reading against your grain

On Primal Subversion, Sean comments that we should "Read books by people that make you think, rethink and almost get mad because you can't stop thinking about their arguments, statements and positions."

I think this is of extreme importance. I often learn the most from those I disagree with. Why? because it is only then that I learn how strong my positions, and those whom I have read and taken on board, really are. It is then that I can nuance, or sometimes change my position altogether. But it always makes me humble, and treat the evidence fairly.

commited to the quest -quote-

Anyone who believes that in the life and teaching of Christ God has given a unique revelation of his character and purpose is committed by this belief, whether he likes is or not, whether he admits it or not, to the quest for the historical Jesus. Without the Jesus of history the Christ of faith is merely a docetic figure, a figment of pious imagination. The Christian religion claims to be founded on historic fact, on events which happened sub Pontio Pilato; and having appealed to history, by history it must be justified.

George B. Caird, Jesus and the Jewsih Nation, pg. 3

where books should not go...

A number of blogger's have been posting pictures of their desks, the most entertaining so far has been Michael Birds "interim office". Reading through the comments, Brandon Wason mentioned an episode of Sienfeild where an expensive book is taken into the bathroom and it looses its value.

And so I wondered how many of you out there share my opinion that taking a book into the bathroom to read as you do your business is simply wrong! How could you possibly take one of your precious books there?? What if one was to read something that would prove to be a significant turning point in your thinking, the memory would be forever tied to the crapper! And whats even worse, is when someone you lend a book to takes it to the bathroom, and then you see it waiting there for their next visit!!

There has to be some law against it...

fatih and the Jesus of history -quote-

As I perceive the theological scene today, we have far too many who want to agree that in Jesus Christ, that is, in history, God has acted definitively for the salvation of all people, far too many who think we do have faith in history, but who for various reasons are unwilling to subject history to a careful examination because it might tip their boat of faith. I am contending that such people believe in faith, not Jesus, not in what God did for salvation in Jesus, but in faith. Their creed then is: “I believe in faith, faith in the Christian interpretation of life.”

Scott McKnight, 'The Hermeneutics of Confessing Jesus as Lord', p. 14, Ex Auditu 14 (pp.1-17)

Top Ten book on my shelf

Since so many of the blogs I read have done a top ten book list for various subjects, I thought I'd do one of my own. But on a slightly different note, I'll give the top ten from my book shelf that if I had to choose between all of them, these are the ones I would keep. So if I was going overseas for instance, and I was on an extemely tight bugdet, heres what I would take:

• The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. Wright
• Jesus and the Victory of God by N.T. Wright
• The Dead Sea Scrolls by Wise, Abegg & Cook
• Jewish Life and Thought Among Greeks and Romans edited by Feldman & Reinhold
  
• The Jesus Movement: A Social History of its First Century by Stegemann & Stegeman
• The Parables of Jesus by David Wenham
• Old Testament Theology, Volume One: Israel's Gospel by John Goldingay
• The Theology of the Book of Revelation by Richard Bauckham
• Models for Interpretation of Scripture by John Goldingay
• New Horizens in Hermeneutics by Anthony Thiselton

I have listed some primary sources here that I do not read as much as I should. But I figure that if I put them on this list, then it will put my mind in perspective. I unfortunately dont have a copy of either the NT Apochripha or the OT Pseudepigrapha.

What is the Quest about for you?

For those engaged in the quest for the historical Jesus, what is it about for you?

For me its about understanding Jesus within his historical context. Understanding his words, actions, and intentions and how they were likely recieved by his contemporaries. For others it may be getting behind the sources to get back to the real Jesus. Or perhaps to authenticate Jesus' words and actions, vindicating the canonical gospel portraits in light of critical questioning?

Another interesting question to ponder is what you think the public perception of the quest is. How about in your church? What are the attitudes of students on your University or Seminary campus towards it?. I remember when the quest was mentioned once in a lecture. It was virtually dismissed through a not so flattering poke at how the Jesus seminar use marbles to decide whether or not a saying of Jesus was authentic. I knew their method, and the characteture was somewhat misleading. This incident just shows how one sided the quest is often seen to be.

For those who know little about it (or who are perhaps put off by what they have heard about it) but are interested, Jesus and the Quest by Tom Wright is a good place to start. It offers a concise introduction to its history and its possible future aswell as pointing out its importance for the Christian faith.

come now, share...

Is the Quest doomed to plurality?

Stiumulated by some comments Richard Hays made when discussing the place the "historical Jesus" should have in doing New Testament ethics (Moral Vision, pp.158-61), I wonder whether he is correct in assessing the results of the quest as highly subjective. [1] Yes, there is a great pluraility of portraits of Jesus, and yes, there does not seem to be an emerging agreement (consensus?) between scholars, most seem to like sticking to there guns.

