Scripture'sDoctrineandTheology'sBible

Scripture'sDoctrineandTheology'sBible

HowtheNEWTESTAMENTShapesChristianDogmatics

Editedby

MarkusBockmuehlandAlanJ.Torrance

ContentsIntroductionMarkusBockmuehl7

Part1Scripture'sDoctrine

1 The Septuagint and the "Search for the Christian Bible" J. RossWagner17

2 Is There a New Testament Doctrine of the Church? MarkusBockmuehl29

3 Johannine Christology and Jewish-Christian Dialogue R. W. L.Moberly45

4ReadingPaul,ThinkingScriptureN.T.Wright59

Part2Theology'sBible

5 The Religious Authority of Albert Schweitzer's Jesus JamesCarletonPaget75

6KarlBarth andFriedrichMildenbergeronScripture inDoctrineJanMuis91

7RowanWilliamsonScriptureJohnWebster105

8 The Normativity of Scripture and Tradition in Recent CatholicTheologyBenedictThomasViviano,OP125

Part3ScriptureandTheology

9CantheTruthBeLearned?Redressingthe"TheologisticFallacy"inModernBiblicalScholarshipAlanJ.Torrance143

10TheMoralAuthorityofScriptureOliverO'Donovan165

11TheFourfoldPatternofChristianMoralReasoningaccordingtotheNewTestamentBerndWannenwetsch177

12TheApostolicDiscourseandItsDevelopmentsKevinJ.Vanhoozer191

Contributors209

WorksCited212

ScriptureIndex234

SubjectIndex236

Introduction

MARKUSBOCKMUEHLRecent years have witnessed the rapid proliferation of biblical scholarshipengagedinwhatiscalledtheologicalinterpretation.Thisscholarlymovementisnowbusyservicingamonographseries,anewjournal,amajordictionary,andtwocommentary series,' not tomention numerous papers and seminars on theinternational conference and lecture circuit. It undoubtedly expresses alongoverduereactionagainstthemodernistcriticalexcessesoftwentieth-centuryprofessionalguilds: pokinganddissecting thebiblical texton "educational"or"scientific"pretextsbeforepublishing thecarcassof"assuredresults,"GunthervonHagens-like,"plastinated"incontrivedpseudo-lifelikepositionsthattendedtobearlittledemonstrablerelationtothehumanstrugglesandstorieswithGodthat actually animated these bodies and that alone can account for what theywereandare.

But granted that such reductionism is intellectually and spirituallyimpoverished,whatexactlyisthisnewlypopularphenomenoncalledtheologicalinterpretation? Is it, as the adjectival construct suggests, mainly a particularflavor or style of engaging in a familiar and self-evident task of interpreting(interpretisanotablytransitiveverb,ofwhichScriptureremainsgrammatically,andonesuspectshermeneutically,theobjectuponwhichoneoperates)?Ifso,istheological interpretation in that sense rather like "Cajun cooking" or "retrodesign"?Alternatively,isthereperhapssomesenseinwhichthelivingandlivedwordofScriptureshapesbothexegesisandtheologyreciprocally,andinwhichdogmaticsarticulatelyengagesandinturnilluminatesthehearingofthatword?

Conceivedasacontributiontothewiderdiscussionandclarificationofthesequestions,thepresentbookgatherstogetherrevisedpapersoriginallypresentedinauniqueseriesofseminarsontheNewTestament'srelationshiptosystematictheology. Leading biblical and systematic theologians from Europe andNorthAmericacametotheUniversityofSt.Andrewsinthespringof2007toshineaprobingsearchlightfromavarietyofperspectivesonasinglefocusedquestion:

"To what extent, and on what grounds, does the New Testament shape andprescribe Christian theology?" The serial effect of these encounters was littleshortofelectrifying,and theresultingstimulus todebatemade itclear thatweshouldseektomakethisexerciseavailabletoawideraudience.

For this publication, the contributions have been grouped into three topicalsections, with the authors' expertise and reflection on the seminar's debateintendedtoengagebothbiblicalanddogmaticdisciplines.

Part1,"Scripture'sDoctrine,"exploresthequestionofhowtheBible,andtheNewTestamentinparticular,maybeunderstoodtoexertpressureonparticularaspectsofChristiandoctrineandpraxis.Thecontributorsapproachthisproblemfromavarietyoffreshandunfamiliarangles.

J.Wagner'sessay raises thequestionofhow the two-testamentnatureof theBibleexercisesitsinfluenceonChristiandoctrine,giventhattheNewTestamentauthors,mostofthechurchfathers,andtheEasternchurchestothisdayreadtheGreekratherthantheHebrewasthenormativeOldTestamentoftheirChristianBible.AsWagnerrightlypointsout,theimplicationsforChristiantheologyarenotoftentakenonboard.IndialoguewiththeworkofBrevardChilds,hearguesthat the Septuagint highlights for theology the importance of the unfinished"search" for the Christian Bible, not least because it extends key canonicaltrajectoriesthatarisefromthefinalformofthecanonicaltext.

MarkusBockmuehlexaminesthetopicalandheavilydebatedquestionoftheNew Testament foundations of ecclesiology. He takes as his starting point adebate about the New Testament's vision of the church, held nearly half acentury ago between Ernst Kasemann and Raymond Brown, two giants ofexegetical scholarship. It is soon evident that simple accounts of the church'sunityswiftlyrunaground,bothexegeticallyandindeedecclesiologically,onthediversityofviewpointsrepresentedwithintheNewTestament.Nevertheless,andfor all the hermeneutical potential of a conflictual or polemical readingof theNew Testament's diversity, a certain ecclesial convergence can be shown tocluster around a number of key convictions, including the apos tolicity (and,indeed,dominicalsanction)ofthechurchanditsincorporationinto thebiblicalstoryofIsrael.

WalterMoberly,anOldTestamentscholar,intriguinglytakesashisfocusthe

doctrinal application of the Fourth Gospel's emphasis on the exclusiveness ofChristtoacontestedtopicinthecontemporarychurch:theproblemofinterfaithdialogue, especially that between Jews and Christians. Calling into questioncasual assumptions about worship of "the same God" along with convenientevasions of the theological force of John 14:6 (and related passages), hedemonstrates that exegetical attention to the place of this text in the Gospelcompelsadoctrinalappreciationforthe"definitivecontent"ofJesus'self-givingloveforothers.Atthesametime,thatcontentholdsintensionboththeparticularandtheuniversal; it isamysterythatalwayssurpassesitsparticular (ecclesial)manifestations, being best captured in the historic trinitarian and incarnationaldoctrines. As such, it demands both doctrinal conviction and epistemologicalhumilityininterfaithdialogue.

Finally,takingthewritingsoftheapostlePaulashiscue,N.T.Wrightbringstobearhistwinrolesasbishopandscholartoaskhowthebiblical textcanbeencounteredaschallengingandlife-givingword,addressingusandcontributingtotheformulationofcreedalfaith.Itdoesso,heargues,aboveallinitsnarrativefunction, so that doctrine, as specially exemplified in the creeds, is bestunderstoodas"portablestory"-notasanabstractchecklistbutasexpressiveofthe narrative of theNewTestament as awhole, indeed of the overall story ofIsrael. The place where Scripture most properly functions in that way is theworshiping congregation's central participation in the Eucharist; and it is thislatter"portablestory"thatoughttoshapenotjustacademicdebatebutalsothecontemporaryexpressionsofthechurch'scorporatelife.

Part2turnsfromtheanalysisoftheBible'sowndoctrine-evokingwitnesstoacritical reflection on how some of themost influential theologians of the lasthundredyearshavebeenshapedandengagedbywhat theyencountered in theNewTestament.

Chronologically, we move to contemporary theology from several leadingtwentieth-century theologians and theological movements that attempted notonly to respond to advances in modern critical scholarship but also to breakdeliberatelywith the intellectualheritageofnineteenth-century liberal idealismin order to return to amore radical engagementwith theBible (a radicalnessconceived,tobesure,inverydifferentterms).

Engaging one of the most influential liberal theological and philosophical

thinkersofthefirsthalfofthelastcentury,JamesCarletonPagetanalyzesAlbertSchweitzer's (1875-1965) seemingly strict historical and antidoctrinalengagement with Jesus (and Paul). This study demonstrates that despite hisassertions of disdain for ecclesial and creedal dogma of all kinds, Schweitzershowsasurprisinglypersonaland"mystical"fascinationwiththecharacter(the"will")ofJesus.Thisengenderedinhimaferventphilosophicalandtheologicaladvocacy of the ongoing importance of the person of Jesus (and Paul, as athinker) for thepresent-a "Christology" ratherhigher,perhaps, thanhehimselfallowed.

Averydifferentreactiontonineteenth-centuryliberalismisencounteredintheworkofSchweitzer'syoungercontemporaryKarlBarth(1886-1968).JanMuisexaminesScripture'srolefordoctrineandtraditionintheworkofBarthaswellasofFriedrichMildenberger(b.1929),perhapstheGermansystematicianmostdirectlyconcernedwith"biblicaldogmatics"inthegenerationafterBarth.BarthengageswithScripture extensivelybut uses it indirectly as awitness toGod'sself-revelation rather than as directly prescriptive for Christian doctrine. ForMildenberger, by contrast, there can in fact be no adequate God-talk at allwithoutandapartfromthebiblicaltext(interpretedinkeepingwithconfessionsoftheearlychurch,theReformation,andBarmen),whichdescribestheeventsinwhich God is either present or absent. Dogmatics, for him, is reflection onbiblicaltextsintheirdiversity;biblicaltextsarenotfoundationsorguidelinesfordoctrinal answers but rather are the answers themselves. Neither author, inMuis'sview,providesaconsistentapplicationofhisstatedprinciples:thereisinfact more biblical heteronomy in Barth and more dogmatic structure inMildenbergerthaneitherexplicitlyallows.Scriptureis,inthatsense,indirectlyprescriptive for doctrine, while a biblically founded exegesis of the NewTestament texts will, in all their diversity, bring into focus the living JesusChrist.

JohnWebster'schapterprovidesapowerfulexposeofoneofthemostfruitfulandprolifictheologicalwritersofourownday.RowanWilliams(b.1950)isnotonly Anglicanism's most senior bishop but also one of the English-speakingworld's most influential theologians. Revelation, for him, is the community'stemporal transfiguration through the appropriation of the infinitely resourcefulChrist,whoserelationwiththeFatherreachesouttousinhumantime.Scriptureserves as a sign of this new, living postresurrection relationship, spelling out

imaginative patterns of Jesus as both alive toGod and presentwith us.These"fugal"patternsof theologyappear,however,onawider,aggressivelypoliticalcanvasofconflict, suppression,andexclusion inwhichScripturealongwith itsauthors and readers-is complicit. Although sympathetic to these concerns,Webster asks if Williams's account in the end underplays the possibilities ofdivine intentionality behind the canon, of attending to the perfection of theascended Jesus in the exercise of his royal and prophetic offices, and of theChristianspecificityofscripturalinterpretation.

After three chapters on the New Testament's authority for theologies in theProtestant tradition, Benedict Viviano offers a fourth on the normativity ofScripture and tradition in the last century of Roman Catholic theology.BeginningwithM.-J.Lagrange'spioneeringwork in the faceofPopePiusX'sresistance, Viviano traces the Catholic recovery of literary and historicalsensitivitytothebiblicaltextinthe1943encyclicalDivinoAfflanteSpiritutoitsreception in subsequent debate about the relationship between Scripture andtradition. Particular reference ismade here to the controversy surrounding thedogma of the assumption ofMary and to thework of J. R. Geiselmann. TheSecond Vatican Council's landmark statement Dei Verbum issued significantclarificationsabouttherelationshipofScriptureandtradition,biblicalinerrancyinmattersofsalvation,andthereliabilityoftheGospels.VivianoconcludeshissurveywithconsiderationsofthePontificalBiblicalCommission'srecentworkandoftheprofoundimpactoftherevisedliturgicallectionary.

Part3movesfromanalysistothemoresyntheticquestionofhowinpracticewe are to envisage the New Testament's normative function for Christiantheologyandethics.

Alan J. Torrance begins by drawing attention to the important problem ofmethodological slippage in much New Testament study of even mildlyconfessionalbent:supposedlyhistoricalanddescriptive treatmentsofChristianorigins remarkably often move in a concluding flourish from second-order,phenomenological talk about earlyChristianGod-talk to first-order, normativeGod-talk without stopping to acknowledge the hermeneutical sleight of hand.After examining some of the philosophical issues at stake,Torrance draws onAthanasius and Kierkegaard in developing the proposition that the exegeticalmove tovalidGod-talk requiresahermeneutical fusionof (not two,but) threehorizons involvingScripture, thecontemporary reader, and theecclesialmind-

conceivedinirreduciblytrinitarianandincarnationalterms.

OliverO'DonovanturnsnexttothetimelybutticklishquestionofScripture'sauthorityinmoraltheology.Scriptureisdivinelysetapart(hence"sanctified,"inJohnWebster'susage) for its taskasan integralpartofGod'sselfattestation intheelectionofIsraelandredemptionoftheworld,thepartstobeunderstoodinrelationbothtotheparticularityandtothewhole.YetincontrasttoKarlEarth'snotionoftheimmediacyofthedivinecommand,O'Donovanrecognizestheneedforbiblicalcategoriesandanalogies inorder tobeable tounderstandourownpracticalsituationvis-a-visthescripturalcommand,whichbyitselfmayoftenbequitebare.Thoughtfulandfaithfulobedience,therefore,willexpressthemind-renewing"rationalworship"ofRomans12:2.

Taking a similar focus on the problemof scriptural normativity inChristianmoral theology, Bernd Wannenwetsch follows O'Donovan's programmaticchapterbyposingthemorespecificquestionofwhatformalandmethodologicalperspectives the New Testament itself envisages and exemplifies in Christianmoralteaching.Hearguesthatonecandiscernacircularhermeneuticofmoralandspiritualperception,discernment,judgment,andgivingofaccount.Drawingonkey texts includingRomans12:1-2,Philippians1:9, and the parable of thegood Samaritan (Luke 10), he shows this sequence of moral reasoning to bedeeplyengrainedintheNewTestamentwitness.

Our volume concludes, as the St. Andrews seminar series did, with awiderangingand synthetic statement fromKevin J.Vanhoozer.WhereasC.H.Dodd recognized in the sermons of the book of Acts an apostolic kerygmashared with Paul and the Gospels, Vanhoozer employs the wider-ranging andmore inclusive term of the New Testament's apostolic discourse. Biblical anddogmatictheologyarehereengagedneitherasseparateenterprisesnoronaone-wayconveyorbeltbut rather inapasdedeux thathasbothpartiesalternatelyleadingandfollowinginacommonengagementwiththehumanandthedivinediscourse. The church-building task of understanding the normativity of thisapostolic discourse is to engage the many diverse parts of a whole, like theroomsintheheavenlymansion.

As editors and contributors alike,we are only too aware thatwhatweofferhereiseclectic,partial,andlimited.It isanalbumofviewsthroughthesharedwindow around which we happen to have gathered in our 2007 seminar-a

window,onemightsayusingafamiliarSt.Andrewsimage,withaviewonthegrippinglyevocativeruinsofaonce-cherishedcathedral.Ifthatimageappearsinsome circles as emblematic of much of the church's life in the contemporaryWest,2 it arguably also captures something of the state of biblical studies anddogmaticstoday.Thereare,ofcourse,signsofrenewedactivity,perhapsevenofnewlife,notleastinthe"theologicalinterpretation"enterprisescitedabove.Buttherealsoremainsapowerfulimpressionoftheologicalsubdisciplinesfracturedin their internal discourse and fraught in their intellectual relations with eachother.'

If, then, our shared window shows diverse views of a ruined cathedral, itoffersatthesametimesignsofpromise,notonlyinbeingsharedbetweenusbutalso in revealing certain common impulses of investigation. These include,aboveall,thesenseofgrowingurgencyforeachofoursubdisciplinestoaccountfor its work in heedfulness of the concerns and questions of the other. To beintellectuallyandtheologicallyviable,the"portability"ofdoctrines,creeds,andpractices will necessarily be a function of their rootedness in the concreteparticularity of the scriptural texts. More simply put, to the extent thattheologiansarenotanswerabletoabiblicalaccountofdoctrine,theirworkisnolongerbasedonChristianity'shistoriccreedsandconfessions.Butconversely,noexegeticalorhistoricalengagementwiththatbiblicaladdresscandojusticeeventoitself,letalonetotheobjectofthosetexts,withoutaconsciousrecognitionofhowthecriticalanalysisofanyonepartrelatestotheequallyconcreterealityofthe whole. Similarly, the verymethods and strategies of the biblical scholar'squestioninginevitablypresupposeamoreself-involvingandtheologicallyvestedset of aims and categories than most critics are generally prepared toacknowledge.

Thewayforward,weareunitedinbelieving,liesinthecriticalrediscoveryofan old friendship: the ecclesial pas de deux of exegesis with theology, ofScripturewith theChristian tradition of confession and discipleship. It is thatcriticaltaskwhichthefollowingchaptersseek,severallyandasawhole,bothtocommendandtoexemplify.

In preparing this book for the press, I have benefited greatly from theunwaveringsupportofmyfelloweditorandthecontributors.Otherswhomadethisbookbetter thanitcouldotherwisehavebeenincludeenthusiasticseminarparticipantsandpostgraduaterespondents toeachofourspeakers;mydoctoral

student David Lincicum generously and astutely assisted the task of editorialproofreading.Tothemall,andtothevisionaryJimKinneyandhiscolleaguesatBakerAcademic,heartfeltthanksaredue.

PART1

Scripture'sDoctrine

1

TheSeptuagintandthe"SearchfortheChristianBible"

J.RossWAGNERINMEMORIAMBREVARDCHILDS1923-2007)

Any attempt to elucidate how the two Testaments of the Christian Bible,individuallyandtogether,testifytotheredeemingworkoftheTriuneGodmustsooner or later address the question of the authority of the Septuagint as awitnesstothebiblicaltextandthusasaresourcefordoingChristiantheology.'Thequestionpersistsbecause,asBrevardChildshasobserved,"theexactnatureoftheChristianBiblebothinrespecttoitsscopeandtextremainsundecideduptothisday."2Consequently,thoughitisoftenignored,thecomplexproblemoftheSeptuagintasChristianScripturecannotsimplybesidesteppedbyChristiantheology.AsChilds demonstrates through amasterful surveyof the history ofinterpretation of Isaiah, a characteristic feature of the church's theologicalreading of Scripture in every age has been thoughtful engagement with thehermeneuticalproblemposedby thediverse transmissionof the two-testamentbiblicalcanon,"astruggleforunderstanding"thatwrestlesvigorouslywith"thetextualtensionbetweentheHebrewandGreek."3This"searchfortheChristianBible"is,heargues,"constitutiveforChristianfaith"and,assuch,"constitutiveof the theological task."4That so fewbiblical scholars and theologians in ourperiodofchurchhistoryactuallygrapplewiththequestionoftheSeptuaginthasless todowith ignoranceof thehermeneuticalproblem, Iwouldventure, thanwith the fact that few of us are trained for a serious engagement with theseGreektexts.AsHansHubnerwrylyobserves,thetranslationoftheSeventyhasbecomeformostWesternChristiansa"bookwithsevenseals."'

Following Childs, I propose locating the question of the authority of theSeptuagint in Christian theology squarely in the context of the search for theChristianBible.AsthechurchseeksrightlytohearandobedientlytoconformitslifetoGod'ssalvificaddressspokenthroughthetwo-testamentChristianBible,how arewe to grapplewithwhatChilds has described as "the textual tensionbetweentheHebrewandtheGreek"?6

TheSearchfor"theSeptuagint"

Intakingupthisquestion,wemustfirstofallclearawaysomemisconceptionsand lay the groundwork for the constructive proposal that will follow.ChristopherSeitzrightlyobservesthattheproblemoftheSeptuaginthasattimesbeen framed in quite simplistic and misleading terms, as if the church stoodbetween a supposedly monolithic "Greek Bible" and a similarly petrified"HebrewBible"andhadtochooseonetotheexclusionoftheother.'Thereality,asscholarsrepresentingavarietyofviewpointshaveincreasinglyrecognized,isfarmorecomplex:

1.ThereexistedintheHellenisticandRomanperiodsnosingle"Septuagint"canon or text.Apart from the books of the Pentateuch,whichmay have beentranslatedinroughlythesameperiod(thoughbydifferenttranslators),thebookscommonlygroupedunder the label "Septuagint"were translated (and in a fewcases composed) at various times and in different locations by a variety oftranslatorsusingarangeofapproachestotheirtask.Anystandardizationofthecollection is a rather late achievement. The earliest codices (fourth to fifthcenturiesandlater)varybothinwhichbooksareincludedintheOldTestamentandinwhatordertheyarearranged.'

Similarly, witnesses to the textual tradition of the Septuagint exhibit asignificantdegreeofdiversityintheirreadings.Thisisattributablenotsimplytothenormalvagariesoftextualtransmissioninantiquitybutalsotoanumberofadditional factors, including ongoing sporadic revisions, almost from the verybeginning,intendedtobringtheOldGreekclosertoaHebrewformofthetext;'thetext-criticallaborsofOrigeninthethirdcentury,whichresultedinamixtureof Old Greek with later revisions and translations of Scripture; and still laterrecensional work on the Greek text attributed by Jerome to Lucian andHesychius.10 An examination of explicit quotations in the New Testament

uncoverscitationsthatreproducetheOldGreeknearlyverbatimaswellasthosethatreflectaSeptuaginttextpreviouslyrevisedtowardaHebrewexemplar.11Asmaller number of citations apparently draw on otherwise unknown Greektranslations.12Thereis,then,forearlyChristianwritersnosingle"Septuagint"text.Rather, theNewTestamentwitnesses toacertaindiversityandfluidityofthebiblicaltextinGreek,includingapersistenttendency,alreadyunderwaywellbeforetheriseofChristianity,tobringtheGreektextintocloserconformitytoa(proto-Masoretic)Hebrewtext.13

2.Itwouldbewrongtosupposethat"theSeptuagint"representsanalternativetradition disconnected from-and, indeed, in competition withthe HebrewScriptures.Asalreadymentioned,fromtheverybeginningtheGreektextwastoonedegreeoranothersubjectedtorevisiononthebasisofHebrewexemplars;inotherwords,asRobertHanhartobserves,itwasfromthebeginningtreatedasa"copy"ofan"original"text.14Thisattitudedidnotprevailatalltimesandinallplaces, as the Letter of Aristeas and Philo's account of the divinely inspiredtranslation of thePentateuch attest."But even in theLetter ofAristeas,whichseekstolegitimatetheSeptuagintasScriptureinitsownright,theauthorityoftheGreekPentateuchrestsonitsbeinganaccuraterepresentationofitsHebrewVorlage,theimpeccablecharacterofwhichisguaranteedbyitshavingbeensentfromJerusalembythehighpriesthimself.Hanhartcomments,"Asatranslationof already canonized writings, the LXX translation itself has canonicalsignificance both for Judaism and for the Christian church. It derives thissignificance, however, only from the strength of the canonical authority of itsHebreworiginal."16

Ofcourse,inpracticalterms,Greek-speakingJewsandChristiansoftenlackedthelinguisticresourcestomakecomparisonsdirectlywithHebrewtexts,andforallintentsandpurposestheGreektextthattheyheardinworshipwasScripture.Nevertheless, the close connection of theGreek text to theHebrewwas oftenrecognizedevenwheretheGreekwasregardedasasacredtextinitsownright.Ihavealreadymentioned theuseof revisedSeptuagint textsbyNewTestamentwriters.InthecaseofPaul,atleast,onemaysuggestwithsomeconfidencethatthe apostle's occasional citation of a revised manuscript of Isaiah reflects hisdeliberate selectionofone formof the text fromamonganumberofdifferentversionsknowntohim.t'Amongthechurchfathers,Origenbynomeansstandsalone in his recognition that the Septuagint is a translation and that

understandingofthebiblicaltextmaybeenhancedbyreferencetootherGreekversions,ifnot,ideally,totheHebrewitself."InhiscommentaryonIsaiah,forexample,TheodoretturnsregularlytoAquilaoranotherofthelatertranslatorstohelpelucidateapassagethatisobscureintheSeptuagintortoaddafurtherlayerofmeaningtothebiblicaltext.19Eusebiusnotinfrequentlyoffersinterpretationsboth of the Septuagint and of another version (such as Symmachus) without,apparently,feelingitnecessarytopreferonetotheother.20Similarly,Christianmanuscriptsof theSeptuagintbetray the interestof scribesand scholars in theHebrew text behind the translation, as seen for example, in the inclusion ofmarginal references to other versions (and even to "the Hebrew") or in theattempt tomark instanceswherexuptoc represents theHebrewname forGod,mark

3.Despitethetruismthateverytranslationisaninterpretation,theSeptuagint,on the whole, renders the Hebrew in a fairly conservative manner. AnneliAejmelaeusquiterightlyobservesthatatheologyoftheSeptuagintinthesenseof"acomprehensivepresentationofthereligiousandtheologicalcontentoftheSeptuagint...wouldactuallybeforthemostpartidenticalwithatheologyofthe[Hebrew]OldTestament."22Itwasonce(andinsomequartersstillis)thoughtappropriatetospeakofacharacteristic"Septuagintpiety."23However,becausetheSeptuagint isa translation,rather thananoriginalcomposition,discoveringthe distinctive theology of a Septuagint book is an endeavor fraught withconsiderable conceptual and practical challenges. The clearest evidence of atranslator'sowndistinctivetheologicaloutlookistobefoundininstanceswhereone can be reasonably sure that the translator's rendering does not reflect avariantHebrewVorlage or does not simply result from his defaultmethod oftranslating.SuchclearcasesofdeliberateexegesisbytheSeptuaginttranslators,however,arerathermoredifficulttoidentifythanisoftensupposed.24

Moreover,inthisbrightpost-Hengelepochonecannolongerpositaclearandstrictseparationbetween"Judaism"and"Hellenism,"orbetweenPalestineandthe Diaspora, or between Hebrew/Aramaic-speaking and GreekspeakingJudaisms (or Christianities, for that matter) Where the Septuagint does offerevidenceofinterpretivetraditionsthatgobeyondwhatisfoundintheMasoreticText, in some cases these traditions find clear parallels in other Jewish textswritteninHebrew,Aramaic,orGreek.26Evenatapointwheretheinfluenceofthe Septuagint on the development of Hellenistic Judaism appears to be both

unmistakableandofgreatsignificanceforearlyChristiantheology-therenderingoftheTetragrammatonbytheGreekwordxuptoc-theSeptuagintdependsonandremainsconnectedtoHebrew/Aramaic-speakingJewishtradition.21

ThisisnottodownplaythesignificanceoftheSeptuagintforthedevelopmentofHellenistic Jewish thought.Neitherwould Iwish todeny the importanceofthetranslationofIsrael'sScripturesintoGreekforthespreadofJudaismamongpagansympathizersandproselytes,28nortomaintainthatthereceptionoftheseGreek Scriptures by the early church had only a negligible influence on thedevelopment of early Christian practice and belie It is necessary, however, toinsistthatthehistoricalpictureisfarmorecomplexthanisoftenrecognizedindebatesover"theHebrew"versus"theGreek"textandcanon.Onecannotneatlyseparate Greek-speaking Judaism from other Hebrew/Aramaic-speakingJudaisms of theHellenistic period. It is dangerously reductionistic thinking toimagine that the early church faced a clear and decisive choice between thesupposeduniversalismofaHellenistic-Jewish"Septuagintpiety"andtheallegednarrow particularism of a (Pharisaic-rabbinic) Judaism rooted in the HebrewBible.3o

4.Finally,regardingthetensionbetweenawider"Septuagintcanon"andthenarrowercanonoftheMasoreticText,itiscrucialtoemphasizethatalthoughtheouter limits of the canon remain somewhat nebulous in the early Christianperiod, theNewTestamentauthorsappeal throughtheircitationsandretellingsofthebiblicalnarrativestoacoresetofScripturesthatincludesamajorityofthebooksofthepresentHebrewcanon.IfEnochisinvokedasScripture(Jude14),itistheonlyexampleofabookoutsidetheHebrewcanonbeingcitedassuchintheNewTestament. The numerousNewTestament echoes (varyingwidely involume)ofbookssuchasWisdomofSolomonorSirachcertainlyaresignificantfor understanding the development of New Testament theology, but theyfunction on a different level, rhetorically and theologically, from that of theexplicitcitations.Similarly,althoughthechurchhasnevercometoaconsensuson the precise limits of the canon, there remains an undeniable core thatdecisively shapes the contours of mainstream Christian practice and belief.Despitetheiroftensharpdisagreementsconcerningtheshapeandfunctionofthecanon, bothBrevardChilds and JamesBarr agree that this canonical core hasbeenfarmoredeterminativeoforthodoxChristianfaithandlifethananyofthewritingslyingclosetotheperipheryofthetradition.31

ThePlaceoftheSeptuagintintheSearchfortheChristianBible

RecallingChilds'sobservationthat"theexactnatureoftheChristianBiblebothinrespecttoitsscopeandtextremainsundecidedtothisday,"32wereturntothequestionwithwhichwebegan:How, in the theological task ofwrestlingwithScriptureinall itscomplexity-inour"searchfortheChristianBible"-arewetoheartheSeptuagintasChristianScripture?

Childs, in Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments, charts apromising course through these murky waters. He depicts the search for theChristian Bible as a dialectic between Word and Tradition-between the OldTestament in its most pristine, Hebrew, form and the church's early andwidespreadpracticeofreceivingtheOldTestamentinitsmostexpansive,Greek,form.33Moving"fromtheouterparametersoftraditiontotheinnerparametersofWord,"34theinterpreterworks"theologicallywithinthenarrowerandwiderformsofthecanoninsearchforboththetruthandthecatholicityofthebiblicalwitness to thechurchandtheworld."35Thissearchfor thewitnessof theOldTestament, interestingly, corresponds closely to Childs's description of NewTestamenttextualcriticismfromacanonicalperspective.36Here,"thesearchforthe best canonical text within the circle established by the church's traditiontakesplacewithinthecontextofthemultipletextualoptionswhichhaveactuallybeen used in the church."37 New Testament textual criticism is thus "acontinuing search in discerning the best received text which moves from theouterparametersofthecommonchurchtraditionfoundinthetextusreceptustotheinnerjudgmentrespectingitspurity."38Itwouldappear,then,thattheextenttowhichtheSeptuagintspeaksasChristianScripturemustbedeterminedinthesamemannerastheWordofGodisapprehendedinthevoiceoftheHebrewtextorintheNewTestament:"ThecompletecanonoftheChristianchurch...setsforthecommunityoffaiththepropertheologicalcontextinwhichwestand,butitalsoremainscontinuallytheobjectofcriticaltheologicalscrutinysubordinatetoitssubjectmatterwhoisJesusChrist."39

AsI readChilds, itseemsclear that the theological task thathedescribesas"thesearchfortheChristianBible"requiresfullconsiderationoftheSeptuagintaspartofthe"completecanonoftheChristianchurch,"eventhoughitmaybethoughtinsomerespectstolieat"theouterparametersoftradition.""Buthowisthis to be carried out in practice? Childs sketches a model of theologicalinterpretationcomprisingthreediscretestages:(1)discerningthewitnessofthe

OldTestamentitself;(2)examiningtheNewTestamentinitsownintegrityasawitness that largely transforms the Old Testament; (3) "hearing the whole ofChristianScriptureinlightofthefullrealityofGodinJesusChrist."41Duetoits considerable influence on the New Testament, the Septuagint obviouslyrequires careful attention in the second stage of Childs's program. But in thecontext of the search for theChristianBible (not simplyNewTestament), theSeptuagintisalsopertinenttothefirsttaskofdiscerningthewitnessoftheOldTestamentitself.ItfiguresaswellinthefinalstepofChilds'sprogram,inwhichtheinterpreterseekstoheartheOldTestamentandtheNewTestamentinconcertas distinct, and yet complementary,witnesses.Wewill consider each of thesestagesbriefly.

1. As the earliest commentary on the Hebrew text, the Septuagint certainlyprovides a valuable resource for interpreting the per se witness of the OldTestament.But apart from its pride of place in theWirkungsgeschichte of theHebrewBible, theSeptuagintalsodemandsconsideration in thesearch for thefinalformofthecanonical(Christian)text.Thisisso,first, incaseswheretheSeptuagint translates a HebrewVorlage different from theMasoretic Text. Attimes,theSeptuagintmayprovideevidenceofastageoftheHebrewtextearlierthanthatofthefinalformpreservedintheMasoreticText,asin1Samuel17-18orthebookofJeremiah.Alternatively,theSeptuagintmayreflectaneditionoftheHebrewtextlaterthantheMasoreticText,asin1Samuel1-2.InthecaseofDaniel4-6,theSeptuagintandtheMasoreticTextapparentlyoffertwodifferentversionsofacommonearliereditionthatnolongersurvives.42Eveniftheformattested in the Septuagint were not ultimately to be accepted (a matter thatcannotbedecidedonapriorigrounds),theSeptuagintofferscrucialevidencefortracingthetraditioningprocessthatculminatedinthefinalformofthecanonicaltext.43ThesearchfortheChristianBiblethereforemustseektodiscernwhethertheformpreservedintheSeptuagintortheformpreservedintheMasoreticText,orperhapsboth,represents"Israel'switnesstoGodandhisMessiah."44

ButtheSeptuagintisalsorelevanttothesearchforthefinalformofabiblicalbook in thosecaseswhere theGreek translators themselvesextend theologicaltrajectoriesthatareinscribedinthefinalformoftheHebrewtext.Onethinksof,forexample,JoachimSchaper'sidentification(followingWilliamHorbury)ofarobust "messianic intertextuality" in Old Greek Isaiah or his argumentsconcerning theheighteningofeschatologicalandmessianicexpectations in the

OldGreekPsalter.45ApartfromtheobviousrelevanceoftheSeptuagintshapeofthesebooksforthequestionofthereceptionoftheOldTestamentintheNew,Childs'snotionof the search for theChristianBible requires thatoneconsidertheclaimsoftheGreekversionindeterminingthecanonicalformofabookinthe context of the church's Bible. The greater part of this task remains to bedone.RecentattentiontotheformationofthebookofPsalms,forexample,hasstimulatedfruitful reflectionon the theologicalsignificanceof theshapeof theMasoretic Text Psalter. However, the question of the shape of the SeptuagintPsalterandthe"pressure"exertedbyitsfinalformonthecontoursofthebiblicalwitness46hasnotyetbeenadequatelyaddressedinthesearchforthecanonicalshapeoftheChristianPsalter.47Althoughit isbynomeansclearthatonewillalways, or ever, decide in favor of the Septuagint form as the truestrepresentativeofthewitnessoftheOldTestamenttotheTriuneGod,itbelongstothechurch'stheologicaltasktostrugglewiththequestion.

