Occasional Publications

New Scripture & Theology Blog

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-03-27T09:31:03+00:00

Peers at St Andrews and I have launched a new blogging venture. It grows in part out of the Scripture & Theology Seminar at St Mary's College, the divinity school here, and it takes that name.

Take a look, read about the concept, and if you have any interest, think seriously about participating. Go to: http://www.scripturetheology.net/

If this collaborative effort takes off, Occasional Publications may start living up to its name more than ever. Not that I have any plans to close up shop. It's just that work of this sort is better shared.

The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-03-22T13:43:42+00:00

Brevard Childs' final book is due out with Eerdmans in the fall. Meanwhile, here is the table of contents.

1. The Search for Paul’s Theology 1
I. Recent Historical Attempts 1
II. The Pauline Corpus 3
III. The Hermeneutical Problem of Interpreting the Corpus 7
IV. Historical Criticism and Canonical Context 10
1. Elements of Continuity 13
2. Elements of Discontinuity 15
V. The Role of a Text’s Background 17
VI. Criteria for Canonicity 19
1. Apostolicity 21
2. Catholicity 22
3. Orthodoxy 23
VII. The Biblical Canon and the Problem
of Textual Reception 24

2. Alternative Proposals for the Problem of Interpretation 29
I. Ulrich Luz: Wirkungsgeschichte 29
II. Richard B. Hays: Intertextual Reading of Scripture 32
III. Frances Young: The Ethics of Reading Paul 39
1. The Development of Young’s Understanding 40
2. A Critical Assessment of Young’s
Hermeneutical Proposals 42
IV. Luke T. Johnson: Exegesis and Hermeneutics 46
1. Johnson’s Interpretive Approach 47
2. Critical Reflections on Johnson’s Proposals 48
V. Wayne A. Meeks: The Social Context
of Pauline Theology 50
1. Meeks’s Approach Outlined 51
2. Examples of Meeks’s Social Interpretation 52
3. A Critical Evaluation of Meeks’s Approach 56
4. The Role of the Canon and Jesus’ Identity 60

3. The Shaping of the Pauline Corpus 65
I. The Letter to the Romans 65
II. The Pastoral Epistles 69
III. The Hermeneutical Significance
of the Canonical Structure 75

4. Exegetical Probes: Introduction and Guidelines 79
I. Paul’s Apostolate and the Gospel 81
1. Characteristic Features of Paul’s Apostleship 83
2. The Theological Implications of Canon 96
II. Abraham’s Faith in Galatians 3 and Romans 4 97
1. J. C. Beker’s Categories of Contingency
and Coherence 97
2. J. Louis Martyn’s Analysis of the Role
of the “Teachers” 99
3. A Canonical Reading of Abraham’s Faith
according to Paul 103
4. Justification in Philippians 108
5. Justification in the Pastorals 110
6. Hermeneutical Implications 111
III. Life in the Spirit 112
1. Romans 8:1-27 113
2. Galatians 5:13-26 115
3. The Canonical Relation of Romans 8
and Galatians 5 117
4. 2 Corinthians 3:1–4:6 122
5. Richard Hays and Ernst Käsemann
on 2 Corinthians 3 135
IV. Community Gifts and Worship 138
1. 1 Corinthians 12–14 139
2. Romans 12:1-21 143
3. Canonical Shaping of Romans 12
and 1 Corinthians 12 145
4. Ephesians 4:7-16 148
V. The Order of the Church and Its Offices 153
1. Introduction: The History of the Debate 153
2. The Pastoral Letters in the Debate 156
3. The Broadening of the Discussion 157
4. The Contributions of German Catholic Scholarship 159
5. Hermeneutical Implications of the Debate 164
VI. The Weak and the Strong 167
1. 1 Corinthians 8:1–11:1 167
2. Romans 14:1–15:13 171
3. Comparison of Corinthians and Romans 173
4. The Weak and Strong within the Pauline Corpus 175
VII. Israel and the Church: Romans 9–11 178
1. Form, Function, and Purpose of Romans 9–11 178
2. Paul’s Gospel Grounded on Israel’s Scriptures 183
3. The Hermeneutics of Paul’s Use of Scripture 189
4. The Canonical Function of Romans 9–11 192
VIII. The Apocalyptic Shape of Paul’s Theology 194
1. The Old Testament Background of Apocalypticism 195
2. Characteristic Features of Apocalypticism 197
3. Apocalyptic and the Growth of Early Christianity 199
4. Apocalyptic Traditions within the Pauline Corpus 206
5. Theological and Canonical Implications
of Apocalyptic 216

5. The Canonical Framing of the Pauline Corpus 219
I. Acts of the Apostles 219
1. The Debate over the Canonical Role of Luke-Acts 219
2. The Canonization of Acts 223
3. The Goals, Purpose, and Function of Acts 226
4. The Hermeneutical Effect of the Canonization of Acts 231
5. The Singularity of Paul’s Letters
and Their Corporate Form 234
6. Kähler’s Hermeneutic and the So-called
Historical Paul 236
II. Hebrews 237
1. Critical Issues 237
2. Major Theological Themes of Continuity 239
3. Themes of Radical Discontinuity 241
4. Exhortation and Parenesis 242
5. The Humanity of Jesus 244
6. The Major Hermeneutical Issues at Stake 244
7. Reasons for Inclusion of Hebrews
in the Pauline Corpus 248
8. The Effect of Hebrews within the Pauline Corpus 249

6. Theological Implications of the Pauline Corpus for Interpretation 253
I. The Theological Integrity of a Canonical Reading 253
II. TheCanonical ContextasanInterpretiveGuide 254
III. Canonical ShapingandReaderInterpretation 255
IV. TheHermeneutical DialecticinReadingtheCorpus 255
V. TheHistorical andCanonical Paul 256
VI. TheChristological Contentof thePaulineWitness 257
VII. TheFaithfulnessof GodtoHisPromises 258
VIII. TheEschatological-Apocalyptical Witnessof Paul 258

Mamet goes conservative?

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-03-15T16:54:53+00:00

A recent election-season piece by David Mamet, "Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal,'" caught my eye. Usually I think Mamet's always worth a read.

It also sent me looking for other Mamet stuff, and I landed on an old Salon intervew (1997), from which any number of quotes might be lifted. Since Occasional Publications has been living up to its name lately, I'll take this one on the internet. The final rant is perfect.

Somewhere, you wrote about the mass media, including the computer industry, conspiring to pervert our need for community. That the dream of having all this information at our fingertips to make us godlike is really doing the opposite and making us forget our humanity. Could you elaborate on that?

It's not really that they're conspiring to, but they might as well be. If you sit down in front of the television with 700 channels, there's probably something on those channels that's going to interest you. It's a very good way to get stupid very quickly.

There's nothing you get from television? The information is just a delusion?

I absolutely think so. If there's any information, it's purely accidental. Furthermore, I don't think there is any information to be gotten from television. I think it's an illusion. It's an interesting narcotic.

Even documentaries or historical programs?

No, it's television.

What about the Internet and the promise of all this information becoming available?

I don't know anything about it, but I'm sure it's worse.

Review Published - Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-03-10T09:33:34+00:00

My review of Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Methodenreflexionen und Beispielexegesen (eds Egbert Ballhorn, Georg Steins) has at last been published on RBL.

To view or download the review, go here.

The Nation: Who Would Jesus Vote For?

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-03-10T09:28:08+00:00

Last week The Nation posted an intriguing piece on politics and the new wave of American evangelicalism. Read it all...

