeeply in'olved in, the issues that mainstream Old Testamer-rt strrdiesare throwing up. But at the same time it is vital that Christians in OldTestament studies display autonomy, integrality, and boldness in shap-ing an agenda r.t'hich is integrally Christian. The best of er.angelical OldTesiament scirolarship has generally manifested these characteristicsand indeed evangelical Old Testament scholars have achieved a greatdeal or.er the past decades. Take Genesis scholarship, for example; wehave moved from having Calvin, Young's works, Leupold, and Kidner,to ail this plus l{enham and Hamilton. However, this pr.ogress has i,eryoften taken place amidst the deep connivance of l iberals and conserya-tives rvith modernify, often in unhelpful ways. It is thus imperirt ive thatwe reflect consciously on where we have come from and where i\re aregoing. This is particularlv important in the present'post-modem' hour,which, from a post-liberal perspective provicles a unique opportunig',indeed an imperahve, for Christian old restament scholars to reassesstheir discipline and to re-form it along integrally Christian l i.es. This

18. 'Advice to Cluist ian Phi losophers ' , p. 26. j .19. This is Plantbga's expression. See 'Advice

to Chr ishan pl . r i lost tphers, ,p. 25E.

26 27

CRAIG C. BARTHOLOMEW

is not for a moment to underestimaie all that has been achieved but toask how to preserve ihe good in evangelical and liberal Oid Testamentscholarship, and how to develop it into the fuhrre. There needs, i. *yview, to be a lot of discussion among Christian Old Testament scholarsabout the d,angers and opporfunities, the areas of defence and attackin Old Testament studics today. There is a need for an agenda - notthe final word, but a resounding call to serve Christ together in thedelightful field of Old Testament sfudies today and some indication ofthe direction this ought to take in our situation.

A Reformational Post-liberal Agenda

Within the evangelical tradition the work of scholars like E. J. Youngand the late R. K. Harrison has helped many to keep alive the possibilifyof a Christian agenda in Old Testament studies. Indeed, until today nowork has appeared ihat replaces Harrison's lntroductiort to the OId Testa-ntent.2o These schoiars laboured at a time n'hen a conJessional approachto the Old Testament seemed doomed to extinction. The historical ap-proach of liberal scholars appeared to threaten the very nature of Scrip-ture as God's Word, and so it was here that they fought the good fight.In such circumstances their strategv was perfectly understandable.However, over the long term it is crucial that this defence is replacedby a strategy in which a Christian agenda determines the work sites.My suspiciorr is that many evangelicals stijl tend to react and to allowtheir work sites to be determined by others' agendas, albeit in negativemirror image, rather than to allow their work sites to emerge in relafionto a 'gospel'21 (i.r., integrally Christian) agenda.

Take, for example, the current post-modemism that is being felt

20. In a discussion with R. K. Harrison shorily before fus death, I leamt thathe had revised his Introduction but that the publisher had thought it too long for arevised edition.

21. It cannot be stressed too strongll that I do not mean this in a naive,fundamenta.list sense. I use 'gospel' to refer to the Christ event in all its depth andcomplexity. With rts background in Isaiah etc., 'gospel' refers to the Christ event asthat tfuough which Cod's creation purposes are achieved and around which thewhole of reality revoives. If this is an accurate description of the Christ event, thenclearly it must shape OT studies in some wav.

Toir ' ,rrr js a Posi- l ibernl Ag,:rt t ln . for Olt l Testametrl Studtl

al l over the academy', includrng in theology and bibl ical studies.22 Ther'e

is no doubt that Christ ian scholars or-rght to take this new trend scri-

ously.23 Hon'ever, i t u,ould be a mistake for Christ ian scholars to expend

all their energv there and to neglect u,ork sites that their own perspec-

t ive rnakes important Alvin Plar-rt inga is most perceptive in this respect.

He cal ls much of this post-modemism creative anti-real ism and says,

creative anhreal ism is presentlv propular among phi losophers; this isthe vierv that i t is human behaviour- in part icul.rr, human thought

arrd lanppage - that is somehow responsible ior the frrnd.rnrcrrtal

structure of ihe world and for the fundamental kinds of enti t ies there

are. From a theist ic point of " ' ielv,

however, universal creative anti-

real ism is at best a piece of laughable bra vado. For God, of coulse, r ' rr ' r ,es

neither lr is existence nor his propert ies to us and our r l 'ays of thirrking;

the truth is just the reverse. And so far as thc created unit cLse rs

concerned, n'hi le i t indeed ou'es i ts existence and character to act ivi tv

on the Part of a person, that Person is certainly not a hunnn pers.rn.24

In this l ight i t is not surprising to hear Plantinga say that

[t]he Christian or theistic phiiosopher, therefore, has his orvtr r.r,ay of

rvorking at his craft. In some cases there are items on his agenda -

pressing items - not to be found on the agenda of the non-theistic

phi losophical communitv. In others, i tems that are currently fashion-

ablc appear oi rclat ively minor interest from a Christ ian PersPective.In still others, the theist rvill reject common assr,tml'rtions antl vien's

about holt ' to start, how to proceed, and n'hat consti t l r tes ( ' i got)(- i or

satisfying arlswer. In st i l t others the Christ iarr rvi l l take for gr.rnted

and wil l start from assumptiorrs and premises rejected bv the phi lo-

soph ica l c t rmmuni ty a t la rge .25

22. See, r.t., D. R. Griffin, W. A. Beartlslee, arrd J. Holland, lhrieti* of Posl'trroderttl heologv (Nen, \brk: SUN\', 1989). ln the U.K. 'posi-rnodernity' was lhe themeof the Januarv lgqb SOTS confcrcnce.

23. A. Th.isclton, lntt'4tretittg Gttcl attrl fhe Posfuro,Jt'rtt 5c| (Ediuburgh: T & TClark, 1995), p. 16, r ightlr" rrotes of the more extrenre ve'rsiorts of pttst-mocier:rrsntthat, 'These perspectlVes corrstitute the most serious and urgent challt'nges to tJle-olop;v, in companson with which the old-style attacks fronr "common-sense L.ost-t ivlsm" appear relat ivelv naive'.