2.ForthetheologicaltaskofhearingtheNewTestamentwitness,especiallytotheextentthatitisappropriatetocharacterizethatwitnessas"atransformedOldTestament,"48therelevanceoftheSeptuaginthardlyrequiresfurthercomment.Itshouldbeemphasized,however, that the influenceof theSeptuagintextendsbeyond explicit citations to more allusive modes of inter textuality.41 Inaddition,thelanguageoftheSeptuagint(whethertheSeptuagintisthesourceofnewsensesforparticularGreekwordsorawitnesstousagesalreadycurrentinHellenisticJewishcommunities)50hasshaped,invaryingdegrees,thelanguageoftheNewTestamentwriters.Thoughinvestigationoflinguisticinfluencecallsforconsiderablemethodologicalsophistication,suchresearchisessentialtothetaskof delineating the full extent towhich theOldTestament is takenup andtransformed in the New Testament.51 Tuning our ears to the rhythms andcadences of the Septuagint is a necessary exercise in gaining the readercompetencethattheNewTestamentexpectsofitsimpliedaudience.52

3. When one finally takes up the challenge of the synthetic task, that ofhearingthewitnessoftheOldandNewTestamentstogether"inthelightofthefull realityofGod in JesusChrist" throughaprocessof figural reading,53 theSeptuagintonceagaindeservesseriousattention.Certainlyinthehistoryofthechurch's wrestling with the scriptural text, the Septuagint has played animportant role in such figural interpretation of the Old Testament, and thishistoryoughttoshapethecontemporarychurch'sreadingsinsignificantways.54

And, to the extent that our theological task is not simply to reproduce theinterpretations of the past but rather to listen attentively to the divine speechaddressed to us here andnow through the text ofScripture,weourselveswillhave to grapple anew with the Septuagint as a resource for discerning thewitnessofthetwo-testamentChristianBibletotheTriuneGods=

IfIhaveunderstoodChildsrightly,ineachofthesethreestagesitisonlybyactuallyengagingintheinterpretivetaskthatoneisabletodiscerninwhatwaysandtowhatextenttheSeptuagintembodiesthewitnessoftheOldTestamenttotherealityoftheTriuneGodthatisthesubjectmatteroftheBible.ThissearchfortheChristianBibleisnotanoptionalpursuit;itisintrinsictothetheologicalinterpretation of Scripture.At the conclusion of hiswide-ranging study of thechurch's"struggletounderstandIsaiahasChristianScripture,"Childsidentifiesanumberof "basic featuresofenduring theologicalconcern" thathaveshapedChristian exegesis through the ages.56 Among these is an unwavering"commitment to the canonical coherence of scripture's twofold witness"" thatcompelssustainedattentionto"thehermeneuticalproblemraisedbythetextualtensionbetween theHebrewandGreek."" Ifour interpretationsare tobear the"family resemblance" of the Christian exegetical tradition, we too must bewilling towrestle seriouslywith theSeptuagint in the search for theChristianBible.59

TheSeptuagintandthe"Sanctification"ofScripture

Isuggest, finally, thatJohnWebster'sdogmaticcategoryof the"sanctification"of Holy Scripture specifies how the Septuagint-this variegated collection oftranslations and revisions of the Old Testament in Greek-may, within thechurch'songoingsearchfortheChristianBible,legitimatelyberecognizedasanormforChristianfaithandpractice.AsWebsterdefinesit,"`HolyScripture'isashorthandtermfor thenatureandfunctionof thebiblicalwritingsinasetofcommunicative acts that stretch fromGod's merciful self-manifestation to theobedient hearing of the community of faith."60 In this gracious act ofredemptive self-communication, God speaks in and through texts that at thesametimeremainverymuchhumanartifacts.The"sanctification"ofScripturereferstotheSpirit's"electionandoverseeingoftheentirehistoricalcourseofthecreaturelyrealitysothatitbecomesacreaturewhichmayservethepurposesofGod. 1161 "Because sanctification does not diminish creatureliness,"Webster

argues,"thetexts'placeinthedivineeconomydoesnotentail theirwithdrawalfrom the realmof humanprocesses. It is as-not despite-the creaturely realitiesthattheyarethattheyserveGod."62

TheconceptofsanctificationiscrucialforanyaccountoftheChristianBiblethat takes seriously both its normative role as Holy Scripture and thecomplexitiesofitstextandcanon,includingthetensionsbetweenitsGreekandHebrewforms.AsWebsterexplains,

TheSpirit'srelationtothetextbroadensoutintotheSpirit'sactivityinthelifeofthepeopleofGodwhichformstheenvironmentwithinwhichthetexttakes shape and serves the divine self-presence. Sanctification can thusproperly be extended to the processes of the production of the text-notsimplyauthorship(as,sooften,inoldertheoriesofinspiration)butalsothecomplex histories of pre-literary and literary tradition, redaction andcompilation. It will, likewise, be extended to the post-history of the text,most particularly to canonisation (understood as the church's Spirit-produced acknowledgement of the testimony of Scripture) and tointerpretation (understood as Spirit-illumined repentant and faithfulattentiontothepresenceofGod).6-1

Webster's appeal to God's gracious and sovereign superintendence of HolyScripture"frompre-textualtraditiontointerpretation"64bearscloseaffinities,ofcourse,tothetheologicaljustificationsofferedbyOrigenandAugustinefortheroleoftheSeptuagintasanormforChristianpracticeandbelief.65Itisbecauseof the sanctifying work of the Spirit in the translation, canonization, andreceptionof theChristianBible thatwe are enabled tohear in theSeptuagint,too,"theterrifyingmercyofGod'saddress."66

2

IsThereaNewTestamentDoctrineoftheChurch?

MARKUSBOCKMUEHL"The Church" is once again a lively and contested topic for theologicaldiscussion,and inbiblical studies there is todayplentyof talkabout"ecclesialreadings"oftheBible,about"interpretingcommunities,"andsimplyabout"thechurch."'Butitisnotalwayseasytoknowwhatthischurchisabout,whetherithas any concrete visible formor substance,what notion it conveys of historiccontinuity,ofunityanddiversity,insideandoutside,whetherithasidentifiableformsofworship andorders ofministry or not. It sometimes seems a case ofL'eglise,c'estmoi-thechurchisanyonewhosharessensibleviewsandpracticeslikemine.Thatshouldnotperhapssurpriseus,butitisanimportantcaveatwhenweconsiderarangeoftopicsfrom"ecclesial interpretation"toNewTestamentviewsofthechurch.

From a contemporary perspective, there is no doubt that we are at a verydifficult moment in the life of the churches. Quite apart from the culturalchallenges emanating from the post-Christian West, there has long been aseemingly fatal contradiction between the Christ as the one Savior and LordwhomChristiansconfessandthefracturedmultiplicityofthechurchesinwhichtheydoso.YetevenaslateasadecadeagoitseemedthatsignsofspringmightbebrighteningecumenicaldialogueinareasrangingfrombaptismandEucharistto the place of the church of Rome in relation to the other churches. Mostsymbolicallyofall,perhaps, it lookedforabout fifteenminutesas ifCatholicsandLutherans reached agreement on the doctrine of justification by faith thatfirstdividedthemnearlyfivecenturiesago.

A few sobering years into the twenty-first century it seems that our

postmodern tribalism favors a more hard-nosed approach, both within andbetweenthemainlinedenominationsandalsoalongtheclassicecumenicalfaultlines of East and West, Protestant and Catholic. There are advocates ofdenominationalretrenchmentontheonehand,andontheotherhandthosewhoare keen to reconfigure received theology or ethics in the service of diverseculturalinterestgroups.

Now the church is once again racked by division. Cardinal Walter Kasperreferred not long ago to the disillusionment and stagnation of the current"ecumenicalwinter."SpeakingtotheChurchofEngland'sHouseofBishopsin2006,hewarnedthatcertaindecisionsunderconsideration"wouldleadnotonlyto a short-lived cold, but to a serious and long-lasting chill."2 The Anglicancommunionhasbeenstaringintotheabyssofschismasaresultofeventsthathave fractured internal fellowship and temporarily shut down high-leveldialoguewithRomanCatholic andOrthodox churches, and alsowithMuslimgroups.Seeminglysubsidiarythemesaboutchurchorder,discipline,andpastoralstructure are widely experienced as church-dividing, even where other,apparentlymorecentral theologicalconvictionsmaysometimesstillbeheld incommon.

Butwhyisthis?Isitperhapsthecasethatthesubstanceofseeminglysharedbeliefsinfactevaporatesonclosersemanticscrutiny?Ifso, that inturnmakesthe disputes about the apparently peripheral suddenly standout like tips of aniceberg of fundamental hermeneutical proportions. Vatican II and subsequentdocuments like the Catholic Catechism spoke movingly and perhapsoptimistically about "separated churches and communities." But did thatlanguageassumetherudimentsofasharedhistoricorthodoxfaithtobebeyondall the mainstream denominations? Precisely that question is now in seriousdoubt. A few years ago the so-called Princeton Proposal for Christian Unityimpliedinpartthatconventionalecumenismnolongerworksbecausetodaythemajority of the world's theologically engaged churches have in certainfundamentalsmoreincommonwitheachotherthanwiththeofficialstructuresof what was once called mainline Protestantism, structures to which some ofthemmaycontinueofficiallytobelong.'

We could go on for a long time in this vein, highlighting the problem ofspeakingmeaningfullyabout"TheChurch."Butdoes theNewTestamenthaveanyguidancetooffer?Thereareobviouslymanywaystoanswerthat.Asaway

to reenergize reflection on this subject, I would like here to revisit a famousecumenicaldebateabout thisquestionbetweentwoNewTestamentscholarsatthetimeoftheSecondVaticanCouncil.

RevisitingtheKasemann-BrownDebate

InMontreal onTuesday, 16 July1963, theFourthWorldConferenceonFaithand order convened for a session on the church in the New Testament. Twogiants of New Testament scholarship had been invited to give presentations,Ernst Kasemann (1906-1998) and the relatively junior Raymond E. Brown(1928-1998). They represented a Protestant viewpoint and Catholic one,respectively; in fact, Brown noted at the start that he was the first RomanCatholicevertohaveaddressedsuchaconference.Thesetwobriefbutpowerfulinterpretations of the New Testament evidence turned out to be strikinglydifferent.Almost half a century later there is inevitably something quaint anddatedabout the intellectualpostureof these scholars:manyof their certaintieshaveceasedtobesocertain;andother,especiallyreader-orientedconsiderationshavebecomerathermorecentral.ThereisasummaryintheProceedingsoftheFaithandOrderconference,andbothpaperswerelaterpublishedseparately.4

Kasemann

Kasemann spoke first, as arguably the doyen of German postwar NewTestamentscholarship,whichwasthenstill infullbloom.HespokeapparentlyunawareofwhatBrownwouldsay; in fact,hemadenoreference toBrownatall.KasemannfocusedontheintensehistoricalparticularityofanyandallNewTestament statements about the church, whose incessant change andcontradiction allows us no more than a diversified range of ecclesiologicalarchetypes.Jesusfoundednoglobalchurch,nordidheevenexpressadesirethatsucha thing shouldexist.Anynotionof ecclesiological coherencewas lost assoonas thechurchreachedout togentilesbecauseitwasnow"notpossible totalkseriouslyoftherenewedpeopleofGod,butonlyofthenewinantithesistothe old."' Newly separated from its Jewish roots, gentile Christianity had toevolvearitualandorganizationalstructuretokeepecstaticexcessesincheck;itturned to thepaganmystery religions tohelpdevelopanotionofChrist as itscultic god, baptism as a ritual representation of the resurrection, and theEucharist as the banquet of the elect. Establishing thiswas always a struggle,

worked out over against the challenge from charismatic enthusiasts and frompriestly sacramentalists. So, for example, Paul's driving concern is "to guardequally against Judaism and enthusiasm"6-continuity with Israel or the OldTestament, such as it is, functions at best as a continuity of "promise andmiracle,"relativizedthroughoutbythehistoryofunfaith.

Onlyinthepost-Paulineperiod,Kasemannargued,didaformofchurchorderemergeoutof theneed tocombatwhathecalls "enthusiasm,"and for this thechurch reverted to Jewish-Christian forms of government for its owndevelopmentofamonarchicalepiscopate.Kasemannclaimedthat intheworldof the postPauline epistles ecclesiology virtually displaces eschatology andbecomeslargelyindependentofChristology.Beforelongarisestheclaimofoneholyandapostolicchurch thatembodies thecontinuityofsalvationhistory-thebeginningofwhatGermanscholarsinKasemann'sdaystill likedtocall"earlycatholicism."

Johannine Christianity represents for Kasemann a "counter-offensive," bothinternallyandvis-a-visthesePaulineandearlycatholicdevelopments.ForJohn,the dominant theme is the presence of Christ and theWord of Christ, whichrelativizesandindeedeclipsesallotherconcerns,includingchurch,ministry,andsacraments.(ThisisarguablytheflipsideofKasemann'sfamousassertionthattheFourthGospel'sChristologyis"naivelydocetic."')

Kasemannconcededthatcertaindetailsofhissurveymightbedebatable.Buthis overall conclusionwas that the determining feature of theNewTestamentdoctrineof thechurch isprecisely its intensehistorical and socialparticularityandrelativity,sothatnouniformviewofthechurchemerges.Hisrelativismisnot radical to the point ofwelcoming any and all diversity: at some level thequestionofChristianunitydoesremainforhim"identicalwith thequestionofChristiantruth."'

Kasemann'sconclusionwasfamouslystarkandiconoclastic:

No romantic postulate, however enveloped it maybe in the cloak ofsalvationhistory,canbepermittedtoweakenthesoberobservationthatthehistorian is unable to speak of an unbroken unity of New Testamentecclesiology. In that field he becomes aware of our own situation inmicrocosm-differences, difficulties, contradictions, at best an ancient

ecumenicalconfederationwithoutanEcumenicalCouncil.')

Thenasnow,"God'sSpirithoversoverthewatersofachaos."10

Finally,however,Kasemanndidnotetheparadoxthatdespite themessyandcontradictory phenomena, somehow early Christianity did proclaim "the oneChurch,notinthesenseofatheoryoforganicdevelopmentbutinthenameoftherealityandthetruthoftheHolySpirit.""Hisanswertothatparadoxwasthattheunityofthechurchhasnovisiblerealitybutcanbeapprehendedonlybytheeyeof faithandasa reality that isyet to takehold in theworld tocome.Thechurchassuchhasnosubstanceatall;itisfirstandforemostaneschatologicalvision, above all a vision of Christology. Christology must increase, andecclesiology must decrease: theWord of Christ must be given free access tofacilitate for each individual Christian immediate access to Christ's presence-that,andthatalone,mustbetheconcernandthelimitofanyandalltraditionandministrywithinthechurch.Christhimselfaloneistheunityofhischurch.

Brown

NextupwasRaymondE.Brown.Hewasthenbarelythirty-fiveyearsold;hissubsequentmajorJohanninetomeswereasyetameretwinkleinhiseye,nottomentionhisworkon thebirthandpassionnarrativesorahostofother topics.Brown responded more overtly to Kasemann's tour de force, not alwaysexplicitly or point by point, but nonetheless unmistakably. (Hemay also haveknown an earlier published lecture thatKasemann had given in 1951.)Brownbeganbyaddressingthreefundamentalareasofdisagreement:

1. Rather than reading the Gospels in isolation from the historical Jesus,appreciative interpretationof all the stagesof traditionwould leadone to"respectboth the theologicalnatureof theGospelsand thestagesof theircomposition without needlessly undermining their value as witnesses toJesusofNazareth."Thismattersforecclesiologyasforotherissues.

2.BrownstressedthatLuke-Actsisaninterpretationofreceivedtheologicalinsights and cannot be reduced to a late harmonization of incompatiblePalestinianandgentileviewsofthechurchintoacoherentconstruct.

3. Brown emphasized, "A study of pseudepigrapha in the Bible seems to

indicate thatgenerallyapseudepigraphicalwork isattributed toanauthorbecause it is a continuation of his thought, style, or spirit, rather thanbecauseitisdesignedtocorrecthistheology.Therefore,wemustproceedwithcareindrawingasharplineofdemarcationbetweenPaulinetheologyandthatofthePastorals.""

AfterthusputtingastretchofclearbluewaterbetweenhisownstanceandthatofKasemann,BrownproceededtoaffirmoneofthemainpointsofKasemann'spresentation: theNewTestamentdocumentsoffernopictureof linearprogresstowardauniformpositiononthechurch.Theremostcertainlyishugediversityanddevelopment,bynomeansalwaysinanorderlymanner.Yet that therearelimitstothisdiversityiseasilyseeninthefactthatthechurchwasneverbroadenough to include either Ebionite or Marcionite excesses. The facts can beunderstoodonlydialectically: therearedifferent theologiespresent in theNewTestament,andyettheirauthorsalsoshowaclearconsciousnessofbelongingtotheoneChristianchurch,andtheirdifferentecclesiologiesaffirmcertainfeaturesstronglyheldincommon.

This thesis directly contradicts a basic tenet of Kasemann, and Brownproceeded immediately to illustrate his claim in relation to three areas ofcommon conviction: continuity with Israel, apostolicity, and baptism andEucharist.

On Israel, Brown acknowledges the development of both continuity andnewness with varying degrees of emphasis and of more or less spiritualizingdevelopment.TheearliestChristiansourcesstresstherestorationortherenewalof Israel, often through symbolismsuchas thechurch'sbase in Jerusalem, theTwelve, and the very title of ekklesia, which is the same word used in theSeptuagintofthepeopleofGodassembledatMountSinai.Heacceptsthattherewasaradicalanti-JewishgroupcalledtheHellenists,anideathathassincefallenoutoffashion;butevenso,herejectsthenotionthattheywerethespokesmenforgentileChristianity.AndBrownmakes theobviousbutoften ignoredpointthattheveryfactofPaul'scomplicatedexplanationofdescentfromAbrahamisproofofhisconvictionthatcontinuitywithIsraelmatteredtohim.

On apostolicity, the Gospels' lists of the Twelve show their continuingsymbolicimportinthelaterfirstcentury,evenaslateasthebookofRevelation(Rev. 21:14). This stress on the Twelve also demonstrates the fallacy of the

cliche about an originally "spiritual" church being fossilized into a laterauthoritarianhierarchicalchurch:Paul'slettersshowanapostolicstructurefromthe very beginning,which in significant respects echoes Jewish organizationalstructuresknownfromtheDeadSeaScrolls.13

Finally,BrownmadeanumberofpointsonbaptismintheNewTestamentasconsistently rooted in notions of repentance and spiritual renewal (notingparallels in theOld Testament and at Qumran), and about the Eucharist, as amealbothofremembranceandofeschatologicalexpectation.

Inconclusion,andasiftounderlinethemethodologicalchasmseparatinghisapproach from that of Kasemann, Brown stressed his conviction that "thesubsequenthistoryoftheChurchinthepost-apostolicperiodisalsoawitnesstotheChurchoftheNTsincetheSpiritofChristdidnotceasetoworkwhentheNT was completed and this Spirit in the Church guarantees continuity inessentials."14And in contrast toKasemann's stresson individual faith,Brownaffirms,withothercatholicinterpreters,thatChristianlifeisonlyeverfoundinacommunityboundtoChrist.

Assessment

There isnodoubt thatbiblical scholarshipandecumenicaldebatehavemovedonalongwaysincethateveninginMontrealoverforty-fiveyearsago.Manyofthese judgmentswouldbeformulatedratherdifferentlynow,whileothershavelargelydisappeared.Andyetbothof these sharply contrastingNewTestamentpositionsretainapowerfuluseaspointsofreferenceforcontemporaryecclesialconcerns, frompostmodern ideological criticism to the emergent church, fromcatholictoPentecostalmegachurchecclesiology,fromliberaltocommunitarianreadingsofsocialorder.Itdoesseemtomethatthefundamentalhermeneuticalposturesof thetwopapersstillhavetheirrespectivesympathizerseventoday,"andthismakesthemusefuldiscussionstartersforthediversespreadofopinionrepresented in any contemporary audience.Here Iwill offer comments on thepositivecontributionsofbothlinesofthoughtbeforegoingontoproposesomepossibleavenuesfordiscussion.

StrengthsofKdsemann'sApproach

ErnstKasemann'spositioncontinuesinsomewaystobeparticularlysuitedto

apostmodernaccountofmeaning,inwhichclaimsofreference,truth,orunityaredeferred,sometimesindefinitely,andinsteadaresubordinatedunderpoliticalconcernsassociatedwithcompetingpursuitsofpower.Kasemann'spositionwasinfactanticipatedintwoofhispreviousstudies.Thefirstwasa1949lectureonecclesial office inwhich he sharply contrasted the Pauline and theLukan anddeutero-Pauline notions of church order.' In another lecture, two years later atGottingen,hehadaddressedthequestion"DoesthecanonoftheNewTestamentconstitutethefoundationoftheunityofthechurch?"Answer:"No.""Instead,initsirreconcilablediversitytheNewTestamentcanon"providesthebasisforthemultiplicity of the confessions."" In stressing the fundamental diversity of theNewTestament'stheologicalpositions,Kasemanncametoasserttheirreduciblerelativityof thekerygnza.On that reading, the intractable fragmentationof thechurches today has its justification in the equally radical multiplicity ofconflictingconfessionalpositionswithintheNewTestamentitself.

InMontrealthequestionwasmorespecificallyabouttheunityofthechurchrather than the canon, but the same hermeneutic prevailed. To our presentquestion,"DoestheNewTestamenthaveadoctrineofthechurch?"Kasemann'sanswerisalsoanemphaticno,andonmuchthesamegrounds:thedivisionsofthechurchreflecttheNewTestament'sowninnercontradictionsaboutwhatthechurchisorshouldbe.Itisworthponderingthattheclaimheregoesbeyondtheassertion of irreducible plurality, which was the subject of various otherecumenical studies around the time of Kasemann's presentation.19 ForKasemann, a unity of the New Testament's conceptions of the church is notmerelyrefractedthroughthe"interrelation"oftheirplurality(asPaulMinearputit),butwhollyimpossibleexceptinrelationtothefuturekingdomofGod.SowecannotreallydevelopaNewTestamentecclesiologyatall.

Agooddealofcontemporarybiblicalscholarshiptendstoagreethat there isnothing here to be discussed. One standard referencework, theAnchor BibleDictionary, packs six thousand articles into 7,200 pages without finding anyspaceforanentryentitled"Church."ElsewherewefindunsynthesizedsurveysofNewTestamentecclesiologies.20Toooftenwherescholarsdospeakof"thechurch,"theytypicallymeaneither"mychurch"orelseadevotionalconstructofcatholicpolitythatdoesnot,however,haverealpoliticalexistence.Kasemann'sinsistenceoncanonicalorecclesialunityasapurelyeschatologicalconceptionhasperhapsrathermoreintegrity.

Atthetime,Kasemann'scriticallyscintillatingproposalsbothaboutthecanonandaboutthechurchgeneratedagreatdealofinterest,notleastfromayouthfulHansKung,who drewonKasemann's (andKung's)Tubingen colleagueHansDiem to suggest amore constructive account of the roleofFruhkatholizismusand the singularity of the New Testament canon.21 Kung rightly notes thatKasemann'sonlywaytosafeguardhisfiercelyLutheranpositioninthefaceofthe New Testament's evident tendencies to catholicity is to resist themvigorously through a Protestant conspiracy of silent suppression orunderinterpretation,arefusaltoheartheNewTestamentasawhole.22AsKungputs it, Kasemann's hermeneutical normativity is deliberately to confuse aProtestant construal of die Mitte der Schri (the center of Scripture) with theecclesialtransmissionofdasGanzederSchrift(thewholeofScripture).23

Kasemann himself appeared impenitent in his response: far from concedingthatthewisdomofagemightleadhimtoamorebalancedposition,hecontinuedcheerfully to champion the virtue of theological polemicism.24 In order tounderstandKasemann'spersistence in thishermeneuticalstance late in life,wemust consider that the torture and assassination of his daughter Elisabeth byArgentinian secret police in 1977 reinforced all his political instincts hatchedfortyyearsearlier,whentheGestapohaddetainedhimforhispastoralsupportofcommunist miners.2' His commitment to polemicism was motivated bothpersonallyandtheologically:inareflectiveessayin1982hedescribedhimselfas an "angry oldman" (zorniger alterMann) '21while in an interview on theoccasionofhiseightiethbirthdayin1986heassertedthat"theHolySpirit isapolemicist"(derHeiligeGeististeinPolemilker).27Tenyearslater,hisparting"last word and testament" at the University of Tubingen's celebration of hisninetiethbirthdaywas"Resistez!Discipleshipof theCrucifiedOnenecessarilyleadstoresistanceagainstidolatryoneveryfront;andthatresistanceisandmustbethemostimportantcharacteristicofChristianfreedom."26

HewascontenttodeclarehimselfunabletohearthevoiceoftheoneChristinthemultipleNewTestamentsourcesandexplicitlyuninterested in theslightestwhetherthechurch'stwothousandyearsofexperiencemightsuggestadifferentviewwContrary to Kung's concern for das Ganze, Kasemann reverted to thedoctrineofjustificationastheonlyprinciplethatensurestheearnestbutslipperyLutherancanoncriticismof"whatpromotesChrist"(wasChristumtreibet).;0Intheend,KasemannacknowledgesthattheChristiancanonbearsforhim,asfor

Marcion,thesuperscript"TotheUnknownGod.";'

Even after half a century it is not difficult to discern here hermeneuticaloptions subsequently exercised by interpreters committed to privilegingconflictual and power analyses as the preferred mode of interpreting earlyChristiantexts,bothwithinandbeyondthecanon.DanielHarringtonisrighttoseeinKasemannadesiretoexaltecclesialandcanonicaldiversitytoakindofmetaphysical ideal;32yetwhat is forHarringtonacriticismhas inpostmoderndiscourse been embraced, somewhat paradoxically, as the hegemonicmetanar-rative. Within English-speaking New Testament scholarship this mode ofinterpretationreceivedaboostinthe1972EnglishtranslationofWalterBauer'sseminal1934workOrthodoxyandHeresyinEarliestChristianity,whichcametobefurtherreinforcedbythedominanttrendsinmuchpostmodernideologicalcriticism.ButasJohnWebstershowsinhiscontributiontothisvolume,evenaleadingorthodoxtheologiansuchasRowanWilliams,inhisbookOnChristianTheology,advocatessuchanapproachtoScriptureasmostfaithfultothe"literalsense,"goingontointerpretinnercanonicalconflictasprovidingthepatternforcontemporaryinterpretationsoftheunityofthechurch.13

There is, in my view, no doubt that Kasemann's stance continues to speakpowerfully to the hermeneutical inclinations of our present cultural moment.Whetheroneagreeswithhimornot,thereisagenuineanddynamiccontributionhere.Onthepositiveside,hisapproachfacilitatestheconcernforachurchfullycommittedtoenfranchisingminorities,achurchthatisspirituallyenergizedfromthebottomup rather than from the topdown, fullyparticularizedas tocultureandsocialsetting.Andinhiswillingnesstoexploittensionsandcontradictionsto the fullest,Kasemannmanages to bring to life the color and liveliness andinstability that undoubtedly are present in the New Testament's diverseconceptionsofthechurch.Thereareindeedanumberofelementsintensionthatmayseemirreconcilableevenatthepointwhereitmightappearmostfruitfultoreconcile them. And it is clearly true, in fact it is a truism, that unity ismeaningless where there is no diversity. For Christian faith, diversity anddifferentiationarebuiltinsomesignificantsenseintotheverybeingofGod.34AndasJamesDunnhasputitmorerecently,"DiversityisasfundamentaltotheChristianityof theNTas is theunityofEaster andPentecost ...without it theChurchcannotexistasChrist'sbody."35

StrengthsofBrown'sApproach

Raymond Brown, for his part, developed his own thought on thesemattersfurther after his initial paper inMontreal; he wrote considerablymore on thesame topic in his own subsequent scholarship. His book The Churches theApostlesLeftBehind (1984), forexample, filledoutmuchof theevidence forhisposition andmade it a gooddealmorenuanced.Although in that bookhecitesneitherhisownearlieressaynoranyofKasemann'swork,hisconclusionremainscompatiblewithwhathesaid inMontreal:nooneauthorgivesus theNew Testament doctrine of the church, and there is no consistent or uniformdoctrineof the church that emerges even from the second-generationwritings;indeed,asidefromcomplementarystrengths, it is remarkablyeasy topointout"glaring shortcomings" in each of the available ecclesiological perspectivestakeninisolation.Inasense,heretraceshisstepsingreaterdetailtocovermuchoftheNewTestamentevidencethatKasemannhadusedtobaitthedefendersofecclesiological coherence in the canon. The key emphases that Brown herehighlightsareconcernsfor

•churchstructureinthePastoralEpistles;

•thebodyofChristinColossiansandEphesians;

•thechurchintheSpiritinLuke-Acts;

•theonepeopleofGodin1Peter;

•acommunityofpeople individually in fellowshipwithJesus in theFourthGospel,andindividuallyguidedbytheParacleteintheJohanninewritings;

•asenseofauthoritythatdoesnotstifleJesusinMatthew

Fortoday,Brownasserts,thisNewTestamentdiversityonecclesiologymakesitveryproblematicforanyonechurchtoclaimabsolutefaithfulnesstoScripture:NewTestamentecclesiologymakesusaware"thatthereareotherwaysofbeingfaithful to which we do not do justice"; in that sense, "every Christiancommunity ... is neglecting part of the NT witness."36 Nevertheless, Brownexplicitly retains the conviction that "most of the NT was written before themajorbreaksinkoinoniadetectable in thesecondcentury,andsoNTdiversity

cannotbeusedtojustifyChristiandivisiontoday."37ThiscontinuesexplicitlytocontradictKasemann'sfundamentalthesis.

New Testament Ecclesiology as Doctrinal Norm? ThreeObservations

In a fuller treatment, various other areas of potential (and potentiallycontentious)ecclesiologicalconvergenceintheNewTestamentmightfruitfullybeexplored,rangingfrombaptismandEucharist,whichBrowncited,tomattersofeschatologyorchurchdiscipline,whichhedidnot.

Here, however, I want to suggest three ways of bringing this debate intosharperfocusforthisvolume'sreflectiononthedoctrinalnormativityofwhat,inchapter 12 below, Kevin Vanhoozer terms "the apostolic discourse and itsdevelopments."Allthreeofmysuggestionsexpressconcernsthathaverisentomuchgreaterawarenessintheologicaldebateoverthepasthalf-century,evenifallremaincontestedinbiblicalandtheologicalscholarshipandinthechurchestoo. They appear here in no particular order of importance (though movingperhapsfromleasttomostcontested).

TheChurchasIsrael

On the church's continuity with Israel and the God of Israel, subsequentdevelopmentsintheologyhaveidentifiedhereafarmorepressingquestionthaneven Brown acknowledged. This is not just a matter of style or of interfaithdiplomacy; it cuts to the heart of what itmeans to have faith in Jesus as theMessiahoftheGodofIsrael.38

It isworth underlining the simple point that as soon as theNewTestamentwriters used theword ekklesia as a collective term in the singular, theyweremakingaprofoundtypologicalpointaboutthecommunityofJewsandgentiles,gatheredaroundIsrael'sChrist,asidentifiedwiththeChosenPeoplewhomGodhas redeemed and commissioned for his salvation of the world. As WilliamHorburyputitinastudyoftheSeptuagintalconnections,"Toagreatextent...,NT conceptions of theChurchwere ready-made before the apostles preached;and this is true not only of the imagery most readily applicable to the pre-existentoridealChurch,butalsoofdescriptionsoftheempiricalassembly.""

It is of course true that claims to be the people of God are in some textsassertedpolemically,asagainstpersecutorsorotherdetractorsofthisfaithintheGodofIsrael.Therearedifficultpassagesonthissubject in theFourthGospelandotherNewTestamentbooks;andsimilarpolemicsarealsofamiliarbetweenotherfirst-centuryJewishgroups.Butforalltheirundoubtedlyproblematicandvolatilelanguageofsupersession,noNewTestamenttextsapplyOldTestamentIsrael language to the church in exclusion of Judaism per se, just as noauthentically apostolicChristiangroup in theNewTestament excommunicatesany other such group from the Israel of God. We can put this point morestrongly:fortheNewTestamentauthors,itispreposteroustothinkoftheNewCovenantpeopleoftheGodofIsraelintermsotherthanthoseoftheoneChosenPeople, however fractured its relationship may be with the unfaithful withinIsrael.

TheoverwhelmingconsensusoftheNewTestamentisbestreadasexpressedinthePaulineconvictionthatwhathappenedto"ourfathers"inthewildernessofSinaiwas "written for our instruction" in theNewCovenant (1 Cor. 10:11)-aclear indication of an ecclesiology unapologetically conceived around the oneelectpeopleofGod.40All this iscompatiblewith recentChristian retrievalofthe conviction that God has not revoked his covenant but rather has includedgentilebelieverswithinit.Evidenceofthatretrievalisclearinpost-WorldWarIItheology ranging from John Paul II towriters onChristian-Jewish dialogue.4'But evenwithinChristianity's normative founding text, fromMatthew to PaulandHebrewsit isclear that theOldTestamentfathersandmothersof thefaithareourfathersandmothersofthefaith.FortheNewTestamentwritersthisisaconviction troubledbutundeterredby itswidespread if temporary rejectiononthepartofmostJews.