Baractionary

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-02-18T18:48:02+00:00

I'm working on a new web-based project, which has siphoned off most of the small reserve of energy I had for this blog. Until I unveil the new project, I can share this amusing widget:

Kudos to Krause Dining

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-02-11T16:57:46+00:00

Robert Krause, the chef for whom I once worked, and his wife, Molly, were listed in the latest issue of Food & Wine among 100 food "bests" for 2008. As the Lawrence, KS paper explains, the Krause operation earned a no. 11 spot on "tastes to try in 2008" list. Part of the F&W write-up is online, here.

You can read more about their work here, here and here (with photos), and see especially this photo-set on Flickr and their homepage, krausedining.com.

Barton on Biblical Criticism and Religious Reading

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-02-04T13:47:07+00:00

																									          							  															The Nature of Biblical Criticism
								            Author:             John Barton            
            ISBN:             9780664225872            
                                           Publisher: Westminster John Knox Press                                                        Release:                   May 2007                              
            
                                           Format:                   Paperback                                                        Pages:                   206                              
            
            																			My Rating:

Over the weekend I finally read the above. I had picked it up at SBL last summer, in Vienna, and skimmed parts of it thereafter, but I only just blocked out time to read it carefully from cover to cover.

I resist the urge to say much about it yet, or even to rate it. I'll have to interact with the book in my dissertation and I don't want to pre-empt what I'll say there. I do note, however, that this essay of Barton's, which originally heralded The Oxford Bible Commentary in September 2001, anticipates themes in the book at several points. This is especially true of the last two sections, "A Turn to Theology" and "'Advocacy' Readings." Under the former, for instance, Barton states

Every so often there is a movement to ‘reintegrate’ biblical studies and theology, or to ‘give the Bible back to the Church’. I personally believe that scholars have never really taken it away from the Church, and have often indeed been if anything too ‘reverent’, avoiding hard critical questions. But there can be no doubt that many people do feel there is a division between the scholar in the study and the worshipper in the pew, with the preacher in the pulpit uneasily wedged between them. And a repeated reaction to this perception has been to try to develop some way of making biblical study more ‘theological’.

Similarly in the book he concludes: "There is a battle going on at the moment between those who believe that biblical criticism is too much in the grip of a secular and skeptical spirit and those who think it has still not managed to escape the hand of ecclesiastical and religious authority. My sympathies lie on the whole more with the second group" (185).

Barton's dissent from the many advocates of theological exegesis makes his new book essential reading for those with an interest in the same. He sees his program as closer to the essence of true religious reading, which makes it especially provocative. That his thoughts show evidence of long reflection (themes from his classic Reading the OT [1984] are also present in 2007) makes the argument all the more important.

Of course, not all will agree with Barton's diagnosis, let alone his prescription. Regarding canonical approaches he writes (in the online essay, but again in line with the book):

Older biblical criticism was often practised by scholars who did have a high commitment to the inspiration and authority of Scripture. But they thought the proper way to study it was first to analyse it critically in the ways I have described, and only then to move on to questions of its religious significance. This was true of Catholic and Protestant biblical scholars alike. The newer movement denies that this division of labour is desirable, or even possible.

But practitioners of the canonical approach are likely to reply that any division of labor will be different simply because the task envisioned is different. In short, Barton's work aims at the very core of the confessional exegesis movement (if it is proper to speak of such a thing). In particular he targets Brevard Childs, Chris Seitz, Francis Watson, and Walter Moberly. And debate with these figures (indeed, among them) has long been underway.

Finally, I understand that a response to Barton's book, by Moberly, is already due to appear this year in JTI (issue 2/1). One hopes that engagement from all parties will turn up fresh soil where the ground has already so often been plowed.

Christopher Seitz: Accordance

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-01-22T07:44:32+00:00

Featured in yesterday's Morning Star, the weekly newsletter from Wycliffe College, is an editorial by Chris Seitz. Appropriate to the venue, it includes a few personal reflections. And it sounds a familiar theme in Seitz's work—"accordance," as the title indicates.

Brevard Childs' death is mentioned. St Andrews is remembered. Richard Bauckham's Eyewitnesses book is commended, and this leads into a brief discussion of Irenaeus on the accordance of eyewitness testimony with the scriptures.

Read it all. It's not long.

Call for Papers: Conference on the Holy Trinity in Holy Scripture

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-01-18T12:05:51+00:00

Tyndale University College has announced a call for papers for a conference to take place this May 28–30. The conference title is "The Holy Trinity in Holy Scripture: Interpreting the Bible for the Church."

The line-up so far looks quite promising, not least because of the Scotland connection!

Dr. John Webster
Professor of Systematic Theology, King's College, University of Aberdeen
Dr. Lewis Ayres
Associate Profesor of Historical Theology, Candler School of Theology, Emory University
Dr. Kathryn Greene-McCreight
Assistant Rector, St. John's Episcopal Church, New Haven, Connecticut
Dr. Nathan MacDonald
Lecturer in Old Testament, St. Andrews University
Dr. Ephraim Radner
Professor of Historical Theology, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto
Dr. Christopher Seitz
Professor of Biblical Interpretation, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto
Dr. Peter Widdicombe
Associate Professor of Religious Studies, McMaster University

It seems there is still room for a few more presenters. More details are available here.

New Host, Same Stuff

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-01-16T11:10:44+00:00

Yesterday, for a variety of reasons, I finally left dot mac and shifted this entire site to a full-featured host. The domain is www.danieldriver.com, and www.vetustestamentum.com will bring you here as well.

Hopefully the transition is not too painful for you frequenters of these pages. To make it as smooth as possible, I've kept the RSS feed links the same, so blog subscribers should not need to change anything (though I noticed this morning that Google Reader aggregated 100+ old posts as new entries—simple solution: mark all as read).

Please do update those links. For the meanwhile I've put up redirect scripts at all the old locations.

Finally, I have tightened up the content somewhat. Let me know if you've got suggestions for improvements; I've made a few recently, and would gladly make a few more.

The Baby Primary

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-01-15T17:37:23+00:00

Got babies on the brain, and US politics? Even if not, I (we) enjoyed Slate's latest slide show, The Baby Primary.

(By the way, happy birthday, mom.)

Augustine and the "new testament" in the old (Jer 31:31–34)

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-01-04T19:23:55+00:00

What does it mean that "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor 3:6)? Dawson, through Origen, explores several suggestions. And a fellow student of mine at St Andrews, who successfully defended his PhD mid-December, focuses a different but related set of considerations through an "Augustinian" reading of Jer 31.

																									          							  															Restitutio ad Integrum: An 'Augustinian' Reading of Jeremiah 31:31–34 in Dialogue with the Christian Tradition
								            Author:             Johshua Moon            
            ISBN:                         
                                           Publisher: PhD                                                        Release:                   Oct 2007                              
            
                                           Format:                   Hardcover                                                        Pages:                   325                              
            
            																			My Rating: 										 									
								
																													
					
				 			
																									Comments/Quotes: “In his anti-Pelagian writings, emerging at the height of his influence, Augustine put forward a reading of Jer 31:31–34 that contrasted belief and unbelief—a state of affairs deserving judgment and salvation ('Heil und Nicht-Heil'). The point at issue for Augustine’s reading was the claim by Julian of Aeclanum that the Holy Spirit was tied to the novum testamentum, and thus was absent in the vetus. In an argument that shifted the point of contrast in Jer 31:31–34, Augustine made a distinction in the use of vetus testamentum—the popular use (referring to the era or part of the Christian canon from before Christ), and the use of Scripture. In this latter the members of the vetus testamentum are distinguished form the novum in an absolute or ‘salvific’ sense—the possession of the Spirit, regardless of the era in which one lives. The contrast involved in Jer 31:31–34 was for Augustine the contrast of unbelief apart from the Spirit, and faithfulness with the Spirit.

