I wanted to respond to a question raised by Steve Cook in a comment on a previous post. Steve asked,
[W]hen you say that you tend to focus on the “historical setting†of biblical texts, do you mean the first, primitive setting—peeling back the layers to get at the onion-core? If so, why prioritize the core? How do you know you want dive down to a pre-scriptural level?
This, of course, is one of the problems of the historical critical method. It focused too much on the layers and not enough on the final form of the text. And since Steve and I both studied with Brevard Childs (Steve more than me), it is a problem we are both aware of.
When I talk about the historical setting of the text, I do mean the original historical context in which the text first arose. Obviously, this is not always something that we can discern. And when you get back to the oral stage, it becomes even more tricky. But I think the best understandings of the text come when we place it within this setting or at least acknowledge that we don’t know the setting.
This is, however, only a first step. Both as a philologist and a theologian (when I wear that hat), I am ultimately concerned with the final form of the text. This is the form that the faith community canonized and it is this form that is authoritative (whatever we decide that means). But I think our understanding of the final form is enriched by acknowledging and studying the earlier layers of the text. It provides us with a more textured — pun intended — reading of the final form.
It also provides us with a process that is analagous to how we use the text. Obviously, the original message of Hosea, for instance, was accepted as authoritative. But other material has been added to form the book of Hosea. This shows us how the text was received and used for another generation. I think this is similar to what we do when we receive the text and use it within the church (whether in theology, ethics, or perhaps most importantly preaching). This main difference, however, is that our use of the text does not become authoritative for later generations.
Next post in the series: Theology in the Layers
On October 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Thanks much for this, Kevin. Nicely put. I knew that you knew just the issue that I was raising. What I would say is that as the layers accrue, and the text rises above the pre-scriptural depths, we have a tradition that the community preserves because it conveys kerygma/Word. I hear you saying that part of your scholarship is to deal with these “scriptural” layers of the text, and what I am putting out is that in doing so, you of necessity are doing theological interpretation at a minimal level at least. Your are engaging a text whose existence is owed to the historical community’s valuing of it as Word/Witness to the transcendent. There is an inherent “theological” dimension to this text’s preservation until this very day and its existence in your hands.
On October 28th, 2006 at 8:18 pm
I think I am saying (in comments on the previous post) very much the same thing as Stephen. But, not only is there an inherent “theological” dimension to the text’s preservation; there is also an inherent “theological” dimension to one’s reading of sacred text regardless of how it was preserved. With the biblical texts we have “theological” dimensions to contend with in the preservation and the reading. And, I would contend that as members of the same church that both preserved and continues to read these texts, these theological dimensions are closely related if not actually the same.
On October 31st, 2006 at 9:28 pm
[…] I wanted to comment on comments made by Chris Spinks and Steve Cook on an earlier post. Â I had originally written a nice response to this while sitting in the Vilnius airport. Unfortunately, our plane boarded before I could get it posted, and I have not been able to find an Internet connection for my laptop here in Kiev. Â I have now found a nice Internet cafe, so I will write another response. Â This one may not be as cogent, due to the nice glass of absinthe I had about an hour ago. […]
On November 1st, 2006 at 7:59 pm
[…] Steve writes: In your most recent post, Kevin, it sounds like in your course you propose to bracket discussion of whether we should affirm or deny what the Bible is witnessing to about the suprahistorical. It just seems to me that the study of the Bible begs such a discussion, or at least a little of it. Don’t you think God is laughing out loud if we insist on bracketing this most interesting and obvious discussion, and narrow our scope to the tilt of the letters, smell of the paper, and type of stylus used in the writing? […]