AsGeorgeLindbeckrecentlyshowed,thatsameconvictionwasimperiledonthe Christian side by Marcionite anti-church-as-Israel reading in the secondcenturybutwasconfirmedbyarenewedemphasisontheOldTestamentinthethird century.42 There is no space here to run through the wealth ofecclesiologicalimagerythatconfirmsthisunderstanding,butIwouldaddthattoviewthechurchasanti-Israel,orasanythingotherthanIsrael,isalreadytolosesightofitsownidentityasthebodyofChrist,aunityindiversity:JesusistheuniqueSonoftheGodofIsraelwhointheparableofthevineyardinextricablylinkedhisfatetothedeliveranceandrenewalofIsrael;andheistheonewhom

the New Testament affirms, precisely in his risen body, as saving Lord andMessiahofIsrael(e.g.,Rom.1:3-4;Acts2:36).41

ApostolicityandWitness

MysecondcommentrelatesquitecloselytothequestionaboutIsraelandthechurchinrelationtotheMessiahofIsrael.Itseemstomethatweshouldnotlosesight of the significance of what appears for Brown under the heading of"apostolicity";Kasemannconsidersitbrieflyundertherubricof"witness."Thepointhereisfairlysimple:despiteclaimstothecontrary,fromtheearliesttothelatest writings of the New Testament and into the second century there is aconsistent sense that the Christian gospel is not reinvented ad hoc but ratherconsists of the message of Jesus as entrusted to individual and often namedapostolic witnesses. Subsequent generations acknowledge themselves to bedependentonthosewitnesses,whetherinEphesians,inHebrews,in2Peter,orintheGospelofJohn.Althoughtheecclesialphenomenavaryenormously,thisapostolicity of the church, whether derived from a single founding figure ormultiple figures, is not relativizedbynew revelations that some (like the laterMontanistsorgnostics)mayclaim.

Interestingly, even some pseudepigraphal and later gnostic writings in theirownwayreinforcethistrend,sincemanyoftheirnewrevelationsandassertionsabout theoriginof thefaithareclad in termsofencountersbetweenJesusandhis closest disciples, albeit cast in a postresurrection mode that is generallyuninterestedintheearthlyJesus.Formostsecond-centuryrecipientsofthefirst-century texts thatwecall theNewTestament, it is impossible tobeassuredofauthenticecclesiallifeifonestandsoutsidethetraditionoftheapostles;andforIrenaeus,thatalsomeansifoneisnotincommunionwiththechurchofthegreatapostolic foundations.This rule of faith is the consistent second-centuryvoicethatshapesthecanonandisitselfshapedbyit.Theliving,enactedtestimonyoftheapostlesandtheirstudentsembodiedtheempoweredwitnessofChrist;foritsadherentsthisiswhatmadethechurchChristian,andthisalonegaveassurancethatitstandsincontinuitywiththechurchofthebeginnings.

Kasemann,inmyview,seriouslyunderplaysthispointaboutthe"tangibility"of apostolicity, which may today constitute a litmus test for the theologicalintegrityofProtestantchurches,whethertheirflavoris"oldline"or"emergent."EventhewitnessesofHebrews11aresidelinedinKasemann'saccountwhenhe

assertsthat"theyareonlyhiswitnesses...insofarastheyreceivetheirwitnessfromGodandtheMessiah."44Towhichthereplymustbe:trueenough,butthepointofsuchpassagesispreciselythattheOldTestamentsaintsareinfacttheauthenticwitnessesoffaith,andthattheybearauthenticwitnesstoGodandtoChrist.ThecontingencyoftheirwitnesstakesnothingawayfromitsauthenticityThisiswheregoodandseriousdiscussionmightengageKasemannaboutwhatitmeanstoaffirmtheapostolicityofauthenticfaith.

DidJesusHaveaDoctrineoftheChurch?

Mythirdcommentisinsomewaysjustateaser.Itmaysoundinnocuousandself-evident, but within New Testament scholarship it is perhaps the mostcontroversialofall.Writers from theearly twentieth-centuryFrenchmodernistAlfredLoisy(1857-1940)viaKasemanntothepresentdaygooutoftheirwayto say that Jesus founded no church and intended no identifiable community.ThisiscontinuallyreaffirmedinvariousNewTestamentpublications.AsLoisyfamouslyputit,"JesusforetoldthekingdomofGod,anditwasthechurchthatcame."45Andeveninabookpublishedin2006JamesDunncontinuestoinsist,"TherewasnocommunityassuchfunctioningalongsideoraroundJesus."46

Historically, of course, Christian communities of all denominational andcreedal stripes have always tended to claim for their own particular ecclesialorder the imprimatur of none other than Christ himself and his apostles. Thereality is that therewas never a timewhen diversitywas not part of the veryfabric of the Jesusmovement; evenLuke's harmonic account of the church inJerusalemmakesthatclear.SodidJesusintendamessianiccommunityornot?AnddoestheNewTestamenthaveanotionofthechurch?

We can saywith some confidence that Jesus' calling and commissioning ofgroups such as the Twelve and the Seventy was deliberately symbolic of aneschatological renewal of Sinaitic Israel gathered around twelve tribal princesandseventyelders-whatStepheninActs7calls"theekklesiainthewilderness"(Acts7:38).

AllfourGospelsaffirmthatJesussingledouttwelvemenasaninnercoreofthe larger group of disciples, although relatively less ismade of this in John.NewTestamentscholarshipgenerallyregardstheirappointmentasauthentic,andtheirsymbolismtooisnotinseriousdoubt.47InitsbiblicalandJewishsetting

this eschatological institution of the Twelve conveys a theocentric andspecifically messianic reconstitution of the entire biblical Israel under theleadership of tribal judges and their king. This restoration of biblical Israel'stwelve tribeswas amessage deeply rooted in theOldTestament and of somecontinuing interest in theearlychurch,evenafter thedemiseof theTwelve. Itwould be salutary for contemporary ecclesiologies to bemore attentive to theprinciple, evident inActs and theEpistles asmuchas in theGospels, that thechurch'sapostolicformisafunctionofitsapostolicmission.41

For Jesus, this was the hoped-for outcome of his mission on the Father'sbehalf, which would culminate in the Son ofMan'smessianic rule as Israel'sking.InJesus'case,hisvisionof thekingdomofGodwascharacterizedbyaneschatologicalmission to gather in the leaderless "lost sheep" of the house ofIsrael(e.g.,Mark6:34;Matt.9:36;10:6;15:24).49Hesummonedhisdisciplesaswelltohismissionofgoodnewstothepoor,theblind,thedeaf,thelame,andthelepers,whoweretobeinitiatedintothekingdombywashingawaytheirsinsinabaptismofrepentance.Thiskingdomof the lostsheepofIsrael is theonethat Jesus would rule and whose tribes the Twelve would judge. His owninnocentsufferinganddeathwereinsomewayinstrumentaltotherealizationofthis vision; and although the New Testament writers do not offer a coherentstatementabouthoworwhythisshouldbeso,theSynopticsandPaulagreethatJesusexpressedhisownaccountofthematterbyinstitutingaeucharisticmealthatbecamethefocusoftheircorporateremembranceandworship.

Qumran too had a vision of the renewed Israel, a wilderness congregation(gahal) foundedandbuiltuponstrict sectarianobservanceandseparation fromtheunfaithfulinIsrael.Jesus,bycontrast,toldPeterthathewouldbuildhisownmessianic ekklesia on the confession of faith in the Messiah of Israel (Matt.16:18). Commentators are divided on the authenticity of that saying, but itcapturestheaimsofJesus'ministrybrilliantly.Jesus,asthesonofthevineyardowner,hasashismissionthesalvationofthevineyard,whichtaskheservedbyhis life, death, and resurrection.50And the apostles followed his footsteps intaking thatmission to Israel and thenations.Can Jesus' storyof thepeopleofGodbeanylesscompellingforChristiandogmaticstoday?

3

JohannineChristologyandJewish-ChristianDialogue

R.W.L.MOBERLYOne of the contemporary growth areas of theology is interfaith dialogue.Although our particular focus here is Jewish-Christian dialogue, we shouldrememberthatthisissituatedwithinawidercontext,notleastdialoguealsowithIslaminencountersofthe"threeAbrahamicfaiths."

Thiswidercontextis,ofcourse,complex.Forexample,howfarisdialoguearesponse to secularizing pressures, which perhaps lead to a desire to findcommongroundat theexpenseof traditional theologicalunderstandings?Thatis, is dialogue yet another nail in the coffin of theology,where theologymustyield to ethical priorities, nonspecific spirituality, and an outlook of genialbonhomieinplaceofodiumtheologicum?'Alternatively,couldthesecularizingpressures lead to a refreshed understanding of traditional resources, especiallyScripture, in which one is forced to relinquish the luxury of historic culturalprejudicesandpolemicsinfavorofamoresearchingengagementwiththerealsubjectmatter of faith?To be sure, there could be no simple answers to suchquestions, andonecan readily findexamplesofboth trends.Butweshouldatleastnotethatourspecificconcern,theinterfacebetweendoctrineandScriptureinrelationtoJewish-Christiandialogue,issubjecttomanymoreinfluencesthancanbeconsideredinthisshortessay.

Contemporary debate about theology, scriptural interpretation, and interfaithdialogueisextensive.Onecouldvaluablyapproachitbylookingattheissuesinrelation to particular significant thinkers in the interfaith field, such as JohnHick, Paul Knitter, Jacques Dupuis, Kenneth Cragg, and Gavin D'Costa. Myfocus,however,willberestrictedtoonefamousNewTestamenttextandaspects

ofitsresponsibleappropriation.

DoJewsandChristiansWorship"theSameGod"?

I would like briefly to preface my study with one wider consideration. Afundamental presupposition of dialogue between the Abrahamic faiths' is thatparticipantsgrantthatwithineachrespectivefaithtraditionthereis,insomewayand to some degree, genuine engagement with God. The formulation of thispresuppositioncan,however,betricky.

ThepresuppositionissometimesformulatedintermsofJews,Christians,andMuslims all worshiping "the same God." For example, the important JewishstatementonChristianity,DabruEmet,issuedinthemillennialyear2000,hasasthe firstof its eight theses that "JewsandChristiansworship the sameGod."4Indeed, thiscansoundsoobvioustodialogue-mindedJewsandChristiansthatoneriskssomeopprobriumbyqueryingit-acaseinpointbeingthefateofJonLevenson, a longtime participant in Jewish-Christian dialogue, when hesuggestedtohisfellowJewsthatthereisgoodreasonforJewstoresistanysuchformulation.5 Levenson observed that, among other things, for traditionalChristianity, Jesus is constitutive of the identity of God; in the words of theNiceneCreed,Jesusis"trueGodfromtrueGod."Insummary,"participants inJewish-Christian dialogue often speak as if Jews and Christians agreed aboutGod but disagreed about Jesus. They have forgotten that in a very real sense,orthodox Christians believe Jesus is God."6 Language about worshiping "thesameGod"iscareless,asitelidesthedifferencebetweenGodinhimselfandtheunderstandingsofdistinct faith traditions. In itsplace it is surelypreferable tospeak of Jews, Christians, and Muslims as respectively worshiping "the oneGod."SuchaformulationrespectsanaffirmationthatiscentraltoeachtraditionandleavesonebetterplacedtoengagewithdifferingconstrualsofthenatureandidentityofthatoneGodandtheirrespectiveimplicationsforbeliefandpractice.

John14:6andInterpretativeStrategiesofEvasion

FromaChristianperspective,interfaithdialoguenecessarilyraisesquestionsofChristology.ItisperhapsJohn'sGospelthatposesthechristologicalissuesmostsharply.WithinJohn'sGospel,Jesus'words"Iamtheway,thetruth,andthelife;noonecomestotheFatherexceptthroughme"(John14:6)mostfamouslypose

theissueofparticularityandexclusivityandthuswillconstitutethefocushere.7

This is a difficult text to handle well. Mainly this is because too manyinterpreterstendtotakeitasafreestandingaxiom,inrelativeisolationfromitsJohannine frameof reference,andassume that itmeans (as Ihaveheardnotafewpreacherssay)"NobodycanknowGodapartfromfaithinJesusChrist."Myapproach is to consider what the words do, and do not, mean within theirJohanninecontext.

First,however,Iwantbrieflytonotetwoexamplesofhowsomeinterpreterscan feel obliged to adopt an approach that is in essence a means ofcircumventingwhatthetextappearstobesaying.

The first is from Marcus Braybrooke, whose credentials in the area ofinterfaithdialogueareimpressive.HehasbeenexecutivedirectoroftheCouncilforChristiansandJews,iscurrentlypresidentoftheWorldCongressofFaiths,andhasbeenawardedaLambethDoctorofDivinitydegreebythearchbishopofCanterbury "in recognition of his contribution to the development ofinterreligious co-operation and understanding throughout the world."' In hisTimetoMeetBraybrookewrites,

AtanymeetingwherethesubjectoftherelationshipofChristianitytootherfaithsisdiscussed,someoneissuretoquotethewords"NomancomethtotheFatherbutthroughme"(John14:6).CriticalscholarshiphasmadeclearthatthewordsofJesusquotedintheFourthGospelshouldnotbetreatedashis actual words. Equally important, although claims to unique authoritywereimplicitinJesus'teaching,historicallyatleast,christologicalclaimsintheNewTestamenthavetobetreatedwithcaution....ManyNewTestamentscholarsnowrecognizethatJesus'ownmessagecenteredonthekingdomofGod rather than on himself. Further, traditional understandings of thedoctrine of incarnation are being re-examined. Some writers suggest thatovermuchemphasisonJesushasobscuredthefactthatJesusleadsustotheFather,theoneGodofallhumankind.9

Although theargumentof thispassage is implicit rather thanexplicit, its cleartenorisstronglyresistanttofindingcontinuingtheologicalsignificanceinJohn14:6.Ontheonehand,Jesusdidnotsaythesewords,andtheymisrepresentthemessagethathedidbring.Ontheotherhand,thetraditionalunderstandingofthe

incarnation being "re-examined" appears to mean that such a traditionalunderstanding isnow tobeconsidereddeficient rather than inneedof faithfulfresh rearticulation. In otherwords-to put somewhat crudelywhatBraybrookeimplies more delicately-the Fourth Gospel represents a historic Christianmistake.ItisanearlymisrepresentationofJesus,andmoderncriticalscholarshiphas enabled us to recognize this. Thereby a major obstacle from the path ofinterfaithdialogueisremoved;criticalhistorytrumpsclassictheology.','

IwillnotdiscussBraybrooke indetailbut ratherwill simplyobserve that ifBraybrookewere consistent, hewould apply the same treatment to theShema(Deut.6:4-9).ForthecriticalscholarshipthatshowsthatJesusdidnotutterthewordsascribed tohim in theFourthGospel equally shows thatMosesdidnotutter thewords ascribed to him inDeuteronomy; nor canwe suppose that theShema accurately represents the message of "the historical Moses," becausenothing confident canbe said about "the historicalMoses."YetBraybrooke iswarmlyaffirmative toward Judaismandnowhere evenhints that perhaps Jewsshould abandon their historic core affirmation on the grounds of modernhistorical-critical scholarship. Yet if the fact that Moses most likely did notformulatetheShemaisoflittlerealsignificancefortheShemaasconstitutiveofJewishunderstandingandpractice,whyshouldnot thesamebe thecase if thewordingofJohn14:6representsJohn'sconstrualofJesus?Thereallyimportantquestion is not "Who formulated this wording?" but rather "Is it true?" andhistorical-critical analysis can be only one factor amongmany in any seriousattempttoanswerthelatterquestion.

Another strategy forChristians embarrassed by the apparent implications ofJesus'wordsinJohn14:6istorelativizetheirsignificancebyadifferentkindofhistoricalargument,onehavingtodowiththeoriginalsettingofJohn'sGospel.FortherehasbeenaremarkableshiftinoverallperceptionoftheGospel.Onceitwasseenas themost"universal"of theGospels, fordidnotJesuspredicateofhimselfthecatholiccategoriesofbread,light,life,andsoon?Now,however,itiswidelyseenasaninward-looking,sectariancomposition.Insteadofseekingtopenetrate and win over the gentile world, it rather seeks to sustain Christianidentity over against a hostile Jewish culture. To the best of my knowledge,Wayne Meeks made the decisive difference with his essay "The Man fromHeaven in Johannine Sectarianism."" This putative frame of reference can bebrought to bear in the kind of way that Moody Smith exemplifies in his

commentaryonJohn14:6:

This statement reflects a severe exclusivity, even intolerance. It should,however,beseen in lightofJohn'spresupposingabitterpolemicbetweenChrist-confessing andChrist-denying Jews, inwhich confessors are beingexpelled from synagogues for their belief (9:22).Moreover, such polemicandmutualrejectionwerenotunprecedentedwithinancientJudaism.12

If Jesus' wording is directed to in-house Jewish polemic in the late firstcentury,thentheimplicationappearstobethatthewordshardlyqualifytohavethe enduring significance that should require them to be taken seriously incontemporarydoctrinalformulation.

Thishistoricalhypothesis,which,howeverheuristicallyilluminatingincertainaspects, remains a hypothesis, is directed toward the originating context ofJohn's Gospel and does not address the question of its interpretation as acanonical textwithin theNewTestament.Yet even if the formationof texts issociologicallyandideologicallycharged,themoretextsarereusedinavarietyofcontexts,thefurthertheirdynamicsmovefromthoseoftheiroriginatingcontext.The existence of a canon implies the importance of recontextualization, inwhich, although the originating context may still inform interpretation, otherfactors too become significant. The New Testament canon invites readers toconsiderJohnnotasanindependentcompositionforaparticularcontextand/orcommunity13but ratheras thesequel to the threeSynopticGospels,withinanauthoritative collection of the church; the church's life settings are no longerthose in which the canonical texts were composed, and yet these texts stillfunction authoritatively. Within this context, a reading of John's Gospel asengaging a multinational audience for whom the universal symbols of bread,life,light,andsooncanberealizedinJesusbecomesanaturalreadingstrategy.

John14:6inItsJohannineContext

We come now to a brief outline ofwhat John 14:6 does, and does not,meanwithinthecontextofJohn'sGospel.14

1. The context of John 14:6 is Jesus' long "farewell" discourse, where heprepareshisdisciplesforhisgoingtothecrossandthefactthattheywillhavetoface the future without his being among them as during his earthly ministry.

Jesus'comingdeathisthehorizonofhiswordshere.Inimmediatecontext,afterJudas'sdepartureJesusspeaksofhiscoming"glorification,"whichinvolveshisgoingwhere thedisciplescannot, for thepresent, followhim (John13:31-33).Nonetheless, theymust live in love in theway that Jesushas loved them, andsubsequentlytheywillbeabletofollowJesusinthewayheisnowgoing(John13:34-36).AlthoughtheprospectofJesus'goingwherethedisciplescannotalsogomaybedismaying,thepurposeofJesus'wordsthatfollowisclearlytoshowwhythisneednotbeso.

2.Whatever theprecise relationshipbetweenway, truth,and life," it isclearthattheleadingideaisofJesusastheway.ForJesushasjustspokenof"going"(John14:2,3,4,5)and"way"(John14:4,5),andhenextspeaksof"going"totheFather.Sotheconcernisthatofknowinghowtomakeaparticularjourney,ajourneytoGodtheFather.SinceJesusgoesontospeakofknowingandseeinghimselfastantamounttoknowingandseeingtheFather(John14:7,9),amajorpointofJesus'wordsinJohn14:6isthatthejourneyandthedestinationare,insome sense, identical-not identical in every way (as though there were nodistinctionbetweenFatherandSon),butidenticalinthesensethatthenatureofthe journeying is entirely of a piecewith the nature of the destination.16 TheresponseoffaithtoJesustheSon,"whichenablesaccesstoGodtheFather,alsoconstitutesthesubstanceoftherelationshipwithGodtheFatherthatistherebyenabled.

3.The latterpartof John14:6, "Noonecomes to theFatherexcept throughme," is surely to be seen as restating negatively what the first part statespositively,"Iamtheway,thetruth,andthelife,"withoutmakingafurtherpointabout exclusivity. For if the way that Jesus constitutes is appropriatelydesignatedalsoby termssuchas "truth"and"life," then that surelydesignatesthis particular way as incomparable and definitive. Or, in the language usedelsewhere in the Gospel, John 14:6b reminds us that Jesus is not just "Son"(huios)butrather"onlySon"(monogeneshuios);18inthefamouswords,"Godso loved theworld that he gave his only Son, so that all who believe in himshouldnotperishbuthaveeternallife"(John3:16;cf.1:14,18;3:18).Inotherwords,itisbecauseJesusistheonlySonthatheistheonlywaytotheFather.

4.ThereasonwhyfaithinJesusasSonenables,indeedconstitutes,accesstoGodasFatherisgivenconsistentlyelsewhereintheGospel.InthelanguageofJohn5:19-24, it isbecauseof the completeharmonyof actionbetweenFather

and Son, such that the Son only doeswhat he sees the Father doing, and theFatherthereforeentrustshisauthorityandresponsibilitytotheSon.'NOr,inthewordsoftheprologue,Jesusisthelogos,whoissointimatewithGodthat"allthings were made through him" and he is the one who has made known theunseenGod(John1:3,18).Thelogic,therefore,of"NoonecomestotheFatherexceptthroughme"isthatJesustheSonissointimatewithGodtheFatherthatGodisdefinitivelyrepresentedbyJesus,andsooneneednotgoelsewhere.

5. Despite the generalizing form of the wording "No one comes. . . ," theprime sense in context is that Jesus is telling his disciples about the nature oftheirjourneyinfaith;thatis,"NoneofyoucancometotheFatherunless....1120Thegeneralizingformisindeedsignificantbecauseitspecifiesthatwhatappliestothedisciplesappliestoothersalso.Nonetheless,itisimportanttoseethattheconcern of the text is not an abstract axiom about people of other faiths butrather a drawing out of the wider significance of Jesus' words to his firstdisciples-whatappliestothedisciplesappliestoothersalso.

Inshort,therefore,theconcernofJohn14:6istoshowthatJesus'goingtotheFather via the cross is a way of self-giving love whose content becomesdefinitiveforothersalsotocometo,andtoknow,GodasFather.

JesusasLightandTruth

At least two further passages are crucial to a right understanding of theChristologyoutlinedthusfar.ThefirstisJohn'saccountofthe"judgment"posedbythecomingofJesusintotheworld(John3:19-21).Here,astheprologueputsit,Jesusis"thelightthatshinesinthedarkness"(John1:5).Theimageryisofatorch being thrust into dark places. This poses a choice for thosewho live inthesedarkplaces:dotheycometothelight,ordotheyshrinkbackfromitintoastill-undisturbed area of darkness? Many do shrink hack, and this is because"people loved darkness rather than light because their deedswere evil; for allwhodoevilhatethelightanddonotcometothelight,sothattheirdeedsmaynotbeexposed"(John3:19-20).Bycontrast,"Thosewhodothetruthcometothelight,sothatitmaybeseenthattheirdeedshavebeendoneinGod"(John3:21).

Threebriefcomments.First,thecomingofJesusposesanintrinsicchallengefor people that can nomore be evaded or ignored than can thosewho inhabit

dark places ignore a torch thrust into their midst; some kind of response, ofturningtowardorturningaway,mustbemade.Second,thechallengeposedbyJesusisintrinsicallymoral,toembracegoodratherthanevil.Third,itispossibleinsomesenseto"dothetruth"beforecomingtothelightratherthansolelyasaconsequenceofsuchcoming.The issueat stake isnotpredestination, still lesssome notion that humans can perform good deeds independently of grace (sothatgracemightappeartobe,asitwere,anoptionalextra).'-'Rather,thepointisthat however great the darkness within the world, there may he humandispositions and practices that are intrinsically open and attuned to that lightwhich is embodied in Jesus, even if they are not consciously so conceived.Abelieving response to Jesus should affirm antecedent, as well as enablesubsequent,truthfulliving,eventhough,ofcourse,explicitrecognitionofJesuswillgiveamorespecificcontextandshapehereaftertothatwhichisaffirmed.

TheotherpassagetoconsideristhetrialbeforePilate,especiallyJohn18:33-37,wherethereisareconstrualofthemeaningofJesusas"king"(basileus)thatis comparable to the Synoptic account of Caesarea Philippi, where the term"messiah/christ" (christos) as applied to Jesus also receives fundamentalreconstrual.

When Pilate presses on Jesus the question ofwhether or not he answers tobeing"king,"thetermapparentlyusedintheJewishleaders'chargeagainsthim,Jesusinitiallydefineshiskingshipnegatively:"Mykingship/kingdom[basileia]isnotfrom[ek]thisworld"(John18:36).ThislanguagedrawsontherecurrentJohanninepolaritybetweenthatwhichis"fromabove/fromGod/fromthespirit"and thatwhich is "from thisworld/frombelow/from the flesh" (cf. John 1:13;3:6;3:31;8:23).ThedistinctionisbetweenthatwhosetruenatureisdeterminedbyGodandthatwhichissolelydeterminedbytheprioritiesofacreatedorderthat resists the will of its creator. So because Jesus' kingship is not"conventional,"itdoesnotinvolvehisdisciplesfightingtoprotecthim(PeterdidstrikeoutviolentlybutwasrebukedbyJesus[John18:10-11]).

PilateappearsuninterestedinJesus'conceptualpointandsolelylatchesontoone implicationofhiswords: if Jesuscanspeakofhis "kingship,"hemustbeconceding that he is a "king" and thus acknowledging the charge against him.Jesus'initialresponse,"YousaythatIamaking"(John18:37),means"Yes,but`king'isyourterm,notmine";theimplicationisthatthemeaningof"king"issodifferent for Pilate and for Jesus that it prevents rather than assists real

communication or understanding. So Jesus continueswithwords thatmust, incontext, represent his own positive construal of his kingship: "For this I wasborn,and for this Ihavecome into theworld, that Imightbearwitness to thetruth" (John 18:37). What it means for Jesus to be king (messiah) is givencontentintermsofrepresentingacertainkindofreality,bearingwitnesstothetruth-a reality that is not obvious to all, as the added rider makes clear:"Everyone who is from/of [ek, as in other formulations of the Johanninepolarity]thetruthlistenstomyvoice."

ThereisanobvioussimilaritybetweenJohn3:19-21andJohn18:33-37.Theclearestverbalresonanceis thecommonuseof"truth": thosewhodothe truthcometothelight,justasthosewhoareofthetruthlistentoJesus'voice.Thus,correspondingly, one should understand the light shining in the darkness ashavingthesamedynamicsasJesus'bearingwitnesstothetruth.InJesus,peopleareconfrontedbyareality,atruththatcompelsaresponsetowardorawayfromthatreality-therealityofGod.

WhatItMeansto"CometotheLight"

ThecontinuingtrialnarrativeexemplifiesimportantaspectsofthedynamicsofJesus'accountofhiskingship, inrelationbothtoPilateandtothoseJewswhoare present. First, Pilate. Although Pilate has a poor reputation (the "jestingPilate"whoasksJesusabouttruthanddoesnotwaitforananswer[John18:38]),hesurely tries repeatedly to saveJesus,whomhe recognizes tobe innocent interms of the charges brought against him. Pilate's declaration that he finds nocase against Jesus is followed by reference to a custom of prisoner release atPassoverthatheclearlyenvisagesasanopportunitytoletJesusgo.Whenthisisthwartedby theclamor forBarabbas,Pilate triesagain.HehasJesusscourgedandmockinglydressedupasaking,presumablyinthehopethat,amongotherthings, this would satisfy the rancor against Jesus, for he then presents Jesusagain and repeats that he findsno case against him.When further interchangewiththechiefpriestsprovesfruitless,PilatespeaksagainwithJesus,theupshotofwhichisarenewedefforttoreleasehim.

AtthispointtheJewswhowantJesuscrucifiedplaytheirtrumpcard.TheyineffectthreatenPilatebyremindinghimthattoreleaseawould-bekingwithintheRomanEmpirewoulddiminishhiscredentialsas"Caesar'sfriend";itwouldbe

anactofdisloyaltythattheywouldbesuretoletCaesarknowabout.SoPilate'sown future is now involved. This leads to the dramatic climax, at the seat ofjudgment.PilateinitiallypresentsthechargebroughtagainstJesus,as"king,"asridiculous: how could this tortured object ofmockery pose any threat?Whentheybayforhimtobetakenawayandcrucified,Pilatetriesonelasttime,onlytobeconfrontedbythechiefpriests'definitivedeclarationofloyaltytoCaesar,withitstacitreminderthatPilatewouldbedisloyalshouldhereleaseJesus.AndsoPilatecapitulatesandhandsJesusoverforexecution.AllthatisleftthenisalittlespatwiththechiefpriestsoverthewordingonJesus'cross.

WesurelyseeherethatPilateinitiallytries,inhisownway,to"dothetruth"and"cometo the light."Butwhenitbecomespotentially toocostlyforhimtoact upon his conviction that Jesus is innocent, self-interest prevails, and hecapitulates; in Johannine terms, he withdraws into the darkness "because hisdeedsareevil."Pilate'sdramaisplayedoutnotindeclarationsoffaithinJesusorgrossmoralderelictionbutratherintermsofmundanepressureswheredoingwhatisrightissetoveragainstself-interest;thisiswhatJesusasGod'slightandtruthcanrepresent.

There is lesssubtlety in theportrayalof thosewhocall forJesus'execution,whoaredepictedeithergenericallyas"theJews"(John18:31,38;19:7,12,14)oras"thechiefpriests"(John19:6,15);thepictureisthatofthereligiousleadersincitingalargercrowd.BythisstagetheyconsistentlybayforJesus'death,andtheirbayingculminatesinapostasywhentheproclamation"WehavenokingbutCaesar" not only puts pressure on Pilate but also in effect renounces God'scovenant lordship over Israel. In John's portrayal, a baying mob is not onlyentirely blind towhat is before their eyes-Jesus the king (messiah)-hut also iswilling to renounce its most basic allegiance in order to get its way. For inwantingthedeathofonewhospeaksthetruth,theirwordsanddeedsarenot"ofGod"but rather "of thedevil" (John8:40, 44).Their "deeds are evil" becausetheirintentionsandspeecharemurderous.

It is worth lingering briefly, however, on the question of what these JewsshouldhaveseenwhenJesuswaspresentedtothembyPilate.AsintheSynopticcrucifixion scenes, the Johannine trial scene is fullof theheaviest ironyaboutJesus' kingship and power. The irony depends, of course, on the Johannineperspective that "Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God" (John 20:31). ButwithoutthebenefitofChristianhindsight,whatshouldtheseJewshaveseen?In

onesense,thisissimplytoposethecentralproblemofunderstandingtheNewTestament as a whole: How should the power and salvation of God berecognizedinJesus'lackofpowerasheistorturouslyexecutedbytheRomans?Within John's portrayal we see at least two things. First, blindness is theculminationofaprocessofself-servingandhard-hearteddecisionsandactions,as succinctlyportrayed in John9,where thegainingof sightby themanhornblindisparalleledbythereligiousauthorities'progressivelossofsight;massivefailure to see at the trial is the fruit of lesser failures previously. Second,recognitionofJesusduringthetrialwouldhave,onanyreckoning,requirednotonly compassion for someone suffering but also a readiness to find truth andlightinanunexpectedplace;withoutawillingnesstoopenmindandheartinanuncomfortableway,onecannotrecognizeJesusforwhohereallyis.

OnUnderstandingandAppropriatingJohannineChristology

Letuslookatsomebriefinferencesfromthisexposition.

First, onewillmisunderstand JohannineChristology if one fails to see howJohnformulatesparadoxicaltensionsasconstitutiveofthatChristology.Thereisatleastadoubledynamicthatmustbeheldinplace.

Ontheonehand,thereisthetensionoftheparticularandtheuniversal.It istheparticularfigureofJesuswhoembodiestheuniversaltruthoftheoneCreatorGod;theonlySonrevealstheGodwhoisFatherandenablescomingtohim.Ina rather important sense, the "sectarian" reading of John (noted above) risksobscuring what is perhaps one of the most significant dimensions in John'swholeportrayal: incoming to faith in Jesus,peoplearenot, indeedcannotbe,opting for something sectarian, for they are rather coming to realize the truenature of their being;22 if they come to faith in the one who is the logos,"throughwhomallthingsweremade,"itcannotbutfollowthatthisfaithenablestherecognitionandappropriationofrealityasitismeanttobe.

On theotherhand, there is the tensionof theontologicaland theexistential.Thegiven,ontologicalrealityofGodtheFathermadeknowninandthroughtheSonentailsaconstant,thoughunpredictable,existentialchallengetocreationtolistentotheonewhobearswitnesstothetruth,tocometowardthelightthatisthrustintodarkplaces.Lifeisseentobeconstitutedbyastrugglebetweenlightanddarkness,inwhichthelightisconstantlychallengingpeopletochooselight

rather than darkness-a challenge realized in the responsiveness of mind andheart,ofconscienceandaction.