Though Augustine’s reading would remain overshadowed by uses of the contrast with reference to the mutatio sacramentorum or a similar contrast of two successive religio-historical eras, Augustine’s influence can be seen at a number of significant moments in Western theological history…

In modern interpretations the discourse shifted significantly, so that many theological concerns of the previous era were distanced from the consideration of a ‘historical’ location of the oracle. But the central issue remained the same: to what is the ‘new covenant’ contrasted?” (284–285).

Moon argues that the contrast is with the “broken covenant” (cf. in particular Jer 11, 7). “What is made the case in the oracles of salvation is an idyllic state—everything is made the way it always ought to have been. What we find in 31:31–34 is precisely this contrast: the universal infidelity bringing judgment is overturned in a promise of universal fidelity to Yhwh. The people of Yhwh are restored to their proper state (restitutio ad integrum), and a world is projected in which all is as it always ought to have been” (286).

Moon provides some really excellent details in his reading of the tradition, from Augustine, to Thomas, to the reformation period, through the break typified by Duhm, and on to Lohfink, Dohmen and Levin. I'm glad I took the time out to read through it today. Somebody needs to publish the thing soon!

Revisiting Christian Figural Reading

Daniel R. Driver — 2008-01-02T14:24:59+00:00

Over the holidays I re-read one of the first books I tacked for this PhD:

																									          							  															Christian Figural Reading and the Fashioning of Identity
								            Author:             John David Dawson            
            ISBN:             9780520226302            
                                           Publisher: University of California Press                                                        Release:                   Dec 2001                              
            
                                           Format:                   Hardcover                                                        Pages:                   309                              
            
            																			My Rating: 										 									
								
																													
					
				 			
																									Comments/Quotes: “Figural reading in the Christian tradition seeks to express the dynamic process of spiritual transformation in ways that respect the practitioners’ commitment to both past and future, both old identity and newly refashioned identity. Imbedded in figural practice is all the drama of discerning the point of existence and identifying one’s place in it, figured as a journey from a former mode of existence through various states of transformation toward some ultimate end” (216).

“Those familiar with a religion that affirms that submission to God’s agency constitutes human freedom, or that Jesus of Nazareth is no less human for being diving, or that divine power is manifested as divine suffering, or that wholly historical action is the realization of a transcendent divine intention, will not be surprised by the equally unexptected claim that fulfillments are more, and yet again not more, than their figures” (218).

Dawson’s tightly written book is one of the more intriguing comments on supersessionism I know. And as an exploration of its core concern, Christian figural reading, I know nothing else quite like it. It sets three modern concerns about figural reading—the body (represented by Daniel Boyarin), history (Erich Auerbach), identity (Hans Frei)—against a treatment of Origin, that ancient, (in)famous allegorizer, chosen for what he has to say to those who would read Hebrew Scripture as the Christian Old Testament. The book repaid a second reading every bit as much as my first. Highly recommended.

Site Updates

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-12-28T12:55:46+00:00

As 2007 draws to a close, I've taken a little time to implement updates to the entire site. It doesn't quite count as an overhaul, but some navigational improvements are overdue, and new content has been TK for all too long.

Excuse the inevitable clutter as the changes are published. And please let me know if problems arise.

Two New Collections on Kanon/Canon

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-12-17T10:43:42+00:00

While it is still 2007 I felt I should mention two new collections of essays on canon ("kanon" in the German spelling). I've had the chance to work through them both by now, and have just submitted a review of the larger collection to RBL. Since it has to be approved by the editors first, I expect it will not appear there for a few months yet (but if you're desperate for an English summary, feel free to contact me).

The first to appear, in September, was Bernd Janowski, ed., Kanonhermeneutik: Vom Lesen und Verstehen der christlichen Bibel (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 2007). It contains essays from six contributors.

The second to appear, in November, was Egbert Ballhorn and Georg Steins, eds., Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Beispielexegesen und Methodenreflexionen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007). It contains 21 essays by 17 scholars. I quoted from this volume here recently, and I will certainly link my review once RBL processes it.

William Robertson Smith Conference

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-12-05T14:36:35+00:00

The T. F. Torrance Lectures (formerly, Scottish Journal of Theology Lectures) are underway at the St Andrews this week. Professor Bruce McCormack of Princeton is the featured speaker. These have traditionally taken place at Aberdeen. I have just learned that there is good reason to be in Aberdeen this weeks as well, and I am strongly thinking about catching a train to the North tomorrow afternoon for the

William Robertson Smith Conference

Thursday 6th December 2007, The Seminar Room, Humanity Manse, 4.15 - 7.15 p.m.
University of Aberdeen

Programme

4.15pm
William Robertson Smith: Social Scientist or Theologian?
Professor Robert Segal (University of Aberdeen)

5.00pm
William Robertson Smith and J. G. Frazer: 'genuit Frazerum?'
Professor Robert Ackerman

5.45pm
Wellhausen, Robertson Smith and the Sociology of early Arabia and ancient Israel
Professor J.W. Rogerson (University of Sheffield)

6.30pm
From Pietism to Totemism:William Robertson Smith and Tübingen
Professor Bernhard Maier (University of Tuebingen)

The symposium will continue on Friday 7th at 9.30 with:
William Robertson Smith's early Work on Prophecy - the Beginnings of Social Anthropology?
Professor Joachim Schaper (University of Aberdeen)
and followed by a general discussion of the work and influence of Robertson Smith

(Follow this link to the official conference page, with full details.)

T. F. Torrance (1913-2007)

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-12-03T13:49:28+00:00

Ben Myers shares the sad news that T. F. Torrance died yesterday, in Edinburgh. He also posts a eulogy by George Hunsinger.

Myers has previously linked a series of audio lectures by Torrance, and at least once before hosted an appreciation of Torrance, by Ray Anderson of Fuller.

Of interest also might be the T. F. Torrance Theological Fellowship, now in its fourth year. Their site includes a well-documented biography of the theologian.

Two friends of mine at St Andrews, also research students but in systematics (and students of T. F.'s nephew, Alan), had the chance to visit Torrance a year or two back. They reported that, despite a failure of short-term memory due to a stroke, his long-term recall was still remarkably acute.

Requiescat in pace. Our thoughts are also with the family.

The Moratorium on Canon

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-11-30T17:19:57+00:00

I am currently reviewing a new collection of essays which puts me in mind of two canon sessions I attended at SBL. As I mentioned before San Diego, that the sessions were separate seemed a recipe for parties of the debate not just talking past one another, but talking to themselves. Unfortunately this seems to have occurred to some extent. In one session S. Chapman argued for a core canon extending to the biblical period. In the other, several panelists upheld a “consensus” moratorium on canon terminology.

But as one editor of the new volume writes (in context, he is addressing four typical strategies for banning talk of canon):

Nach der dritten Strategie ist „Kanon“ ein „anachronistischer“ Begriff, weil er in den biblischen Texten selbst nicht auftauche. Dieses neben den genannten Strategien ebenfalls in mehreren Beiträgen von Hubert Frankemölle ständig wiederholte Argument ist wenig überzeugend, eigentlich sogar unwissenschaftlich, weil es den Status von „Kanon“ als Reflexionsbegriff ignoriert. Mit dem gleichen Argument müsste man den anachronistischen Begriff „Theologie“ mit Bezug auf das Neue Testament streichen; denn weder kommt dieser Terminus im Neuen Testament vor, noch wird er heute in der gleichen Weise gebraucht wie etwa in der profanen oder christlichen Antike. Die auch bei Frankemölle zu Recht weiterhin verwendete gewohnte exegetische Fachterminologie hat ebenfalls keinen Anhalt in den zu untersuchenden Texten; aber das ist auch wissenschaftlich überhaupt kein Problem. Mit der unverzichtbaren Differenzierung von vox und res und der Einsicht in die Wandelbarkeit von Begriffen entspannt sich die Situation und verlieren auch die Vorbehalte gegenüber einer Reihe gängiger exegetischer Begriffe ihren Grund. Im Übrigen ist jede Bibelauslegung notwendigerweise „anachronistisch“, wenn sie relevant sein will.