24. Plantrnga, 'Advice to Chrishan Phrlosophels' , pr. 269.25. Plantinga, 'Advice to Christ ian Philosophers', p. 270.

28 29

CI{AIC C. BARTHOLON,{EW

Of course it is vital that Christians respond to current scholarlvtrends. Responding to modemistic Old Testament scholarship is, how-evet different from allowing modcmistic Old Tcstament scholarship toset the overarching agenda. In this respect the distinction in Reforma-tional philosophy between transformational as opposed to reforma-tional scholarship is helpful. 'Transformational' and 'reformational' aretwo terms from reformational philosophy,26 each of which tries to gerat the heart of what Christian scholarship should be about. Jo-hannes Klapwijk has argued over the past ferv vears that Christianscholarship should be transformational.2T This approach to scholarshipshould, in his view, be based on assessment, arrest, and appropriationwith the central category as transformation. He resurrects the notion of'spolatio' (spoiling the Egyptians) and focuses the direction of transfor-mational philosophy in ternrs of sanctification compared with the secu-larisation of secular philosophy. The transformational approach recom-mends that Christians work where the key sites of action are and tryand transform these sites torvards a Christian direction. 'The idea oftransformational philosophy excludes by definition, howevel, thepossibilitl," of a separate altemative circuit of Christian scholarly praxisbecause it proceeds on the basls of the dynamic notion of possessio.'28If I understand Klapwijk correctly, he wishes to focus Christian scholar-ship away from the development of integrally Christian scholarshipand towards transforming se'cular ideas.

The reformational approach, associated with the Dutch philoso.phers Dooyeweerd29 and Vollenhoven, sees by comparison the needfor the development of scholarship that is driven by integrally Chrishanroots. If one imagines scholarship as a building then the structureshould emerge out of and take its direction from Christian foundations.

26. Reformafional philosophy is that tradition of Refornred phiiosophv thathas developed in the neo-Calvinist Iine of Herman Dooverveerd and Drk Vbllen-hoven. The word 'reformational' n,as coined by the Canadian aesthetician Cal-vin Seerveld, to describe philosophv in the Reformed tradition rvhich coruciouslyseeks to be shaped by a Christian q'orld view.

27. J. Klapwiik, 'Reformational Philosophy on the Boundarv Betrveen the Pastand Future', Philonphia R{omtota 53 (1988), pp. 101-34.

28. J. Klaprvijk, 'Reformational Philosophy', p. 105.29. The best contemporarv explanation of Dooycweerd's philosophv is that

of I{. Clouser, The Myth o/ Reiigirrr.s Neutrality (Notre Dame: Universitv of NotreDame Press, 1991).

Tozt,ards a Post-libernl Agenda for OId Testanrent Study

The reformational approach recognises the importance of dialogue withand trar-rsformation of existing n'ork sites but insists that the edifice of(for example) Old Testament studies must be developed as a wholealong integral Christian lines. For a reformational scholar it is notenough to see where the n'ork sites are and then to try and workChristianly there. More fundamental questions surface, such as: If I takea Christian perspective on reality seriously and see my work in OIdTestarnent studies as service of the Lord Christ, then where ought thework sites to be in Old Testament studies today?

Obviously both transformational and reformational Old Testa-

ment scholarship are necded. And both approaches presuppose thatChristian scholarship ought to be Christian. However, it does seem tome that the dominant requirement is reformational Old Testamentscholarship; and my suggestion is that evangeiicai Old Testamentscholarship tends to be transformational rather than reformational.3OThis seems to me a dangerous paih to pursue. Much evangelicaischolarship has been of this sort; let so-called 'liberals' set the agendaand then evangelicals will fight according to their agenda and try anddefend the cause rt'here they create the battle. \ /ithin Old Testamentscholarship this has often been the pattem, with evangelicals taking areacfive rather than a proactive stance, so that in the process bothevangelicals and liberals tend to have been deeply in the grip of mo-dernity.

The problem with this is that one never gets round to doingpositive scholarship that is integrally Christian. Christian scholarshipneeds, of course, to be deeply in touch and in dialogue with seculartrends, and to be busy with transformation, but this cannot be the heartof our direction. Re-formation of the sciences should remain our pri-mary concem; ihis wil l always hvolve transformation but it wil l be

more than that in iis construction of integrally Christian scholarship.As Calvin Seen'eld has said, synthesis may be our practice but it shouldnever be our policy.31 Scripturally led believers do have a head start intheir orientation to the truth, and as Ku'yper indicated, 'What we really

30. This is of course a generalisation. In the present crisis in OId Testamentstudies there are encouraging signs oi evangelicals and others strikrng out in bokl,new directions, some of which I refer to in scction 4 of this paper.

31. In a personal conversat ion.

3 130

CITA]G C,. BARTHOLO]VIEW

rleed is a seedling of scientif ic theory [read "OT theor1."' l thriving onChrrstian roots. For us to be content r.t ' i th the act of shuffl ing aroundin the garden of somebody else, scissors in hand [to cut the other'sflor.vers), is to throw awav the honour and lt 'orth of onr Christianfa i th . ' i2

In our Old Testament scholarship we are called to love God andservc our neighbours, Another wav of expressing this is that rve are toser\re up good. nutrit ious bread to our neighbours, baked as best weare zrble. Historical crit icism has been so shaped bv modernitv that ithas generally not produced bread but stones; the danger u'ith transior-mational Old Testament scholarship is that it produces at besi only lessdangerous stonesl [t never has the time for the inner reformation ofOld Testament studies so that we can start producing some ioaves,howcver inadequatc arrd immafure - this w,il l onl_"- hilppen if we allorva Christian perspective to determine our agenda in Old Testamentstudies.