Second,itfollowsfromthisthatalthoughthetruthofGodinJesusisentrustedtothechurch,enablingthechurchasitfollowsJesustobearwitnesstotruthandtobealightindarkness("AstheFathersentme,soIsendyou"saystherisenJesus[John20:21]),thetruthisalwaysgreaterthanitsparticularembodiments.Therearevariouswaysinwhichonecantrytoarticulatethis:itislessthatthechurchpossessesthetruththanthatthetruthconstitutesthechurch;itisnotthatGod is on our side but rather that wemay be onGod's side; evenwhen onebelievesthatJesusistheMessiah,theSonofGod,andsooneknowsthetruth,the reality is more than words alone can capture, the words are easilymisunderstood,therealityiseasilymisrepresented.23

John's prime depiction of these dynamics, and the gap that may open upbetweenprofessionandpractice,isintermsofJesus'Jewishcontemporaries.Yetto generalize and abstract this depiction, as though Jews intrinsically have aproblembecausetheydonotbelieveinJesus,whileChristiansarefinebecausethey do believe in Jesus, would be to misrepresent John's portrayal. For thedynamicsthatareintrinsictotherecognitionofGodinJesusentaillisteningtothe truth and coming to the light. If the Pharisees could know that God hadspokentoMosesandyetusethistoclosedownratherthanopenupengagementwith the implicationsof Jesus' actions,24Christians areno less liable toknowthatGodisrevealedinJesusandyetusethattoclosedownratherthanopenupengagementwiththecontinuingshiningoflightinthedarknessandthebearingofwitness to the truth. If Jews canbe "of [ek] thedevil" (John8:44)becausetheywanttoresist,indeedputtodeath,onewhobearswitnesstothetruth(andsothenatureoftheirpresentrealityis"evil"),iftheireyescanbeclosedtothereality of their kingbecause they are toopreoccupiedwith baying for the onewho speaks and embodies an uncomfortable truth to be put to death, then,mutatismutandis,thesamecancharacterizeChristians,whocanequallybe"ofthe devil" and effectively apostatize through manipulative and brutal actionsperformedin thenameofJesus.TheCrusadesandtheInquisitionarenomorethannotoriousexamplesofafaithlessnessthatoperatesconstantly,albeitusuallyinlessconspicuousways.

SpecificallywithregardtotheJohannineadversariesofJesus,mycontentionisthattheportrayaloftheJewsas"ofthedevil"inJohn8isentirelycorrelative

withtheirmurderousintent towardJesus,aseventuallyrealizedinJohn19.ToabstractandessentializethisportrayalandtosupposeonthatbasisthatJohnis"anti-Semitic" is tocommitamajorerror. It is"of thedevil" to bemurderous,nottobeJewish.

OntheinterfacebetweenScriptureandDoctrine

Finally, threebrief comments aboutouroverall concern, the interfacebetweenScriptureanddoctrine.

First,John'sChristologyissurelyaquintessentialembodimentoftheconceptofmystery-wheremysteryrefersnottoapuzzleawaitingresolution(ifonlyoneknewalittlemore)butrathertoarealitythatexpandsthemoreoneentersintoit;as thewell-known tagaptlyputs it, "Themoreyouknow, themoreyouknowyou don't know. "25Among other things, this reminds us that the purpose ofdoctrine/dogmaisneither toproducecertainkindsofpremature"resolution"tolife'schallenges,asthoughbelieversshouldknowtheanswerbeforethequestionisevenasked,nor toencouragebelievers tobecomeblinkered, as though theyshouldeitherignorethoseaspectsoftheworldthatdonotobviouslyfitwithinaChristian frame of reference ormisdescribe them so that they do. Rather, thepurpose is toenable theheart andmindso tograspdefinitive truthaboutGodandhumanitythat itbecomespossible to livemoretruthfullyandself-givinglywithin God's world and be able to challenge darkness and untruth moresearchinglyandwithlessfearofthepossibleconsequences.

Second,John'snarrativeilluminateshowChristiandoctrinalbeliefaboutJesusshould,andshouldnot,beused.JohannineChristologysurelyisbettercapturedby the historic doctrines of trinity and incarnation than by any other knownformulations,forthuswemaintaintheemphasisthattherealityandthemysteryofGodaredefinitivelyknownandencounteredintheparticularpersonofJesus.Thenotuncommonstrategyofinterfaithdialoguetosetasidethisbeliefiswellintended, but surely it results from a failure of comprehension. Or, to put itdifferently, it turns the second-rate into the normative. For when Christianitybecomessimplyonereligionalongsideothers,ithasfailedtorecognizeitstruevocation,whichisnottoaddtotheworld'sreligiousdiversitybutrathertobearwitnesstothetruthofwhatitmeanstohavelifeinallitsfullnessinGod'sworld.

Third,interfaithdialoguethatistruetothedoctrinalimplicationsofJohannine

Christology will necessarily embody both conviction about the nature of thetruthofGod inJesus (a faith-derivedunderstandingofontological reality)andanopennesstobesurprisedbyothersandtorecognizethattheremaybethingsstilltobelearnedaboutwhatthisdefinitivetruthreallyentails(anexistentialandepistemologicalsenseofhumilityandincompleteness).AsMichaelBarnesputsit,

While it is always tempting to think of the other as lacking somethingessentialwhichIpossess,thetruthisthatacertaindarknessorothernessorlackofself-presencemanifestsitselfinallhumanbeings-especiallyinface-to-face dialogue. Paradoxically, perhaps, the truly universal experience ininter-faith dialogue is of thatmoment of disruption or surprise before theother which at certain moments in time reveals my own perplexity orincompleteness.26

Or,asPaulGriffithsputsitwhencommentingontheJohanninepromisethattheSpiritwillleadChrist'sfollowersinto"theentiretruth"(John16:13),

Note the future tense.This future reference isanessentialpoint: theHolySpirithasnotyet taught theChurcheverything;and, itought tobeadded,whattheHolySpirithastaughthasnotyetbeenfullycomprehendedbythechurch.27

This learning and comprehending involves a total way of being in theworld,withopennessandresponsivenesstoallthosewhospeakthetruth.Christisthenormbywhichweseekhereandnowtodiscernrighthumanresponsivenesstothe reality of God, wherever it is found; and this is a reality that involveslearningandsurprisesforall.

4

ReadingPaul,ThinkingScripture

N.T.WRIGHTScripture,Doctrine,andLife:ThePuzzleofPerception

Formanyintoday'schurch,"doctrine,"especiallywhenlabeledas"dogma,"isthedry, lifeless thing thatonceseemed importantbutnowfails tosendpeopleouttochangetheworld.Forsomesuchpeople,itisScripturethatbringsthemtolife-thebookwheretheymeetJesusandfindhimspeakingtothem.Theyread,orlistento,Scriptureinthewaythattheywouldlistentoafavoritesymphonyorfolksong.Itrecreatestheirworld,theworldwheretheyandGodgetittogether,theworldwhereallthingsarepossibletothosewhobelieve.

Not everybody sees things that way. For some, Scripture itself, except forhighlyselectversesandpassages,hasbecomeasdryanddustyasdogmaitself.It is full of problems and puzzles, alternative readings and private theories ofinterpretation, and seems to them like ablackhole that can suckdownall theenergy of otherwise good Christian people (exegetes and preachers) and givenothing much back in return. For them, what matters is invoking the Spirit,worshiping for longerand longer, extendedprayer andpraisemeetings, tellingothershowwonderfulitistohavealivingrelationshipwithJesus.Suchpeopleassume (since the background of their tradition is broadly evangelical) thatScriptureremainsinsomesensenormative,buthowitexercisesthatnormativity,orhowit"exercises"anythingatall,orengageswiththeirlifeandfaithremainsunclear.

Thethirdcategorycompletesthecircle.Therearesomeforwhomthebooksof devotion appear stale, but forwhom, as C. S. Lewis once put it, the heartsingsunbiddenwhenworkingthroughabookofdogmatictheologywithpipeinteethandpencilinhand.Forsuchpeople,aswell,theendlessand increasingly

labyrinthine productions of the Great Exegetical Factory, especially the olderGermans on the one hand and the newerAmericans on the other, leave themcold. The lexicographical, historical, sociological, and rhetoricalmountains ofsecularexegesisallmove,andeverysooftenthereemergesaridiculousmousethat squeaks some vaguely religious version of a currently popular self-helpslogan.Meanwhile,therealmountains-theenormous,loomingquestionsofGodand the world, of church and society, of Jesus then and now, of death andresurrection-remainunaddressed.Sa-lieri, inPeterShaffer'sAmadeus,looksatMozart's operas and declares that Mozart has taken ordinary people-barbers,servant girls, footmen-andmade them gods and heroes. He himself, however,haswritten operas about gods and heroes, and he hasmade them ordinary.Asimilarverdictawaitsthecontemporary"secular"exegetewhodarestolookintothemirror.

"Doesithavetobethisway?"asksnotonlythetheologianbutalsothebishop.Wherearetheso-calledordinarypeopleinallofthis?IsthereabetterwaynotonlyofunderstandingtherelationshipbetweenScriptureanddoctrinebutalsoofallowingeitherorbothtobearfruitinthepostmodernchurchandworld?

ScriptureandNarrative

Tosay that Iwant tobegin toaddress thiswith some remarksaboutScriptureandnarrativemayprovokeasighfromatleastsomedogmaticians:"Thatissolastcentury,sopostliberal.TheyareevengivingitupatYalenow.Cananygoodthingcomeoutofnarrative?"Well,asareaderofScripture,Iperceivethatthecanonasitstandsnotonlyisirreduciblynarrativeinform,enclosingwithinthat,of course, any number of other genres, but also displays an extraordinary,because unintentional to every single individual writer and redactor involved,overallstorylineofastonishingpowerandconsistency.Youcouldsay,ofcourse,thatthisisallduetothosewhochosethebooksandshapedthecanon,butifyoulookattheonestheyleftout,youwouldhavetosayeitherthatevenifyouputthemall in,youwouldstillhave thesamenarrativeor that ifyouputsomeofthem in (the gnostic Gospels, for instance), you would precisely deconstructwhatwouldstillbeahuge,powerfulnarrativeandofferinsteadaverydifferentonefromwhich,ultimately,youwouldhavetoexcludemoreorlesseverythingelsethatisthere.ThegnosticGospels,ifmadecanonical,wouldeventuallyactlike the baby cuckoo in the nest, kicking out all the native chicks, but if the

chicksgottogetherwheretheyhadlandedontheground,theywouldstillhaveamassivefamilylikeness.Youcannot,intheend,taketheanticanonicalrhetoricof much contemporary writing to its logical conclusion without ending uphavingthecanonagain,onlynowasthealternativenarrative.No:whatwehave,fromGenesis to Revelation, is amassive narrative structure inwhich, thoughPaul,theevangelists,andJohnofPatmosare,ofcourse,extremelywellawareoftheearlierparts,nosingleauthorsawthewholeorknewaboutallitsotherparts.Itisasthoughengineersfromdifferentworkshopswereinvitedtoproducebitsand pieces of cantilevers which ended up, when put together without thedifferentworkshopsknowingof it,producing theForthBridge.And thecaseIhavemadeelsewhere, tobring this into sharp focus, is thatPaulwasawareofenoughofthislargestoryatleasttoaddhisownbitandpointtothecompletion,even though otherwriters, such as the seer ofRevelation, finish the narrativesequencewithadifferentmetaphor:marriage,inRevelation21,ratherthanbirth,asinRomans8.ButwithPaul,weare"thinkingScripture"alltheway,andthatmeans"thinkingnarrative."

Iam thus taking thephrase"thinkingScripture" in, I think, twoways.First,thataswereadPaul,weshouldbeconscious thathe is"thinkingScripture" inthe sense that his mind is full of the great scriptural narrative and the greatscripturalnarratives,andthatheisconsciousoflivingintheclimacticandnewlyexplosivecontinuationandimplementationofthefirstandalsooflivingwiththeechoes andpatternsof the second.But, second,part of thepoint is thataswereadPaul,weshouldbeconsciousnotonlyof"Paulsaidthis,that,ortheother"butalsoof"HowcanPaul'ssayingofthisbeScriptureforus;howcanit,thatis,functionasthewordthataddresses,challenges,sustainsus,puttingustodeathandbringingustonewlife?"

Nowofcourse,withinthegrandnarrativefromthefirstgardentothenewcitythere aremultiple smaller narratives, some of them pulling this way and thatwithinthelargerone,sometimesevenseeminglyinoppositedirections.Thatistobeexpected,andactually it isonlyifweshrinkthegrandnarrativefromitsfullproportionsthatthisbecomesaproblem.Andofcourse,sincethenarrativeitself ispreciselyaboutGod'sextraordinary,vibrant,andmultifacetedcreation,we find poetry, prophecy, andwisdom firmly embedded, embodyingwhat thestory is saying about creativity and procreativity, about humans bearingGod'simage, about God's generous overspilling love, and so on. And within this

narrative, and sometimes within its subgenres, there are statements ofoverarching truth or inalienable moral duty: the Ten Commandments comewithin the Exodus narrative (and are themselves prefaced by, and sometimesreferbackto,bitsofthelargernarrative),andhugeyetsimplestatementssuchas"Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures" are framed within theimplicit narrative of Paul's ongoing relationship with the feisty and factiousCorinthians.And because I hold, as I always have done, a very high view ofScripture, not only as dogma but also asmethod, I findmyself bound to askwhetherdoctrine,including,beitsaid,doctrineaboutScriptureitself,hasreallytakenonboardthiselement.Itisnotsimplyaquestionof"Howcananarrativebeauthoritative?"Ihavewrittenabookaboutthatalready.'Thequestion,rather,is"Howcananarrative,ormorespecificallythisnarrative,relatetotheabstractquestions,castfrequentlyinnonnarrativalmode,thathaveformedthestapledietofdoctrineanddogma?"

Isthiseventherightquestiontobeasking?Mightitnotseemtoimply(1)thatit isdoctrine thatreallymatters, thatwillgive lifeandenergyandfocus to thechurch; (2) thatScripture is theauthority forourdoctrine, since that is itselfafoundational doctrine, but (3) that Scripture as we find it seems singularlyunsuitedforthepurpose(asWinstonChurchillsaidaboutagolfclubinrelationtothetaskofconveyingaballintoasmallanddistanthole)?And,grantedthatmodern and often postmodern exegesis has left Scripture in bits all over thefloor, each labeled "earlyQ"or "deutero-Paul"or "Hellenisticmoral topos"orwhatever-as though that settledanything-will ithelp (and if so,how?) todrawattention to Scripture'smost prominent characteristic, orwill this too collapseintoanotherpileofmerenarrativetheories,withactantialanalyseslikethesparsof the skeleton ship in The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, giving the initialappearance of being seaworthy but actually carrying only Death and Life-in-Death?

Doctrineas"PortableStory"

I think not. I want to propose what may be a way forward-not a particularlyoriginal one, but one that I have found helpful in reflecting recently on thatstrangedoctrinecalled"theatonement."Iwanttoproposethatweseedoctrinesasbeing,inprinciple,portablenarratives.WhatdoImean?

When I am at home, my clothes live in wardrobes, and my books onbookshelves.Butwhen I need tobe away fromhome, I put them inbags andsuitcases. It is not easy to carry suits, robes, and shoes, let alone books andnotebooks,alaptopcomputer,anMP3player,andsoon,allloose,onandofftheLondonUnderground.Thebagsandsuitcasesperformavitalfunction.ButwhenIget tomydestination,even if Iamonly thereforasinglenight, Igetalmosteverythingout,hanguptheclothesandrobes,andarrangethebooksonadeskor table,notbecause the suitcaseswerenot important, but ratherbecause theywere.Thebitsandpieceshavegotwheretheyweregoingandmustbeallowedtobethemselvesagain.

This model suggests a to-and-fro between Scripture and doctrine that goessomethinglikethefollowing.Itmaybeveryimportantfortheinternallifeofthechurch,orforthechurch'switnesstotheworld,thatweaddressaquestionaboutthemeaningofJesus'deaththathascomeupatsomepointindebate.Howarewegoing todo it? It ishard,each timeyouwanteven to refer to Jesus'deathitself,toquoteevenafewversesfromMark15,Matthew27,Luke23,orJohn19. If, each time I wanted to refer in a discussion to the archbishop ofCanterbury,IhadtospelloutthecompletebiographyofthatgreatandgoodmanassetoutinWho'sWho,thediscussionwouldgetimpossiblycloggedup.Thetitle-the phrase "archbishop of Canterbury"-is a portable version of this,implying it all without telling the full story; but at any point it might beimportantthatpeoplewereawarethatthistitlereferstosomeonewhowasborninWales, to someonewho once held a chair at Oxford, to someonewho haswrittenabookontheresurrection,andsoon.Thenarrativeisimplicitlycarriedwithin the title;atanypoint,youcan reach inandget thehitof thestory youneed.Thus, in thesameway,and thinkingaboutPauland thecross, it isquitecumbersome, each time you want to refer to the atonement, to have to saysomething like "Paul's teaching that `Christ died for our sins according to thescriptures."'Sowebundleallofthis,andthemuchfullerstatementsaswell,upintoasuitcaselabeled"atonement,"whichwecancarryonandoffthetrainsandbusesofourvariousargumentsanddiscussions,andwhichreallydoesperformavital function in enabling discourse to proceed.However,whenwe get to theotherend,weneedtounpackitallagain,sothatwhatweareleftwithisnotasingleword-"atonement"or"reconciliation"orVersohnungorwhateveritmightbe-butratherthewholestory:John18-19asitstands,Romans3,Galatians3,2Corinthians5,andsoon.Suchpassages,Isuggest,aretheground-levelreality.

Theword "atonement" itself and its near equivalents, and the various theoriesaboutatonement,areofserviceonlyinsofarastheyenableustobundleupthepassionnarrativesandthekeyNewTestamentwitnesses to themeaningof thecross,notinordertomuzzlethemoronlyto"liveoutofasuitcase,"snatchingan itemhere and there but keeping everything else crumpled up and invisibleinsidethezipped-upleatherdogma,butrathertobringthemoutagainandliveoffthem,livewiththem,putthemonandwearthem,linethemupandusethem.

Atthispoint,already,Imustintroduceafurtherelement.TheconvictionhasbeengrowinginmethatwhenJesuswantedtoexplaintohisfollowerswhathethoughtwouldbe themeaningofhisdeath,hedidnotgive thema theory;hegave them a meal. And the meal itself, by being a Passover-mealwith-a-difference, already indicates amassive and complex implied narrative: astoryaboutalonghistoryreachinganew,shocking,anddecisivefulfillment;astoryaboutslaveryandfreedom,aboutIsraelandthepagans,aboutGodfulfillinghispromises, about covenant renewal and forgiveness of sins. And this encodedstory,thismeal-as-narrative,worksbydoingit.Breakingthebreadanddrinkingfromthecuparenotaboutsomethingelse,unlessthatsomethingelseissimplycalled"Jesus."Rather,wemightbettersaythattheoriesaboutatonementare,attheir very best, abstractions from the Eucharist, which is itself the grid ofinterpretation thatwe have been given-by Jesus himself!for Jesus' death. Thismakes life much more complicated, of course, since we have suddenlyintroduced a third and disturbing element into the "Scripture and doctrine"debate,butatleastinthecaseoftheatonement,wehave,Ithink,nochoice.

CreedsasPortableStory-andThereforeasSymbol

Iwillcomebacktothispresently,becauseitmightbethattheatonementis,inthisrespectandperhapsinothers,somethingofaspecialcase.ButfirstIwanttostatetheobviousandthendevelopitalittle.Theideathatdoctrinesareportablestories is, of course, already present in the classic statements of Christiandoctrines, the great early creeds. They are not simply checklists that could inprinciple be presented in any order at all. They consciously tell the story-precisely the scriptural story!-from creation to new creation, focusingparticularly,ofcourse,onJesusandsummingupwhatScripturesaysabouthimin a powerful, brief narrative (a process that we can already see happeningwithintheNewTestamentitself).Whenthelargerstoryneedstobeputwithina

particular discourse, for argumentative, didactic, rhetorical, or whatever otherpurpose,itmakessense,andisnotinimicaltoitsowncharacter,totelescopeittogetherandallowit,suitablybaggedup,totakeitsplaceinthatnewcontext-just as long aswe realize that it will collectmildew if we leave it in its bagforever.

OneofthethingsthatcreedsenableScripturetodo,bybeingthuscompressedinto amuch,much briefer narrative framework, is to allow the entire story tofunctionassymbol.ItisnoaccidentthatsymbolwasoneofthewordsthattheearlyChristiansusedtodenotetheircreeds.Thecreedswerenotsimplyalistofthings that Christians happened to believe. They were a badge to be worn, asymbol that, like the scholar's gown that tells you what this person is about,declares,"Thisiswhoweare."Thatis,ofcourse,whythecreedsarerecitedinliturgy: not somuch to check that everyone present is signed up to them butrather to draw together, and express corporately, the church's response to thereadingandprayingofScriptureintermsof"Yes!Aswelistentothesetexts,wearerenewedasthispeople,thepeoplewholivewithinthisgreatstory,thepeoplewhoare identifiedpreciselyaspeople-of-thisstory, rather thanas thepeopleofoneof themanyother stories thatclamor forattentionall around."And this, Ithink,istheroleofdoctrine,oroneofitscrucialandcentralroles:toensurethatwhenpeoplesaythecreeds, theyknowwhat theyare talkingaboutandwhyitmatters,andalsotoensurethatwhensomepartofthelargerstoryisunderattackor is beingdistorted,we cannot just come to the rescue and, as itwere, put afinger in the dyke, but ratherwe can discernwhy the attack has come at thismoment and at this point and can work to eliminate the weakness that hasallowedittogainaccess.

PartofmygeneralpointaboutPaulispreciselythatheisconstantlydoingthispacking and unpacking, compressing and expanding, hinting in one place andoffering a somewhat fuller statement of the same point elsewhere. A goodexample of this is in 1Corinthians 15:56-57,where Paul says (bewilderingly,sincehehasnotbeentalkingaboutthesethings),"Thestingofdeathissin,andthe power of sin is the law; but thanks be to God, who gives us the victorythroughourLordJesusChrist."Byitself,thisismoreorlessincomprehensible,sincenowhereelseinhiswritingstodatehasPaulsaidanythingaboutthelawbeing"thepowerofsin."WemightjustabouthaveinferreditfromGalatians3,but it would be stronger than anything there. But in Romans 7 Paul explains

precisely this point at much greater length, ending with the same shout oftriumph. In other words, it is not simply the case that Scripture givesmiscellaneous teaching about various topics that the church can codify intoportablestatementsandthendecodifybackintoScriptureagain.WecanseethesameprocessgoingonwithinScriptureitself,notleastinPaulhimself,andnotleast at thispoint,whenweare thinkingabout sin, the law,and thevictory ofChrist-inotherwords,aboutatonement.

All this leads us to another important general point about the nature ofdoctrine,Scripture,andnarrative.

ChecklistsandConnect-the-Dots

Itdawnsonme,uncomfortably,thatit ispossibletotreatdoctrines,not(asthecreeds do) as basically a narrative but simply as a kind of abstract checklist,dogmastowhichonemustsubscribebutwhichdonotreallybelongatallwithina story, or,more insidious perhaps still, dobelongwithin a story butwithin astory that, because it is not usually seen as such, is quietlydoing its powerfulworkofreshapingwhattheseadmittedlytruedoctrineswillnowmeanandwhy.Inotherwords, simplyputtingacheckmarkbesideall twentynine (orhowevermany) truedoctrines is not good enough. It couldbe that you are like a childfacedwithaconnect-the-dotspuzzle,realizingthatyouhavetolinkthedotsbutnotunderstandingwhatthenumbersaretherefor.Youcanindeeddrawapictureinwhichallthedotsareconnected,butitmaybearlittlerelationtothepicturethatwas intended.You can, in fact, link all the dots, both in the classic earlycreeds andmost of the later ones (e.g., the post-Reformation confessions andarticles),andstillbemanyamileawayfromaffirmingwhatthebiblicalwriters,allthrough,werewantingpeopletoaffirm.Youcanconnectallthedotsandstillproduce,shallwesay,athistleinsteadofarose.Totakeadifferentbutrelatedexample:ifIcomeupontheletters"BC"writtendownsomewhere,itisonlythelargercontext, thelargerimplicitnarrative, thatcantellmewhethertheymean"Bishop's Council" (in an entry in my calendar), "British Columbia" (in mycousin'smailingaddress),"BeforeChrist" (inabookaboutancienthistory),orthetwomusicalnotesthatbearthosenames(abouttheconclusionofSibelius'sseventhsymphony).Implicitnarrativeisall.Ifyouaffirmadoctrinebutplaceitinthewrongimplicitnarrative,youpotentiallyfalsifyitasfullyandthoroughlyasifyoudenieditaltogether.

ThispointisnotdissimilartoonemadebyRobertJenson,'-thoughIthinkhehasnotdoneenoughtowardoffthesuspicionthathisownprofferedsolutionissubjecttothesamecritiquethathehasofferedofothertheories.Writingaboutthedoctrineoftheatonement,hesuggeststhatwhatiswrongwiththethreemainmodels-Anselm,Abelard,andChristusVictor,toputitbluntly-isthatallofthemareplacingthedeathofJesuswithinanarrativeotherthantheonethatScriptureitselfproposes.Scriptureisnottalkingaboutthehonororshameofamedievalnobleman,oraboutaprogramtoeducatepeople inhowto loveGod,oraboutmonstrousmythical powers andhow theymight be defeated. I think, actually,that Scripture is more obviously talking about the last of those, but that isanother question to which we may return. My difficulty with Jenson (and Isuspect thathe isbuildingup toaddressing this ina fullerwork forwhich the2006article isabrief flyer) is thathisalternativenarrative,which isabout therelationshipsbetweenthethreepersonsoftheTrinity,whileveryinterestingandnotatallunrelatedtothestorythatScripturetells,isstillnotthatstoryitselfandstillavoids thereally importantpartof thewhole thing, the thing towhich thechurch has persistently given far too little attention (including, I believe, theclassiccreedsthemselves):thestoryofIsrael.

It is this story that drives the whole of the New Testament, which is notsurprising, because it is what drove Jesus himself. When Paul says that "theMessiahdiedforoursinsaccordingtothescriptures,"hedoesnotmeanthatifwelookhardenough,wecanfindafewhelpfulprooftexts.Whathemeans-andwhatweseeinthegreatsermonsinActs,particularlychapters7and13andthesubsequent summaries of similar material-is that the story of Israel fromAbrahamtotheMessiahisseenastheplanoftheoneCreatorGodtosavethewholeworld.Itisremarkablehowdifficultitistogetthisacrosstopeoplewhoaredeeplyembeddedinaratherdifferentstory,onethatreadssimply"creation,sin, Jesus, salvation." Interestingly,of course, ifyoumiss the "Israel" stageofthestory,notonlydoyoubecomeadefactoMarcionite,asmany,alas,inbothProtestantandCatholictraditionsseemtobe,butyoualsoleaveyourself,mostlikely,withoutanecclesiologyorwithhavingtoconstructonefromscratchfartoo late in the narrative. There are, of course, all kinds of clues in the NewTestament to indicate that something is badly wrong here, and the story ofexegesis,not least in theProtestantandevangelicalworlds,has sadly includedseveralquiteclevermovesforrenderingtheseclues(e.g.,Rom.9-11)irrelevant.Thestoryof Israel isassumed tobeatbestexemplaryandatworst irrelevant,

exceptforoddflashesofpropheticinspiration,ratherthanhavinganythingtodowith themeaning of the story of Jesus himself. Andwith this all pretense ofactuallypayingattentiontoScriptureitselfhasvanished.

The question presses, of course, as to how paying attention to the story ofIsraelenablesustounderstandwhattheNewTestamentwritersaresayingaboutthecross,nottomentionhowwemight,havingunderstood,worktowardamorebiblical formulation; or how all this integrates, as itmust if it is to be true toJesus and the New Testament authors, with the Eucharist and the life of thecommunity that is formed around it. But the same point could, and perhapsshould, be made in relation to other doctrines, not only the atonement.Christology, for instance, has, in my view, suffered in the Western traditionbecause of people simply putting a checkmark in the "Jesus is divine" boxwithoutreallystoppingtothinkwhichgodtheyaretalkingabout,whatitmeanswithinthebiblicalnarrativetosaysuchathing,andhowthisintegratesproperly,notmerelyaccidentally,as itwere,with theotherbox thatpeoplewillusuallycheck,the"Jesusishuman"box.Thesignsthatallisnotwellinclude,ontheonehand, akindof "superman" theologywherein Jesus is "theman fromoutside"comingwithmiraculous,"supernatural"powerto"zap"everythingthatiswrong,all conceivedwithin a strictly dualistic view that ends, not surprisingly, in hisfollowersbeingmiraculously"raptured"uptojoinhimin"heaven,"and,ontheother hand, an official acknowledgment that Jesus was human, whichnevertheless leads to no engagement whatsoever with the question of what itmeanttobeJesusofNazareth,toliveandthinkasafirst-centuryJewlongingforGod'skingdom,tobepossessedofadeepandradicalvocationandtoconstruethat in terms and stories available to a first-century Jew, and so on. Theenormous resistance to this latter project tells its own story, which cannot bereduced,inmyview,simplytoreactionagainst,say,theJesusSeminarandsomeofitssillierforebears.

Thementionofthe"rapture"pointstoafurtherexampleofhownottoconnectthe dots. For many Christians, the question "Do you believe in the secondcoming?"means,quitesimply,"Doyoubelieveinthedispensational-istrapturedoctrine?"andindeedtherearesomewhowouldlovetobelieveinthegenuineNew Testament doctrine of the second coming who feel obliged not to put acheckmark in the box because they cannot and will not swallow the rapture.Rapture theology iswhat youget, in otherwords,whenyou take thedoctrine

("Hewill come againwith glory to judge the living and the dead, and of hiskingdom there will be no end") and put it, first, within a heaven-and-earthdualisminwhichtheonlypointofhumanexistenceonearthistoworkouthowto leave it with a ticket to the right destination, and, second, within a verylocalizednineteenth-century readingofoneparticular set of texts, especially 1Thessalonians4:17,which fleshout,within that larger (wrong) story,what the"second coming"might look like. Again, there is enormous resistance to anyattempt within these supposedly biblical circles to tell the genuinely biblicalstory about heaven and earth, and new heavens and new earth, and about thegood Creator God, who has promised to unite them into one in Christ Jesus(Eph.1:10,whichitselfstandsattheheartofaprayerstorythatisaChrist-and-Spirit-shapedversionofaJewishcreationand-exoduscelebration).

Manyotherexamplescouldbegiven,butItrustthepointistaken.Thisleadsmetoafinalobservation.

WhatDoes"ListeningtoScripture"ActuallyMean?

Part of the long-term debilitating result of a moribund and overly footnotedexegetical tradition-somewhat, we may suppose, like the endless annotationsupon annotations of the late medieval period-is the apparent failure in manypartsof today's churchactually to engagewithScriptureor to listen to itwithany seriousness.Here, of course, the normal locusmight be thought to be thesermon; however, in many Western churches, the exegesis offered from thepulpit is bare and uninspiring and often is either rather obvious or just plaineccentric.Nodoubttherearenobleexceptionsineverydirection,butIhaveanuncomfortable suspicion that most Western Christians, at least in mainlinedenominations,knowwhatIamtalkingabout.Andifthatpushestheemphasiselsewhere,whereisthat"elsewhere"?InsmallBiblestudygroups?Fine,butdotheyproducefresh,vibrantreadingsofScripturethatthencanbepassedupthefood chain to the larger community? In other groups of clergy and otherministers?Fine,butisthisanexerciseinmutuallyassisteddevotionratherthanarealgrapplingwithkeypassagesandissueswithaviewtotakingsomeaction?In synods? We draw a discreet veil over the mere suggestion. In doctrinecommissionsandothersimilargroups?Well,perhaps;butImustsay,asonewhohasbeenamemberofseveralsuchbodies, that thebest thatonecannormallyhope for is flashes of insight mixed with heavily negotiated compromise

statements thatendupreflectingnot just lastcentury'sexegesis,butthewrongbitsoflastcentury'sexegesis.

Yet most churches include in their formularies and/or statements of intentsomethingabout"listeningtoScripture"oreven"listeningtoScripturetogether,"andchurchmembersregularlyreferbacktothisintheirsynoddebatesand thelike. Yes, sometimes noble efforts are made, such as at successive LambethConferences,whereseriousBiblestudyhas,thankGod,beenamajor,important,andcross-culturalfeature.Butmyconcern,grantedthat that isanexception, istwofold.First,oughtwenot tobe thinkinghardaboutwhatcouldandperhapsshould be done in this area, aside fromwhatwe are currently doing (and notdoingverywell)?Second,isitnotatthispointthatthereisarealdangerofthosewhowant toget thechurchrefocusedandreenergized trying todosoby,as itwere, going behind the back of Scripture (lest we get bogged down in thatmoribundexegetical traditionagain!)and leapingstraight forsomethingcalled"doctrine"instead?

Thatmaybeafalsefear,butitshouldperhapsbenamedjustincase.Iwillnotattempttoanswerit,but, inanswertotheformerquestion, it isworthdrawingattention,withinthemorecatholicendofthechurch, totwophenomena.First,thereisthe"Ignatianmethod"ofreadingScripture,normallydoneindividuallyandnormallyforpersonaldevotionalengagementandenrichmentbutsometimesperhaps in groups and with more wide-ranging results. I am not aware thatpeople tend to emerge from an Ignatianmeditation eager to go and put somefine-tuning into one or another of the church's doctrines, but perhaps theyshould.Second,thereistheliturgicalreadingofScripture,andparticularlyoftheGospel reading,as theclimaxandfocusofScripture,seenasonemodeof thepersonal presence of Jesus with the worshiping congregation, symbolized bymaking thesignof thecrossat theGospel readingduring theEucharist andatthe "Gospel canticle" in morning and evening prayer. I suspect that thisphenomenon remains inarticulate for most worshipers even in the traditionswhereitisthenorm,butitislikewiseworthdrawingoutandreflectingupon.

Moreover,IamsuggestingthattheEucharistisinfacttheprimaryandindeeddominical grid for understanding Jesus' death. I recognize that the wordunderstandingisactuallychanginginmeaningasIsaythat,sothatitisforcedtoencompassphysicalandsocialactionsandrealitiesaswellasmentalstatesandabstractideas.Itisthereforeperhapsgermanetomymorefocusedquestionthat

we might contemplate the eucharistic reading of Scripture in terms of thatreadingbeingonepartof thenecessaryand formativeactionwithinwhich theEucharistmeanswhatitmeans.ItthusenablesGod'speopleto"understand,"inthisdeeper senseofbeinggraspedby the realityat every level,whoJesus theMessiahwasandisandwhathisdeathreallydidaccomplish.