And a little later Steins suggests:

Unausgesprochen scheint mir den genannten Vorbehalts-Strategien die Sorge zugrunde zu liegen, dass die Exegese sich unter der Hand von einer primär historischen in eine dogmatische Disziplin wandeln könnte, also Weichenstellungen des späten 18. Jahrhunderts revidiert werden könnten. Diese „Weichenstellung“ bedarf jedoch ihrerseits der Kritik, denn sie hat verhindert, im 19. Jahrhundert den Kanon als historisches Phänomen in die Exegese zu integrieren. Der Kanon ist gewissermaßen als Phänomen der Verfremdung der Bibeltexte aus der kritischen Bibelwissenschaft ausgeklammert worden. Dass in der gegenwärtigen Diskussionslage ein anderer Umgang mit dem Kanon in exegetischer Perspektive möglich ist, sehe ich als großen Fortschritt an; die Gefahr des Dogmatismus besteht immer, ist aber kein Argument.

Those quotes come from 115 and 116, respectively, of G. Steins, “Kanon und Anamnese,” in Ballhorn and Steins, eds., Der Bibelkanon in der Bibelauslegung: Beispielexegesen und Methodenreflexionen (Kohlhammer, 2007). I’ll post more on the collection under review in due course.

Back from SBL, Bauckham Thread

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-11-29T07:07:03+00:00

Back from SBL this week, tucking back into research and writing.

I didn't attend the session on Richard Bauckham's book since we'd already taken a close look here at St Andrews. If you haven't yet seen the post-SBL thread (noted by Goodacre, Davila, etc) by some San Diego panelists and many others, then I recommend you take a look at: What is to be done?

The contempt is just dripping sometimes, which guarantees that the thread will be delicious to most interested parties regardless of their persuasion.

First Picks for SBL San Diego

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-11-06T14:49:51+00:00

Early tomorrow I depart for home (hooray! it's been too long!), and I'm leaving the blog behind until I get back from SBL. So with an eye to SBL already, I offer a few top picks after a glance through the program guide. It's massive, so I'm sure to have missed something. The first things that stand out to me fall into four groups:

Giants of the Recent Past
Psalms
Theological Exegesis
Canon

Giants of the Recent Past

The Brevard Childs session has collected quite a list of participants:

Christopher Seitz, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Presiding Gary Anderson, University of Notre Dame, Panelist Erhard Gerstenberger, Philipps Universität-Marburg, Panelist Richard Hays, Duke University, Panelist Alan Cooper, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Panelist Kavin Rowe, Duke University, Panelist Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Panelist Ephraim Radner, Wycliffe College, University of Toronto, Panelist

That's 11/18/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Room: 30 E - CC.

And a session for James Barr was more recently put together, with the following panelists:

Samuel Balentine, Union Theological Seminary and Presbyterian School of Christian Education, Presiding William Abraham, Southern Methodist University, Panelist Joseph Blenkinsopp, University of Notre Dame, Panelist Douglas Knight, Vanderbilt University, Panelist Archie Lee, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Panelist Mervyn Richardson, Leiden University-The Netherlands, Panelist

Meets 11/19/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM, Room: Manchester A - GH.

Psalms

In addition to my own session (and see a new translation of Psalm 102 on this site), I noticed two sessions in particular.

S19-83, Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity, in a joint session between Scripture in Early Judaism and Christianity and Book of Psalms, meets 11/19/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM, Room: 28 D - CC. The Theme is Psalms in Judaism and Christianity: Studies in the History of Interpretation of the Psalter, and the schedule is:

Esther Menn, Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, Presiding Medieval Jewish Psalms Interpretation Adele Berlin, University of Maryland College Park, Panelist (30 min) Alan Cooper, Jewish Theological Seminary of America, Panelist (30 min) Moshe Bernstein, Yeshiva University, Respondent (10 min) Heidelberg Psalms Project Manfred Oeming, Panelist (20 min) Andreas Wagner, University of Heidelberg, Panelist (20 min) Joachim Vette, Panelist (20 min) Discussion (20 min)

A second joint session of the same groups, S19-126, also on Psalms in Early Judaism and Christianity, meets 11/19/2007, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Room: 23 B - CC. Participants:

Rolf Jacobson, Luther Seminary, Presiding Scott R. A. Starbuck, Whitworth University Afterlives of Royal Psalm Lyrics (30 min) Tze-Ming Quek, University of Cambridge "I will Give Authority over the Nations": Psalm 2:8-9 in Revelatiom 2:26c-27 (30 min) Scot Becker, University of Aberdeen The Magnificat among the Biblical Inset Psalms (30 min) Aaron Canty, Saint Xavier University The Nuptial Imagery of Christ and the Church in Augustine's "Enarrationes in Psalmos" (30 min) Janet A. Timbie, Catholic University of America Psalm Recitation in the White Monastery (30 min)

Theological Exegesis

In this category session S17-28, Theological Interpretation and the Canon of Scripture, could go into two of my categories. Hopefully the separation from Sanders and McDonald (see below) will not truncate dialog between the groups. This session meets 11/17/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Manchester F - GH. The agenda is:

Edith Humphrey, Pittsburgh Theological Seminary, Presiding Stephen B. Chapman, Duke University The Canon Debate: What It Is and Why It Matters (20 min) Thomas Holsinger-Friesen, Spring Arbor University, Respondent (10 min) Discussion (15 min) Daniel J. Treier, Wheaton College A Looser "Canon"?: Relating William Abraham’s Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology to Biblical Interpretation (20 min) William Abraham, Southern Methodist University, Respondent (10 min) Discussion (15 min) Richard Paul Thompson, Northwest Nazarene University Scripture, Community, and Conversation: Rethinking Theological Interpretation Canonically (20 min) Jacqueline Lapsley, Princeton Theological Seminary, Respondent (10 min) Discussion (15 min)

Papers were to be posted at http://fc.asburyseminary.edu/~theological_interpretation/index.html — but I can't get the link to work.

S17-82, on Christ in/and the Old Testament, is notable. It meets 11/17/2007, 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM, Room: Cunningham - GH. The lineup is:

Christopher Seitz, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Presiding (10 min) Kathryn Greene-Mccreight, St John's Episcopal Church, Panelist (10 min) Robert Wall, Seattle Pacific University, Panelist (10 min) John Goldingay, Fuller Theological Seminary, Panelist (10 min) Christopher Wright, Langham Partnership International, Panelist (10 min) Murray Rae, University of Otago, Panelist (10 min) Discussion (45 min)

S17-130, on Reading the Book of Genesis Theologically as Christian Scripture, meets 11/17/2007, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Room: 28 C - CC. Lineup:

Bill Arnold, Asbury Theological Seminary, Presiding J. Richard Middleton, Roberts Wesleyan College The Significance of the Call of Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3) for a Canonical Reading of Scripture (30 min) Discussion (15 min) R. R. Reno, Creighton University Satan, Temptation, and the Fall (30 min) Discussion (15 min) Jeffrey L. Morrow, University of Dayton Genesis 1-3 in a Liturgical Context: The Role of Liturgy in Christian Theological Interpretation of Scripture (30 min) Discussion (15 min)