The 'great' thing rvith 'post-modemiW' is that no one knowswhere the Old Testament r.r'ork sites should be anymore anv-n'ay! Thereis rvidespread agreement that Old Testamerrt studies are in a state offlux and uncertainty with no signs of an emerging paradigm-consen-sus.33 There is no longer one historical-crit ical agenda, if there ever wasone. I)avid Clines wil l give you one a;5enda and certain work sites,John Coll ins wil l tell you that the historical-crit ical n,ork sites are sti l lthe plirce to operatc from, Brevard Childs rvill cncouragc voll to focuson the final c;rnonical form, and so on. We are now in a situation whereyou have to account for your rvork siteslI I welcome this because itencourages Christians to accourrt for their agenda in Old Testamentstudies rather than accepting a non-Christian agenda and trving towork Christianlv u'ithin it.

32- A. Kuvper, Dt : Ctnteert Crat i t ,3 r o ls. (Kampen: Kok, 1902-5), i .o l . 3, p. 527.33. St.e Bib/ic'n/ lnterpretattort I (1993) for a number of papers tlealing !vith the

prLsent state of Old Tesiament scholarship.3:1. See J. Levenson, The Htbrc i t Bi l t le . t l tc Olc l ' festaut t ' t t t ant l HistorLcal Crr t iasnt

( l ,ouisr i ) ) t - : lVestminster , /John Knox, 1993),

Toiuards n Post-libernl Agenda for OId Testament Stttdy

Some Contours of a Post-liberal Agenda

If we were to pursue a post-l iberal agenda in Old Testament studies,what shape rvould such an agenda take? That is of course a hugequestion. In this final section I r.t'ant to merely make some suggestionsabout the sort of contours such an agenda might take.35 I shouldmention at the outset that I am assuming that Old Testament study isa theoretical discipline within the academy/university.36 It is a differ-ent activity from Bible stud,v or devotional use of the Old Testament,however closely related it is and should be to these other aciivit ies.An OId Testament lecture is not, and should not be, a Bibie study orquiet time. Theoretical, precise anaiysis characterises Old Testamentstudies, rvhereas attentive, whole-person listening characterisesdevotional reading of the Bible. In relation to this it is important to

35. The tentative nature of this section needs to be stressed. My main concernin this paper is to make the point that we are in urgent need of a post-liberal agendain Old Testament studies. It should also be skessed that I do not regard a post-liberalagenda as one which would simply erase all that has gone on in Old Testamentstud.ies over the past one hundred years- In my opinion huge advances have beenand are being made, and a post-liberal agenda would want to secure and build onthese.

36. I do not have space in this article to reflect in detail upon the differencesbetween a uni'ersity and a theological college. In my view old Testament studiesshould be integra)ly Christian in both, insofar as they are being practiced by Chris-tians. This is not to deny non{hrishans the right to do Old Testament studies ofcourse! A demo(ratic society should allow scxietal pluralism to manifest itself in allsectors of socieqv urduding the universiiy. The point is that such a pluralism rvouldalso allorv Chrishans the right to let their most basic beliefs shape their scholarship.I am arguing that Christian Old Testament scholars in thc universjty and the theo-logical cotlege should positively and critically let their basic belilfs shape theirscholarsfup. Some basic beliefs have to fulfiil this function, and it is difficult to seewhy these should be non-Christian rather than Christian, since neutral, objechvebasic beliefs are an impossibility: The difference, in my view, between Old Testamentstudies in the university as compared with the seminarv relatcs to the more theorefi-cal nafure of the univerity compared with the more practical nature of the semLnary.(Cf I: J Venter, 'Yesterday

and Today; the 'fask

of ih" U.riu".rity,, tn Social Thcoryand Practice, Kturs XL 4,5, 6 (\925), pp. 402-18, on the theoretical task of the univer-sr tY) The important point is that takrng ClLrrstran presupposi t rons senously in Oldtestament sfudies in the universihz does not mean turning the uriversity into a

Tffi*y or Bible college. A uruversrtv might, for example, hlve a practical ttreologydePartrnent which reflects theoretically on christran praxis, but its task is not toteach the practical skills of preaching.

32 -)J

CRAIC G. BARTHOLOMEW

remember that God )ras not given us his Word primarily for theoreticalanalysis. It is giverr to all God's people - not just to scholars - andis to be received by Cod's people in a trusting, l istening manner thatn'i l l equip us for service of the King in his rvorld. Old Testament studvis thus a sccondary activity in relation to the purpose of Scripture, andought to be directed ton'ards deepening the primary activity of l isten-ing to Scripture.3T

1. Post- l ibera l OId Testament s tudy would l taae far moreof a kerygntatic focus.

In his creative application of speech-act theory to biblical hermeneuticsNicholas Wolterstorff declares,

So I recognize that that interpretative practice which reads and inter-prets the Clrristian Bible so as to discern what God is saving therebvis only one among many alternative, contested practices. Though itwas the dominant interpretatir.e practice in the Christian communitvfor about 1500 vears, it is my imprcssion thai it has prettv muchdisappeared from the academic communitv and now puts in its ap-pearance mainly in homiletical and devotional settings.3S

If Scripture is God's Word, then clearly from a Christian perspectivethe r-reglect of approaching it as such is a serious indjctment of theacaderny. Brevard Childs makes a related point to Wolterstorff 's whenhe insists that

The final task of exegesis is to seek to hear the Word of God, rvhichmeans that thc r,r'itrress of N{oses and Jeremiah, of Paul arrd john,must become a vehicle for another \,Vord. The exegete must come towrestle with the kerygmatic subst;rnce which brought into being thewihress.39

37. Va'cier G.ot, Ific Bihlt' Ln Theolagu, exprlores this reLationshrp betr'eenpre-theoretical and theorchcal approaches to Scripture in detail.

3[J. N. Woltcrst<>ri[, Dittine Drscoursc. PhilosoTthical Reflections ou tlte Clttnn ]hntCod Speak (Cambric lge: Cambridgc Univers i tv press, 1995), p. 131.