Scripture, Exegesis, Dogma, and Church: SomeConcludingPaulineProposals

Iknowonlytoowell,frombothsidesofthetable,asitwere,thefrustrationfeltby thepreacherordogmaticianwho is toldby theexegete, "The textdoesnotactuallysaythat."Ihopethatthedogmaticianalsorecognizesthefrustrationthattheexegetefeelswhentold,preciselyinhisorherefforttobeobedienttooneofthe primary Reformation dogmas, about Scripture itself, "Do not give us thatexegeticalmish-mash;wewantresults,goodsoliddoctrinesthatwecanuseandpreachfrom."(ErnstKasemanncommentedonthispointinatypicalstatementabout thosewhoareconcernedonlywith"results"needingtokeeptheirhandsoff exegesis, because it has no use for them, nor they for it.' I understandhispoint,butIinsistthatwemustkeepontrying.)

I return, instead, to thecategoryofnarrative.Rather than trying to filterouttheactualargumentsthatPaulismountinginorderto"getat"thedoctrinesthat,itisassumed,heis"expounding,"IhavestressedthatwemustpayattentiontothoselargerargumentsandtothegreatstoryofGod,theworld,Israel,andJesus,giving special attention to the "Israel" dimension,which is regularly screenedoutindogmabutisregularlyvitalforPaul,andwithinwhichthecrossmeansforhimwhatitmeansforhim.

Closer exegetical attention would show that what the tradition has usuallycalled "the atonement"-that "portable story" within which so much implicitexegesis anddogmahasbeenbaggagedup, sometimesuncomfortably-is not asuitcasethatPaulemploys.Itis,perhaps,asub-suitcase,acompartmentwithinhis larger luggage-perhaps something akin to the way Schweitzer sawjustification as a Nebenkrater within the "main crater" of "being in Christ,"thoughofcourseIdisagreeimportantlyifobliquelywithhisparticularpoint.ButitisnotthemainthingthatPaulistalkingabout.

Wheredoesthatleaveusintermsofthequestionsposedearlieron?Tobegin

with,itmeansthatwemustconstantlystruggletohearPaulwithintheworldofhis implicit, and often explicit, narratives, especially the great story that startswithAbraham(itselfunderstoodasthenewmomentwithinthestorythatstartswith Adam and, indeed, with creation itself) and continues throughMoses toDavidandultimatelytotheMessiah.ProtectingPaulfromthatstory-thatisnottoostrongawaytoputthematter-hasbeenamajorpreoccupationbothofsomeacademic exegeteswho havewanted to locate him solelywithin aHellenisticworldandofsomedogmaticiansandpreacherswhohavewantedtomakesurethatheisrelevantto,andaddressesclearly,thepastoralandevangelisticissuesofwhichtheyareaware.Butitispreciselyatthispoint,asIhavestressed,thatthedoctrineofScripture'sownauthoritypressesuponus.BywhatrightdowetakeScriptureandfindwaystomakeittalkaboutthethingsthatwewantittotalkabout?

I suggest, in fact, that the key point is to develop more particularly ourreflectionson thewayinwhichScripture isused,heard,and livedwithwithintheactual lifeof theactualchurch.ThebelittlingofScripture intoa short andpuzzling noise that intrudes upon our liturgy here and there is dangerous anddestructive, especially, of course, in churches where there is not even muchstrong dogma to take its place.And the use of Scripture as the peg to preachsermons that the tradition, even the evangelical or Protestant tradition, hasdecreedwe ought to preach is always in danger of self-delusion. In short,wehavetodiscernandattemptwaysoflettingScripturebeheardnotonlywhenitsayssomethingthatweunderstandbutwanttodisagreewith(thatiswhere"theauthorityofScripture"normallybites),butalsowhenitsayssomethingthatwedo not understand because we have carefully screened out, or never evenimagined,thenarrativeworldwithinwhichitmakessense.

Oneof themainways thisneeds tobedone is,ofcourse, throughsustainedteachingbypreachersandteacherswhoarethemselvessoakedinScripture.Fairenough.ButIdothinkthatourchurchesandparachurchorganizationscouldandshould domore to help people understand the great narrative of Scripture, bysustainedreadings,publicandprivate,bydrawingattentiontothegreatnarrativethemes and encouraging people to explore them, by discouraging thenonnarrativalordeconstructivesongsthathavesweptinthroughtoday'scheerfulandunthinkingpostmodernity,andbyencouragingandcreatingnewwordsandmusic to get the great themes into people's heads and hearts. All these

suggestions remain a great challenge at the level of pastoral and ecclesialpractice.ButIthink,aswell,thatattheacademiclevelweneedtoseefarmoreopen exchange between serious historical exegesis-not done in a corner or bybracketingoutquestionsofmeaning,doctrine,andlifebutinsteadengagingwiththerealitiesofwhichthetextspeaks-andadogmatictheologythatitselfremainsopentobeingtoldthat ithasmisreadsomeofitsownkeytexts.This, inotherwords,willbeadogmatictheologythatitselfdoesnothideinacornerorbracketoutquestionsofhistory,text,andoriginalsense.

Weareonceagainat thefault linebequeathed tousbyourWesternculture,notjustinmodernitybutgoingbackatleastasfarasthemedievalperiod;andifweareevertohaveanyhopeofstraddlingthatcrackwithoutfallingdownintoit, thedoctrinecalled"authorityofScripture" (whichdeclares thatScripture istheway throughwhichGod theHolyTrinity activates, through the Spirit, theauthority that the Father has delegated to the Son) insists that it is by payingattentiontoScriptureitselfthatwewillfindnotonlythebridgesoverthechasmbutalsothemeanstomaketheearthmoveoncemoreandbringbacktogetherwhatshouldneverhavebeenseparatedinthefirstplace.IfreflectingbrieflyonPaul's doctrine of reconciliation helps us to glimpse a pathway toward thereconciliation of two camps within the church that have been circling oneanother suspiciously for far too long, and perhaps two personality types thathave projected themselves a little too enthusiastically into that polarization, Ithink that Paul himself would heave a sigh of relief and suggest that now,reunited,itmightbetimetogetonwiththetaskofcoherentlivingandpreachingthegospel.

PART2

Theology'sBible

5

TheReligiousAuthorityofAlbertSchweitzer'sJesus

JAMESCARLETONPAGETOn15November1928KarlBarth,thenprofessorinsystematictheologyattheUniversity of Munster, wrote to Eduard Thurneysen to say that he had metAlbert Schweitzer some eight days before. "I told him [Schweitzer]," Barthwrites,"thathis[lecture]wascrudeworks-righteousnessandthathewasamanof the eighteenth century, but other than thatwe got on verywell. There's nopoint picking a squabblewith him ... I have to go to a seminar. I'm speakingtodayaboutthedamagingnatureofeternaltruths."'

InasomewhatbarbedwaytheletterraisesthequestionoftheappropriatenessofdiscussingAlbertSchweitzerinavolumeconcernedwiththequestionofthenormative role of the New Testament in the discussion and formulation ofChristian doctrine. For there is definitely a sense in which Earth's impliedjudgment of Schweitzer as a liberal is right, in particular as this relates toSchweitzer's view of the role of Christian doctrine in the formulation of theChristianmessage.

Inapubliclectureinearly1902,deliveredinStrasbourgandentitledProtes-tantismus and die theologischeWissenscha ft ("Protestantism and TheologicalScience"), Schweitzer outlined his critical attitude toward Christian dogma.Schweitzernotesthattheologicalscholarship

has gifted to us ... true freedom fromdogmas.We do not stand as slavesundertheirrule[Herrschaft]...butasfreemenweunderstandandattendtothem. We understand them as something that was necessary; we respectthemasholyvesselsinwhichpastgenerationshavehousedthewateroflife

andinwhichwetastesuch.Butbecauseoftheirhistoricalnature,theyarenotbindingnorms.Wefindourselvesinrelationtotheminthesituationofanationwhichhasfoughtitselffreeofanabsolutemonarchyandcomeundertheruleofanidealmonarch.Thedogmasstandinplaceofthemonarch.Webringtothemnoblerespect.Buttheparliament,whichrepresentsus,thesearetheideasandneedsofourage.Inthepoliticalandalsointhereligious-spiritualareathisistheonlysolutionoftheconflictbetweentheoldandthenewt

And in another lecture, written four years later, entitled Jesus and Wir,Schweitzer, more trenchantly, notes that the church has placed a dogma overJesus.

Asanhistorian Iwouldcertainly say that they [the leadersof thechurch]hadtodoso,thatviewedfromahistoricalperspectivetheycoulddonothingelse.Butaswearehereconcernedtospeakaboutwhat is thecase,Istatethatthechurcheshaveencasedavibrantmaninabuildingofdogmas,havedestroyedhis simple livinghumanity, andmadehim inaccessible to thosewho do not stand in the building. It cannot and dare not be said enough:Jesusbelongsasamantomen.3

Innoneof thisdoesSchweitzerreject theneedforChristiandoctrines; indeed,ononeoccasionhecantalkabouttheneedforthechurchtohavewhathetermsEhrfurchtvorderOberlieferung("reverencefortradition"),herereflectingwhathesaysaboutthenoblerespectaccordedamonarch,andthismeanstheneedfora thoughtful engagementwith such traditions, for a need to reexpress them interms that take account of the new context towhich they are being addressed(nowheredoeshespeakofundogmatischesChristentum).4Butthereisaneasilylocated impatience, a sense that, as with a monarch in a parliamentarydemocracy,traditionalChristiandoctrinesarealmostirrelevant.Inthisrespect,itisstrikingthat inspiteof theimpliedneedforaninteractionbetweenreligioustradition and thought, Schweitzer almost never mentions or discusses suchsignificantChristiandoctrinalconceptsastheincarnationortheTrinity.Itisthebiblical tradition, understood essentially as the New Testament tradition, thatengages Schweitzer in his belief that tradition is best understood withoutreferencetoChristiandogmaticcategories.Andalthoughheisinterested,atleastin broad terms, in how that tradition came to be transformed into ideasassociated with the second century and beyond, he subscribes, at least in a

moderate form, to theview that such transformation ledChristians away fromwhatwascentral(andbyimplication,biblical)intheirfaith.'

So,givenallthis,whydiscussAlbertSchweitzerinavolumededicatedtotheplace of the New Testament in the formulation of Christian doctrine? First,Schweitzercould,ononereading,besaidtorepresentonepoleofthediscussion,and any serious engagement with this subject needs to be conducted from avariety of quarters. The liberal tradition's perspective on the development ofChristian doctrine, whether viewed through the eyes of Harnack, Troeltsch,Schweitzer,orWerner,isasignificantpartofourtheologicalheritage,evenifitisnotinvogueatpresent.Second,Schweitzer'sinteractionwiththattraditionissingular and striking, and few people in the period out of which he emergedreflected as fervently, and as problematically, as he did upon the ongoingsignificanceofJesusandPaulfortheChristianfaithanditsarticulation.Third,SchweitzerremainedfundamentallyconcernedwiththeBible,andinparticulartheNewTestament,throughouthislife,andthisinspiteofthefactthatmanyofhislaterwritingsarephilosophicalinorientation.

Inthisrespectweshouldnotethatevenaslateas1930,wellafterhiscareerasaNewTestamentscholarhadended,hefelt theneed tofinishhisworkon themysticism of the apostle Paul. He felt this need because he was stronglyconvincedofthefactthatthisbook,withitsfocusonacentralfigureofbiblicalhistory, had something to say that went beyond the confines of its supposedacademic contribution-a point that becomes very clear if one reads the dense,lapidary,almostsermonicconclusionofthatwork.'Relatedtothisisthefactthattowardtheendofhislife,ataverybusytime,hebegantopenalengthybookonthe kingdom of God (Reich Gottes and Christentum).7 Schweitzer'sphilosophical position is often associated with "reverence for life," but it isstriking that he also saw the need to express similar sentiments in terms of astraightforwardlybiblicalmetaphor.'

In this contextweneed to note one final point.There are goodgrounds forthinking that Schweitzer's own philosophical enterprise is notably theological;that is, it cannot be understood if its theological substructure is notacknowledged.'AsSchweitzerwastowritetohisfriendD.E.Rolffsin1931,10hisphilosophyofreverenceforlifewasnomorethantheoutworkingofthingshe had written in the conclusion of the second edition of his Quest for theHistorical Jesus-a point confirmed in his at first pseudonymously published

Selbstdarstellung of 1926. There he writes, "In the moment when SchweitzerconcludedTheQuesthisphilosophywasalreadycomplete."11

SchweitzerandJesus:TheSoundsofaChristianPietist

FewdoubtthecentralplaceinSchweitzer'sconsciousnessofthefigureofJesus.SchweitzerdecidedtogotoWestAfrica,specificallyLambareneintheGabon,undertheauspicesoftheParisMissionarySociety,anorganizationwithstronglyevangelical tendencies.Thiswasastrangedecision,onemight think,givenhisliberalleanings.AndyetitwaspreciselytheadvertisementintheSociety'sownbulletin,withitsstrongcalltoserveJesus,thatattractedSchweitzertoit-apointthat he implicitlymakes in a letter, dated 9 July 1905, toAlfredBoegner, thedirectoroftheSociety:"Ihavebecomeeversimpler,moreandmoreachildandI have begun to realize increasingly clearly that the only truth and the onlyhappinesslieinservingJesusChristtherewhereheneedsus."SomethingofthissenseofthecallingofJesusisvividlycapturedincorrespondencewithhiswife,HeleneBresslau, from theperiod1902-1913.12 In a letterdated24December1904hetellsherthathewantstobuyheraChristus-Medaille(amedalonwhichwasadepictionofChrist'shead)liketheonethathepossesses."Ilookatthissooften,thismedal,"hewrites."Itisremarkabletolookatamanandtoknowthatone is his slave."13 In another letter, dated 23December 1903, he gives us asenseofthewayinwhichChristhastakenpossessionofhimagainsthiswill:

Isitnotremarkablethatthisgreatfigure[Jesus]hassubornedusandputusinchains?SometimesIthinkofrevolting.Yes,hehasgivenuspowersbuthehasalsotakenthemfromus!Hehastakenourpersonalityfromus;outoffreemenhehasmadeus slaves.Howmany talentshashe suffocated-andlookhowhehascreatedwretchedpeople,forwithouthimwewouldhavebeengloriouscharacters.Thatisblasphemyifyouwanttocallitso,butheissufficientlygreattotolerateit.14

Elsewherehespeaksofbeingtakenprisoner(gefangen)byChrist,andthenhecontinues,"Becauseofthisobedience,Jesuswillforgivememyheresy:Iamabitlikeoneofthosesatrapswhohasbeensenttothebordersofthekingdomandallowedsomewhatofa freehand,because theydefendandprotect it."" In theaforementioned letter toRolffshewrites, "Jesushas simply takenmeprisoner[gefangengenommen]sincemychildhood."16Here,inavarietyofsettings,the

piousandtheradicalmixinoddways,butcommontoallofthemisarelentless,sometimesuneasy,commitmenttoJesus.

TheHermeneuticsofSchweitzeronJesus

But in what does this commitment rest? Here we must turn to Schweitzer'sscholarlyworkonJesus.

Schweitzer's thesis about the motivating forces behind, and the course of,Jesus'ministry can be found in a variety ofworks dating back to 1901." Therudimentsofhisviewcanbesuccinctlysummarized.Jesuspreachesthearrivalof a coming kingdom in which he will be manifested as the Messiah. Hedemands from thosewhowill enter the kingdom an absolute ethic of love asproofthattheybelongtoGodandtheMessiah,whatSchweitzercontroversiallytermedan "interimethic."At a certainpoint inhisministry,whenhebelievesthat thekingdomisabout tocome, Jesussendsouthisdisciples tospread thisnews,butwhentheyreturn,thekingdomhasnotcome.Inthismomentofcrisisheconcludesthatthekingdomcancomeonlywhenhe,bysufferinganddeath,hasmadeatonement for thosewhohavebeenelected to thekingdomand thussavedthemfromhavingtogothroughthepremessianictribulation.HegoesuptoJerusaleminthefullknowledgethatdeathawaitshim.Atthefinalsupperhedeclarestohisdisciplesthathewillnotdrinkagainofthefruitofthevineuntilhe drinks of it again in his father's kingdom.His death on the cross does notbringabouttheseriesofeventsthatheexpected,andhediesonthecrosswithacryofdespair."

It is not my intention to critique Schweitzer's thesis from a scholarlyperspective.WhatismoreimportantistoexamineSchweitzer'sattempttoderivesomething lasting forChristian life fromwhat he admits is a set of disturbingconclusions.ItispreciselyinSchweitzer'swillingnesstoreflecthermeneuticallythat he differs so strongly from JohannesWeiss,withwhoseDie Predigt JesuvomReicheGottes(1892)heagreedsostrongly,butwhich lacked,even in itssecond edition, a real engagement with the theological consequences of itshistoricalconclusions."

In what follows I will explore Schweitzer's hermeneutical response to hisapparently shocking set of conclusions.Rather than showing how those viewsevolved'21Iwill outline their central claims as these are found in the second

editionofVonReimaruszuWrede,whichwaspublishedin1913asGeschichtederLeben-Jesu-Forschung.IntheprocessIwillrefertootherwritingsthatseemrelevant.21

Schweitzer was clear that historical work on Jesus-that is, the work ofSchweitzerandotheradvocatesof"thoroughgoingeschatology"-haddeliveredashatteringblow to theology. Jesus, ashistorically reconstructed,willno longerbeafiguretowhomthereligionofthepresentcanascribeitsownthoughtsandwho can appear sympathetic and universally intelligible to themultitude. ThehistoricalJesuscanonlybetoourtimeastrangerandanenigma.ThemistakeofpreviousgenerationsofscholarslayinassumingthatJesuscouldmeanmoretousbyenteringtheworldintheformofamanlikeourselves,bybelievingthathistorycouldinsomesensecontributetothemakingofthepresent.InthefirsteditiontheexpressionofsuchviewshadledSchweitzertoseektotranscendtheclaimsofthehistoricalJesusbyappealingtothemightyspiritualforcestreamingforth fromhim: itwas this fact thatcouldbeneither shakennorconfirmedbyanyhistoricaldiscovery.This somewhatproblematic statement,which remainsunchanged from the original conclusion in Von Reimarus zu Wrede, is notdeveloped here. As we will see, Schweitzer prefers to concentrate on thecomplexofJesus'will.

InthesameconclusionSchweitzerstates,"WethoughtthatwehadtoleadourtimebyaroundaboutwaythroughthehistoricalJesus,asweunderstoodhim,inordertobringittotheJesuswhoisaspiritualpowerinthepresent.Thisdetourhas now been closed by true history. 1122 Schweitzer asserts that the liberalpresentationsofJesus'life,withtheirenfeeblingtendencytoselfprojection,havesucceeded in robbingJesusofmuchofhispower,preciselybecause theyhavewatereddown"hisimperativeworld-denyingdemandsonindividualssothathedid not come into conflict with our ethical ideals."23 This leads to a sharplyhermeneutical question: "What does the historical Jesusmean for uswhenwedissociate him from all false justification of the past from the present?"24Schweitzer's response ispositive:weare immediatelyaware that inspiteof itsstrangeness, Jesus' personality has great significance for us, and it mayprofoundly enrich our religion. But in what way? It is here that Schweitzerintroducestheideaofthewill.

Each world-view comprises elements determined by its own time andelementsundeterminedbytime.Theseareintermingledandexistalongside

eachother,sothataworld-viewconsistsofawillpenetratingandshapingthe body of available contemporary thought-forms. This body of ideas issubjecttochange....Butthewillistimeless....Howevermuchchangetheremay be in the thought forms of a period, and however extensive thedifferences between old and newworld-viewsmay be as a result, in factthesedifferencesgoonlysofarasthereisadifferenceinthedirectiontakenbythewilldeterminingtheviews

Theaimofinterpretation,then,istoenableanaccordtobereachedbetweenwillandwill,specificallybetweenJesus'willandthewillofthereader.21ButhowdowegoabouttranslatingorunderstandingthewillofJesus,expressedasitisin"primitivelate-Jewishmetaphysics"?Schweitzerrejectstheideathatweseparateouttransitoryfrompermanentelements;theresultsofthisproceduresodetract from the greatness and unity of Jesus' thinking that it only appears toenrichourreligionwithoutreallydoingso.Jesusis"greaterifheisallowedtoremaininhisowneschatologicalsettingand,despiteallthatisstrangetousinthatwayof thinking,caninfluenceus thenatamoreelementaryandpowerfullevel."27Schweitzer continues, "Ifwe only allow the compelling force of hispersonalityandhispreachingofthekingdomtheirfullexpression,thealienandoffensiveelementscanbequitecalmlyrecognized.Thishappensautomaticallyas soon as the inevitable limitations of the thought forms available to himareacknowledged."28Inotherwords,"Actuallyitcannotbeamatterofseparatingbetween the transitory and the permanent, but only of translating the basicthoughtof that ideology intoour concepts";but sucha "translation"cancomeaboutonlyifwebegintomove"towardsadispositionnotdissimilartoJesus."29

Individuals within a specific time period can have a real and livingrelationship with Jesus only to the extent to which they think ethically andeschatologically within their own categories and can produce in their ownworldviews the equivalents of those desires and expectations that hold such aprominent position in his-that is, when they are dominated by ideas thatcorrespondtothosethatgovernJesus'conceptionofthekingdomofGod.3o

Such a disposition contrasts sharplywith the present state of society,which"lacks all sense of immediacy and all enthusiasm for the ultimate goals ofmankindandofbeing,"andit ispreciselythis lackofinnersimilaritybetweenJesus'"ethicalenthusiasmandthedirectnessandpowerfulqualityofhiswayofthinking" that renderedexegetesof thepresent age incapableofunderstanding

him, forcing themtomakehimamanand theologianmodern ineveryway.31Schweitzer goes on, perhaps paradoxically, to assert that once we haveconnectedourwillwiththatofJesus,hismessagenolongerappearsoffensive;infact,itscallforaconsummationoftheworldmakesperfectsense.Schweitzercontinues, "We give history its due and liberate ourselves from the thought-formswhichwereavailabletohim.Butwebowtothepowerfulwillwhichliesbehind them."32 But after these expostulations that save Jesus for the worldthroughakindofmetaphysicsofthewill,Schweitzermaintains,"But,letitbeclear,theideaofthemoralconsummationofallthingsandofwhatwemustdoinourtimehasnotcomedowntousfromhimthroughhistoricalrevelation.Itisinherentinusandispartofthemoralwill";"but,"hecontinues,"becauseJesus,followingthegreatamongtheprophets,graspedtheentiretruthandimmediacyofitandimbueditwithhiswillandpersonality,hecanhelpustomasteritandtobecomemoralforcesforourtime."33

We can achieve a relationship to such a personality only whenwe becomeunitedwithhimintheknowledgeofasharedaspiration,whenwefeelthatourwill is clarified, enriched and enlivened by his will, and when we rediscoverourselves through him. Our religion, insofar as it proves to be specificallyChristian, is therefore not so much a Jesus-cult as a Jesus-mysticism (Jesusmystik).34

Severalobservationsarisefromthissummary.

1.Schweitzer'sturnfromtheliberalviewthathistorywasthelocusinwhichtolocatethemeaningofJesusforusnow,theplacethatwouldallowusinsomeparticular way direct access to the figure himself, was a gradual one.35 Ofcourse, Schweitzer is clear that the historical enterprise cannot be avoided (inthiscontextmuchofSchweitzer'srhetoricconcerningthebusinessofhistoricalinvestigationintermsofaWahrhaftigkeitstat["actoftruthfulness"]remindsusof the language of the theological liberalism from which he emerged); it issimplythatitcannotenergizethepresent.InallofthisSchweitzerisreflectiveofagrowingconvictionwithinstrandsofProtestantismthatwastoreachitszenith,admittedlyfromdifferentpresuppositions,intheworkofBarthandBultmann.

2.Schweitzer iskeen toavoid,at leastexplicitly,a sievingprocesswherebythe supposedly permanent and the transitory aspects of Jesus' message areseparated one from another-an interpretative move that liberal scholars were

oftenquicktomake.ForafullappreciationofthecharacterofJesus'will,thereisforSchweitzerasenseinwhichheshouldbeseeninaunifiedlight,andthismeans inhis full eschatological setting.After all, according toSchweitzer,weachieve our hermeneutical goal by a translation of the basic thought of thatideologyintoourconcepts.SuchanapproachbetterpreservestheabsolutenessofJesus'convictions, theenthusiasmofhisethicaldisposition(describedasanabsoluteethic),whichisentirelysetupontheestablishmentofthekingdom.ItispreciselyinthisformthatJesusbecomesaforceinthepresentworld.

InthiscontextweshouldnotehowSchweitzer,herebrandishinganantiliberalcudgel,playsup the roleofJesus'difference fromtheworldand itsprevailingvalues. Schweitzer, unlike his liberal predecessorRitschl, saw theworld as indeclineandsaw its transformationas lyingnot in thevaluesofhumansocietybutratherinatypeofeschatologicalethicsthathadasitscoretheconvictionof"notbeingconformedtotheworld."JesusasamanwhosemindissetuponthekingdomofGodrisesabovethevaluesoftheworld."ThekingdomofGod,"asSchweitzer asserted in a series of pieces for laymen written in an AlsatianLiberaltheologicalmagazine,"isuntimelyworkforthefuture"(unzeitgemdsseArbeit in der Zukun although none of this should be seen to imply anindifferenceto theworld,for,paceSchweitzer, it ispreciselybecauseofJesus'difference from theworld thathe is able toworkeffectivelywithin it.37HereSchweitzer'sworkasNewTestamentscholarconvergeswithhisworkasculturalcritic.ButthereisasensealsoinwhichSchweitzer'ssolutiontotheproblemofthesituatednessofthehistoricalJesushasthewhiffofaliberalsolutionaboutit,forbyhisappealtoasortofmetaphysicsofthewill,Schweitzerisseekingoutsomething eternal to bridge the gap between the past and the present. This iswhyHenningPleitnercandescribeSchweitzer'sworkasDasEndederliberalenHermeneutik.38

3.Inspiredinpartbytheinvolveddebatethathadtakenplaceatthebeginningof the twentieth century about the existence of Jesus in Geschichte derLebenJesu-ForschungSchweitzerhadreflectedmoreextensivelyonthequestionof the importance of the historical Jesus, what he termed a "philosophico-religious question," and in away that revealed tensions in his thinking on thesubject.FromwhatSchweitzertermed"apurelylogicalpointofview,"whetherJesusexistedornotremainedpurelyhypothetical.And,accordingtoSchweitzer,any theology that did not take account of that observation would make itself

unduly dependent on the most incalculable contingencies. "ModernChristianity," hewrites, "must always reckonwith the possibility of having toabandonthehistoricalfigureofJesus.Henceitmustnotartificiallyincreasehisimportance by referring all theological knowledge to him and developing achristocentricreligion:theLordmayalwaysbeamereelementinreligion,butshould never be considered its foundation. 1141 It was Christian scholars'fixationwith history, over againstmetaphysics, that had ledmany of them tofashion a Jesuswho, in Schweitzer's opinion, hadmore to dowith their ownmodernizing presuppositions than with the real historical figure. Or putdifferently, itwas, ironically, the obsessionwith history that had led scholars,perhaps unconsciously, to seek to overcome the specificity of Jesus' ownhistorical circumstancesand topaint apictureofhim that smoothed the roughedgesofhisunacceptableand,inSchweitzer'sopinion,eschatologicalviewpoint.Ashestates,

Theremarkablethingabouttheproblemwhichconfrontsthephilosophyofreligion is that all compromises which lie between the two extremes arebasicallyworthless.Wemust come to termswith either one or the other.Religion has to reckon either with an unhistorical Jesus or with a toohistoricalJesus.Allintermediatesolutionscanhaveonlyanappearanceofplausibility41

It is for this reason that Christianitymust takemore seriously than it has thepossibilityoflivingwithoutthisall-too-historicalandcontingentJesus,andthatit must develop a metaphysics-"that is, a basic view of the nature andsignificanceofbeingwhichisentirelyindependentofhistoryandofknowledgetransmitted from thepast, andwhichcanbe recreatedafreshat everymomentand in every religious subject."42 It is to this section of Geschichte derLebenJesu-ForschungthatSchweitzeralludeswhenhewrites inhisconclusionthewordsalreadycited:"But,letitbeclear,theideaofthemoralconsummationofallthingsandofwhatwemustdoinourtimehasnotcomedowntousfromhim through historical revelation. It is inherent in us and is part of themoralwill."Butwhatisremarkableisthatinspiteofsuchutterances,Schweitzerstillmaintains that our will can be clarified and enriched by that of Jesus, "for aliving personalitymeans a remarkable enrichment of religion," and so he can,almostinspiteofhimself,insistonanongoingroleforJesus.Inthisrespect,itisinterestingtonotethatinGeschichtederLeben-Jesu-Forschunghedismissesthe

neoorthodoxviewsofWobbermin'43whichpartlyreflectedthoseofKahler,thatadistinctionshouldbemadebetweenthehistoricalJesusandthehistoricChrist,and he is similarly harsh on Bousset and Troeltsch's differently expressedopinion that there is a need for Jesus to have a symbolic role withinChristianity."Thisemerges,inmyopinion,preciselyfromthecommitmentthatSchweitzerhas to thepersonof Jesusand to thesense,howeverconceived,ofrelatingtohim.45Inthiscontextweshouldattendnotonlytothemorestrikingremarks that Schweitzer made about his own relationship with Jesus, alreadyreferred to,butalso to thecommentfoundinhisearliestaccountof the lifeofJesus,DasMessianitdts- andLeidensgeheimnis: Eine Skizze desLebens Jesu."Withtheaimofthebookmaytheynotfindfault:todepictthefigureofJesusinits overwhelmingheroic greatness and to impress it upon themodern age anduponmoderntheology....Beforethismysteriousperson,who,intheformofhistime,knewthathewascreatinguponthefoundationofhislifeanddeathamoralworldwhich bears his name, wemust be forced to lay our faces in the dust,withoutdaringeventowishtounderstandhisnature."46

4.Inallofthisitisimportanttonotewhatshouldbeclearfromobservation3above:Jesusissomethingnotbecauseofwhoheisinsomemetaphysicalsense,orbecauseoftheeternalvalidityofwhatheteaches,butbecauseofthewillthatheshows,whichhas thecapacity to transform.AsSchweitzernotes ina letterdated 24December 1910, "He ismyLord in spite of the fact that inwardly Istand free in relation to his ideas and opinions.... He ismy Lord through thegreat and pure will in which my will finds its way and becomes brilliantlysimple."47

SchweitzerandPaul

Asiswellknown,SchweitzerarguedstronglyagainsttheprevailingtendencyinPauline scholarship to divide Jesus fromPaul.48What binds them together istheir eschatological vision; what distinguishes them is the different points atwhich they find themselves in eschatological history. Jesus waits for God'sconsummationofthingsinthecomingofthekingdom;PaulwaitsforthesamethingbutarguesfortheviewthatChristians,throughthedeathandresurrectionofJesus,havebeguntoexperiencetherealityofthekingdom,preciselybecausebeing inChrist, theyhavebegun to share in thebenefitsofhis savingactivityexpressedthroughtheSpirit.This iswhatSchweitzercalls"Christ-mysticism,"

andoneofthechiefwaysinwhichitmanifestsitselfisinethicalactivity.

Whileforotherbelieversecstaticdiscoursesandconvulsiverapturesmeanthesurestproofofthepossessionofthespirit,St.Paulturnsthedoctrineofthespiritintoethicalchannels.AccordingtohimthespiritwhichbelieverspossessisthespiritofJesus....ThisspiritofJesusistheheavenlylifeforcewhichispreparingthemforexistenceinthepost-resurrectioncondition,justas it effected the resurrection in itself in him. At the same time it is thepowerwhichcompelsthem,throughtheirbeingdifferentfromtheworld,toapprove themselvesasmenwhohaveceased tobelong to thisworld.Thehighestproofofthespiritislove.49

InallofthisSchweitzer,likeBultmannlater,makesmuchofthefactthatPaulisnot dependent upon the earthly Jesus for his teaching but rather is dependentuponandlivingintheauthorityofthespirituallyarisenJesus."ForChristianity,"writesSchweitzerinthesonorousconclusionofDieMystikdesApostelsPaulus,

isaChrist-Mysticism,thatistosay,abelongingtogetherwithChristasourLord,graspedinthoughtandrealizedinexperience.BysimplydesignatingJesus "our Lord" Paul raises him above all the temporally conditionedconceptionsinwhichthemysteryofhispersonalitymightbegrasped,andsetshimforthasthespiritualbeingwhotranscendsallhumandefinitions,towhomwehavetosurrenderourselvesinordertoexperienceinhimthetruelawofourexistenceandourbeing.51

Schweitzercontinues,

AllattemptstorobChristianityofChrist-mysticismarenothingmoreorlessthanauselessresistanceto thatspiritofknowledgeandtruth,whichfindsexpressionintheteachingofthefirstandgreatestofChristianthinkers.Justas philosophy, after all its aberrationshas always to return to theprimarytruth that every genuinely profound and living world-view is of mysticalcharacter,inthesensethatitconsistsofsomekindofconsciousandwillingsurrendertothemysteriousandinfinitewill-to-live,fromwhichweare;sothoughtofanessentiallyChristiancharactercannotdootherthanconceivethissurrender toGod,asPaulconceived it longago,ascomingtopass inunionwiththebeingofJesusChrist.51

ThemodernChristiancannotconceiveofthatunioninexactlythesamewayasPaul did, but just asPaul sought to conceiveof it in terms thatweredifferentfromthoseofJesusandrespondedtotheconditionsinwhichhefoundhimself,sodowehave the right todo thesame.Paul's thoughtfulengagement justifiesourownthoughtfulengagement,whichwillleadtotheconclusionthat

ourfaith,likethatofprimitiveChristianity,mustgrasptheappearanceandthe dying of Jesus as the beginning of the realization of the kingdom ofGod....TobelieveintheGospelofJesusmeansforustoletthebeliefintheKingdom of God which he preached become a living reality within thebelief in him and the redemption experienced in him. Paul, in hisChrist-mysticism,wasthefirsttoaccomplishthis:isitreasonableforustoneglectthegainswhichhehassecured,andattempttoreachthesameresultinourownstrengthandbyindependentthought?"