S19-138 is a book review session of Christopher R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Baker Academic, 2007), meeting 11/19/2007, 7:00 PM to 8:30 PM, Room: Santa Rosa - MM. Reviewers and respondent are:

Gary Anderson, University of Notre Dame, Presiding Martti Nissinen, University of Helsinki, Panelist David Petersen, Emory University, Panelist Marvin Sweeney, Claremont School of Theology, Panelist Christopher Seitz, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Respondent

Finally, S20-04, under Christian Theology and the Bible, considers New Proposals in Christian Theology and Bible. It meets 11/20/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Randle A - GH, and features:

Stephen Fowl, Loyola College in Maryland , Presiding (10 min) Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland Theological Insights on and from Leviticus 1-7 (30 min) Gregory W. Lee, Duke University Calvin and the New Perspective: Covenant as Ground for a Nuanced View of the Law (30 min) Break (10 min) Clayton Libolt, River Terrace Church A Conversation with Nicholas Wolterstorff's Divine Discourse (30 min) George C. Heider, Valparaiso University Atonement and the Gospels (30 min)

I also just noticed an early session, S16-55, The Faith of Jesus Christ: Exegetical, Biblical and Theological Studies, which meets 11/16/2007, 12:30 PM to 5:30 PM, Room: 28 A - CC. On tap are:

Michael Bird, Highland Theological College The Faith of Jesus Christ: Problems and Prospects (15 min) Stanley Porter, McMaster Divinity College Lexical and Semantic Reflections on Pistis (30 min) Douglas Campbell, Duke University The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (30 min) Preston Sprinkle, Aberdeen University Pistis Christou as an Eschatological Event (30 min) Break (15 min) Ardel Caneday, Northwestern College, St. Paul The Faithfulness of Jesus as a Theme of Pauline Theology (30 min) Francis Watson, University of Aberdeen - Scotland The Faith of Jesus Christ (30 min) R. Barry Matlock, University of Sheffield The Faithfulness of Jesus Christ in Romans and Galatians (30 min) Mark Elliott, University of St. Andrews-Scotland The Faith of Jesus Christ in the Church Fathers (30 min) Benjamin Myers, University of Queensland The Faithfulness of Christ in the Theology of Karl Barth (30 min)

Canon

The last of these three sessions is the one I'm most looking forward to, though as I say I hope the physical separation from the first session under Theological Exegesis, above, doesn't mean the groups wind up talking to themselves.

S17-25, Rethinking the Concept and Categories of 'Bible' in Antiquity, meets 11/17/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Salon 5 - MM. Participants:

James E. Bowley, Millsaps College, Presiding K. L. Noll, Brandon University Rethinking Literary Function in the Emerging Hebrew Canon (25 min) Francis Borchardt, University of Helsinki Concepts of Scripture in 1 Maccabees (25 min) Ian W. Scott, Tyndale Seminary Is the Bible always Scripture?: The "Low" View of the Pentateuch in the Letter of Aristeas (25 min) Sara Parks, McGill University and Aaron Ricker, McGill University Harry Potter Canon Discourse and the Biblical Canons (25 min) Robert A. Kraft, University of Pennsylvania Finding Adequate Terminology for "Pre-canonical" Literatures (25 min) James E. Bowley, Millsaps College Terminating Terminology (25 min)

S17-119, Orality, Textuality, and the Formation of the Hebrew Bible, meets 11/17/2007, 4:00 PM to 6:30 PM, Room: Del Mar A - GH, to discuss the theme Rethinking Business as Usual in Light of Orality and Textuality. On tap:

Susan Niditch, Amherst College, Presiding Joachim Schaper, University of Aberdeen The Textualisation of Israelite Religion in the Context of the "Orality and Literacy" Debate (30 min) Frank Polak, Tel Aviv University The Voiced Text in the Hebrew Bible: From Epic Song to Biblical Narrative and Midrashic Exegesis (30 min) William M. Schniedewind, University of California-Los Angeles Rethinking Inner-biblical Exegesis and Biblical Criticism in Light of Orality & Textuality (30 min) Werner H. Kelber, Rice University Implications of the Oral-Scribal Approach to Tanach Studies (30 min) Discussion (30 min)

And finally, S19-16, Function of Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal Writings in Early Judaism and Early Christianity (through 3rd to 4th centuries CE), meets 11/19/2007, 9:00 AM to 11:30 AM, Room: Manchester H - GH, on the theme Theoretical Issues. The schedule is:

Lee Martin McDonald, Acadia Divinity College, Presiding James A. Sanders, Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center Non-Masoretic Literature in Early Judaism and its Function in the New Testament (20 min) Craig Evans, Acadia Divinity College, Respondent (5 min) Discussion (5 min) James H. Charlesworth, Princeton Theological Seminary The Book of the People from the People of the Book (20 min) Discussion (5 min) Lee Martin McDonald, Acadia Divinity College What Do We Mean by "Canon"?: A Look at Some Ancient and Modern Questions (20 min) Loren Johns, Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminary, Respondent (5 min) Discussion (5 min) Ken M. Penner, Acadia Divinity College Citation Formulae as Indices to Canonicity in Early Jewish and Early Christian Literature (20 min) Jonathan Soyars, Princeton Theological Seminary, Respondent (5 min) Discussion (5 min) Sarah L. Schwarz, Haverford College Pseudepigrapha Among the Pagans?: Exploring the Boundaries of Audience (20 min) Discussion (5 min)

If you're going to be there, look for me and say hello.

primigravida

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-11-05T19:58:42+00:00

This story starts back in Paris, if the truth be known. You can look back at that and other photo essays to set the current one in context.

After the second prenatal scan, today, we feel a bit better about going public. We both found ourselves relieved when we saw the heartbeat flicker, and then astounded when the technician adjusted the ultrasound probe to reveal all four chambers of the little heart, pumping away.

Six of thirty photos in this essay are of the person we refer to as "Little E." The rest testify to the delightfully mild fall we've had in Fife this year, and to the fortune we've had in relocating to a new flat (with room for a tiny nursery, of course). There are a few belly shots, too, mostly at SJD's request.

I should let the essay speak for itself. Those who want to know the gender will have to read to the end.

Update (6 Nov): Thanks especially to the many medical professionals among my relatives for not correcting my Latin. I'm obliged to leave the link as it was, having circulated it already to friends and family. In that case, let the term word be German.

Richard Bauckham Retires

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-11-02T21:13:36+00:00

As has been mentioned, Richard Bauckham retired from his post as Bishop Wardlaw Professor of New Testament this last Wednesday. I wanted to comment it sooner, but it took me a while to upload the photo of him fielding questions on his last day in the Biblical Studies seminar—a seminar he founded at St Andrews sometime after his arrival here 15 years ago. It's been a privilege to learn from him.

Jim Davila posted his speech as head of school, and supervisee Mariam Kamell comments here.

The book we've been discussing for the last four sessions is Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses. If you feel you're missing out, you can have a look at the blog series Chris Tilling ran on the book, or on the same site an interview about it with Bauckham. I hear the book is about to go on tour: first at Gordon-Conwell, then at both ETS and SBL in San Diego. Details for the SBL panel review of the book are as follows:

S17-79 :: Synoptic Gospels

11/17/2007. 1:00 PM to 3:30 PM :: Room: San Diego C - MM

Theme: Panel Review of Richard Bauckham, Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006)

Jeffrey Peterson, Austin Graduate School of Theology, Texas, Presiding
John Kloppenborg, University of Toronto, Panelist (20 min)
Adela Yarbro Collins, Yale University, Panelist (20 min)
James Crossley, University of Sheffield, Panelist (20 min)
Richard Bauckham, University of St. Andrews-Scotland, Respondent (25 min)

Response to John Hobbins

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-11-02T11:45:22+00:00

John Hobbins of Ancient Hebrew Poetry has recently performed a deep crawl of blogs related to the Bible. His attempts to map them have garnered some attention (Iyov wonders, "what am I?") and if the attempt is open to challenge, I can at least note with gratitude my own inclusion.