39. B. Chi tds, ' ln terpretat ion in Fairh ' , Interpr t ' tat ion t8 (1961), pp 432--{9, I , l3

Tou:ards a Pttst-liberal Agendn .for OId Testarnent SttLdy

Childs's canonical project is a massive attemPt to recover this

kerygmatic aspect of Scripture in Old Testament studies. As he has

noted again and again, it is an asPect of Scripture that historical crit icism

does not do iustice io. Interestrnglv, the neglect of the kerygmatic focus40

of the Old Testament is a characteristic of much liberal and conservative

Old Testament scholarship. Especiallv within liberal Old Testament

circles, the historical-crit ical agenda has continuallv tendcd to focus on

the stages underlying the final form of the text and away from the text

as a unified whole. So much so has this been the case that Francis Wat-

son says of biblical srudies,

To work with ihe final form of the texts, removed from this diachronic

framework and envisaged norry as relatively autollomous linguistic

artefacts, is therefore to propose a major reorientation or paradigm-

shift within the discipline.{]

Historical crit icism tends to have biblical scholars devoting all t l 'reir

energies to the stages underlving the final form of the text, and rarely

getting to expound the kerygma or message of the tcxt as a whole.4z

This is clear, for example, in the history of the interpretation of

Ecclesiastes where there is no single, major critical commentary on the

present (final) form of Ecciesiastes.43 It is true that there has been a

40. 'Kerygma' has received sustained attention in theolog.v this centurli par-

ticularlv by Barth, Bultmann, and Dodd. I am r'rsing 'kervgmatic' in the general sense

of a focus'for interpretation upon the message/communicative function of biblical

texts. This gcneral usage needs to be nuanced in relation to these other theological

uses, but I cannot pursue tlris here. Suffice it to note that the kerVgrnatic focus I am

proposing is insepirable from important and complex hermeneutical issues' Speech

act theory is particularly useful in terms of developing a nuanced approach to

biblical texts which takes account of their communicative function. On the relevance

of this for evangetical biblical interpretahon see A. Thiselton's very useful 'Authority

and Hermeneutics: Some I'roposals for a lv{ore Creative Agenda,' in I']. E' Satter-

thwaite and D. F. Wright (eds.), A Pdthzoav into the Holy Stripturc (Grand Rapids:

Eerdmans, 199{) , pp. 107-a1.

41. F. Watson, Text, Church ard Warld, Biblical Interpretation iil Theological Per-

spect iae (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 199a), p. 15.42. There are obvicrtts excePtions to this. The iournal lnlerpretdttott' to( ex'

ample, was founded to focus on the ker-vgma of the Bible' A responsibiiitv of a

post-liberal approach would be to search orrt these positive strands in the history

of Old Testament interpr€tahon and critically appropnatc them in the Present'43. For a detailed assessmelrt of this history see m1' Rcarllng Ecclesiastes'

[ ,

J T 35

CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

growing sense of the literary unity of Ecclesiastes this century, but theIegacy of the extreme source criticism of Ecclesiastes at the turn of thecentury lingers, in that the epilogue continues to be excludecl from thrsunity without serious reexamination. Michael Fox's work44 is an rm-portant exception to the failure to wrestle with the literary shape ofEcclesiastes, although he has not w.ritten a major .o-r,.l".,tu.u on thebook. Fox is one of a few contemporary commentators n,ho insist ontaking the frame of Ecclesiastes seriously as an integral part of Ecclesrastes.45 Fox's reading of the epilogue in relation to the marn body ofthe book is debatable, in my opinion, but his focus on Ecclesiasies as aliterary text is crucial if the kerygma of Ecclesiastes, i.e. the canonicaltext as we have it, is to be discemed.46

Although conservative old restament scholars have tended tostress the unity of old restament texts much more strongll,, often rnreaction to historical crificism, this has not, howevsr, meant that theyhave focused their interpretative endeavours on the kervgma of theindividual texts. Consider the Tyndale commentaries for example _this is in general their weak area. They are often full of useful particularcomments and exploration of major themes in the old restament books,but they generally have little detail on the commu.icative function ofthe text as a literary whole in its original context or today,. A Christianhermeneutic would insist on bringing all its weight and exegeticalspade work to bear here. This is not to suggest that the historical andliterary and thematic dimensions of texts should be negrected but that,in terms of biblical interpretation, they should be subordhate to theexplication of the kerygma of the text.

Consider, for example, the book of Kings. What rvas its messageto its origi.nal hearers? For all the value of corlremporary commentariesthis question rarely receives sustained attention. The focus has been'n

44. 'Frame Narrarive and composition in the Book of eohereth,, HLrcA 18Q9n), pp.83-106; Qoheleth and His Contraditions (sheffield: Armond, 1989) For anassessment of Fox's reading of the epiiogue see C. Bartholomen,, Rcodins Ecctesr_asles.

45. G. Ogden, Qolrcleth (Sheffield: JSOT), is also 'erv helpful in taking theshape of Ecclesiastes as a whole seriouslv.

46. In Reading Ecclesiastes I have tried to show just hon' significant it is for theinterpretation of 'Ecclesiastes'

if 'the book' is read n,itiout the epil.rgre as an mtegral

part .