Paul,forSchweitzer,becomesthefirstprotagonistofaChrist-mysticismwhoseinterpretative shape, if not its presuppositions (Schweitzer's Paul is aneschatologicalrealist), isclosetowhatSchweitzerhadunderstoodascentraltoany appropriation of Jesus' eschatological worldview. Paul, for Schweitzer, isprincipally a figure of greatness because he is a thinker-the patron saint ofthinkers, as he strikingly puts it. Paul becomes, in some senses, the firstChristianrationalist,andSchweitzer,byimplication,hisworthysuccessor."

PhilosophicalPostscript

Schweitzer'sphilosophicalworkhadbeenasignificantpresenceinhislifefromthe beginning of his academic career and came to preoccupy him from 1913onward, but it rarely attracts attention. And yet, I would contend, it remainsrelevant to the subject of this volume.54 In this work Schweitzer argues thathuman beings should understand themselves as wills-to-live who live in themidst of life that wills-to-live. Such an affirmation involves identification, asense of commonality, with all other wills-to-live conceived as all livingphenomenaintheworld.Schweitzermovesfromthistoarguethatallisapartofacosmicwill-to-live,whichcompleteswhathetermsthemysticalelementofhisthought. Union with such a will is reached not through contemplation butthroughethicalaction,expressedasservicetolife.Alloftheseconclusionsarereached not through contemplation of the world (the world, according to

Schweitzer,manifests itself as a sad and hideous competition between life, ascrueltyandsuffering)butratherthroughapprehensionofwhatSchweitzerholdstobethewillwithinus,whichisethicalincharacter.Butthiscannotbeseentobeaself-evidentconclusion.BothSchopenhauerandNietzsche,whoindifferentwaysinfluencedSchweitzer,hadarrivedatquitedifferentconclusionsbasedontheirownbeliefsabouthumansaswills-inthecaseofSchopenhaueritseemed,inasense,thatlifedenialwasthebestoptionopentoahumanbeing,andinthecaseofNietzscheinagrandassertionofthewilltopower.SchweitzercanarriveathisconclusiononlybecausehehasasenseofGodasthewill-to-lovemanifestinhisSonJesusChrist.55AsSchweitzerwastowriteinTheMysticismofPaultheApostle,"InJesusChristGodismanifested[offenbart]asWill-to-Love."56Christ, in Schweitzer's thought, is a transformative moral force, and in somerespectshisphilosophicalcontentionscanworkonlyifthatisthecase.Insuchinstances, writes Barsam, we are reminded of Schopenhauer's image of aconjurerwhopullsoutofhishatsomethingthathadalwaysbeenthere.57

Thegerms,then,ofSchweitzer'sphilosophicalsolutionfortheregenerationofculture are tobe found inhisworkon theNewTestament.His eschatologicalsolutiontotheproblemsoftheNewTestamentcaneasilybetranslatedintohiscentralphilosophicalclaimthatitisonlybyreflectionuponone'sinnercoreaswillthatonecanactupontheworldinaneffectiveway;orputeschatologically,it isonlybysettingone'seyesuponthefuturekingdom,by leaving theworld,thatonehasthecapacitytoworkuponit.Theviewthatthatself-reflectingwillcan act ethically only as it conceives of itself as onewill-to-live acting in themidstofotherwills-to-liveseemsinavarietyofwaystodependonSchweitzer'sown view of Jesus as will-to-love, inchoately expressed in Geschichte derLeben-Jesu-Forschung and more completely in The Mysticism of Paul theApostle."

Conclusions

"Whether fromapositionof faithorofunbelief, howcanbiblical scholarsdojustice to historically and culturally contingent human figures like Jesus ofNazarethorhisapostleSaulofTarsus-andyetmakesenseofthetexts'insistenceon these same figures as, respectively, `Son of God' or divinely appointedapostolicwitness?"59 In one sense,Albert Schweitzer took this question veryseriously: he sought to show how historically and culturally contingent Jesus

was,andthereforehowproblematichistoryisasthelocusinwhichtodiscoverwhohereallywas.Healsotookthisquestionseriouslyinsofarashesoughttoovercome historicism and show how Jesus, in spite of his strangeness, indeedbecause of it, continued to have a hold on those in the present. AnalogousconclusionscouldapplytohisdiscussionofPaul,whobecomesthemodeluponwhichallthosewhoareseriousaboutthoughtfullyengagingwithJesusneedtoreflect, andwhich they need to imitate. But the term that emerges out of hishermeneutical foray, Jesusmystik, appears to deny the importance ofstraightforwardly conceived christological questions (we should note, forinstance,thatoneoftheseverestcriticismsleveledatSchweitzer'sbookonPaulis its failure to discuss Paul's Christology). After all, Schweitzer contrastsJesusmystikwithJesuskultinsuchawayasapparentlytoreduceJesus'roletothatofmoral exemplarof thewill, tooneof clarifying and activating thewillwithinus.Andaswenotedearlier,welookinvaininhisworkforengagementwith termssuchas"SonofGod"andwith incarnationor relatedchristologicalthemesevenatthelevelofpalliddemythologization.

ButSchweitzer'sengagementwiththequestionabove,howevertangential,isilluminating.First, itwitnesses tooneof the importantbeginningpoints in thegradual movement away from a broadly liberal Protestant hermeneuticalenterprise conducted, strangely enough, by a theologian with liberalassumptions.Thisisfindesiecleliberalhermeneuticswiththevolumeturnedupandasharplycriticalvoice-over,whichpartiallyexplainswhyaspectsofwhatSchweitzerarguesseemtoanticipatethingsthatBarthandBultmannsaybutthatalsolooksodifferentfromtheirtheology.Second,SchweitzerisabiblicalcriticwhoremainsstronglyattachedtotheBible,inparticulartheNewTestament,allhislife;andinmanywayshecontinuestoexpresshisconcernsandhopeswithbiblical metaphors such as the "kingdom of God." Third, his work betraysstrikingtensionsasitwitnessestoaChristian'sattempttothinkoutafinalandlastingprinciplethatwillguidetheworldtoculturalrevival.Thetensionexistsbetween, on the one hand, Schweitzer's extraordinary statements that speak ofhisongoingcommitmenttoJesusand,ontheotherhand,hisunfinishedefforttodiscover a lasting cross-cultural principle with which to aid human culturalrenewal.ForSchweitzer,therewasnotensionbetweenreligionontheonehandandphilosophyontheother.AshewastowritetohisfriendD.E.Rolffs,inthepreviouslynoted1931letter,

Myconviction is that thoughtarrivesatall thedeep truthsof religionandthat human beings become religious when they become thoughtful. Theethicofreverencefor life isnothingother thanJesus'greatcommandmentoflovereachedbymeansofthought.ReligionandthoughtmeeteachotherinthemysteryofbelongingtoGodthroughlove.60

ButasIhavestated,itisunclearthatSchweitzer'sphilosophicalpositioncanbearrived at without Christ; and if that is the case, it is equally unclear thatSchweitzercouldhaveseenJesus'roleonlyasexemplary.HisChristologymay,intheend,behigherthanheeverexplicitlystates.61

KarlBarthandFriedrichMildenbergeronScriptureinDoctrine

JANMUISDoestheNewTestamentprescribeChristiantheology?Itseemstomethatthisquestion should be distinguished from the question of whether the NewTestamentisnormative,becausenormsandprescriptionsaredifferentthings.Anormisastandardtotestadoctrine;aprescriptionisaruleforhowtoconstructdoctrine.TheNewTestamentisnormativeifdoctrinecannotcontradict it; it isprescriptiveifdoctrinemustbederivedfromit.DoctrinecanbederivedfromtheNewTestamentintwoways:eitheritscontentistakenfromtheNewTestamentasawhole,orbothitscontentanditsconceptualformaredirectlydeducedfromspecificNewTestamentstatementsandkeyterms.

Could "tbe New Testament" be prescriptive? Not only does the NewTestament contain statements of different kinds, but also there are manystatementswithdifferingcontent.Wheredowehaveto lookfor theirunity: inthe textof theNewTestament itself, in thehistorybehind the text,or insomeotherrealitybeyondthetext?Andhowdothedifferentstatementsrelatetothisunifying factor? Are some statements more closely linked to this factor thanothers are? Are they more central and therefore more normative andprescriptive?Canweclassifythetextsbythedegreetowhichtheyarecentral,normative,andprescriptive?'

ThatweneedScriptureinordertobelieveandliveasChristianscanhardlybedenied,butdoweneeddoctrine at allwhenwe listen to thegospel,whenwepray to God, whenwe confess the Lord, whenwe live a Christian life? In asense, this is a hypothetical question because the terms of the Nicene Creed,"God of God, Light of Light," and of the Chalcedonian formula, "truly God,trulyman,"arepartofthevocabularyofthechurch.Confessionsanddoctrines

existandareusedbybelieversonoccasion.Soactuallytherearetwoquestionshere:doweneedtraditionaldoctrine(s);doweneednewdoctrine(s)?

Iwill discuss the answers to these questions in thework ofKarlBarth andFriedrichMildenberger.IwillanalyzetheirframeofreferencebeforeIdescribetheir view on the relation between Scripture2 and doctrine and the role ofexegesis.

Barth

TheFramework

According to Barth, the task of church dogmatics is to test the actualproclamationofthechurch(CDI/1,3-5,249-50).3Thistestcanbecarriedoutby confronting the proclamation of the church with Scripture and with JesusChrist,thetwootherformsoftheWordofGod(CDI/1,265;1/2,802).Thefirstand fundamental form of the Word of God is God's self-revelation in JesusChrist;thesecondformisHolyScripture.ItisimportanttonotethedifferencebetweenScripture and revelationand thedifferencebetween theWordofGodand revelation. Scripture is not identical with revelation; it is a witness torevelation.RevelationistheWordofGod,buttheWordofGodisnotidenticalwithrevelation.Revelationisa"form"oftheWordofGod,justasScriptureandecclesial proclamation are. "Form" denotes a unity that is not identity, a dualunity or an indirect identity.4 Christ, Scripture, and the proclamation of thechurchremaindifferentbutcanbecomeoneandthesameWordofGodforusifandonlyifGodspeaksthroughthem.Thisdivinespeech-act,theWordofGod,iseternalandcannotbecomepartofhumantimeandconsciousness;thehearingof God'sWord in time is an elusive human experience. Time cannot containeternity.Ashumanbeingsintime,wecanonlyrememberandexpecttheWordofGod(CDI/1,249;1/2,502,513-14,527,530,532).5

At thesametime,Wordandrevelationaremore intrinsicallyconnected thanareWordandScriptureandWordandproclamation.ThisisbecauseJesusChrististheWordofGodinasensethatScriptureandproclamationarenot(CDI/1,304-5).6 He is the eternal Word of John 1:1, the eternal Son of the Fathertogetherwith theHoly Spirit. As I have argued elsewhere, Barth interlocks aLogosmodel(revelationasincarnation)andaspeechmodel(speechasaddress)oftheWordofGod."WordofGod"hasdifferentmeaningsinbothmodels:the

eternal Son of God and the divine act of speech. Only the Logos model isworkedoutinatrinitarianaccount:GodrevealshimselfinhiseternalSonJesusChristtousthroughtheHolySpirit.'

Barth'sanswertothequestionofhowtheproclamationofthechurchcanbetestedissurprising:thenormfortheproclamationofthechurchisnotScripture,notevenJesusChristasGod'sself-revelation,butrathertheWordofGod(CD1/2, 801), the eternal act ofGod's speaking,which cannever fullybegraspedand contained by the humanmind in a timely consciousness (CD I/1, 12-14).Because the divine speech-act is not directly available as an object of humanexperience,theWordofGodcanonlyindirectlyfunctionasnorm.TheologianscanconfronttheactualproclamationofthechurchwiththeWordofGodwhentheythemselvesheartheWordofGodinScriptureandteachwhattheyheartoothersasawitness(CD1/2,814-15).ItisthehearingandteachingoftheteacherthatpointstotheWordofGodasthenormofproclamation.ThisactofteachingthatemergesfromhearingiswhatBarthcalls"doctrine"(CD1/2,853-54).

TheWordofGodisneweachandeverytimewehearit;therefore,traditionaldoctrinecannotbenormativeforproclamation(CDI/2,802-5).Hearingrequiresthebiblicalattitudeof thewitnesswhohearsandspeaks.So theWordofGodbecomes indirectlyavailableasanormfordoctrine in the formof thebiblicalattitude,notintheformofthebiblicaltextassuch(CD1/2,816-21)!Barthcallsthis formal heteronomy. By teachingwhat they have heard, theologiansmakethisnormindirectlyavailableasadoctrine.Barthcalls thismaterialautonomy.BoththeformalheteronomyandthematerialautonomyreflectthetheonomyoftheWordofGod(CD1/2,815-16,857-58).Inthisway,thetranscendentnormofthedivineactofspeechbecomesindirectlyavailableinhumanactsofhearingandspeaking.

ItisstrikingthatBarthdoesnotspeakaboutmaterialheteronomy.Heconnectsheteronomy and autonomy analogously to the way he connects authority andfreedom in the church in his concept of obedience (CD1/2, 781-82); thus, heassociates heteronomy with objectivity, and autonomy with subjectivity. As aresult, the norm for doctrine becomes formal and objective; the content ofdoctrine becomes subjective. The reason for this conceptuality is Barth'sdistinction between what we think about God (Inhalt) and God himself(Gegenstand),betweenourconceptsofGodandtherealitytowhichtheyrefer.Barth linksmaterial content to subjectivity not to safeguard human autonomy

butrathertosafeguardGod'stranscendence.

God's transcendence does not prevent God from becoming immanent. TheWordofGodhasbecome flesh.TheeternalSonofGodhasbecomeahumanbeing.Thedivine subjecthasbecomeahumanobjectofhumanexperience inspace and time. In thisway,Godhasmadehimself known tous.Because theGodwhohasrevealedhimselfinJesusChrististhecreatorofheavensandearth,he exists in a freely chosen relation tohis creation.However, he is nopart ofcreation;hisexistencedoesnotdependontheexistenceofcreation.Therefore,ifwe knowGod as he is by revelation,we knowhim as an independent reality.Thisknowledgecanbeexpressedinconceptsandstatements.Adoctrineofthetranscendent, eternal creator is possible on the basis of his self-revelation increation,inhistoryandtime.

ScriptureinDoctrine

Dogmatics is concerned with the content of actual proclamation, biblicaltheology with the biblical foundation of it, and practical theology with itsapplication(CDI/1,4-5,16;1/2,766).DogmaticsnotonlydiscussesquestionsposedbyScripturebutalsotriestosolveproblemsthatemergeinthelifeofthechurch (CD1/2, 821-22). It is not primarily concernedwith the biblical texts:Scripture is a presupposition, not a theme of dogmatics.' Even so, dogmaticreflection without exegesis is impossible (CD 1/2, 821). On the one hand,dogmatics ismorespeculativeandabstract thanbothexegesisandapplication;on the other hand, it remainsmore closely connectedwith exegesis thanwithproclamationinanactualcontext(CD1/2,884).

Dogmatic reflection focuses on God's revelation to which Scripture bearswitness. Scripture becomes a unity only when it actually witnesses to therevelationoftheFatherintheSonthroughtheHolySpirit-thatis,whenitreferstoJesusChrist,therisenLord.Itsunityisanevent,notadatum(afixedgiven)but rather adandum (something still tobe activelygiven).Therefore, doctrinecannotbededucedfrombiblicalsalvationhistoryorfromthebiblicaltexts.Wehavenobird's-eyeviewof suchahistoryandcannothaveanoverviewof thelivingJesusChristaspartofthathistory(CD1/2,481-85).Norcanwetakeonesinglebiblical concept as thecoreof thishistoryor thecenterofdoctrine.Nosinglethemecanbethecenterofasystem(CD1/2,869-75).

Reflection is impossible without certain epistemological and ontologicalpresuppositions. Barth rejects any attempt to think theologically without suchpresuppositions as biblicism. He does not look for so-called biblicalpresuppositions instead of philosophical ones. We are committed not to thephilosophyofScripturebutrathertoitswitness.TothinkbiblicallyistothinkasawitnessofJesusChrist.PhilosophicalelementsinthewitnessofScripturearenot necessarily linkedwith its central content,God's revelation in Christ (CD1/2, 727-36, 818-19). The impossibility of deducing doctrine directly fromScripture and of thinking purely biblically means that Scripture cannot bedirectly prescriptive for doctrine, but only indirectly as witness of the self-revelationoftheTriuneGodinChrist.

AlthoughhedoesnottrytoinfernewdoctrinedirectlyfromScripture,Barthoften uses biblical texts to evaluate and reconstruct traditional Reformeddoctrine.9 This reconstructing method can be seen in his treatment ofpredestination,basedonadetailedexegesisofRomans9-11,amongothertexts(CD11/2,195-305); inhisviewontherelationbetweencreationandcovenanthistory,basedontheseparatereadingofGenesis1andGenesis2(CD111/1,94-329);andinhisreinterpretationofthedoctrineofthedivineandhumannatureintermsofeventandGeschichteonthebasisofthenarrativeofJesus'life,death,andresurrection(CDIV/2,20-154).Inthecontextofthedoctrinaltopicthatheisworkingon,Barthselectsandorderstexts10andcarefullyreadstheminorderto solve systematic problems. Thismeans that Scripture ismuchmore than ageneralpresuppositionofdoctrine;biblicaltextsofferguidelinesandconceptualtoolsforthe(re)constructionofdoctrine.

Mildenberger

TheFramework

Mildenberger'sBiblischeDogmatik"isfocusedontheuseofScriptureinthelanguage of faith, which he calls "simple God-talk." Simple God-talk is notrestricted to proclamation; it includes prayers, confessions, praise, and stories,andthesedifferentformsofGod-talkfunctionindifferentsituations(BDI,14-20).12ScriptureprovestobetheeffectiveWordofGodinitsuseinsimpleGod-talk(BDI,93).AtextbecomesWordofGodwhenitcandescribewhatisgoingtohappeninourlifeinsuchawaythatwecanseeGodatworkinwhatisgoing

on (BD I, 18, 63). The working of Scripture as Word of God in our actuallifetime is determined both by Jesus Christ, in whomGod has reconciled theworld to himself, and by the coming of the Spirit, who makes Jesus Christpresentandmakesusbelieveinhim(BDI,116,127).Besidesthischristologicalandpneumatologicaldeterminationofourhistory,ourhistory isdeterminedbyGod the Creator, who determines all time (BD I, 130). Ultimately, our livesbelongtoGod'shistorywithus(BDI,172-73,201).

The description of an actual situation by a biblical text is analogous tometaphoricaldescription. In thisdescription thebiblical text acquiresadoublereference:itreferstoboththebiblicalhistoryandtowhatisgoingtohappeninourownlifeandhistory(BDI,195-201,260).Weunderstandabiblicaltext ifwe discover a situation that it can describe. The reverse is also true: weunderstandoursituationcoramDeo("beforethefaceofGod"),ifwediscoverabiblical text that can describe it as a situation inwhichGod is present. Thus,understandingisapplication.Itisnotalwayspossibletofindtherightsituationforthetext,ortherighttextforthesituation;inthiscasewehadbetterbesilentabout God: God can also be absent (BD I, 12, 20, 220, 225, 248, 260).Mildenberger thinks thatwecannot talkadequatelyaboutGodwithoutbiblicaltexts and apart from the events in life and history inwhichGod is present orabsent.ThismeansthatChristianGod-talkisindirectintwoways:itisaboutoursituation inwhichGod isworking,notaboutGodapart fromhisworking andour situation, and it needs biblical language for an adequate description, notabstractconcepts(BDI,168,178,199).

This view implies that the actual speech (parole [deSaussure]) of theBiblecanbeusedasalanguage(langue)todescribeourlifeandhistoryinrelationtoGod(BDI,212-24).Butbiblicallanguagecannotbeusedwithoutunderstandingits original historical context. We never apply "the Bible"; we always applyspecific biblical texts from a specific, original context to a specific, actualcontext.Wemightcall thisrecontextualization.Consequently,historical-criticalanalysis of the biblical texts is indispensable for their use as Word of God.Mildenberger'suseofthehistorical-criticalmethoddoesnotpresupposethatwecanconceiveofGod'spresenceandassistanceaspartofhistoryunderstoodasachronological orderof equal, interrelated events.TheChrist event is an act ofGod, which disrupts any homogeneous conception of time and space (BD I,222). Therefore, critical reflection about ontological presuppositions is part of

theology.

SimpleGod-talk is true if it happens that our use of biblical texts really isabout thepresenceofGod inour lifeandhistory.This truth isanevent,notastate. This event is performed not by the believer but ultimately by theinspiration of the Holy Spirit (BD I, 15, 21, 113, 229, 272). The actualinspiration of the Holy Spirit is as constitutive for simple God-talk as is theWordofGod inChrist.According toMildenberger, this isnotclearenough inBarth'stheoryofthethreeformsoftheWordofGod(BDI,117).

Thereisnoobjectivetesttodecidewhethertheapplicationofatexttoourlifeandhistoryistrue.13TheBibleitselfcannotbeanindependent,objectivenorm,becausewhatwehaveisinfactaninterpretedBible(BDI,266).Althoughthereis no single independent and accessible criterion, there is the general criterionthat our understanding of a text should be in line with the Bible and theexperienceswithsingleGod-talkthathaveresultedinsomebasicdecisionsthatunderlie theconfessionsof thechurch.ForMildenberger, thesebasicdecisionsaretheunityoftheCreatorandtheRedeemer(earlychurch),justificationastheworkofGodalone(Reformation),andaccess toGodbyChristalone(BarmenDeclaration). These normative factors are interdependent and regulate theprocessofunderstandinginageneralway(BDI,265-71).

MildenbergerdoesnotinterlockthenotionofChristastheWordofGodwiththe notion of Christ as the eternal Logos, which is the eternal Son. In otherwords, in his account of theWord ofGodMildenberger only uses the speechmodel,whereasBarthcombinestheLogosmodelandthespeechmodel.Therearetworeasonsforthis.First,thenotionofdivineself-revelationisnotessentialforMildenberger'sviewontheWordofGodasinspireduseofbiblicaltexts.14Second, Mildenberger does not consider the classical Logos Christology ofNiceaanirreversibledoctrine."HeisawarethattheLogosChristologyisrootedin theBibleandnot inHellenisticphilosophy (BDI,133),butheunderscoresthedoxologicalcharacterof John1.Ahymndoesnotmerelydescribewhat isthecase;itanticipateswhatmustandwillbeeschatologically,anditcannotbetransformedintoametaphysicalstatement(BDI,134,152,190).Mildenbergerthinks that in the later development of doctrine a change of subject has takenplace:onestartedclaimingthatthemanJesusChristisdivine,butoneendedinsayingthatthedivineLogoshasassumedhumanbeing.Theconcretesubjectofthe first statement has become the abstract predicate of the second, and its

abstract predicate has become the subject of the second. Thus, the focus ofChristologyhaschanged:theSonofGodbecameGodtheSon(BDII,386-88;III,427).Christologyhas tofocuson thedivinityof themanJesus,noton thehumanityofatranscendent,divinebeing.ThatiswhyMildenbergerdevelopsaPneumaChristologyinsteadofaLogosChristology(BDIII,111-91).16

MildenbergerdoesnottrytodevelopadoctrineaboutGod.Heisfocusedontherightapplicationofbiblicaltexts,notondoctrine.ActualGod-talkintermsofbiblical texts canbeabstractedneither from theconcrete situation inwhichthetextoriginatednorfromtheconcreteeventstowhichitisapplied.God-talkis talk about events inour life inwhichGodworks.There is nometaphysicalescape from our timely being in theworld bymeans of timeless and abstractconcepts.Therefore,MildenbergerrefusesbothametaphysicaltheoryaboutGodas necessary and independent being apart from our contingent world and amodernconceptionofmanasaselfapartfromtheouterworld(BDI,97,188,204,244,273;II,12-31;III,54-60).

ScriptureinDoctrine

Like Barth, Mildenberger thinks that dogmatics plays an intermediary rolebetweenbiblicalandpracticaltheology.UnlikeBarth,heconsidersthisrolenotonly normative but also prescriptive-prescriptive, that is, not for doctrine butratherforsimpleGod-talk.Mildenberger'sdogmaticsisaninquiryintotherightwaytoapplythebiblicaltextstonewsituations.Itofferstheologicalreadingsoftexts,whichareexamplesof thepossibleuseof thesetexts insimpleGod-talk(BD I, 269). Thus, the goal of dogmatic reflection is not the proposal of newdoctrine.

But the way we talk about God is always influenced and determined bytraditionaldoctrine.Traditionaldoctrine,whichgaveanswerstoquestionsaboutfaiththatemergedinthelifeofthechurch,isasedimentoftheexperienceswithScriptureover time.Thesepast experiences cannotbeneglectedwhenwe talkaboutGodinourday.Wehavetoreflectontheseexperiencesandtheirdoctrinalexpressions. Although, as we have seen, Mildenberger considers the basicdecisions of the early church, the Reformation, and the synod of Barmen asnormative,heusesthetraditionaldoctrinesofthechurchprimarilyasameanstoarticulateourquestionsabout thepresenceofGod inour lives.Hedevelopsacomplex method to use traditional doctrines as questions for the theological

reading of biblical texts. The questions of traditional doctrinal theologiaconcerningGodascreatorandpreserverofworldandhumankindareansweredby the biblical oikonomia, texts about reconciliation with God by Christ andcommunication with God by the Spirit; the questions of traditional doctrinaloikonomia concerning salvation of humankind andworld are answered by thebiblicaltheologia,textsabouthumankindandworldastruecreationofGod(BDI,243-46).

Mildenberger's dogmatics is a reflection on the texts themselves. AlthoughtheyallbelongtooneBible,biblicaltextsareverydiverse.Mildenbergertriestodojusticetothediversityoftheiroriginsandapplications."Theoriginalcotextandcontextmaybemorerelevanttooursituationthanthecotextandcontextofthecanon."TheunityofthetextsliesnotintheinspiredcharacteroftheBibleasawhole, or in a developing biblical history of salvation behind the texts, butratherintheiruseinsimpleGod-talkthatisinspiredbytheHolySpirit.

Biblical texts are read as possible answers to questions articulated bytraditionaldoctrine.InMildenberger'sdogmaticsbiblical textsperformtherolethatdoctrineplaysinBarth's:thetextsarenotusedasfoundationsorguidelinesfordoctrinalanswers;theyaretheanswersthemselves(BDI,244).IncontrastwithBarth,Mildenbergerdoesnotcollectdiversetexts;instead,hereadslargertext units as awhole (BD I, 245).Mildenberger calls this theological reading:dogmaticreflectionas,thatis,inthewayof,exegesis(BDI,244).Forexample,reflectiononjustificationisdevelopedinanongoingreadingofRomans(BDII,160-84,327-62).

Discussion

BarththinksitimpossibletouseScripturedirectlyasanormandaprescriptionfordoctrine.TheultimatenormistheeternalWordofGod,whichisnotdirectlyavailableintimeandhistory.Onlyrevelation,thelivingChristhimselfinunitywith the Father and the Spirit, could prescribe doctrine, but he is beyondScripture.MildenbergerconsidersScriptureasnormativefortraditionaldoctrineandprescriptiveforsimpleGod-talk,butheseesnoneedfornewdoctrine.Thus,bothauthorsdenythatScriptureprescribesnewChristiandoctrine.

I think that theanswersofBarthandMildenbergerareunconvincinganddonotfollowfromtheirownpremises.Mildenbergeracceptstraditionaldoctrineas

answerstoquestionsaboutfaithandasdocumentationofpastexperienceswithScripture,buthedoesnotarguewhythetraditionofgivingdoctrinalanswerstoquestionsaboutfaithshouldstop.IfsimpleGod-talkgoeson,newquestionswillarise and new answerswill be needed.Moreover, simpleGodtalk itself needsdoctrineinordertomakeourdiverseusesofdifferenttextsindifferentcontextscoherent.ItseemstomethatMildenberger'sownaccountoftheuseoftextsinsimple God-talk asks for doctrine. If repeated use of similar biblical texts insimilarsituationsissuccessful-thatis,ifitactuallydescribesthepresenceofGodinourlives-apatternemerges.Whenwetrytodescribesuchgeneralpatterns,wedevelop concepts and relations between them. This is a conceptual account-aconceptualimagination,ifyoulike-ofGodinrelationwithhiscreatures;thatis,it is doctrine. Mildenberger rightly stresses that God is present and active inmanydifferentwaysandsituations,butGod'sagencyischaracterizedbysomegeneralbasicrelations,impliedbyhisbeingFather,King,Creator.Aconceptualaccountoftheserelationscanhelpregulateandtesttheapplicationofparticulartexts.

InBarth'sreconstructionoftraditionaldoctrineScriptureismuchmorethanageneral presupposition. His exegesis often offers guidelines for reflection andconceptualtoolsfortheologicalreconstruction.Sometimesthisreconstructionisso radical that we must speak of creative construction of new doctrine-forexample, when he relates the divine decrees of election and rejection toresurrection and cross, or when he interprets the humility of God as theobedienceoftheeternalSontotheeternalFatherinthedoctrineoftheimmanentTrinity.Thesedoctrinalinnovationsassucharespeculativeincharacter,buttheyarealsotheresultofatheologicalreadingofbiblicaltextsinsearchforanswerstodoctrinalquestions.Thismeansthat,despiteBarth'sowntheory,Scripturehasnotonlyformalheteronomybutalsomaterialheteronomy.

I conclude that Scripture is indirectly prescriptive for doctrine, becausebiblical texts provide guidelines and conceptual tools for the construction ofdoctrine. Could Barth's and Mildenberger's theories help us understand thisprescriptivecharacterofScripture?Iwillfocusthediscussionofthisquestionontwo related issues: the diversity of the texts and the concept of revelation.Mildenberger is particularly helpful in that he undertakes to do exegetical andhermeneutical justicetotherichdiversityofthebiblical textsandtomakethisdiversityfruitful forsimpleGod-talk.Thisdiversityshouldnotbewipedaway

bydoctrine,because itpoints to thediverseways inwhichGod ispresentandactive in his historywith his people. This reminds us that doctrine can neverreplaceScriptureitself.

On this point, Barth's exegesis is sometimes vulnerable or evenweak. It islegitimate to focus a general theological reading of the biblical texts on theirtranscendent center, the risen Lord.19 A reading of the Bible as a whole at"middledistance,""inwhichdiversetextsareread"simultaneously,"asitwere,isfruitfulfordoctrine.However,suchareadingmustnotbeconflatedwiththeexegesisofsingletexts.SometimesBarthseemstobeindangerofblurringthedistinction between general theological reading and exegesis of specific texts.Anexampleofthisisfoundinhisexplanationof"Yourkingdomcome"intheethicsofreconciliation.BarthconcludesfromthediverseNewTestament textsthatGod'skingdomisauniqueeschatologicalrealityandevent.21However,thiseschatologicalrealityhascomenearinJesusChrist."`ThekingdomofGodhascomenear,'means:`TheWordhasbecomeflesh.11,21Inadoctrinaldiscourseitmaybeallowabletojuxtaposethecomingkingdomandtheincarnation,butonecannotidentifythetwoinanexegesisofMark1:15andofJohn1:14,becausethissimplyneglectsthediversityofthesetexts.TheunifyingtendencyofBarth'sreadingistheresultofhisfocusonChrist.Tobesure,JesusChrististhecoreofthe New Testament, but what the various texts say about him can be quitediverse.23IsitpossibletodojusticetothisdiversityinBarth'sframework?

ThismayseemimpossiblebecauseBarth'sunifyingandharmonizingreadingofbiblicaltextsasonewitnessofGod'sself-revelationinChristisbasedonhisconcept of revelation in terms of incarnation: JesusChrist is the eternalWordwho has become flesh, and the eternal Word is the eternal Son. Are Barth'strinitarian account of God's self-revelation and his identification ofWord andSonbiblical?Therearereasonsfordoubt,bothwithrespecttoBarth'sdoctrineof revelation andwith respect to theNewTestament. RegardingBarth, BruceMcCormack has shown that the doctrine of incarnation providedBarthwith asolution to the problem, posed by Kantian philosophy, that we cannot knowGod.24ThiswasnottheproblemoftheauthorsoftheNewTestament.IsBarth'sdoctrine of incarnation in the framework of his trinitarian doctrine of self-revelationaspeculativenewconstructionforeigntotheNewTestament?WhenBarth developed this doctrine for the first time in his lectures inGottingen in1924,hewasfullyawarethatitwasaconstruct.25Butadoctrinalconstructthat

isnotdirectlyinferredfromtheNewTestamentdoesnotnecessarilycontradicttheNewTestament.InMunster,ayearlater,BarthgaveanexegeticalfoundationforhisdoctrineofrevelationinhislecturesonJohn.21

In theNewTestament the identification ofWordwith Son is found only inJohn 1.27 The development that resulted in this identification is quitecomplex.28 In the various parts of the New Testament the belief that thecrucifiedone is risenfromthedeadiscentral.ModernChristologiesreflectontherelationbetweenresurrectionofthecrucifiedandincarnation.ThequestioniswhetherincarnationisanecessaryimplicationoftheeschatologicalexaltationofJesusastheSonofGod.Somesayno,29butothersaffirmthis,30arguingthatthehistoricaldevelopmentofthenotion"SonofGod"showsaninnerlogic:themanwhobecametheSonofGodbyresurrectionmusthavebeentheSonofGodfromthebeginning,andtheSonofGodfromthebeginningcanbenootherthanGod the Son.31 Barth does not discuss these issues. It seems that he takes aparticularNewTestamentdoctrineofrevelationasacanoninthecanon.32

Indeed, Earth's account of revelation in terms of incarnation is a dogmaticconstruct that cannot be deduced directly from Scripture. However, this is anargumentagainst itonly ifone requires thateverydoctrinebederiveddirectlyfrombiblicaltexts,orevenfromcommonandcentralclaimsinvariouspartsofthe New Testament, which is a rather biblicist position. Earth's doctrine ofrevelationintermsofincarnationandTrinityandhiscombinationoftheLogosmodelandthespeechmodeloftheWordofGodprovideanexplanationofwhyJesus Christ is God's ultimate and definitive self-revelation. We shoulddistinguishherebetweenexplanans(whatexplains)andexplanandum(whatistobeexplained).Earth'sdoctrineistheexplanans;theself-revelationoftheFatherinChristthroughtheHolySpiritthatisexperiencedinfaithistheexplanandum.ItseemstomethattheclaimthatJesusChrististheultimateanddefinitiveself-revelationofGodisbasictoChristianbelief,irrespectiveoftherelationbetweenresurrection and incarnation and of the way the Logos Christology has beenworked out in classical christological and trinitarian doctrines.33 This beliefcannotbeomittedinanaccountoftheuseofScriptureindoctrine.

