Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Yeshua1, Apr 12, 2012.
One that covers how to read/study the bible?
Perhaps a little more advanced but has been getting awesome reviews (especially on the campuses of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary & Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Peter Leithart's Deep Exegesis: The Mystery of Reading Scripture.
You can read a brief review I wrote about it here.
Hey Tim that one looks great, I just put it on my wish list.
Here's another one.
All Roads Lead to the Text: Eight Methods of Inquiry into the Bible
This one is a bit more basic than the others mentioned above.
It provides a couple of simple study methods anyone who studies the bible can use.
Good for first time discipleship of new believers.
What did you mean by the references to Fundamentals and to pre/post critical thinking as regards the scriptures in your review?
that was the very book required for reading by College!
2 different issues (though overlap in some places).
Fundamentalism, is in my estimation, stuck in modernity and even a harsh response to modernity and the age of critical scholarship. It clings to objectivism and certainty (moreso than truth). Ironically, since it is a reaction to critical scholarship, then scholarship is the antithesis to fundamentalism. Thus you have way more fundamental bible colleges rather than highly accredited theological seminaries. You also have a disdain for higher academics outside of the realm of fundamentalism.
The overlap comes in with modern evangelicalism moving away from critical scholarship (and even answering critical scholarship since so much has been done on that front) and critical and modern views of the Bible and interpretation and towards a renewal of a pre-critical understanding (i.e. pre-modernism) or a development of that into a post-critical understanding.
To better understand pre-critical exegesis, look at this article.
What I like about Leithart is that he engages the text canonically (TIS) and intertextually seeing things in the text that are not just explicitly stated as if the writers of the Bible were literary dolts who have no clue how to say something without writing it explicitly. A good example of this is a book I am currently reading, How God Became King by N. T. Wright. He is bringing to light (although he's not the first or last to be sure) what many have not seen. Stuck with only the basics or Pauline Xianity, many miss the story the evangelists were telling b/c they only look for the words on the page or to prove pet doctrines. There is rich theology in the 4 accounts that we have so often missed.
think that the problem here is that critical thinking as regarding the canon/revelation/salvation etc tend to lead modern Christianity to becoming a post modern watered down version of uts former self!
it almost seems that modern views would be placing us back into seeing not the literal intending meaning of the Bible, but trying to "read into" some spiritual truths lying beneath the obvious meaning of a plain reading of the text!
Outside of the Word of God there is no truth, not even in the words of N.T. Wright! An individual either believes the Bible or they don't.
Interesting that many are trying to see the new understandings for the canon/Justification etc, but think are straining in a mighty fashion to in a 'spiritual" way undercut the historic theology of the Church!
I didn't mean to detract from this thread. I'll try to keep this short so we can get back to the OP.
Yes and no (postmodern enough for you ). Yes in the sense of how inerrancy has been understood by some radicals on the conservative side. For instance, those who are adhere to ipsissima verba not ipsissima vox.
But no in the sense that I was referring to the radical right-wing conservatism called fundamentalism. IFB is one sect of it, which I came out of.
Read closely. I'm promoting a pre-critical understanding. Not sure what canonicity has to do with anything, although the composition theorists (of which is certainly not part of a modern-critical approach) definitely highlight the pre-critical understanding of canonicity and interpretation.
Not at all. And his view of justification (not election) is a rediscovery not an invention (in his estimation). He is reforming the view developed at the time of the reformation. He makes a convincing argument for people willing to listen (i.e. those who are not bound to objectivity and certainty like the modernist in critical scholarship and fundamentalism-case and point Thomas15, I believe). Wright is an excellent scholar and has done much to advance our understanding of the NT especially from a historical point of view. But his theological conclusions are what intrigue me most.
I disagree. I think modern Christianity (its watered down form) is the direct result of modernity not postmodernity. 20th century American evangelicalism is the prime example of this.
And it is not "modern" views in the sense of modernity but "modern" in the sense of current. There is a current rejection of sole reliance on the historical-grammatical hermeneutic and a movement toward a theological, literary, and canonical hermeneutic (one that sees text integration, allusions, intertextuality, intratextuality, etc) as a big part of that hermeneutic. It could be said that the age of systematic theology is waning and biblical theology (I hope you understand the distinction) is on the rise in a big way.
In short, "the literal intending [sic] meaning" and "the obvious meaning of a plain reading" is a result of modernistic thinking. Postmodernity's response is gross subjectivity or complete lack of certainty. A return to premodernity is to highlight how the church has interpreted the text of Scripture its first 1,500 years of its inception. It is to recognize that there is ultimately one author - God. And that author has weaved together a great story of kingdom, temple, redemption, exodus, and creation-to-new creation into 1 great drama of Scripture (to borrow the term from Goheen and Bartholomew and others like Wright and Vanhoozer).