Toit 'ords a Post-l iberal Agenda for Old Testamettt Study

the underlving events rather than on the kerygma of t lre text in its i inalform. The historical aspect of thc text is important, but Kings is notprimariiy a history book; it is kerygmatically focused.4T This is whyLeah Bronner's work on the Eli jah, Elisha narratives is so usefui.as It

sets ihem againsi rvhat rve knolv of Baal and they spring to life as n.e

se that all that is predicated of Baal is actuallv true of Yahweh! Reflec-

tion on this perspective as addressed to the exil ic and post-exil ic com-munity,, thc audience for rvhom the book was lvritten, leads one into

the communicaLive dynamic of the text.agThe Old Testament books surprisingly come to life n'hen ap-

proached as kervgmatically-focused in their historicai contexts. I think

of Gordon Wenham's rvork on Genesis which, in m-v view, receives its

dynamic from inquiring after Genesis' messagc/kerygma in its ANE

context, especially with respect to Genesis 1-10.50 This may secm ob-vious but historical crit icism and reactionary evangelical scholarship

generally did not move one in this direction and thus distorted rather

than deepened Christian use of the Old Testament. Especially for the

Old Testament student it was easy to feel caught between a source-

critical approach which fragmented the text or an inerrantist approach

which ignored the complex iiterarv genres of Genesis. If their deience

of the historicity of the OId Testament sometimes prevented conserva-tive scholars from doing the hard u'ork on its kerygma, so too did their

concem for the unity of the testaments sometimes get in the n,ay. For

E. J. Young, for example, the main n'ressage of ionah is prediction of

47. The relationship of sl"nchronic to diachronic analyses of Old TL'stament

texts remains controversiai, It seems to me that we musi be cautious about setting

them against each other. The best analysis of their relationship has, in mv opinion,

been done bv lVleir Stemberg in his discussion of the relationship between discottrse

analysis and genetic an.rlvsis. See M. Stemberg, The Poetics of Bibliul Narrattot.

ldeological Literature ntd the Drnnra of Rerrr/ing (Bloomingkrn: lndiana University

Press), pp. 7-23.i18. See L. Bronner, l'he Stories o,f Elilah ond Llisln as l)it/r:rtiics Agnirtst Bnnl

Worship (Leiden: Brill, 1968).49. Iain Provan's 1 E 2 Kincs (Old Testament Guides, Sheffield: SAI', 1994

r ight lv and most hclpfu l lv analyses the histor ical , l i terar l ' , re l ig ious, a ld d idachc

elements in the interpretat ion of Kings. See also his 1ant l 2 Ki t tgs, Nerv lnternat ionalBiblical Commentary (Massachusetts/Cariisle: Hendrickson, Paternoster).

50. On the creation narratives see also thc cxcellent rvork by J. Stek, 'What

Says the Scr iptures?' , in H. J. r 'an Ti l (eci . t , Por l r t i ts of Crai l i t t r r : ts ib l icnl and Sciot f i f icPerspecttues on the Worl'l 's Fttnnatiott (Crand Rapicls: Ecrdmans, 1990), pp. 203-65

[ *

36 37

CRAIC G, BARTHOLOMEW

Christ!51 This may defend a conseryative view of Scripture but it pre-vents one from positioning oneself among the Hebrew group to n,homthis masterful kerygmaric story of the disobedient prophet is being told,r,vith the insight gradually dawning that Jonah is a paradigm of Israeland the real question is where you are in relation to Yahrveh's rvill anclword!

Literary and narrative approaches have of course been very help-ful in moving the focus from the underlying events to the final shapeof the text. Indeed it is through narrative and carefully crafted literaturethat many of the authors of the Old Testament books present theirmessage. The kerygmatic nature of the Old Testament should, however,alert us to the fact that a iiierary approach which stops short of clari-fving ihe kerygma of the text is insufficient. Consider Jonah, for ex-ample. That there is skilful narrative technique is clear. But it seems tome that Jonah is finally kerygma rather than story or perhaps I shouldsay that story is emploved in the service of kerygma. We never knowwhat happened to Jonah - did he come round to God's rvay of think-ing or not? He seems to have 6;one full circle and not to have leamt atall. This, I suggest, is not a good ending for a story - but it is for akerygmatically focused story/sermon, in which the key issue is notwhat happened to jonah but . . . rvhere are the hearers in relation toCod's Word and will?!

Christian Old Testament studies should privilege the present formof old Testament texts but they should privilege them kervgmaticallyor communicatively, and refuse to make the literary or historical aspectof these texts the dorninant one.52 A hermeneutic is required rn'hichtakes full account of the literary and historical aspects and explorestheir relation to the dominant kerygmatic aspect. stemberg's poetics13

51. E. J, Young, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.1960), p.280. Young rvrrtes thar '[t]he fundamental purpose of the book of Jonah rsnot found in its missionary or universalistic teachirrg. It is rather to show that ]onahbeing cast into the depths of Sheol and yet brought up alive is an illustration of thedeath of the Messiah for sins not His own and of the Messiah's resurrection. . ,Thus the expcrierrce of Jonah has as its basic purpose to point forward to theexperience of that One that is "greater than Jonas."'

52. C/. thc discussion of the relationship between the literarv. historical. andtheological aspects of the Ncrv Testament texis in N. T. wright, ire NettTeslanrentand the Pcople o/God (Minneapohs: Fortress, lV)2).

53. Stemberg, Tle Pot'tics of Biblical Narratioe.

Toztards a Post-l iberal Agenda for Olcl Testament Study

and N. T. Wright's The Neitt Testarnent and thc People of God are the mosthelpful indications of this sort of direction available at present.5a J. C.McCann's ATheological lntrodttction to the Book of Psahns:'fhe Psalnts asTorah,S is a marvellous example of what can happen when the historical,

l i terary/canonical, and kerygmatic dimensions of a biblical text areintegrated. The discoverv that the Psalter has something of an overaliiiterary shape has opened up all sorts of new directions in study of the

psalms,$ and McCann develops these insights such that one begins tohear the Psalter as Scripture in a fresh and powerful way, and in a way

that fits naturally with the New Testament.

And indeed. the recovery of a kerygmatic focus to Old Testament

study needs to be extended beyond individual books and texts to thewhole OId Testament and to the Scriptures as a whole. Historical criti-

cism has always led to fragmentation of texts and has a built- in antip-

athy to the unity of the Old Testament and the Bible. It does not takc

much discemment to realise the implications of this for any doctrine

of Scripture as God's (univocal) Word. Old Testament and biblical the-

ologv have taken a systematic hammering from historical criticism and

there are few u'ork sites in these areas remaining from the historical-

critical paradigm.sTUnfortunately hansformational consen'ative schoiarship has ne-

glected to create many either. Following current fashions conservativestend to rvork thoroughly on small texts from the Old Testament, quietly

and uneasily hoiding to the unity of Scripture but having no powerfr-rl

emerging Old Testament and biblicat theologies to support that belief.