But this is exactly what happens in Mildenberger's account. Mildenbergerseparates the Logos model of the Word of God from the speech model andrejects theLogosChristology, but he offers no alternative explanation ofwhyandhowJesusChrististhedefinitiverevelationofGod.Morethanthat,notonly

does he reject Barth's explanans, but also, in the end, he seems to reject theexplanandumaswell:itisnotGod'srevelationinChristthatisconstitutivefortheuseofScriptureasWordofGodinsimpleGod-talkbutrathertheinspirationof the Spirit.When,withBarth, he identifiesChrist as the onlyWord ofGod(BDI,182,270-71),thismeansonlythatthisWordofGoddeterminesourtimeandhistory.WhywouldChristbetheonlyWordanddetermineourhistoryifhedidnotrevealultimatelyanddefinitivelywhoandhowGodis?

CouldEarth'sconceptofrevelationdoexegeticaljusticetothediversityofthebiblicaltextsandoftheactualcontextsinwhichtheyareused?Inotherwords,could Mildenberger's method of recontextualization be considered as aconcretization and extension of Barth's doctrine of Scripture as witness ofrevelationandasaformoftheWordofGod?Iseenoreasonwhyitcouldnot.IfwestrictlymaintainBarth'sdistinctionbetweenthelivingChristandthetextsoftheNewTestamentandactualecclesialproclamation,wecando justice to thediversity of the texts in their original context and of their application in new,actual contexts. Christ differs from all situations and can be present in alldifferentsituations.Thus,thefocusonChristgivesroomforcontextualexegesisandcontextualapplicationofdiversetexts.Theonlyconstraintonthisisthattheexegesis of different texts should not render the witness of the living Christimpossible. Indeed, exegesis of the texts of theNewTestament that precludesonefromseeingJesusChristinthemirrorofthesetextsisunbiblical.34

RowanWilliamsonScripture

JOHNWEBSTERBackground

Rowan Williams has a considerable and justly deserved reputation as aconstructive Christian theologian. For over twenty years he has unobtrusivelypushedtheologicalpracticeawayfromthetwinintellectualandspiritualdangersof irony and sclerosis.He has done this by commending a certain theologicaltemper: sophisticated but not mannered; self-critical without being hopelesslyself-subverting;oftenassociativebutnotmerely random;curiousaboutawiderange of intellectual fields (especially the arts, social and cultural theory, andphilosophy of a nonanalytical sort); ranging widely through the history ofChristian thought and spiritual practice, with only the Calvinist traditionremaining largely out of sight; patiently displaying the spiritual cogency ofclassicalorthodoxyanditscapacitytoilluminate.Heisnotaressourcementafterthe manner of de Lubac or Cougar, being more troubled by the dangers ofclosureandmoreinterestedtochaseupechoesofthegospeloutsidethechurch,moreopentobeingextendedfrombeyondthetradition.Buthesharesthesensethat-patientlystatedanddetachedfromsomeofthecompulsionsbywhichithasbeenrenderedunserviceable-conciliarteachingabouttheTrinityandincarnationcanhelpunravelagoodmanyknots.

Hisprimarytheologicalcommitmentswereformedearly,setoutinbookssuchasTheWoundofKnowledgeandResurrection,or in thefirstpublishedessaysonLosskyandBarth;laterwork,thoughitamplifiesandextendsthescopeofhisthinkingandbringsinnewconversationpartners,continuesthesamevisionwithconsistency.Therealsoisaconsistentstyle:fluent,disarminglyinformalatsomepoints,atotherstechnicalandcompressed,shuttlingbetweenthedevotionalandthe analytic, composed in long sentenceswith frequent apposition and benign

catachresis,fugal,'witharatherdensesurface,persuadingbyelaboratinguponastriking insight or by cumulative suggestion rather than by sequence ofdemonstration; only sometimes does the writing give way to a tendency tooverload.Aswith any theologicalwriter of power, the style unfolds from thematter-in thiscase,acatholicvisionofall thingscaughtupin thecreativeandredemptiveloveofGodenactedinChristandrepresentedinthechurch.

Williamsisnotacommentarialtheologianbutratheraconversationalone;thatis,hedoesnotthinkonthebasisof,andindeferenceto,agiventextbutrathermoves,asitwere,towardit,or,perhaps,generatesasetofvariationsuponit.Inthis he is, of course, no exception: commentarial theology is pretty rare thesedays (T F. Torrance's The Trinitarian Faith is probably the last reallydistinguished British example). Commentarial theology tends to flourish intheologicalculturesthatarecharacterizedbywideagreementaboutthepositumoftheChristianfaith,andthataccordprioritytothecatecheticaldimensionsoftheological work. As we will see,Williams is uneasy with conceiving of thetheologian'staskasoneofimmersioninadeterminatetextualworld,evenifthetextisabiblicalone.Textsopentheworldandareopentotheworld;theyarenotanenclave,aborderedterritory,butratherawidefieldofpossibilitieswhosemeaning is disclosed as we attend to and extend their resonances beyondthemselves.ThisexplainsinpartwhythereisratherlittlesequentialexegesisinWilliams'sworkand,instead,aleaningtowardthematicinterpretationinwhichthe"patterns"ofabiblicaltextstimulatereflectiveexpansion-exegesisisnottheend of theology. It is also part of whyWilliams sits fairly loose to questionsconcerning the nature of Scripture-that is, bibliology proper-and speaks morereadily of the hermeneutical afterlife of texts. And, as we will see, this isconnectedinturntosomedeepdoctrinalcommitments.

Williams'sworkisagoodillustrationofamoregeneralfeatureoftheologicalthought about the nature of the Bible: a "doctrine" of Scripture cannot beextractedfromtheweboftheologicalconvictionsofwhichitispart.Doctrinesof Scripture are never freestanding-even in those modern neorationalisttheologicalschemesinwhichbibliologyundertakestheroleofepistemologicalfoundationforeverythingthatfollows.Rather,doctrinesofScriptureareboundup with (sometimes driven by pressure from) theological teaching about thenatureofGodandGod'scommunicativeorrevelatoryacts,aboutChrist,Spirit,church, salvation, faith, and much else. Moreover, it is not only doctrinal

convictionsthatexercisethiskindofpressureonhowthenatureofScriptureisconstrued,but alsootherbasic (andoften subterranean)attitudes that form theparticular dogmatic "dialect" with which a theologian speaks-views aboutdistinction betweenGod and theworld, about the human historical condition,about knowledge and itsmedia, about the operations of language.One of themostinstructiveaspectsofWilliams'sworkishisalertnesstothesematters,hissenseofthewiderintellectualenvironmentoftheologicalaccountsofScripture.Ourfirsttask,then,istoindicatesomethingofthesettingofwhatWilliamshastosayabouttheBiblebeforewemovetoissuesofthenatureandinterpretationoftheBibleproper.

Setting

"Humanbeings,"Williamswrites,"havetheiridentityinhistoryandappropriatetheirsalvation inhistory.112It isa remarkmade inpassing,but it indicatesadeeplyheldconviction,onethatopensupintoatheologicalaccountofthenatureofcreaturesandtheirrelationstoGod,aswellasonethatshedsagooddealoflightonsomeoftheintellectual,cultural,andspiritualpathologiesthatheseekstouncover.Contingenttemporalprocessesarefundamentaltohumancreatures;their identity or substance is not something beneath the surface of historicaltransactionsbut rather is thatsurface-bodily, linguistic,social,cultural.Humanselfhood is not "a spring of action determined by a purewill or ... a timelesssubstance operating by pure reason";; it is, rather, that which is built up overtime."Theselflivesandmovesin,onlyin,actsoftelling-inthetimetakentosetoutandarticulateamemory, the time that isakindof representation ...of thetimemymaterialandmentallifehastaken,thetimethathasbroughtmehere."4Creatureliness is thus inseparable from the historical-material processes oflearningand,inasense,producingone'sself;itisamatterof"makingone'slife,making one's soul, in a certain fashion, deciding, developing, intending anddesiring, in cooperation, synergeia, with God."' This emphasis on creaturelycontingency as irreducible to some ahistorical essence is ubiquitous inWilliams's work. It is an early conviction: his first hook, The Wound ofKnowledge,writesthehistoryofChristianspiritualityfromtheNewTestamentto the Spanishmystics largely around this theme,with, for example, Irenaeusand theCappadociansgrasping that the locusofGod's savingpresence is "theworldofhistoricaldecision,"6andClementorOrigendrawingthespirituallifeawayfromconfrontationwith"thecontingenciesof thehumansituation."'The

sameconvictionsurfaceselsewhereinhiswriting,notonlyintheologicalworkbut also in spiritual and political tracts such as The Truce of God orResurrection, which frequently return to the theme of human refusal ofcontingencyandflightintodefensiveness.

There are important consequences here for how knowledge, and especiallyknowledge of God, is to be conceived. Knowledge is inseparable from theprocessof itsproductionoracquisition,becausetoknowis tobeengagedinasetofunfinishedpracticesofcomingtoseeandextendconnectionsratherthanto possess the world through conceptual representations. "We understand bychains of association, not by the deliverance of a self-standing concept."8Seekingtoknowisnotthesameasseekingresolution,because

thatpartofthenaturalworldthatisthehumansystemofknowingcannotbespokenofexceptasaspiralofself-extendingsymbolicactivity;itsrelationto its environment is inescapably mobile, time-related. There is noabstracting from the passage of time some necessary, non-revisable andexhaustive correlation between an inside and an outside, a set ofdeterminate, entirely "objective" stimuli and a "correct" reception of andreactiontothem.9

More simply: "Truthfulness unfolds-it doesn't happen all at once-and makespossibledifferentlevelsofappropriatingorsharingintheactivitythatisintheworld."" To this pragmatic-idealist or historical view of the generation ofknowledgeintime,knowledgeofGodisnoexception.Fromthefirst,Williamshaslaidsomeemphasisonthispoint,ofteninthecourseofdrawingattentiontoa negative effect of theological systematization: a territorial cast ofmind thatcloses possibilities, arresting the temporal connections in which truth occurs.Here he deploys the notion of apophasis, indicating not somuch a skepticismabout thepossibilityofencounterwith thedivineessencebutratheramodeofknowing encounter with God "beyond the bondage of a closed, conceptualsystem" that involves "the renunciation of aworld of determined essences."11ApophasisindicatesnotsomuchunknowingasacceptanceofboththemobilityofthecreaturelyconditionandtheimpossibilityofrepresentingGodinasinglecontingentform:God's"everlastingactisaslittlecapableofbeingadeterminateobject to our minds as the wind in our faces and lungs can be held still anddistantinfrontofoureyes."12

ThisredefinitionofapophasisintermsoftheindeterminableandunsystematiccharacterofknowledgeofGodintimehasitsrootsinthedoctrineofGod,uponwhichWilliams has written suggestively, thoughwe await a full treatment ofboththeologyproperandChristology.TheforceofthecatholicdoctrinesoftheTrinity and incarnation is to press for a reconstruction of deity as fullness ofrelation, both in se and ad extra.Drastically compressed, the central insight isthis: "Because [God's] activity and life are self-differentiating, a pattern ofinitiating gift, perfect response, and the distinct and `new' energy that is theharmony of these two movements, created difference, otherness, multiplicity,may find place in God."13 Further, God's being in itself is utterly full andinexhaustibly generative, never depleted, always the source of life. ThiscoincidenceofplenitudeandgenerativityinGodmeansthat"thedivinenaturecannot be abstracted fromGod's active relationship with the world."14 God'sidentity is full, not inchoate; but because that fullness embraces filiation,spiration, and creation, we are required to say that "God is, of his nature,'generative"';""theGodencounteredinthehistoryofIsraelandthelifeofChristmust of necessity be involved in the generating of otherness because of theradical,self-dispossessingofthelovethatGoddisplays.1116

This, in turn, leads to christological matters. Jesus is that human historicalexistencewhichis"sorelatedtotheeternalrelationoftheSontotheFatherthathishumanlifeistheembodimentintimeofthateternalrelation.1117Thus,inreflectingoniconsofChrist,WilliamsnotesthatChristiscommonlyrepresentedas "coming out from an immeasurable depth; behind or within him, infinityopensup."18Thisexpressesthefactthat"Jesus'humanlifeisshotthroughwithGod's,heiscarriedonthetideofGod'seternallife,andbornetowardusonthattide, bringingwith him all the fullness of the creator";19 and so, "the fact ofJesus'history,partofourhistory,isadoorwayintotheendlessnessofGod'slifeandresource.112'Thewordresourceisimportant,indicatingthatJesus,becauseofhis relation toGod, isa"transfiguringreality."2'The incarnationcatchesupwithinitselfcreation,matter, time,chargingthemwithpossibilities:"theworldof matter and time is not finally and authoritatively closed on itself; theboundariesareunsettled.1122Inchristologicalterms,thismeansthatWilliamslaysagooddealofemphasisontheunrestrictedcharacterofJesus'pertinence,availability,andagency-ineffect,awayofspeakingoftheeternaldeityofJesus,which is such thathishistorical reality cannot in any straightforward sense betheterminusofChristiandevotion.

Jesus ismanifestly the focusof the renewedsenseofGod that constitutesthedistinctivenewsthatChristianitybrings;itisthroughhislifeanddeathand resurrection as an historical individual that change occurs in ourstandinginrelationtoGod.ButthatchangeispreciselyamovementintotherelationJesusalwaysandalreadyhastoGod:heisandisnotthe"terminus"of devotion, and there is ... an absence at the centre of the Christianimagination,aspaceopeninguptothefinalothernessandfinalintimacyofencounterwiththeFather.21

But there is a further consequencehere, of some significance for howchurch,tradition,andScriptureareunderstood:wemaynotseparatethepersonofJesusfromwhatWilliamscallsa"furtherspaceofencounter,fromthegiftofadoptionand participation in divine life that is central to the New Testament and thepatristic tradition."24 If Christology reaches back into the divine infinity, itequallyreachesforwardintocreaturelytime,culture,andsociety.AndJesus,inhisoutreachtous,doesnotremainawhollyexternalfigurestretchingacrossanabyssbutratheronewhoselifegivesitselftousandentersintous,evokinganendless set of correspondences inwhich the pattern of his own relation to theFatherisextendedthroughhumantime.

Thisis,perhaps,notveryfarfromthose"extensionoftheincarnation"ortotusChristusecclesiologieswithwhichAnglicansoften flirtandbywhich theyaresometimesseduced.IfWilliamsresiststheblandishments,itispartlybecausehestresses, if not the "finished" nature of Christ and his work, then theirstrangeness,theirover-againstness,whichissuchthatChristandthechurcharenot simply two points on a continuum onwhich he is ecclesially reproduced."TheunionbetweentheChurchandJesusiswhatgivesformandintegritytothehistory of an empirically human community, so that this human communitymakespresentandeffectivetheactionofJesus";25yetall this ispossibleonlyon the basis of the church's "persistent return to the prior agencyof Jesus."26Onlyonthisbasisisitpossibletospeakofthechurchinepiphanictermsas"theplacewhereheisshown."27But,withthesecautions,theecclesiologycanflow,most of all in relation to catholicity, a mark of the church that for WilliamscondensesmuchofwhathewantstosayabouttimeandcommunityopenedtotheinfinityofGodbytherisenone.Acatholicchurchis

endlessly sensitive, contemplatively alert tohumanandpersonaldiversity,tirelesslyseekingnewhorizonsinitsownexperienceandunderstandingby

engagingwiththisdiversity,searchingtoseehowthegospelistobelivedandconfessedinnewandunfamiliarsituations,anddoingsobecauseofitsconvictionthateachfreshsituationisalreadywithintheambianceofJesus'crossandresurrection,opentohisagencyunderhiskingship.28

Thisprocess-theprocessofhumanlife transfiguredbyappropriatingChrist'sresourcefulness-iswhatWilliamsunderstandsasrevelation.Inacoupleofearlyessays,oneonBarth'sdoctrineoftheTrinityandoneon"WordandSpirit,"29heis troubled by "communication" models of revelation in which the Spirit'srevealingactivity isconstruedas theSpirit crossinganepistemologicalgulf tosecureabsoluteknowledgeon thepartofcreatures.The locusof revelation is,rather, that set of events in which human history is drawn to share in Jesus'relation to theFather.Thequestion towhichrevelationoffersananswer isnot"How[can]thetranscendentGod(whoiselsewhere)...becommunicatedhere?"but rather "Bywhat agency is human life transfigured?"30 Revelation is thusneither episodic nor oracular but rather ecclesial; revelation indicates the"translatability"ofJesus'relationtotheFather"intothecontingentdiversityofhistory.""Revelationis transformation,notsimplyameanstodeliverapodicticcertainty.These thingsarepickedup ina lateressay,"TrinityandRevelation,"whichdistancesrevelationfromtheideathat"thegivenrepresentedthefinished,the fixed,"32 so bypassing "the question of how [theology] learns its ownlanguage."33Rather,"revelation...isessentiallytodowithwhatisgenerativeinourexperience-eventsor transactions in language thatbreakexistingframesofreference and initiate new possibilities of life."34 Because of this, revelationcannotbe isolated from tradition, from thehistoricalprocesses inwhichJesus'significance "is apprehended by way of what it means to belong to thecommunitywhosecharacterandlimitshedefines."35

With this we return to the emphasis on temporality with which we began:revelationisthecommunity'stransfigurationthroughChristovertime.Williamshasanumberofsearchingessays that, taken together,explorewhat thechurchmightlooklikeiftemporalitygoesallthewaydownratherthanbeingasurfacebeneath which the church has integrity and unity untroubled by tem poraldefection.36HisquarrelwithGeorgeLindbeckconcernshis conceptionof thechurch'sidentityororthodoxy,notasasortofinnertruthfulnessbehindmaterialhistoryandconflict,orsome"locative"culturalpattern,butratherasahistoryinwhich, as he puts it elsewhere, "learning and exchange must continue"37-

preciselybecause at the church's heart is the storyof Jesus andhis relation toGod,whichis"notexhaustibleinwordorsystem."38Orthodoxypreserves theinterrogative element or revelatory interruption of the church's life, and soWilliamsrecommends"achurchwhoseunityliesprimarily...insharedattentiontothequestioningstoryofacrucifiedandresurrectedLord,andanattentiontohowthatstoryisbeingassimilatedindiverseanddistantcommunities,culturallyandhistoricallystrange."39

ThereareAnglicandimensionstothis,ascanbeseenfromtheelegantsetoflectures and papers recently collected as Anglican Identities, which are acumulative apology for "a theologically informed and spiritually sustainedpatience."" Williams's chosen Anglicans "know that as Christians they liveamongimmensitiesofmeaning,liveinthewakeofadivineactionwhichdefiessummary explanation. They take it for granted that the believer is alwayslearning,movinginandoutofspeechandsilenceinacontinuouswonderandacontinuous turning inside-out ofmind and feeling."" Two chapters onHookerare representative, setting him forth as a "contemplative pragmatist," reticentabout "comprehensive formulations,"42 yet sufficiently confident that thechurch's shaping of its own life is not independent of a given divinewisdomfocused in the incarnateWord.More thananything, "toknowGod ... involveselementsof flexibilityandcorrigibility,"notbecauseof some trivial relativismbut rather because "God remains God ... and can only be discerned in the`following' of the divine action within the mutable world, in a process oflearning, not a moment of transparent vision or of simple submission to adecree."43 This makes our response to revelation at once unfinished andpolitical, bound up with a set of lives gathered around a given, thoughunfathomable,memoryandpresence-thatofJesushimself.

A quotation draws together the threads of this survey of some elements ofWilliams'stheology:

WehavealreadytheactualandsubstantiveanswertothequestionofwhatGod and humanitymean for each other, howGod communicateswith usandwewithGod:JesusChrist,theincarnationofGod'seternalself-sharingand self-emptying wisdom. But because Jesus is word and image andmystery, because his truth is inseparable from involvement in the life offaith, thewaywearticulate thismeaning isalwaysshiftingsomewhatandneverappearsasatotalsystem.44

Christianfaithisasetofassociations(social,linguistic,cognitive)generatedbyandfromaparticulareventoflimitlesscreativepowerandreach.IfChristianityisthus,whatistobesaidaboutthenatureandinterpretationofHolyScripture?

Scripture

WilliamsoffersnoextendedtreatmentofthedoctrineofScripture;whathehastosaycanbegleanedfromoccasionalremarksonthetopicandfromreflectionsonarangeofneighboringthemes:hermeneutics,history,theunityofthechurch.Further,heisreluctanttoinvokelanguageaboutGodinadirectwayintalkingofScripture:appeals to inspiration,canon,andilluminationarerare,andwhentheydoappear,usuallytheyarereworkedtoemphasizethemediationofGod'sactivity through creaturely cultural processes (and the attendant humanobscuringofdivinepresenceandact).Aswemayexpect fromwhathehas tosayof thehistoricalcharacterofhumanencounterwith revelation,Williams isquite deeply unsympathetic to any conception of the biblical text as"undialecticallytransparenttoGod'sself-impartedmeaning."45TheeconomyofrevelationisnotsuchthatScriptureisanoracle,anditsinterpretationamatterofimmediate,passiveabsorptionbyatextthatexercisesgovernanceapartfromthehistoryof itsproductionanduse. "The `worldofScripture,"' hewrites againstLindbeck, "so far from being a clear and readily definable territory, is anhistoricalworldinwhichmeaningsarediscoveredandrecoveredinactionandencounter.TochallengetheChurchtoimmerseitselfinits`text'istoencourageittoengagewithahistoryofsuchactionsandencounters."46

It is important to realize, however, that this is a kind of historical realismrather thanhistoricalnaturalismof thesortoperative in thosestylesofbiblicalscholarshipfocusedupontextualorigins.ThislatterapproachtroublesWilliams,notsomuchbecauseitdemystifiestheprocessesoftextualproductionbutratherbecause it lacks alertness to the abundance of the text and the processes bywhichitisreceived."Weneedasensitivitytowhatinthetextis`excessive,'andthereforeunsettled,toitsrepresentationofaquestion,ofatensionforwhichthewordsarenotyetclear."47ThisisafamiliarenoughpointfromRicccur,butitisshaped by a construal of the divine economy that we have sketched-andultimately by a doctrine of God-in such a way that text and interpretation,Scriptureandthecumulativelife-actsofthechurch,cannotbeteasedapart.Itis

these relations that lie at the centerofWilliams's thinking aboutScripture.Heofferstworatherdifferent,thoughintheendconvergent,approachestodepictingScriptureinthelifeofthechurch.Oneismorepacific,directedprimarilybyaphenomenology of signs, artistic labor, and the active reception of meaning;another, more critical in idiom, is concerned to suggest that the revelatorypotency of the gospel presents itself, sometimes malgre tout, through thechurch's production and use of a set of texts that are caught up in the Spirit'srepresentationoftheutterresourcefulnessofJesus.

Scripture can, first, be explicated in termsof somemoregeneral featuresofsign-making.Williams's thinking here is developed in relation to sacraments,and, more recently, to artistic labor in one of his best pieces, Grace andNecessity,but it cohereswellwith suggestionselsewhereabout thenatureandinterpretationoftheBible.PonderingtheworkofJacquesMaritain,hesuggeststhatartoperatesinaquasi-revelatoryway.

Byengagingusinanunforeseenpatternofcoherenceorintegrity,artuncoversrelations and resonances in the field of perception that "ordinary" seeing andexpressingobscureorevendeny.Thus,artinonesense"dispossesses"usofourhabitualperceptionand restores to realityadimension thatnecessarilyescapesourcontrol.Itmakestheworldstrange.So,finally,itopensupthedimensioninwhich"thingsaremorethantheyare,""givemorethantheyhave."48

He illustrates this from the work of the poet and engraver David Jones,preoccupiedwith"theshowingoftheexcessthatpervadesappearances":49"Artshows that form is utterly bound tomatter, yet also that this matter does notexhaust the possibility of form."50 This "abundant" character of form in itsnecessary relation to matter is, we will see shortly, an important element ingrasping how Scripture operates. For the present, we note that artistic labor,sign-making, is explicated out of a theology of incarnation and God's"excessive"presence.

God makes himself other; the world is a world in which things makethemselvesoraremadeother (theyaremore than theyareandgivemorethan theyhave); humanbeings are those creatureswhouniquelyhave thecapacity and responsibility to uncover for one another the nature of theworldinwhichsamenessandothernessconstantlyflowintoeachother,andinwhichthereisnofinalreadingofa"surface.""

Human life, acts, "makings," may become "significant form "1-12 ultimatelybecauseof"theWordbecomesign."53

Theattractivenessofthisforacertainkindofsacramentaltheologyisevident,especiallybecauseoftheemphasislaiduponactsofsign-makingratherthanonconsecrated objects. A paper from the mid-1980s on "The Nature of aSacrament"arguesthat

the hope of the world becoming other is anchored, in the Christiansacraments,bytheconvictionthatallhumansignificantactionarisesfromtheprimordialaction,theartandsign,ofaGodcommittedtodrawingourlivesintotheorderofhealingandcommunion....Hemakestheworldtobehis"sign,"aformoflivingandactingthatembodieshisnatureandpurpose.Christiansign-making...isaworkingwiththatcreativeenergy"

But what of Scripture? How is the Bible an instance of the way in whichsignmakingis"caughtupinGod'sownwill,God'sown`longing,'tosharedivinetruth"?55Weareto"read"theworldandtheculturalactivitiesandproductsbywhichwemake sense of theworld as signs inwhichGod extends toward us:"Everything increation isadivineoutreaching tous.Toknowsomething is tobecomealerttoGod'soutreachinit."56Scripture,readinthelightofJesus'risenpresence,whichisthesupremedivinelygivensignthatordersallothers,hasitssignificance as a sign within the history of the revisioning of the world thatJesus'incarnation,death,and,aboveall,resurrectionbringabout.TheBibleistobeapproached"asifitwere...heldopenbeforeusbythelivingChrist."57Moreclosely: "The resurrection ... is to do with the creation of the new humanity,where resentment and hostility are `unfrozen,' and with the establishment ofscriptural revelation as a living relationship within the new humanity."58Scripture is a sign functioning within the new society generated by theresurrection.

HowdoesthisoperateintheuseofScripture?ReadingScriptureasasigninthesphereofrealityopenedbytheresurrectionmeansbeingalerttosignificantpatterns, not necessarily on the surface of the text, and not capable of beingisolated apart from acts of interpretation and living in the community thatgathers around Jesus. In the terms indicated earlier, the "form" of Scriptureexceeds itsmatters;Scripturehasaprivilegedplace inachainof sign-makingthat does not terminate with inscripturation or canonization; the boundaries

betweenthe textassignand thesymbolicactsofreadersareporous,preciselybecause both exist in the sphere of Christ's transformation of all things.Williams'searlyworkResurrectionoffersthefullestworkingoutoftheseideas.Thebookseekstoshow"how,asnarratives,theseEastertextspresentuswithavarietyof `significantpatterns,' imaginativeapproaches to thequestionwhat itmeant andmeans to say that Jesuswhowas deserted and executed is alive toGod and also presentwith his followers."59And so, for example, theGospelstoriesoftheresurrectionareseenasexplorationsofthemessuchas"absolutionbyGod1161or"recognizingone'svictimasone'shope'1161tobereadthroughcategoriesandexperiencesofoppression,victimization,andexclusion.Scriptureistobereadinlightofthewayinwhich,intheeconomyofGod's"outreach,""the particularity of Jesus crucified and proclaimed as savior in Jerusalembecomes a universal symbol, the focus and pivot of a fresh and transforminginterpretation of all human reality."62 This is a loose statement that invitesunfavorable comment; however, what Williams is doing with the biblicalnarratives issomethingratherdifferentfrom,say,whatSchleiermacherdoes intheChristmasEvedialogue:thematterofthetextisnotsoreducedtoitsformthat it could be translated without residue into a psychology or sociology ofconvertedness.Thetextdoesindeedsignifypersonalandcommunalrenewal;itisnotanenclaveapartfromitseffectivehistory.ButthefunctioningofthetextassigniscontingentupontheactionofGod.Itis

a narrative structure inwhichwe can locate our recovery of identity andhuman possibility, a "paradigm" of the saving process; yet not only aparadigm. It is a story which is itself an indispensable agent in thecompletionof thisprocess,because itwitnesses to theonepersonalagent,thatis,therisenChrist.61

TheconcerntopreventclosureisneverfarfromWilliams'smind,andonerealadvantageofanunderstandingofScriptureassignisitscoherencewithadeepconviction that the life of Jesus risen "is not a life exhausted in any text orassemblage of texts": "The empty throne, the space between the cherubim, isfilledbyidentifyingJesuswithadeadteacheroralivingmemory-withahumanconstructor theobjectofhumanmental activity, rather thanwith the aniconicandparadoxical`presence'oftheGodofthecovenant.1161

Thisleadstothesecond,morecritical,accountofthenatureofScripture.Themakingofsigns,especiallytextualsigns,isnotinnocent;itincludesahistoryof

conflict, suppression,or exclusion.Putdifferently: there is ahistoryof textualproduction, from which Scripture is by no means exempt, a history that isideologically freighted and of which the text itself offers only an obscurerepresentation.Arathertroubledpaperon"HistoricalCriticismandSacredText"is the sharpest statement of this.65 In it Williams tries to disabuse us of acommonassumptionof "the transparencyof text towhat it represents."66Thebiblical text, far frombeing a "finished textual synthesis,"67 is a collectionofdiscrete units that indicate an unresolved intertextual struggle about what thevarioustextsseektoindicate.

The nature of the biblical text allows us to give due weight to what wemightcallapathosofreading:thenewtextualmovementemergesfromtheunmanageable contradictions of available speech in a changing situation;butit isalsoanattempttoresolveorremoveacontradiction,potentiallyamomentofloss,diminutionofmeaning.Wereadthiscompositebiblicaltextto understand not only the proposed resolutions, but to be aware ofwhatlossesoccurastextrespondstotext.68

Thehermeneuticalconsequencehereis thatweare toreadaparticularbiblicaltext"withaneyetotensionswithinthetext,tothevoicesonitsedge,towhatitopposes or suppresses, so far as we can discern. It takes its place within theentire composite text of Scripture as an element already communicating themeaningsofGodthroughitsinnerconversationsandstressesandselfreflectionor self -subversion."69 If the first account of Scripture makes its appeal to aphenomenologyofsign-making,thissecondaccountappliesarulethatWilliamsannounces elsewhere: "There is nothing untouched by culture and thecontestation of power. 117' But it is important to note that, according toWilliams,evenanideologicallyfreightedtextcanbeconsideredtobe,andusedas,sacred.Asacredtext is"oneforwhichthecontext isalwaysmorethanthesocial-ideologicalmatrix,"oneofwhichitcanbesaidthat"readerandtextarerespondingtoagift,anaddressorsummonsnotderivedfromthetotalityoftheempirical environment."7'Accordingly, in engaging a sacred textwe not onlyencounter falseconsciousness;wealsoconverse "withapresence that isnotarival speaker,"72 beyond the competition that the text indicates. Listening forthat speaker entails seeking "those contradictions between intention andperformance,thosemarksofexcessandofintra-textualstrainthatmighthavetodonotonlywithimmediateideologicalcontextbutwithGod."73Inshort:

thesacredtextenactsitssacredcharacternotbyitstransparencybutbyitsnature as unresolved, unfinished, self-reflexive or self-questioning. It isthroughthesethingsthatits"excess"appears-itscharacterasnotdeterminedby the matrix from which it historically comes or by the conceptualframeworkitconstructs.74

WhatispressinguponWilliamshereisnot,Isuspect,sensibilitiesabouttextualindeterminacy but rather an aggressively political construal of textual activity,whetherofauthorsorreaders,thatrequiresofhimthesamekindofsubversiveinterrogation of settled representations of God's presence into which DonaldMacKinnon schooled his listeners. There is no "knowledge withoutrepresentation,"75andso,notextwithoutideology.Ifthetextissacred-ifthereis,indeed,HolyScripture-itisonlysoinspiteofitself.