Yesterday John cataloged a few bloggers indebted to Childs in a post preliminary to the final mapping, which he later followed up with a charge to let canonical exegesis take a wider view. One worry of his may be that conversation in this camp (if it is even proper to speak of such a thing) is insular. He writes, "It bothers me when Bible blogdom becomes a monologue among like-minded Christians." John does a good job taking his own advice, however, and omits to name names:

Scholar-bloggers fall into two categories. Those that keep a blogroll and interact with a community of other bloggers, and those that don't. Those that don't abuse the genre. Here is a list of the worst offenders: [omitted by a thoughtful editor].

The complaint leveled at canonical exegesis links to B. Sommer's review of Michael Fishbane's Haftarot commentary to reinforce the point that canonical reading should learn from Jewish as well as Christian history of reception.

I confess that I try to keep something of a low profile as a blogger, not for fear of conflict, but because as an impoverished grad student time is about the only commodity I have to my name. Having had a Childs-related (because research-related) online presence for not quite three years, it was with bemusement, but not envy, that I noted Phil's success in launching a vigorous debate about Childsean hermeneutics just this September. I have followed the discussion there as best I can, but have confined myself mostly to posting links in my sidebar/blogroll. In Phil's own words, "I've been having online dialogues of the most colossal proportions. So involved, in fact, that I have no time or energy to write anything substantial today." Which is a major reason I've had to keep my distance.

Nevertheless, John's post managed to draw me out this morning. I have commented on it already (with a PS), and I repeat my remarks here as well, in part so I can link them up:

Hi John,

I have been very reluctant to get drawn into the debates that have recently surfaced online even though, as you note in the sidebar, there has been some "astoundingly thoughtful comment." That's because (a) I'm working against several deadlines at the moment, (b) I've been working on the particular problem of Childs' reception too long probably, so little seems fresh on the Q to me, and (c) I have some doubts about blogs as a medium for advancing the state of the Q here when so much energy has been expended on it in more traditional media over the last 2.5 decades. Also, though the reasons why I was drawn to my PhD topic are complex and rightly point to an appreciation of Childs' work on my part, this is not uncritical. I find myself wondering about how to get out from under this first project in the next.

Nevertheless, you have drawn me. I'm still facing immanent deadlines, so I'll have to get to it.

James makes a good point, and so do you, John, in response. It has often been claimed that Childs frequently changes his mind (so Barr above all, but by no means exclusively), and typically I think this perception has been overstated. On this precise point, it is unquestionably true that Childs had to rethink some of his initial work on what he calls "the mystery of Israel" (see chapter 4 of my forthcoming dissertation). Fishbane is a great figure to bring up at this juncture.

Rolf Rendtorff, as a self-professed Christian canonical reader, is another. He fell out with Childs over precisely this issue (see his review of BTONT in JBTh 9). I don't know if you've seen his Leviticus commentary yet, but it represents a career-long effort to give the Jewish reception of the Hebrew Bible its due. For Rendtorff this is an imperative for Christians reading the OT.

On the other hand, though Childs moved from talk of midrash (Jewish in his view) to allegory (the traditional Christian reading strategy—I know that can sound over simple, but its how he sees it), he still strove to be a student of the Jewish tradition. When I interviewed him in Cambridge I pushed him exactly here. Why no midrash anymore? His answer came out as advice to a student—you'll never master the material; trust me, I've tried. Also, Jewish readers themselves don't agree on these things.

To my mind the best further reading here is Childs' 1999 essay "The Almost Forgotten Genesis Commentary of Benno Jacob." Not only does it tell the the story of Jacob's Genesis commentary, it also alludes to Jacob's Exodus commentary, which Childs used heavily in his own commentary of 1974. The astonishing thing is that Childs, when in Jerusalem [in 1963], secured a copy of the then almost unknown manuscript and brought it back to Yale. He was making serious use of it decades before it was printed (first in English translation [1992], and only very recently in its German original [1997]). There is a deep commitment to Jewish readings which really never leaves, even though he gains clarity over the years on what an explicitly Christian reading of the tradition entails.

Personally I haven't sorted out where I stand on these issues. At the seminar paper I gave on the topic last week there seemed to be quite a bit of sympathy for Rendtorff's position over against Childs'. Still, the latter is (in a sense) the lectio difficilior. Should a Jewish and Christian scholar really come to different results on that basis? (If no, why not?) I agree with your general point, however. It would be ironic indeed if Childs became a warrant for "canonical readers," what ever that may mean, to neglect Jewish reception in preference for Christian. Fortunately, some of the best theological readers today (who follow Childs at times and do not follow Childs) avoid this: Walter Moberly, Markus Bockmuehl, etc.

Incidentally, I also agree with your comment on Cook's blog about the neglected works. The only real Wirkung the NT Intro got seems to have been among Roman Catholic scholars in Germany. And James Kugel explicitly mentioned the sensus literalis essay in his respectful comments at the small Childs session at SBL Vienna this summer, but who has worked with it seriously?

I'm quite happy for any discussion of this to continue on John's page, where it originates, but I did want to put my answer in a broader context as well.

I might add, too, that my focus on Childs of late is born of at least three things: his recent passing, my work locating his, and an increasing reluctance to speak too far beyond my competence. I do think the scope of Occasional Publications will broaden once I dig into the next project.

R. Alter's Translation of Psalm 102

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-26T17:25:26+01:00

SBL in San Diego is fast approaching, particularly as I travel that way early to see my family and home state (Oregon) for the first time in ages. My paper on Psalm 102 (or read the proposal) is nearly ready, and for those of you who may wish to acquaint yourselves with the subject matter, I post below Robert Alter's new translation of the psalm in question.

1 A prayer for the lowly when he grows faint and pours out his plea before the LORD.
2 LORD, O hear my prayer,
and let my outcry come before You.
3 Hide not Your face from me
on the day when I am in straits.
Incline Your ear to me.
On the day I call, quickly answer me.
4 For my days are consumed in smoke,
and my bones are scorched like a hearth.
5 My heart is stricken and withers like grass,
so I forget to eat my bread.
6 From my loud sighing,
my bones cleave to my flesh.
7 I resemble the wilderness jackdaw,
I become like the owl of the ruins.
8 I lie awake and become
like a lonely bird on a roof.
9 All day long my enemies revile me,
my taunters invoke me in curse.
10 For ashes I have eaten as bread,
and my drink I have mingled with tears—
11 because of Your wrath and Your fury,
for You raised me up and flung me down.
12 My days inclined like a shadow,
and I—like grass I withered.
13 And You LORD, forever enthroned,
and Your name—for all generations.
14 You, may You rise, have mercy on Zion,
for it is the hour to pity her, for the fixed time has come.
15 For Your servants cherish her stones
and on her dust they take pity.
16 All the nations will fear the name of the LORD,
and all the kings of the earth, Your glory.
17 For the LORD has rebuilt Zion,
He is seen in His glory.
18 He has turned to the prayer of the desolate
and has not despised their prayer.
19 Let this be inscribed for a generation to come,
that a people yet unborn may praise Yah.
20 For the LORD has gazed down from His holy heights,
from heaven to earth He has looked
21 to hears the groans of the captive,
to set loose those doomed to die,
22 that the name of the LORD be recounted in Zion
and His praise in Jerusalem
23 when peoples gather together
and kingdoms, to serve the LORD.
24 He humbled my strength on the highway,
he cut short my days.
25 I say, “O my God.
Do not take me away in the midst of my days!
Your years are for all generations.
26 Of old You founded the earth,
and the heavens—Your handiwork.
27 They will perish and You will yet stand.
They will all wear away like a garment.
Like clothing you change them, and they pass away.
28 But You—Your years never end.
29 The sons of Your servants dwell safe,
their seed in Your presence, unshaken.”