There are some encouraging exceptions to this trend. One excep-

tion is Moore Collegc in Australia, where Graham Goldsrt'orthl', Bill

54. Sternberg operates with a communicative model of textualify. From per-sonal discussion with him I gather, however, he w'ould not aBree rvith me in de-

rribing the Old Testament texts as kerygmatic.

55. J. C. McCann, ATheological lntroduction lo thr Book of Psnlns: Tht Psnltr.s ns

Torah (Nashville: Abingdc,n, 1993).

56. See, c8, i C. McCann, ed., Tlie' Slnpe dnd Slnpitrg of the Psaltu (Sheffield:

ISOT, le93).57. Tom Wright notes, for cxample, in his update of Stephen Neill 's Tfte

Interpretation o;f the Neru Testament, that "[t]he connection betrveen the Old and New

Tetaments remains a matter of interest, but shictly on tlre sidelines as far as the

mainstream of New Testament scholarshrp is concerned." In Tfu Interprttation of the

New Testament 1861-1986 (Oxford/New' York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 365.

I

I38 39

wCRAIG G. TiARTHOLOMEW

Dunbrell, and others have made biblical theology an integral part oftheir curriculum for many years now, and in the process a st;dy;rreamof publications has emerged from this school.58 of course these havetheir rveaknesses but they seem particularly valuable in attempting roget at the inner uniry of scripture. certainly for any community *".i irrgto uphold Scripture as God's word, works of this nature are indis-pensabJe. lames Barr and tangdon Gilkey apparently sounded thedeath knell of the biblical theology movement, but there seems to havebcen a neglect of cautious assessment of the strengths and weaknessesof that movement and the insistence on not gir.ing up on old restamentand biblical theology. Karl Barth has said that the best apologetics is agood systematics, and undoubtedly the best defence or tne unitv ofScripture would be a series of old restament and biblicar theoroeies.scobie has recently published a number of stimuiafing articres o,itn"possibility of and shape a biblical theology might take;but this discus-sion is rare in biblical studies nowadays.59 It is also heartening to seeFrancis wa^tson attempting to revive bibrical theology in his reclnt Tertand Truth.$

2. Post-Iiberal Old Testament scholarship zrsould hauemore of a comrnunal nature.

It is i'creasingly difficult for an individual to write a single old resta-ment theology or a major ord restament introduction in his/her rife-

58. I am told that this tradition of biblical theology goes back to D. w B.Robinson, former Archbishop of sydney and at one time Vice-pnncipal of the colrege.It n'as certainJv nurtured by former principal D. B. Knox. see as examples G. Golds-worthy, Gospel and w*dora (Carrisle: patemoster, 19gz Ir995J), w. J. Dumtreil, coi,enantand Crcation: An old restament Couenant Trrcorogv (Exeter: patemoster). The Entr of theBeginning:Reuelation21_22andtheoIdTestamerrt(Australia:[,ancer,tg85t,

_ .. .59 See, for example, S. Scobie,,The Structure of Biblical Theology,,TyndaleBulLetin 42,2 (1991), pp t$-9a.

60 cl atso C. R. seitz, word without Lnri. Tlo orrrrestament as AbidingTheo-logical wi.tness (Grand Rapids: Eercimans, 199g). walter Brueggemann has reiularl'qon: lgalrt the stream in producing a number of books on old restament thir_,logvsee his o/d 'l'estnnrcnt

Theorogy. Essavs o, structure, Thente, and rert (Minneapolis:Fortrt'ss, 1992) and most recentry see his monunrcntatJ Trrcorogv of ttre ottl Testa'ment:Testimotry, Dispute, Aduocac7 (Mirrneapolis: Fortress, 1997J.

Tou,nrds a Post-l iberal Agenda for OId Testnnrcnt Study

tirne today. An advantage of this is that it serves io remind us thatChrisfian scholarship should be communal. The battle for Christian OldTestament scholarship will never be fought successfully bv a series ofindividuals; it must be a deeply communal venture. Francis Watsoncorrectly says in his plea for a theological biblical hermcneutic that'what is needed above all is not individual performances but communalagreement as to how a theologically-oriented exegesis could be estab-lished. developed and practised. Clearly, such a consensus wil l not inthe foreseeable future comprehend more than a minority of bibiical

scholars.'61Modernity has been,/is deeply individualisiic and so is modern

scholarship. Originaiity and individual performance are the goals. AChristian perspective will not ignore these but will also want to find aplace for tradition, faithfulness, communal work and service. The greatthing is to serve up nutritious bread and this requires communal proj-ects. If Old Testament theologies are a great need of the day that willprobably involve a group of like-minded intemational Christian OldTestament scholars who share a commitment to post-liberal Old Testa-ment scholarship working together. Communal Old Testament schoiar-ship will also involve nurturing and passing on the vision to newgenerations of OId Testament scholars.

3. Post-l iberal Old Testament studies zpould be moreinterdisciplinary.

By this I mean a number of things. First, like all disciplines, OId Testa-ment study works rvith philosophical tools, i.e., with an ontology andan epistemology. It needs to ensure that these are Christian and willthus need to be in dialogue rvith Christian philosophers and theolo-gians. One thinks, for example, of Watson's serious plea for a theologicalhermeneuhic in his fert, Church and World. In this creative tcxt he in-cludes detailed exegesis of parts of Genesis in order to shor,." how atheological hermeneutic would work with the biblical text. In my viewhermeneutic questions are theological and philosophical, so it wouldbe most helpful if Christian biblical scholars could dialogue with Chris-

61. F. Watson, Text, Church and Worltl, p. vll.

40 41

FCRAIG G BARTHOLOMEW

tian iheologians and philosophers in order io raise their consciousncssabout their philosophical and theological presuppositions. conscior-rsself-reflection on methodologv is fast becoming an imperative and it isimportant to ask n'hat a Christia^ methodology/ies should look l ike.Recent decades ha'e seen major advances made in Christian perspec-tives in philosophv,b2 and old restament scholars could easilv dialoguewith scholars iike Plantinga and wolterstorff in these areas. ivithin Nen,Testament studies,

-ibm wright's The Neio Testgnrcnt ud the people of cod

is an excellent example of the fruit that taking philosophy serio,sly inbiblical studies can bear. sadlv not much of this sort of *,ork has 1'etbeen done in Old Testamer-rt studies.

seco.d, scripture is God's word for all of life and thus biblicalstudies has unique potential for dialogue across disciplines, much ofwhich potential has rrot been exploited. Hor,r,, for example, does OldTestament ethics relate to theological ethics and philosophical ethics?And does old restament law have any insights to offer contemporarl,legal studies - if so hor.r' does one go about relati.g these disciplines?