This is an example of fundamentalism adhering to objectivity and certainty. NT Wright adheres and submits himself to Scripture. So that's really not the issue. I agree w/ sola scriptura, but not in the fundie sense that really has no relationship to the 5 sola's of the reformation.
For the NT and many OT books, sure! But I am leaning toward a compositional theory of OT inspiration. So I believe the final form is the inspired text. For example, individual psalms did not take on their full theological meaning until a compiler and editor arranged them in such a way to express great theological truth. It is at the time of composition that they are inspired to the fullest extent. It is good if we do not treat inspiration in the OT as we do for the NT. The process was much different.
That is partly the point. I would consider myself a conservative evangelical and NOT a fundamentalist. The moniker "fundamentalist" has today little to do w/ the "fundamentals of the faith" (whatever that is) and more to do with a mindset, worldview, philosophy, theology, and practice.
I wonder how much of him you have read and how much of the above quote is you parroting his critics. What makes Wright a good scholar is in part that he is a good historian. He is pulling back the misguided lenses that scholarship has assumed so long (applying post-temple judaism to the Bible) and really understood 2nd temple judaism in its historical setting. It only appears that he treats 2nd temple text like Scripture b/c he is examining and exegeting them as he would the Bible. But he draws a distinction between canonical and non-canonical (especially between the canonical gospel accounts and non-canonical accounts).
As to his view of Paul, again, I would recommend reading him rather than parroting others. Just b/c Paul has revelation from God doesn't mean that he didn't follow former exegetical practices and continue in a tradition that he was well acquainted with. His interpretation of the OT (not the "literal" kind you like) demonstrates this. What Wright demonstrates is that modern Christianity has missed the fact that Paul is telling the Israel story and the Messiah story. Dispensationalists don't like that, but history and exegesis argue otherwise. This is where one has to stop clinging to objective certainty and allow for the fact that new data can help unveil truth that has been forgotten the past 300 years.
Plus, you can't write him off b/c he is not dispensational. BTW... I don't think he would say he adheres to covenant theology (not at least the brand you are familiar with). He adheres to a covenantal reading of Scripture, but then you have to read him to understand what that means. He doesn't refer to the concept of a covenant of grace or works. He deals in the terms of biblical theology and biblical covenants, primarily the Abrahamic covenant as the solution to the problem of Gen. 3-11 (that's why Paul calls it the gospel in Gal. 3:8!). Another example is that I am an ammillennialist, but not a covenanter in the covenant theology sense. I am covenantal in the biblical theology sense. Not sure of that helps though. Depends on your understanding of the terms and concepts.
That is a matter of opinion, of course. Truth be told, there are multiple sources for the OT. Moses' is not the only hand that partook of the Torah. But fundamnetalism (w/ their NT concept of inspiration and canonizatoin applied back to the OT) will not allow for that. Again, certainty trumps truth in their case. And this composition theory has nothing to do with evolution either. That is just a false accusation or an easy scapegoat to avoid the real issue - that the text clearly indicates redaction and editorial notes. HOwever, I will grant that when seminaries (my own was a big problem) backed off of innerancy, it caused major problem. The conservative resurgence has helped a great deal, but you have to understand that there are various views of innerancy that many fundamentalists cannot agree with all of which are evangelical views.
Perhaps, but I would argue that systematic has participated in 2 problems: (1) prooftexting theology and (2) caused Christians to be uninterested in the story of the Bible and focus on incidentals that the Bible never clearly express. I much prefer biblical theology to systematic b/c it lets the text be the text. Systematic is too philosophical for my taste.
Which of course I am doing (noting the subtle difference). Modern day hermeneutics are pursing a "theological interpretation of Scripture" (TIS) reading the text canonically and intertextually. There is much meaning that the writers inserted without using explicitly words. If we truly believe that God is the author of the BIble, then we should not be surprised by this. Why limit Scriptural communication to man's limitations. Are we only giving lip serviced to inspiration when we do that (or using inspiration just as a proof for innerancy???)? I fear modernity has trained us for so long to read the text as minimalists. I want to be a maximalist, reading the text creatively, artistically, and skillfully.
This is the point I would ask that you (1) define what you mean by a "conservative/traditional viewpoint" (which I fear you mean fundamentalist viewpoint) and (2) offer a proof for this accusation. I have read much of his current work, though not all of it. He seems to treat Scripture (and declares so) in very high regard. I want to read his Scripture and the Authority of God before I weigh in too much. I think it would do you well to read it too before you pass judgment on the man. But as far as I can tell (and I have now read 5 of his books, 2 of them being parts 1 & 2 of his Xian origins series and many of his articles and lectures), he treats the Scripture as the Word of God. He is a devout defender of the Jesus according to the gospel records and his resurrection. One with a less than "conservative/traditional viewpoint" of the Bible would probably not be this kind of apologist and in the arena he is in (the highest realm of academia and bible scholars and Bible critics).
Interresting discussion, as they are different aspects to these questions!