My only question: I get why you'd want to keep as much of the ancient character in the translation as possible, but does "Yah" in verse 19 really count as a translation? Seems like punting.

St Andrews Announces Professor of OT/HB

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-23T16:30:58+01:00

Professor of Old Testament: the job vacancy left by Christopher Seitz has at last been filled by Kristin De Troyer. She will take up the post on 1 June 2008.

Childs and (vs) Frei on Barth, YDS 1969

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-23T14:27:14+01:00

In preparing for the seminar discussion I'm leading tomorrow, I dug up some papers I haven't looked at for a while, including the very rare transcript of Karl Barth and the Future of Theology: A Memorial Colloquium Held at Yale Divinity School January 28, 1969—held barely a month after Barth passed away. Brevard Childs and Hans Frei were among the panelists.

Charles Scalise made a lot of the piece in his dissertation on Childs and Barth (1987), and again in a follow-up article in SJT 47 (1994): 61–88, which has sometimes been cited by those wishing to criticize Childs by associating him with Barth. (The Childs essay in question is: “Karl Barth as Interpreter of Scripture.” Pages 30-39 in Karl Barth and the Future of Theology. Edited by D. L. Dickerman. New Haven: Yale Divinity School Association, 1969. When I first tried to get my hands on it, the librarian at St Andrews told me there was no copy in Britain.)

Childs' essay was reworked in 1989, though it remains unpublished. (It was pulled out again at the Beecher lectures, where Childs filled in for Lee Keck, who had been in a car accident.) But what Scalise, and to my knowledge everybody else too, fails to mention about the YDS colloquium volume is that, at the back, it includes a transcript of the Q&A which followed the paper session.

It's really illuminating stuff. A while back I OCRed it (it appears to have been transcribed from a cassette tape by a research assistant way back). As I think virtually nobody has seen this, and it's chatty and informal, and it highlights a number of important points, I'm posting the script here.

Points of note:

Childs lines up with Frei (indeed, partly learns from Frei) on "the heart of the problem: that for Calvin, the sensus literalis IS Jesus Christ. And it was only when you have the eighteenth century identification of the literal sense with the historical sense that you’re just hopelessly lost."
When they say this (Frei: "That's right.") nobody knows what they're talking about.
Allegorical readings can't be dismissed out of hand for either Childs or Frei.
But when it comes down to a few finer details, Childs differs from Frei on the matter of reference.
Specifically, for Childs the "ontology" issue at stake means "the scope of the canon; namely, the reality which is in dialectic with the text, defined by its canonical context. I don’t see how you can avoid a dialectic between text and reality, in some sort."
For Childs, this is why "the new hermeneutic is not only mistaken, but it one colossal cul de sac."
1969 is incredibly early—the year before Childs' Biblical Theology in Crisis, and five years before Frei's Eclipse of Biblical Narrative.

The full discussion (minus a few digressions):

STUDENT: I have a question. You’ve commented tonight on the truthfulness of Barth’s use of scripture. You’ve commented on the wide-ranging homiletical force of much of his writing. But when you look at it closely enough in some respects in some places, it is not textually predicated or warranted sometimes, and may even sometimes be allegorical. How do you appropriate, still, some of this live genius that’s there, and yet at the same time remain more controlled by the text? That would probably be one question.

And the second question would be, Do you see any person on the horizon who shows promise of being as crucial, as forceful, and yet takes more seriously what the text is saying—controlling himself at this point more than Barth?

BREVARD CHILDS: Well it seems to me for the last twenty or thirty years people have been trying to combine the orthodoxy of Barth with the historical-critical approach. It seems to me that this enterprise has now come to and end and has proven unfruitful—that you are now at the turn of the road, you have to go either right or left; that the type of move that said Barth is right in seeing theological dimension, but now we have to take history more seriously and bring in the whole baggage—I don’t think this can—

In other words, I’m suggesting that the problem is far deeper than this. It’s a problem that certainly didn’t just arise with Barth. (And much of what I’ve learned about this has come from talking with Hans Frei.) But it has often bothered and puzzled me. You see, when you read Calvin, he fights against the whole medieval tradition by saying it’s the sensus literails that counts—it’s the literal sense—and you have page after page against the whole church dogma. But then you read Calvin on the Old Testament, and here’s Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ. How could it possibly be? And everybody just says that Calvin is just inconsistent.

It seems to me that this doesn’t at all touch the heart of the problem: that for Calvin, the sensus literalis IS Jesus Christ. And it was only when you have the eighteenth century identification of the literal sense with the historical sense that you’re just hopelessly lost. And it seems to me that it’s something along that line—that we’ve just been unable to understand what Barth is doing.

HANS FREI: That’s right.

JULIAN HARTT: Would you mind repeating that?

CHILDS: It sounds better in German, though.

STUDENT: Is it something we can do today?

FREI: Sure, because you see [tape unintelligible] in his exegesis he’s looking at the text. He’s not looking through the text at the person who wrote it. He is, I think, a highly literal reader—what’s set before you there—whereas I noticed that one goes back (in questioning his exegesis) constantly to and earlier version of Barth that he pretty clearly forsook very soon: namely, the Barth for whom the letter became transparent and pointed him to something deeper, something else.

I think, because one thing about Barth is that he’s very much controlled by the letter—no spirit without letter—very much controlled by the letter, and in regard to that and historical criticism, he simply made the move: when you’re doing historical criticism, you’re doing a pretty fine thing, I’m sure. But it’s just logically different from reading the text, burrowing under it, and cropping out all over it, lots of nice things. And I’m sure that there’s an awful lot of illumination to be gained by that. But you’re not reading the text, you see. Barth reads the text. It cannot be qualified with other things.

In Scripture we know that when we read a story, a historical investigation of the story is a very good thing to do. But we need to know how that text works, what’s in the text. And though we have a hard time describing how we do that, in fact when we compare about what we think it says we often find that we can agree on things, and I think fundamentally it is as simple as that. That’s how it works for Barth.

SALIERS: . . . [But the] assumption that we can treat things as a literary whole which gives us a certain critical concept of literalness, which we can then employ, is a thing that the Biblical people, at least the ones who knit their brows when you said that, are probably worrying about.

CHILDS: Well, it’s a real problem. I wouldn’t go quite with Hans in this direction. It seems to me that the problem came up very early in church history when Jerome attempted to translate the Bible from Hebrew. Augustine called him into question. He said the New Testament and the Church is receiving the Old Testament in terms of the Septuagint, and therefore this is the context and there’s no use going behind it. You can’t go behind it. And Jerome of course just killed him at this point in defending the need for seeing the original context.

Here, it seems to me that both had a point. Obviously, Augustine was right in taking seriously the fact that the Old Testament had taken another form and had assumed another context by being passed through the Septuagint. But Jerome obviously was right in claiming that the next context of the church did not obliterate the older context in which it was seen. In other words, what I’m saying is that the problem that remains the most thorny one is how the various contexts relate. And Barth, in criticizing the historical critics’ insistence that you read the original context but take seriously the theological-confessional context, it seems to me, is in the danger—just as Augustine—of obliterating the need for dealing with the original context.

[. . . After a few minutes, the discussion returns to Childs’ differences with Frei.]