Third, other cliscipli.es also bear on Old Testament studics, andnot least on the teaching of the old restament, which is the main themeof this collection of essays. within the university and the theologicalcollege old restament studies is taught rvithin an educational milieuthat has developed over centuries. As we noted, this educational ethosis not neutral, and particularly in the university context has been deeplyshapcd by modernitv, as a 'r'ho's *'ho of influential educational philos-ophers over the last felv hundred years soon demonstrates. within oldTestament studies the dominance of historical criticism fits hand-rn-glove *'ith the rationalistic modern universit'.63

Ch.siians teaching the oid restament rvill therefore need to bcalvare not onlv of non-Christian influences on old restament sfudies,but also of the ideologies shaping the philosophy/ies of education rntheir teachins context. Increased specialisation and separation of disci-

62. See, c.9.. A. Pla.tinga, 'Christian philosophv at the End of the Tr'enhethCentury', in s. criffioen and B. M. Balk (eds.), Christinn philosoplty at thc Closc of il*,Ttpt : t r t ieth Ctr t tury. ,4sscssrr i . r r f and Perspcct iL,e (Kampen: Kok, i9C5t, pp. 29_;3.

63. Sc'c J. kvenson, TIrc Ilebrciu Bible, Ior a stimulatjng orlalrlsis of religior.lsinterprctatiorr of the old restament compared with that of historical criticism. Heshon's hou' thc 'modcrn uni 'ers i tv and histor ical cr . i i ic isr .n l . rar ,e been shaped bv ihesame ideolosr,.

Towards a Post-liberal Agenda for OId Testament Study

plines in the modern'mulhiversity' means, for example, that Old Testa-

ment speclalists will not readily think of the influence of philosophy of

education upon their discipline. Horvever, a Christian agenda rvill mean

being sensitive to these influences and the importance of thinking

tfuough the universitv from a Christian perspective.Certainiy there is much in modern educational philosophy to hold

onto, but the crisis of post-modemity is being felt in the philosophy of

education as rvell. Roger l-undin begins his excellent text on post-

modemity rvith two chapters on the crisis of education in the U.S.A.6a

And a similar crisis and flux is evident in U.K. education, as a perusal

of recent editions of the loumal of Philosophy of Education demonstrates.

Paul Hirst, whose modem analytical approach to education has deeply

influenced British education, has recently mot'ed away considerably

from his previous educational philosophy.65Perhaps the most significant implication of modemity for religion

has been the latter's privatisation. Freedom of religion is allowed but

religion is privatised and confined to people's private and church lives.

Reason and human autonomy are understood to reign in the publicspheres of life such as politics, economics, and education. Here religionis thought to be inappropriate and divisive. As regards Christian edu-cation it must be noted that many Christians have argued that thismodel of liberal pluralism is Christian. Education, interpreted throughthis grid, is to be for all and ought to be open and unprejudiced in its

search for truth. I have norvhere secn the view that Christian educationought to be neutral and objective more ciearly articulated than byHirst.66 The follorving quotes give some sense of his influential positionin the 1970's.

The belief that religion does in fact significantly influence any partof the curriculum in Catholic schools, other than that of specificallyreligious education, can be seriously doubted. (p. 3)

6.{. R. Lundin, The Cultttre of Interpretation. Cfuistian Faith and the PosttnodernWorld (Crand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).

65. See the articles and especiallv Hirst's contribution in R. Barrow andP. White (eds.), Balord Liber,tl E,lucatiort. Essays in Honour of Paul H. Hirsf (Londonand Nerv York: Routledge, 1993).

66. P. Hirst, 'Education, Catechesis and the Church School', in L. Francis andD. W. Lankshear (eds.), Christtan Perspectiues on Church Schools (Leominster: Crace-wing Forvler Wrighr, 1,993 119791), pp.2-16.

, 1 1 43

CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

This second, sophisticated view of education is thus concemed withpassing on beliefs and practices according to their obiective statusand with their appropriate justification. It is dominated by a concemfor knowledge, for truth, for reason, distinguishing ihese clearry frombelief. conjecture and subjective preference. (p. 5)

on this second view, the character of education is in the end deter,mined simply by the canons of objectivity and reason appropriate tothe different forms of knowledge and understanding thit *e hau".What is involved in teaching say the riences, history the arts, isdetermined by the nature of these pursuits themselves and not bycharacteristics that are in any way dependent on any religious pre-suppositions. Though certain Chrisfians at times try to argue other-wise, I suggest we have now reached a point in our understandingof the nature of the sciences, the arts, mathematics, philosophy andso on, that their autonomy and independence of any specificallyChristian presuppositions must be granted. (p. 5)

The . . . concept of education I have been arliculating is . . . markedabove all by:

a. a commitment to the autonomy or independence from religiousbeiiefs of the pursuits of objectivity and reason; and

b. a commitment to developing a rationaily autonomous personwhose life is self-directed in the light of what reason determines. (pp.7-8)

Hirst's is a quintessentiaily modem view of Christian education.It should be noted that he is arguing this perspective as a Christian.Christian catechesis is, in his view, a pri'ate matter that can comple.ment objective education.6T

The 1970's Hirst, in my opinion, is completely wrong about theneutrality of education and its independence from reiigron.6S tn thecontext of the post-modernism debate there has emerged a recognitionof the extent to which modernity is a particular tradiiion with ils ownprejudices. Encouragingly, Hirst himself has recognised the extent to

6T Hirst's mode] is a good expression of the nature-grace understanding ofthe Christ-culture relationship. For a discussion of this see R. lt. Niebuhr, Chist"andCulture (I-nndon: Harper Colophon, 1975).