But the great majority of disagreement arises, in my opinion, because of methodological differences. This is most clearly the case between radically differing portraits, such as the cynic sage and the restoration prophet. The pluarlity in this case doesnt really demonstrate an inescapable subjectivity or the near impossibility of the task. Rather it demonstratese plurarlity in historical method. One could always retort that this plurality demonastates an inescapable subjectivity, and that we cannot hope to gain agreement on this either. But I see no reason for this, other than the refusal or laziness that neglects engaging with other scholarship at not only a exegetical level, but more importantly at a methodological level.

So theres hope as far as im concerned. What do you think?

[1] I hope im not misrepresenting him here!

an ambiguous messiah -quote-

Whether it was his intention or not, his proclamation of the kingdom of God was inevitably heard as a revolutionary manifesto; the whole Gospel tradition is full of evidence for this. People wanted to make him king (John 6:15), and Peter's confession (Mark 8:29) means nothing other than this. it was this popular perception that finally proved his undoing: the inscription on the cross proves that he was executed as one who claimed to be "king of the Jews." And indeed, it would appear that he refuses to get himself off the hook by denying the charge. Thus, we have a situation pregnant with ambiguity. The whole shape of the tradition indicates that Jesus--in contrast to other figures in Jewish history of the era, such as Ar Kochba--persistently refused to claim that he was the Messiah (cf. John 10:24). His whole message entailed a rejection of violence and nationalism implied in the popular understanding of that title. Yet his words and deeds incited in the people a vivid expectation that he might, after all, be the one who would deliver Israel.

Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament: A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996), p.164

A Coherent and Consistent Hermeneutic

If we are not applying a hermeneutical strategy consistently throughout the scriptures (will all the problems that applying scripture throws up from various texts), then it makes it easier to confirm our what we already believe/do or want to believe/do by selecting a method for a problem that will lead to our desired outcome.

A single method will probably not be able to deal with all the problems encountered, but there nevertheless must be a foundational hermeneutic upon which all subsequent moves must be established or be compatible with. Even by doing this, however, we cannot guarantee that bias will not interfere. But it does make it harder for us to do so, harder for us to adopt which ever method may result in the desired outcome.

Further, the over-arching method which I propose is grounded within the nature of scriptural faith, and so recieves justification from this. One cannot claim that the hermeneutical strategy is adopted merely to sidestep a challenge or to dismiss parts of the scriptures.

A note on "scriptural faith": By this I mean not an amalgam or harmonization of all teaching within the sriptures, nor all the beliefs of the authors of the scriptures. Rather, It is what ties them all together, the central/foundational beliefs, what they all to a degree share (some on the level of authors beliefs, some on the surface of the writing). By this I mean their following of the God as he acts with and for his creation within history. And so although I say "beliefs" i mean not only beliefs, but their enactment, because a set of beliefs alone does not constitute a "faith" or "religion".

Coherence and Contingency

Christiaan Beker proposes a two-part model for understanding the authority of the NT: Coherence-Contingency, and Catalytic. [1]

In the first part he posits that Scripture can be understood as containing elements of “coherence” and “contingency”. The coherent are the “normative elements of the gospel, which focus on the apocalyptic-eschatological interpretation of the life, death, and resurrection of Christ”. [2] The contingent “concerns those elements of Scripture that comprise the time-bound, culturally specific situations into and for which the gospel is addressed”. [3] There is a “dynamic interrelation” between the coherent and the contingent, and this is a necessary aspect of the gospel itself, “it is the very essence of the gospel that it inserts itself into the particularities of every human situation”. [4] As the nature of the gospel, this provides the key to how Scripture should act authoritatively. “The Word of Scripture can only be a lively word, a word on target, when we realize that its central message must speak to us within the particularity of our diverse situations”, [5] hence “Scripture is only authoritative when we obey its command to engage in the same risks of interpreting the gospel that it is itself engaged in all its parts”. [6] Scripture thus serves a “catalytic” function, the second part of the model. The Biblical text must undergo a “transferal” to our time, but in doing we must remain faithful to the normative coherence of he gospel. [7]

While Beker develops this model with the New Testament in mind (although to conclude his article he suggests how it could be extended to cover the entirety of Scripture, I do not follow him in how he does so), I believe that his proposal can helpfully be extended to the whole of Scripture by positing the grand narrative as the coherent factor. This can be done because the gospel is a part of and only makes sense within this grand narrative. Contingency is then extended to include not only cultural and historical specificity, but specificity within stages of the grand narrative. It’s catalytic function works in the same way, but now with the extra qualification found in contingent.