CHILDS: But you see [Barth] doesn’t use the term “context,” but he talks about the canon, namely: that Scripture is the apostolic, prophetic testimony all linked together. Don’t go behind this, don’t separate it. And this is a context; in other words, this is a theological context—

ROBERT JOHNSON: You’re speaking, then, of the historical context that Barth says is in the word “history.”

CHILDS: No, no. That’s the whole point: that Barth objects to everyone who does this.

JOHNSON: So, from the point of view of what Hans is arguing, what he’s really talking about is not the historical context but the literary context.

CHILDS: That’s where Hans and I differ somewhat. I move in a little different direction here. In other words, it seems to me that there are problems when you get—I would agree fully with Hans when he’s combatting those historical critics who would want to go behind the text, but it’s interesting when you begin to deal with the narrative text, as a context. One has to keep in mind that the early church, in the controversy with Judaism, took quite a different move. When the Jews were saying, read the text! read the text!, the Christians said, there’s something behind the text. It’s what the text points to, namely: Jesus Christ. And there was a dialectic between the reality and the text.

It seems to me, what buttresses this from getting into the kind of ontology you’re talking about is the scope of the canon; namely, the reality which is in dialectic with the text, defined by its canonical context. I don’t see how you can avoid a dialectic between text and reality, in some sort.

[. . . The conversation turns to a student, Johnson and Frei momentarily.]

CHILDS: It seems to me that this question about the Jesus that Paul—excuse me, that Barth—raises, was very much a part of the mood of the early churchmen. They are concerned: How do you know what the Old Testament is talking about? You hear the Gospel; that is, the dialectic between old and new. Who is Jesus? You don’t get it just from reading the narrative of the Gospel. That’s the whole point that the early church worked on: He’s the Servant; He’s Suffering Israel; He’s the eye of the Sun; all this sort of thing. It seems to me, therefore, that I fully agree that the new hermeneutic is not only mistaken, but it one colossal cul de sac.

[This is Childs’ last comment for the evening.]

Traditional Readings of Psalm 102

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-22T18:07:26+01:00

I'm still digging into Psalm 102 for my upcoming SBL paper. Today I left the dusty library shelves and turned instead to a few online resources. Commentators of note include:

Augustine (and here and here in the Confessions)
Thomas (OK, not yet to 102, but mentioned here etc)
Calvin (esp here and here; cf Gn 36, 25, Ex 15, 32, Lam 5, Is 16, 29, 37, 49, 51, 54, 63, 66, Jonah, Dn 2, 7, Jer 19, 31, Ps 22, 51, 72, 114, 109, and here, here, here, etc)
Adolf Harnack on Athanasius
Metered by Isaac Watts
Calvin and Augustine are also here

I'll keep looking, of course.

A Call for Papers: Theological Exegesis

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-19T17:37:11+01:00

David Congdon, currently editor of the Princeton Theological Review (and from further back my wife's cousin), has announced a call for papers relating to theological exegesis. I quote from his blog:

The Spring 2008 issue of the Princeton Theological Review will be on the topic of “theological exegesis,” and we are currently accepting submissions. The PTR is a journal of evangelical theology which seeks to be academically rigorous, ecumenically sensitive, and ecclesially faithful. The current PTR is a student-run manifestation of the old PTR that was originally founded by Charles Hodge in the 19th century. We have a national and international readership, and the journal is held at a number of theological institutions.

If you are interested in submitting to the PTR for our spring issue on theological exegesis, see our submission guidelines. Articles should be between 5000-7000 words, though we can be flexible with the length if necessary. Articles can be works of original theological exegesis, or discussions of the work of others. We especially welcome any articles focusing on the work and legacy of Brevard Childs. If you would like, submissions may be sent directly to me (via email link in my profile) or to the executive editor at ptr-at-ptsem.edu.

In addition to articles, we also accept reflections on the chosen theme and sermons that demonstrate theological exegesis at work in a pastoral context. Reflections (and sermons, if possible) should range between 1200-2000 words.

I for one will be submitting a piece on Childs (who else?). Those with interest should contact either David or PTR's executive editor.

The New St Andrews? Wow…

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-19T10:09:42+01:00

I confess I don't know what category to put this in. Late last month the NYT ran a piece on the New St Andrews, the one in Moscow, Idaho. As the piece explains:

Doug Wilson, 54, the pastor who spearheaded New St. Andrews’ founding, puts the college’s purpose simply: “We are trying to save civilization.”

All I can say to that is, wow. What I want to know is, Why St Andrews?

The school has adopted trappings of Oxford and Cambridge: professors are called “fellows,” and students dress in academic gowns for thesis defenses and public final exams. Proudly Anglophile, faculty members lead a summer tour of English castles and abbeys. C. S. Lewis and G. K. Chesterton are ubiquitous on class reading lists — revered for their godly wit and their fondness for fine drink. N.S.A.’s campus is proudly wet, in deliberate contrast to the average fundamentalist Bible college.

Is it because students here, at the old St Andrews, sometimes still wear gowns? (It's certainly not because most here read Thomas, or in Latin.) Or because this St Andrews is sufficiently remote that a comparison doesn't strain all credulity?

Molly Worthen, who is evidently writing a book about evangelical intellectual life and who authored the NYT piece, is a good writer. Somebody remind me to take a look at her book when it comes out.

RSS Improvements

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-18T21:29:21+01:00

Look, I know this is occasional stuff at best, but I've had at least one request lately for better RSS support. Well, I've turned to Feed Burner. You may also notice that I've added a box for select feeds. That way, even when I don't post often, you can see what web content I don't feel I've wasted my time in reading. ("Wasting time" is a major category now, in my mind, as I push to the end of this interminable PhD.)

Here's the new syndication link for Occasional Publications.

Subscribe in a reader

Seminar on Childs and his followers…

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-18T16:54:56+01:00

Next Wednesday (24 October, 9:15 a.m.), at the Scripture and Theology seminar here, I am giving a paper and leading a discussion on the topic of Brevard Childs and his followers.

Discussion will proceed on the basis of my paper and two readings, circulated in advance. The first and more involved of these is G. T. Sheppard's introduction to a Puritan commentary he edited for re-publication. Toward the end it picks up the issue the seminar discussed yesterday—whether there is an alternative to "story" for coordinating our exegetical efforts.

•Sheppard, Gerald T. “Between Reformation and Modern Commentary: the Perception of the Scope of Biblical Books.” Pages xlviii-lxxvii in A Commentary on Galatians, William Perkins. Edited by Gerald T Sheppard. Pilgrim Classic Commentaries New York: Pilgrim Press, 1989.

The second is a short piece by C. Seitz—I think originally a review of Childs' 1992 Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments. Among other things, it gives some feel for the minority position Childs' followers feel themselves to be in.

•Seitz, Christopher R. “'We Are Not Prophets or Apostles': The Biblical Theology of B. S. Childs.” Pages 102–109 in Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1998.

If you are not a usual participant but wish to come along—on the condition I guess that you are also reasonably near St Andrews—contact me and I can circulate the readings.

Make that Kugel, Alter on my desk!

Daniel R. Driver — 2007-10-12T17:18:34+01:00

After a fortnight of long days, and in them the sudden onset of a cold, my Friday afternoon was brightened when a postal worker knocked and handed me a package from Amazon. (It's the first mail I've received since the postal strikes.) Couldn't guess what it was—it had been routed through Germany and I'm pretty much the only one in the house who orders German books—and was most pleased when it turned out to be copies of the two books I last blogged about. I've only glanced at them now, but they look well worth the time I want to give them. I may say a word about them later if I get the chance.

Most of all thanks to fuller (my dad, and undoubtedly this blog's longest standing reader). It was a most thoughtful gift.