68. See R. Clouser, The hlyth of Religious Neutrality.

Tozuards a Post-libernl Agenda for OId Testamtttt Studtl

which his 1970's position was shaped by a particular perspective. Inthe 1993 collection of essays celebrating his career, Hirst remarkablyacknon'ledges that in the 60's and 70's Brit ish philosophy of educationand he himself were under the spell of 'a hard rationalism', a spellwhich, savs Hirst, has now been broken. According to the 1993 Hirst'we must shift from seeing education as primarily concemed withknowledge to seeing it as primarily concerned with social practices.'

Although Hirst is not arguing for religion as foundational in thesense that I would, the contrast with his 1978 position is remarkable.He says, for example, that

A great mistake of the 'rationaiist' approach was that it sarv theoreticalknowledge as the only type of knowledge that is properly significantin determining both the ends and means of rational practice and thusof the good life. . . . If practical reason is given its proper place indetermining the ends and the means of the good life, with the achieve-ments of theoretical reason seen as in general ancillary. the notion ofrational choice that the conduct of the good life requires can no longerbe that of detached, neutral judgement of either ends or means. . .There can be no detached clean slate position from which ail possi-bilities can be assessed. . . .69

Hirst has recognised the problems with the myth of neutral, objectir"eeducation. Sadly though, the notion of neutral objectivity still tends toreign supreme in the general practice of education, often even amongChristians. Even as a growing awareness has developed in the U.K. thatwe all have presuppositions and that inevitably our communal baggageshapes our scholarship, few have discerned the responsibility for Chris-tians to allow their presuppositions to shape their academic pursuitsas the rest of their l ives.7o

69. P Hirst, 'Education', p. 193.70. lt should be noted that some very good n'ork is being done on the theory

of educahon from a Chrisfian perspective. See, for cxample, J, Shortt and T. Cooling(eds.), Agenda for Educutional Clrangc (Leicester: Apollos, 1997), F.. J.Thiessen,'[eachingfor Comntnitttett: Liberttl Eclucntion,Ittdoctrhntiott, and Christian Nurture (Leorninster:Gracewrng, 1993). and theiournal Spectnmt -since i997 knon'n as lournal of Eriu'cation and Christiatt Belie.f.The work is being done, but there are few places in highereducation in the U.K. lvhere an attempt is being made to integrate such theory ofeducation with a post-liberal agenda for Old Testament studies.

A A

45

CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

A Time for Setting the Thble

As Christians in Old Testament studies rve are working all the timewith some kind of agenda for OId Testament studies, but is it a con-scious and integraily Christian one? Time and again students come totheir teachers seeking guidance in discerning where to focus their ener-gies. Now it is wrong for a supervisor to impose his interests upon the

studcnt, but it is equally wrong to give no guidance. ln discerning ourGod-given vocation John Stott once helpfully commented that we need

to discern our God-given gifts and then ask how those gifts can best

be stretched to meet the needs of the day. Imagine you are rn'orking

with a student rvho has the gifts and the call to service of the Lord

Christ in Old Testament studies. What n'ouid you say to her in herquest to stretch her gifts in relation to the needs of the day? Any attemptto answer this question will force one to confront another question:n'hat are the needs of the day in Old Testament studies? Where are theurgent holes that need to be plugged until more thorough work can bedone?

I have argued here that a post-liberal agenda is the sort of directionthat Old Testament studies should aspire to. There is much at stake inthe discipline of Old Testament studies and it is valuable to pause everynow and again to check our bearings. This paper is a call to check thedirection of current Christian Old Testament scholarship in our 'post-

modem' context. What are our gifts and what are the needs of our day?How are we to work together in order to serve up bread and not stonesin our scholarly work on the OId Testament? The post-modern condi-tion makes it important to undertake such reflection now. If not, thedanger is that Christian Old Testament scholarship will drift into areflection of post-modern pluralism with little communal agenda untilperhaps a new consensus emerges where it will make its uneasy homeonce again. However, the opportunity is there for Christian Old Testa-ment scholars to seize the present and to use the present flux to charta fruitful wav ahead in our field. M/hat Lundin says of modemity andpost-modemity in general is true of Old Testament studies:

Christian belief presents distinct alternatives to Enlightenment ratio-nalism and the pragmaiic irrationalify of postmodernity

Christians engage contemporary theories, they ought to do so criti-

Towards a Post-liberal Agetda for OId Testnment Studtl

ca1ly, recognizing the need to renew their orvn vocabulary as well asto leam from the critiques offered by postmodem culture. If they doanything less than that, if they neglect their own heritage or view itsolely as a source of corruption and oppression, Christians are indanger of selling their own birthright - their savilg vocabulary ofsin and grace, judgement and forgiveness, death and resurrection -

for a cold pottage of jargon and obscurity.Tl

Such an agenda in OId Testament studies could only be achieved

by a group with a common vision - a common world view and com-

miknent to post-liberal OId Testament scholarship - who work com-

munally to serve our neighbours by giving them bread and not stones.'In sum, we who are Christians and propose to be Old Testament

scholars and teachers must not rest content with being Old Testament

scholars who happen, incidentally, to be Christians; we must slrive tobe Christian Old Testament schoiars. We must therefore pursue ourprojects with integrity, independence, and Christian boldness.'72

71. Lundin, Thz Cttlture of Interpretation, p.30.72. This is an adaptation of Plantinga's conclusion in 'Advice to Christian

Philosophers'.

46 47