Notes
[1] Beker, J C. ‘The Authority of Scripture: Normative or Incidental?’ Theology Today 49.3 (1992), pp.376-382. This model of ‘coherence and contingency’ was originally developed inregard to Paul’s hermeneutic. See his Paul the Apostle: The Triumph of God in Life and Thought (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980).
[2] Beker, ‘Authority’, p.81
[3] ibid.
[4] ibid.
[5] ibid., p.82
[6] ibid., p.81
[7] ibid., p.82

Scriptures: Calvinist and Arminian?

I came across this interesting question in McKnights post Post-Calvinism: So what?

"is it possible that some biblical writers are more Arminian and some more Calvinist? If so, we'd have to ask in what the unity of Scripture consists. Does it consist in a systematic theology that somehow is behind everything said or does it consist in the essence of the gospel and the summons to live before God in the community of faith? That's for another time, but this is an area that deserves to be explored."

This struck me as interesting. I have had many debates over predestination and related issues, but never once considered that there may be a diversity in opinion among the biblical authors on this issue. I am of the opinion that scripture contains much theological diversity, and that we should not seek to locate unity "in a systematic theology that somehow is behind everything said". Rather it lies in the story the scriptures tell and follow. I wonder what implications this has for systematic theology??

The suggestion that unity lies in the essence of the gospel has much merit. But as I see it, the gospel encapsulates the entire biblical grand-narrative (in its bare borns) although possibly emphasizing the Jesus event. The Jesus event, Jesus himself, only makes sense within the greater story.

personal change -quote-

Many of us who grew up in the church heard conflicting things about personal change. On the one hand, we heard that we were miserable sinners and that sin would haunt us our entire lives. But we also heard that we should be perfect--that the Christian life is one of constant improvement. How do we reconcile those messages?
The Christian faith demands change, but it never begins in change. It begins in the devastating experience of God's graciousness toward us. The message of the cross is that God takes us before we change. Christians have found that we can't be in the presence of such sacrificial love and not change. The same is true for other relationships, including marriage.

Maudlin, Michael G., ‘Why Marriage Makes us Different and Why it’s Scary’, Marriage Partnership, Spring90, Vol. 7.2

Morality? Part 3

So how do we define morality? Our defentition will lead to how we decide what is morally "right" and "wrong". The answer I can give is that morality is grounded in the created order. But I do not think this is something that we can uncover by reason alone. Something is "right" if it agrees with God's design plan, and "wrong" if it does not. This plan can only be discovered through divine revelation because humanity has beem seperated from God. It is thus grounded both in the will of God and in creation itself.

This may pose an interesting answer to the question of whether violence is morally wrong. If it is contrary to the created order, which I believe it is as it resulted from humanities fractured relationsihp with God (see Gen 2-4), then one may say that it is morally wrong. But what of God commanding armies? It was in the wise service of the created order and purpose was it not? God is no arbitrary despot, but a merciful redeemer. Is violence inherently wrong? According to this train of thought, no. Not when used in wise service of the creation.

Morality? Part 2

Assuming that there is a distinction, [1] we may distinguish three factors that guide us when making decisions. [2] These can be illustrated through a situation:

Having just woken up from a good nights sleep, I wander into the kitchen to get some breakfast. Upon opening the fridge I discover that I am out of milk and need to go to the store to get some. So I make myself semi-presentable and wander towards the door. But do I take the car or just walk? My reasoning may go something like as follows.

Perhaps I should walk to the store because it is within walking distance and I do need to save gas (practical reasons). However, it is still dark, and I do live in Beachaven. Im more than a little worried that I might come home without wallet, shoes, or milk (emotional reasons). On the other hand, I dont really want to be unnecessarily pumping exhaust into the environment, that wouldn't be right (ethical reasons). In the end I decide not "skip" breakfast.

In any given situation we may consider only one of these or all of them and reasons within each may contradict each other. The factors may overlap each other, such as if I was to do something that I feel is immoral then this may result in emotional harm. But nevertheless, the distinction does exist between practical, emotional, and ethical factors.

We may postulate a person who does not hold ethical stances on anything, indeed who does not believe that we can make the moral/amoral distinction. Such a person would work within the practical and emotional alone. But does such a person exit? Can such a person exist?

Can we locate moral issues in their ability to pull at our heart-strings. When we do something we know is wrong, we feel guilty, when right, we feel good. The argument could run that moral issues are those that have an emotional factor attached. But not all people are emotionally attached to the same issues. It is the belief that something is a moral issue that then creates the emotional factor. When someone feels morally strong about something, they feel emotionally strong about it also. Morality comes before emotion.

Notes
[1] Although there need not be. Whether or not the distinction corresponds with reality, people still make decisions sefl-consiously for moral reasons, as the below illustration makes clear.
[2] I have taken these from Gareth Jones, 'The Authority of scripture in Christian ethics', p.16, in Gill, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Christian Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge, 2001), pp.16-28

Morality? Part 1

What makes something moral? Indeed, what is "morality"?

I find this mind-boggling to ask as the answer is so clear. Morality concerns "right" and "wrong". But right and wrong about what? We odviously here dont mean right and wrong in the same sense that we mean true and false, so what do we mean?

When it comes to an actual issue, such as murder, it is clear to us that it is a "moral" or "ethical" issue. We can be quick to respond that murder is morally wrong. But when we say that this is morally wrong, do we mean that the action itself is wrong or that it would be a bad decision to make for whatever other reasons? More often than not I suspect that people intend the first, but this raises the problem.

Where does the line between a moral action and an amoral action breakdown or meet? [1] Can we make such a distinction between moral and amoral, indeed, do we pen the line? [2]

Notes
[1] We should also add states of affairs and attitudes of the heart and/or mind.
[2] I suspect that for some, this line will be much thicker than for others. Those who affirm a sharp distinction and those that are not so sure.

"Truth" and grammatical confusion

Some time ago I came to realise that much confusion occurs in discussions about "truth" because of bad grammar. People attempt to define "truth", they ask whether "truth" exists, whether we can know "truth", and whether there is "ultimate truth" or just preference, each having their own "truth". But to use the word truth in these ways is to abuse it grammatically [1].

Things become clearer when we look at the adjective true. Only statements that are making claims about reality can be deemed true or false. Thus, I am a male is 'true', it is a true statement. But if someone was to claim that I am a women, then their statement, their claim, would be 'false'. 'Truthfulness' and 'falsity' are linguistic phenomena alone. The problem occurs when people begin to use truth as a synonym for reality. To say that "reality is truth" may sound cool but it is problematic grammatically. Reality cannot be true, it just is. Only statements about reality can be true or false. You cannot point to something (a non-descriptive action of communication) and say "that is true" [2].

Notes
[1] I now face the problem of arguing that we should follow some proper grammar and not just move with the times, accepting the new usage. I find the new usage unhelpful however, which is why I wish to return to its tradition grammatical use.
[2] Unless you point to a statement of course.

A defenition of hermeneutics -quote-

This is my favourite defenition of hermeneutics proper.

Hermeneutics entails critical reflection on the basis, nature and goals of reading, interpreting and understanding communicative acts and processes. This characteristically concerns the understanding of texts, especially biblical or literary texts, or those of another era or culture. However, it also includes reflection on the nature of understanding human actions, sign-systems, visual data, institutions, artefacts or other aspects of life. In biblical studies it applies traditionally to the interpretation of texts, but also the interweaving of language and life both within the horizon of the text and the within the horizons of traditions and the modern reader.

Anthony Thiselton, ‘Biblical studies and theoretical hermeneutics’, p.95, in John Barton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation (Cambridge: Cambridge, 1998) pp.95-113

addition to blogroll

I have added another blog to my blogroll, namely, Benjamin Myers Faith and Theology. I simply love his blog and my favourite posts so far have been Creation and the beginning of the universe, Speaking matter-of-factly about God: Robert W. Jenson, and his two posts on resurrection. He also has some extremely helpful and resouce(full) links.

Subsequent to being added to Alan Bandy's blogroll, Michael Bird has now added me to his at Euangelion. So my thanks to both of you for taking an interest in my thoughts and getting me some exposure. Its a privilege.

Carson on Jesus' words -quote-

I have decided to start posting the many interesting and important quotes that I have collected and continue to collect over the course of my studies. Donald Carson gets the privilege of being the first. I would appreciate any thoughts concerning them.

In what other field of historical research would the most influential sayings of an extraordinary influential individual be denied on the ground that because they were believed and repeated by the individual’s followers they could not have been authentic?

D.A. Carson, ‘New Testament Theology’, in (eds.) R.P. Martin and P.H. Davids, The Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments (Downers Grove: IVP, 1997), p.800

a hearing

I have to say, im excited! Alan Bandy from CafeApocalypsis has placed my blog on his blogroll. Now this is probably just because I posted some comments on his blog, but nevertheless, perhaps now he will read my blog every now and then, and perhaps even comment! This is encouraging as my enthusiasm has been waning. I plan to increase blogging!