Thus far we have been exploring the nature of Scripture. What of itsinterpretation? By now it ought to be clear that, for Williams,interpretationreadingandmakingsenseofatext-isindispensabletotheprocessofcomingtoknowGodthroughtheBible.Partlythisisbecausetextshavetheirmeaning in "the world of temporal engagement and growth,"76 such that thereading of them cannot be finished in a comprehensive "totalisinginterpretation";77 partly, also, it is because a biblical text is not "simply anoracle"78butratherrequiresappropriation.InWilliams'shands,however,thisisnot simply a general hermeneutical commitment; it is an extension ofchristological and soteriological teaching: Scripture has its place in the divineeconomyinwhichhumanlivesarebeingdrawnintocorrespondencetoChrist,andso"Scriptureisnotsimplyalongrecordoffinishedbusiness."79

Twokey termsemerge fromvariouswritingson these topics:diachronic (ordramatic) reading and analogy. In line with what is said elsewhere about theinescapablytime-ladencharacterofknowing,diachronicreadingtakesseriouslythefactthatScripturecannotbetakeninallatonce;itsreadingmustthereforeinvolve "a movement in time"" or "a process of learning to perceive."" Theappropriation of the text'smeaning cannot be restricted to an isolated presentmomentbutrathermustbeseenaspartof

the process of learning and producing meanings.... The meanings in ourreadingare like themeanings in the restofourexperience, theyare tobediscovered, unfolded.... So long as our humanity remains unintelligible

exceptasalifeofmaterialchange,irreversiblemovement,itisunlikely...thatwecouldestablishnon-diachronicmodesofreadingasprimary82

This is, of course, close to understandings of the relation between text andinterpretation found in some kinds of reader-response theory or in appeal to"performance"asametaphorforreadingtheBible;"thereisthesameresistancetomakingthetextadeterminatecommunicativeact,andthesameanxietyaboutviewingthetextasaclosedtextual"world"(asLindbeckorChildsarebelievedto do). But, though the warrants for diachronic reading certainly include ageneral theoryof theprovisionalityofhistoryandmeaning, there ismore: thegoverning principle is christological and, by derivation, ecclesiological."ReadingScriptureinfaithisreadingitasmovingtowardsoraroundaunifyingnarrativemoment,thestoryoftheworkofJesus;howitdoesso,howwearetocarrythroughsuchareadinginpointsofdetail,isconstantlyelusive."84

Here the term analogy begins to do its work. The term is partly a way ofpointingoutthecorrespondencesbetweenthatwhichisbroughttospeechinthetextandourownhistories.ThisiswhatWilliamscallsanalogiaduratio-nis,"acontinuitybetweenthetime(s)ofthetextandwhatwerecognizeasmovementand production in our own lives."85 But the term also articulates thecorrespondencesbetweendifferentreadingsoftheBiblewithintheconversationthat is the history of the Christian tradition. To speak of analogy is thus toindicateboththemutuallyconstitutingcharacterofScriptureandtradition,andalso theproperunitydisplayedby the traditionof interpretation in thechurch,poisedbetween,ontheonehand,ashapelesspluralismand,ontheotherhand,closure.Toreadwiththeruleofanalogyinmindmeans,therefore,that"wearenot the first or the only readers."86 But it also indicates, more profoundly, ahermeneuticrootedinwhatmightbecalledJesus'catholicity.

ToexplorethecontinuitiesofChristianpatternsofholinessistoexploretheeffectofJesus,living,dyingandrising;anditisinevitablethatthetraditionaboutJesusisre-readandre-workedsothatitwillmakesenseoftheselivedpatternsastheyevolve.WeconstantlyreturntoimaginethelifeofJesusinaway thatwillhelpus tounderstandhowitsetsupacontinuouspatternofhumanlivingbeforeGod.87

It is just that-rereading Jesus, imagining his resourcefulness-which is, forWilliams,thecoreofscripturalinterpretation.

Reflections

WilliamsisfreeofthedualismthatcommonlyafflictsaccountsofScriptureandinterpretativepractice,forthesimplereasonthathedoesnotthinkthattheologyis forced to choose between divine revelatory causality and materialculturalprocesses.Revelationanditsscripturalwitnessdonotneedtobe"supernatural"inordereffectivelytocommunicatethegospel.Williams'stheologyofScriptureandhisembraceofthecontingenciesofinterpretationinhistoryformpartofalarger theological venture in which the choice between "natural" and"transcendent"isconsideredanexpressionoftheologicaldisorder-thefruitofahalf-Christian metaphysic in which God and creatures are centers of willstandingoneithersideofagulf.ForWilliams,takingtheTrinityandincarnationseriously means denying the bifurcation of the spiritual and the historical-cultural. Further, he suggests that the proper location of Scripture is in theeconomyofGod'sgracioustransformationofcreatures;ScriptureisnotartifactorreportororaclebutratherisatextoccupyingaplaceinthenewrelationsofGodtocreaturesandbetweencreaturesthemselvesthatarebroughtaboutbythegospel.

WilliamsisreluctanttosaymuchaboutGod'srelationtotheprocessesoftextproductionor reception.Asa rule,God is spokenofasobliquelyor indirectlyrelatedtothetextthatmediateshimbutinwhoseproductionheisnot involvedatotherthanabackgroundlevel.ClassicalProtestanttheologiestalkedofGod'srelationtotextualproductionthroughthedoctrineofinspiration;Williamssharesthe general modern unease with that tract of Christian teaching, though notbecauseheisanhistoricalnaturalistbutratherbecauseforhimdivinecausalityis immanentwithincreaturelyproductionof textsandmeaning.Yetsometimesdivineagencyissoretiredastobescarcelyvisible,andtherelationoftextanddivine communication appears, at the very least, to lack intentionality and attimes to be an arbitrary annexation of one bit of the church's sign-making. If,however,God's relation to textual production is to bemore thanone inwhichGod picks up Christian making of meaning, a treatment of inspiration canscarcelybeavoided.Inspiration,moreover,canbesupplementedinanumberofways.Wecanarticulatescripturalauthorshipaspropheticandapostolicactivity-thatis,asculturalproductionthatoriginatesindivinecommissioningandwhoseagency is centered in thecommunicativeactivityofGod,whobendsauthorialintentions to serve his own. Or again, we might invoke the notion of the

sanctificationofScripture,notasanaturalpropertyofbiblicaltextsbutratherasa relation to God that extends across the entire range of its production,authorization,andreception."

Williams makes a good deal of the complicity of Scripture and itsinterpretationinideology,andhiscorrectiontothisistostresstheindeterminacyofScripture in the life of the church, in thatScripture keeps certain questionsalive rather than offering definitive solutions (a point seized upon by criticseager to prove thatAugustine's chair is occupied by a skeptic). At this point,however,appealmightbemadetothedivinepromisethataccompaniesScriptureanditsreading:HolyScripturewillbepartofGod'sgiftoftruthtothechurch.That gift is certainly a gift in time, not a moment of sheer transparency.However, itcannotbedeferred to theeschaton: thechurchmayexpectGod touse its uses of Scripture and so to complete the prophetic work begun in theauthors themselves.The church is authorized to confess thatScripture isHolyScripture."HolyScripture"doesnot,ofcourse,meanthatScriptureisaclosedbitoftextualterritorythataffordsusa"totalperspective"oneverything,89butitdoesmeanthatScriptureissanctifiedandthereforeguardedbyGod,thattruthfulspeechisnotjustaneschatologicalpossibilitybutratheracallingandtaskthatthe church can fulfill as it trusts the divine promise. Is there a threat of falseconsciousness in all this? Of course. But the safeguard is not historical orhermeneutical indeterminacy; rather, it is an operative doctrine of thesuperintendenceoftheHolySpirit,whoguidesthechurchintothetruth.

Similar questions about divine intentionalitymight be raised in response toWilliams'scuriousinsistenceonpolyphony,conflict,andincoherencewithinthecanon. Some of his sensitivities here might be met by a more theologicallyorienteddescriptionofcanonasanactofchurchlydeferencetoadivinecallingand authorization of witnesses. Further, as Markus Bockmuehl points out,90Williams'sreluctancetoallowcanonanyroleinshapingexegesismakesithardfor him to produce the sort of exegetically driven theology thatwas commonacross the Christian tradition until at least the early modern period, becausecanonical indeterminacy erodes the sense that theology has a concrete object."Fugal" theology-theology as "chains of association" of the sort thatWilliamscommends-is certainly notwithout its propermatter, namely, the transformingpotency of the story of Jesus, which reaches back into the depths of God'suncreatedcreativity.Butpartoftheforceofbothcanonandthedoctrineofthe

sufficiencyofScriptureistorestrictindeterminacyor,perhapsbetter,toindicatethe channel alongwhich themeaning of the gospel flows, the place where itmightbeexpected,theshapesthatitwillassume.

This connects to a christological question: Does the emphasis on the sheerinexhaustibility of Jesus miss something about his perfection? In Williams'sview,Scriptureisnotadeterminatespeech-actbytherisenonewhoseidentityisfully achieved; it is, instead, the sign and occasion of his resourcefulness, hisendlesslysuggestivecharacter,hiscapacitytogeneratevariations.Scriptureisafunctionof thecatholicityofChristasGod.Noneof thismeans thatWilliamssitslooseontheparticularityofJesus:nolessthanBarthorFrei,heisinsistentonJesus'unsubstitutability.ButJesusisaconcreteuniversal.

The creative act of God ... can only be articulated in terms of two quiteirreduciblemoments:theestablishinginthelifeofJesusofaunifyingpointof reference, and the necessarily unfinished ensemble of human storiesdrawn together and given shape in relation to Jesus. Thismeans that theactual concretemeaningofLogos in theworld, thepatterndecisivelyandtransforminglyembodiedinJesus,couldonlybeseenandrealisedthroughtheentireprocessofthehistorytowhichtheeventofJesusgivesrise,withallitsfluidityandunpredictability.91

What is curious here is the slenderness of Jesus' agency in the history of hisreceptioninthechurch'ssign-makinganddiscipleship.Hedoesnotseemtobetheagentofthedistributionofhisbenefits;itisasifhisenergyisdispersedintotheprocessesofhuman"makingsense"ofJesus."`TherisenJesus,"'heremarksat theendofResurrection,"onlyhasclearcontent in the relation to the lifeofgrace as experienced now... Jesus' risenness and our risenness are visible onlyobliquely, in relation to each other."92 Part of what is problematic here is atruncation of the biblical sequence of Jesus' exaltation, ending at resurrectionrather than continuing through to his heavenly session and his exercise of hisroyal and prophetic offices. Jesus is resource-representable but not author ofChristianrepresentations,ratheronlytheirpattern.Dowenotneedtosaymorethan"theWordbecomesign"?93DowenotneedtosaythatScripturerequiresusnotsomuchtore-presentJesusunderthepressureofhisresourcefulnessbutsimplytoattendtohiminhisperfection?

This suggests a final thought. Is Williams's account of the processes of

interpretationpossessedofsufficientChristianspecificity?HetendstosubsumeScripturewithinageneralculturalpoeticsandhermeneutics.But,ifScriptureisthe viva voxDei, does not this require greater theological specification of thekindsofhumanactsthatarefittingwithrespecttothistext?CertainlyWilliamsnaturally gravitates toward the language of "learning," repentance, conversion,andsoforthinordertoemphasizethedisturbancebroughtaboutbyScriptureasa resource in the construal of Christ. Such language doubtless takes us farbeyond the spiritual torpor of historical representation; but it may not quitesuffice,becauseitissubsumedwithinananthropologyinwhichinterpretingand"giving meaning"94 have high priority. Of course, we want to say, there isinterpretation; of course the Spirit gives life and sets the church to work onScripture.Butwhatkindoflifeandwork?Thosequestionscannotbeansweredwith sufficient determinacy unless there is a cutting back or relocation of thepoeticsofinterpretation,asubsumingofallourreadingactsundertherubricoffaith.

From Augustine, Williams has learned the pervasiveness of the distinctionbetween uti and frui: God alone is the end of desire, there can be no finalmeaningintime,thereareonlysignstopushusbeyondcontingentsatisfaction:

The coming of theWord in flesh establishes,wemight say, the nature offleshlybeingasword,assign,theall-pervasivenessof"use."Thatistosay,we live in aworld of restless fluidities ofmeaning: all terms and all theobjectstheynamearecapableofopeningoutbeyondthemselves,comingtospeakofawidercontext,andsorefusingtostaystillunderourattemptstocomprehendorsystematizeor(forthesegotogether)idolize.9s

WhatWilliamssaysaboutScripture,wehaveseen, isanextensionofwhathefindsthereinAugustine:Scriptureisdifficult, irresolvablyso;but thefunctionof difficulty is to ensure that "learning from Scripture is a process-not atriumphantmomentofpenetrationandmastery."96Alertnessto"thethreatofanidolatry of signs"97 is the characteristic strength of Williams's theology as awholeandofwhathehastosayaboutthechurch'suseofitscanonicaltexts;itisalsothepointatwhichcriticalappraisalmightbegin.

8

TheNormativityofScriptureandTraditioninRecentCatholicTheology

BENEDICTTHOMASVIVIANO,OP"Isnotmywordlikefire,"saystheLORD,"andlikeahammerthatbreaksarockinpieces?"

Jeremiah23:29

The topicof thischapter is thenormativityofScriptureand tradition in recentRomanCatholictheologyandofficialdocuments.Weshouldrealizeattheoutsetthatindiscussingthistopicwearearguablycommittingasin.Weshouldratherbe listening toanddiscussingapassageofScripture itself.That iswhyIhavebegunwithapassagefromJeremiahthataskswhetherGod'swordisnotmorepowerful and interesting than any merely human word. But there is anundeniableinterestinthistopic,soIhaveagreedtoaddressit.

M.-J.LagrangeandPopePiusX

Thatsaid, letmebeginwithmyhero,M.-J.Lagrange(1855-1938), founderoftheFrenchbiblicalandarchaeological school in Jerusalem(1890).Afterbeingthe"fair-hairedboy"ofPopeLeoXIIIforthirteenyears,hefellintodisfavorin1903andremainedsofor therestofhis life.(Hewonposthumousvictories in1943and1965.)Whathadhesaidtoupsetchurchauthorities?HebeganhisnewlifeintheHolyLandbywalkingaroundtheSinaidesert,Bibleinhand.Hethus

sawthattheExodusaccountcouldnotbetopographicallysoundineverydetail.Hewas also confrontedwith the first publication ofHammurabi's Babylonianlawcode.Hefelttheneedtoanalyzethiscodeincomparisonwiththethreelawcodes in the Pentateuch. Then there was the Gilgamesh flood narrative thatneededtobestudiedwithGenesis6-10,Noahandtheark.Lagrangepopularizedhisresultsinalittlebook,TheOldTestamentandHistoricalCriticism(1903).InitslastchapterhewrotethatstudentsoftheBible,especiallytheOldTestament,needed to pay attention to the different literary genres used by the biblicalauthors.Theydidnotalwaysintendtowritehistoryinthesenseofnineteenth-century positivistic historiography. They also wrote what he called primevalhistory,nottomentionpoetry.(Inthebackgroundofhisconcernstherealsolaythe issue of different sources of the Pentateuch, as synthesized by JuliusWellhausen.)'

In this fatefulyear(1903)LeoXIIIdied,andPiusXwaselectedpope.Piuswasguided in intellectualmattersbyseveralcurialcardinalswhosediplomaticgoalwas the restorationof thepapal states to their full extent, incentral Italy.Thiswasnolongerarealisticgoal,but,inthispursuit,thesecardinals(thebestknownareRafaelMerrydelValandPietroGasparri)feltthattheymustblockallcompromisewith themodernworld(theworldcreatedby theeventsof1789).Becauseofhis thesisonbiblical literarygenres,Lagrangebecamea suspectedmodernizer.Hiscareerinthechurchwasstoppedinitsupwardascent.Hebarelyescaped condemnation. He was saved by his own prudence, by his sense ofloyalty to thechurch,andbyasaintlyprotector,H.Cormier.Lagrangedied in1938,stillunderacloudofofficialsuspicion.

DivinoAfflanteSpirituandtheBible'sLiteraryGenres

By 1935 all the curial cardinals who enforced the rules of this period oftheologicalsuppressionweredead.Catholictheologybegantoemergefromthecellar (Chenu, Congar, Mersch, Jungmann, Rahner, de Lubac, Danielou,Bouyer). A group of French Catholic schoolteachers, led by jean Guitton,2petitionedtheelderlypope,PiusXI,thatthequestionofthegenreofGenesis1-3be reopened. He said that it was a difficult matter. He would leave it for hissuccessortotackle.Thesuccessor,PiusXII, tookupthechallenge.In1943,inthemiddleof thewar,hecommissionedaDominican,JacquesVoste,whohadstudiedwithLagrange,andaJesuit,AugustinBea, todraftanencyclical letter

that conceded the point about literary genres. The letter was called DivinoAffianteSpiritu(1943).ItwasaposthumousvindicationofLagrange.Hislittlebookof1903wasnowofficiallyaccepted,fortyyearsafteritappearedandfiveyearsafterLagrangehimselfwassafelydead.Theencyclicalsaid:

35.WhatistheliteralsenseofapassageisnotalwaysasobviousinthespeechesandwritingsoftheancientauthorsoftheEast,asitisintheworksofourowntime.Forwhattheywishedtoexpressisnottobedeterminedbythe rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; theinterpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remotecenturiesoftheEastandwiththeaidofhistory,archaeology,ethnology,andothersciences,accuratelydeterminewhatmodesofwriting,sotospeak,theauthorsofthatancientperiodwouldbelikelytouse,andinfactdiduse.

36.FortheancientpeoplesoftheEast,inordertoexpresstheirideas,didnotalwaysemploythoseformsorkindsofspeechwhichweusetoday;butrather those used by the men of their times and countries. What thoseexactlywerethecommentatorcannotdetermineas itwere inadvance,butonly after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East. Theinvestigation,carriedout,onthispoint,duringthepast fortyorfiftyyearswith greater care and diligence than ever before, hasmore clearly shownwhatformsofexpressionwereusedinthosefarofftimes,whetherinpoeticdescriptionorintheformulationoflawsandrulesoflifeorinrecordingthefacts and events of history. The same inquiry has also shown the specialpreeminenceof thepeopleofIsraelamongall theotherancientnationsoftheEastintheirmodeofcompilinghistory,bothbyreasonofitsantiquityandbyreasonsofthefaithfulrecordoftheevents;qualitieswhichmaywellbe attributed to the gift of divine inspiration and to the peculiar religiouspurposeofbiblicalhistory

37.Neverthelessnoonewhohasacorrectideaofbiblicalinspiration,willbesurprisedtofind,evenintheSacredWriters,asinotherancientauthors,certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain definite idioms,especially of a kind peculiar to the Semitic tongues, so-calledapproximations,andcertainhyperbolicalmodesofexpression,nay,attimes,evenparadoxical,whichevenhelptoimpresstheideasmoredeeplyonthemind.Forof themodesof expressionwhich, among ancient peoples, andespecially those of theEast, human language used to express its thought,

none is excluded from the Sacred Books, provided the way of speakingadopted innowise contradicts theholiness and truthofGod, as,withhiscustomarywisdom,theAngelicDoctoralreadyobservedinthesewords:"InScripture divine things are presented to us in the manner which is incommonuseamongstmen."ForasthesubstantialWordofGodbecameliketomeninallthings,"exceptsin,"sothewordsofGod,expressedinhumanlanguage,aremadeliketohumanspeechineveryrespect,excepterror.Inthisconsiststhat"condescension"oftheGodofprovidence,whichSt.JohnChrysostomextolledwith thehighestpraiseand repeatedlydeclared to befoundintheSacredBooks.

38.HencetheCatholiccommentator,inordertocomplywiththepresentneeds of biblical studies, in explaining the Sacred Scripture and indemonstratingandprovingitsimmunityfromallerror,shouldalsomakeaprudentuseofthismeans,determine,thatis,towhatextentthemannerofexpressionortheliterarymodeadoptedbythesacredwritermayleadtoacorrectandgenuineinterpretation;andlethimbeconvincedthatthispartofhis office cannot he neglected without serious detriment to Catholicexegesis.Notinfrequentlytomentiononlyoneinstance-whensomepersonsreproachfully charge the Sacred Writers with some historical error orinaccuracyintherecordingoffacts,oncloserexaminationitturnsouttobenothing else than those customary modes of expression and narrationpeculiartotheancients,whichusedtobeemployedinthemutualdealingsofsociallifeandwhichinfactweresanctionedbycommonusage.

39.Whenthensuchmodesofexpressionaremetwithinthesacredtext,which, being meant for men, is couched in human language, justicedemandsthattheybenomoretaxedwitherrorthanwhentheyoccurintheordinaryintercourseofdailylife.Bythisknowledgeandexactappreciationof the modes of speaking and writing in use among the ancients can besolvedmanydifficulties,whichareraisedagainsttheveracityandhistoricalvalue of the Divine Scriptures, and no less efficaciously does this studycontribute toafullerandmore luminousunderstandingof themindof theSacredWriter.'

The main point of this text is the nine-times repeated affirmation that theinterpretermustpayattentiontothe"formsorkindsofspeech,"the"modesofexpression," used by the ancient biblical writers. This is Lagrange's idea of

literary genres. But there are also some subsidiary points. (1) Six times "theEast"ismentioned,especiallyinthephrase"goingbackwhollyinspirit."Thesethemesechotheromanticideaofhistory-writingthatgoesbacktoJ.G.Herder,F.Schlegel,andF.D.Schleiermacher:theEinfuhlungorfeelingoneselfintothepast.TheyalsoreflectwhatEdwardSaidwaslatertolabelOrientalism,theideathattheNearEasternmindissubstantiallydifferentfromtheWesternEuropeanmind.' (2) The passage also briefly mentions the genres of poetry, law, andhistory(seebelow).(3)Italsosays that thecommentatorcannotdeterminethegenre "in advance."This iswritten against the a priori, deductive approachofsystematicianssuchasLouisBillotwhowantedtodisposeofbiblicalcriticismwithafewCartesianlogicalarguments.(4)Atitsclosethepassagealludestothetheological nerve point: the doctrine that the Bible must be inerrant in allmatters,includingscientificones(seebelow,onVaticanII).Thisencyclical,forall its caution, was a great help to biblical scholars in the Roman CatholicChurch.Theissueofinerrancywouldonlybesettledin1965.

Atthispointletuspausetoreflectforamomentonthefactofmultiplegenresin theBible.For theOldTestament, it isclear that thereare fivemain literarygenres:(1)historyandhistory-likenarrative;(2)law;(3)prophecy;(4)wisdom;(5) praise. Often these genres are present within the same books. ThePentateuch,forexample,containselementsofallfive:Moses'storyistold;heispresentedasprophetandlawgiver(king),asawisemanorsage,whosingsthepraiseofGod.Thedangeristhatwemightprivilegeoneofthesegenrestotheexclusion of the others. Rather, ideally they should be maintained in a sanebalance,inamutuallycorrectivedialecticaldance.Inreality,thisisnotsoeasyto bring off. Past experience has shown some of these errors. (1) In thenineteenth century, with its historicist positivistic obsessions, orthodoxinterpretersoften felt that theyhad todefend thehistoricityofeverydetail-forexample,Moseswrotetheaccountofhisowndeath(Deut.34);Jonahstayedfordaysinthebellyofthewhale.TheBiblethuswasreducedtohistoryandhistoryonly. (2) In reaction to PaulineChristianity, some forms of Judaism tended toconcentrate on the detailed law of the Bible. (3) By concentrating on thephenomenonofprophecy,ThomasAquinasgavetheimpressionthatthedivineelement in Scripture resided in the prophets (Summa theologica 2-2.171-178).(4) The Enlightenment reduced the Bible to rational wisdom, common sense,andnatural law; theJesusSeminar tends toseeJesusasaCynicsage,withoutapocalypticprophecy.(5)Forthedevout,theBibleisprimarilyabookofprayer,

singingthepraisesofGodinPsalms.(Foraesthetes,theBibleisofinterestasaseries of objets d'art [e.g., parables].) Such selectivity impoverishes us. Itcordons off parts of the biblical tradition for special privilege or for specialneglectandthuspreventsreadersfromreceivingtheBibleinallitsrichvariety.'

J.R.GeiselmannonScriptureandTradition

Thisselectiveone-sidednesswasprovokedbyrealproblems.(1)OncetheideabecamefixedinplacethatbecausetheBibleistheinspiredwordofGod,itmustbefreeoferrorineveryrespect,themindofthelogiciancouldpushforwilderandwilderconclusions,furtherandfurtherfromtheintentionofthetext.Astheapologist labored to keep God free from the taint of evil, the hyperlogicianfoughttokeepGodfreefromthetaintoferror.AmongtheknightsofconsistentinerrancywereLouisBillotandJamesMontgomery.TheyarguedthatthehonorofGodrequiredverbalinerrancy.(2)HowshouldweunderstandGenesis1-11?Ashistory,asscience,asmyth,orasprimordialhistorythatincludeselementsofancientscienceandmyth?ThelastofthesealternativeswasLagrange'sresponseto Hermann Gunkel's challenge laid down in his Creation and Chaos in thePrimevalEraandtheEschatonof1895.6(3)AnotherbigproblemhasbeentherightrelationofScriptureandchurchtradition.InthewakeoftheReformationcriticismwithitsslogan"Scripturealone!"theCouncilofTrentrespondedwitha"both ... and." Divine revelation is to be found both in the Scriptures and insacredtraditions.Thisissuebecamelivelyinthe1950safterPopePiusXIImadea dogma of the bodily assumption ofMary into heaven.OscarCullmann, theAlsatianLutheran,weighedinwithanimportantessay,towhichJeanDanielouresponded.'Aboveall,thepublicationofthedebatesbehindTrentenabledJ.R.GeiselmanntofreetheinterpretationofTrentfromaviewconsciouslyrejectedby the council fathers. This view held that revelation was partly (partim)contained in Scripture and partly (partim) contained in tradition, with theimplication that Scripture itself had been materially insufficient. That meantthereweredoctrines tobebelieved thatwerenecessaryforsalvation thatwerenot contained in Scripture. Geiselmann could show that this view had beenconsideredbyTrent (thepartimswere in adraft) and freely set aside.That is,there are no partims in the final text of Trent, and the view that Scripture ismaterially insufficient was not accepted as a dogma, although it was (andremains)a tolerated theologicalopinion.Geiselmannwenton toofferhisownproposalastotherightrelationshipbetweenScriptureandtradition.Hereisan

Englishtranslationofhisconclusions:

How is the relationship between the Holy Scriptures and the unwrittentraditionstobedetermined?Wehave,bymeansoftheprooffromtraditionthat there is a material [i.e., content = inhaltliche] sufficiency of HolyScriptureastowhatconcernsfaith,andthatthereisamaterialinsufficiencyas to what concerns mores, consuetudines et leges (morals, customs andlaws)ofthechurch;wehave,Isay,createdthepresuppositiontobeabletoanswer the question concerning the relationship between Scripture andtradition.As a result, it becomes apparent that this relationship cannot bedeterminedunequivocally.

Withrespecttofaith,theHolyScriptureismateriallysufficient[astoitscontents].But,therebytheSola-Scripturaprincipleisnotyetexpressed.FortheHolyScriptureis,withrespecttothecanonoftheScriptures,dependentupontraditionanduponthedecisionoftheChurch.ForitwastheCouncilofTrentwhich first definitively settled the canon ofHoly Scripture.AndwithrespecttotheunderstandingofHolyScriptures,itneedstheclarifyingtradition of the Fathers in matters of faith andmorals. Tradition in thesecases exercises the function of traditio interpretativa. Besides, the HolyScriptureisdependentuponthesensuswhichthechurchmaintainsandhasalwaysmaintained, for theexplanationof itscontentswhichconcern faithandmorals.

Here thus holds true with respect to faith the principle: totum in sacrascrip- tura et iterum totum in traditione, completely in Scripture andcompletelyintradition.

Thesituation isotherwisewith respect to themoresetconsuetudinesofthe church. Here Scripture is insufficient and needs tradition for itscompletionincontent.Inthesecases,traditionistraditioconstitutiva.

Hereholdstruewithrespecttothemoresetconsuetudinestheprinciple:partim in sacra scriptura, partim in sine scripto traditionibus, partly in theHolyScriptures,partlyintradition.'

So for Geiselmann, Scripture is sufficient in what is necessary for salvation,while tradition plays an important role in interpretation. This view has been

supported in a thorough study by Yves Congar9 and was not condemned atVatican II, as somehadexpected.Thus it remainsapermittedviewwithin theRoman Catholic Church. It is not, however, embraced by all theologians,includingsomeimportantones.10

OtheraspectsofthisissueoftherelationofScripturetointerpretativetraditionincludethattheBibleisnotagoodbookofrubrics;itdoesnotsayhowexactlyoneshouldcelebratetheLord'sSupper,orwhetheronecouldbaptizewithwineor beer.More troublesome, it does not treat expressly themorality of nuclearweaponsortheuseofcomputers.AlreadyatNicea,thecouncilfathersfeltthattheymustuseanonscripturalword,homoousion ("of the samesubstance"), tosave thescripturaldoctrineaboutJesusChrist fromthewilyArians."This isasignificanttestcase,asisthequestionofwhodecidesthelimitsofthebiblicalcanon.

TheHoly Spirit is not dead in the church or in theworld (John 16:12-13).Besidesnewproblems,newworldsarediscovered:America,theIndians,otherplanets.ThiswastheoccasionfortheMormonstobelievetherewasneedofafurtherrevelation.ButtheBibledoesnotcontaintheanswerstoeveryquestionormentionall cultures. It is concernedwith sinand salvationandethics. (Seebelow on the Second Vatican Council.) The Great Church tradition tries toachieveasynthesisofbiblicalfaithandreason,philosophyandtheology,natureandgrace,scienceandreligion.TheBible itselfabsorbsmanyancientculturesandpaganreligions,but thechallengescontinue,especiallywithIslamand theEnlightenment. One could also add an eschatological limitation to thenormativityofScripture.For,ifwebelievethatJesusChristwillreturningloryandwill reign over the kingdomofGod in its fullness on earth (as theCreedteaches),thenitcannotbeexcludedinprinciplethat,whilereigningandjudging,Christwillsaysomething.ThatsomethingwouldbenewdivinerevelationfromChrist.

TheContributionofCanonCriticism

This leads to fascinating andmultifaceted issues of canon criticism, receptionhistoryofthecanon,andthediversityofreadingcommunities.HereIwillmakeonly a few remarks. First, regarding the deuterocanonical/apocryphal books oftheOldTestament-thatis,thelongercanonoftheBible-Icanonlytestifythatinorder to understand the New Testament I have found it helpful to have these

additional books to fill in certain blanks. For example, John's reference to theFeast of Dedication (John 10:22) presupposes Maccabees. Romans 1presupposesWisdom 13-15. James 1:13-15 presupposes Sirach 15. If we areserious about the Bible as a history of salvation, we need to know whathappenedbetweenMalachi(ca.400BC)andJesus.EvenunderstandingDanielrequires the Maccabees. My second remark concerns the importance of thedialecticalmutualcorrectionandbalancingprovidedbydifferentbiblicalbooksreadinthesamecommunityoffaith.Forexample,IfindJohnethicallypoorerthan the SynopticGospels because he leaves out the love of enemies. John isbetterforitsteachingonthepersonofJesus,theHolySpirit,andthesacraments;Matthewisbetterforitsethics(SermonontheMount).Abalancedchurchneedsboththesevoices.12

DeiVerbumandtheSecondVaticanCouncil

WecomenowtotheDogmaticConstitutiononDivineRevelation(DeiVerbum)oftheSecondVaticanCouncil,votedonandapprovedwithvirtualunanimitybyabout2,800bishopsandotherdelegates,18November1965.13Thisdocumentisnot long,yet itwasonewithwhich thecouncilwrestled till the lastminute.Here Iwill try tooffer the studentabriefguide in sixpoints, threemajorandthreeminor.Thethreekeybreakthroughparagraphsare9,11,and19.TheninthparagraphtreatstherelationofScriptureandtradition.

9.Hencethereexistsacloseconnectionandcommunicationbetweensacredtradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the samedivinewellspring,inacertainwaymergeintoaunityandtendtowardthesame end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it isconsignedtowritingundertheinspirationofthedivineSpirit,whilesacredtraditiontakesthewordofGodentrustedbyChrist theLordandtheHolySpirit to theApostles,andhands iton to theirsuccessorshonestly,so thatledby the lightof theSpiritof truth, theymay inproclaiming itpreservethis word of God faithfully, explain it, andmake it more widely known.Consequently it is not fromSacredScripture alone that theChurchdrawsher certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore bothsacredtraditionandSacredScripturearetobeacceptedandveneratedwiththesamesenseofloyaltyandreverence.

I have already treated thismatter and need only to point out that the councilaffirms the roles of both Scripture and tradition. That is doing no more thanstating a historical fact. The council does not try to explain their relationship.Thus, various theories that do try toworkout their relationship aregiven freerein, including Geiselmann's. Further, the council teaches that Christianministers have the duty to preach, explain, and spread the scripturalWord ofGod.Finally,borrowinganelegant turnofphrase fromTrent, thecouncil saysthatbothScriptureandtraditionaretobereceivedwithalikefeeling(affectu)ofpiety. Reliable interpreters of Trent say that this phrase is only a rhetoricalflourish,nottobepressedtooclosely,asthoughthecouncilintendedtosaythatScripture and tradition were absolutely equal in value in every respect. Asympathetic interpreter can easily understand that the devout believer shouldnormallyreverebothScriptureandthesaintlyheroeswhosufferedforthefaith,such asAthanasiusorChrysostom, Justinor Irenaeus.But this doesnotmeanthatAthanasiusneverhadaweakmoment(hedid).Nordoesthisphrasemeanthatweshouldnottrytosifttheabundanceofchurchtraditionsforwhatistruerormorehelpful inagivensituation.Nordoesitexcludefurtherdistinctionsoftradition-for example, that Christ is the Tradition with a capital T (based onMatt.11:27andparallels),andthatthereareothertraditionsofvaryingweights.As a teacher of Scripture, I can attest that when interpreters past and presentdifferonasignificantmattersuchasthesenseof"thebreadoflife"inJohn6,IfindithelpfultoknowthattheweightoftraditionunderstandsJohn6:51-58asreferringtotheEucharist.

The realbreakthroughat thecouncilcame inparagraph11,which limits theinerrancyofScripture tomatters regardingour salvation; that is,Scripturecanerrinallothermatters.AsalineattributedtoGalileohasit,"TheBibleteachesushowtogotoheaven,nothowtheheavensgo."

11.Thosedivinely revealed realitieswhicharecontainedandpresented inSacredScripturehavebeencommittedtowritingundertheinspirationoftheHolySpirit.ForholymotherChurch,relyingon thebeliefof theApostles(seeJn.20:31;2Tim.3:16;2Pet.1:19-20,3:15-16),holdsthatthebooksofboththeOldandNewTestaments in theirentirety,withall theirparts,aresacred and canonical because written under the inspiration of the HolySpirit,theyhaveGodastheirauthorandhavebeenhandedonassuchtotheChurchherself.Incomposingthesacredbooks,Godchosemenandwhile

employedbyHimtheymadeuseoftheirpowersandabilities,sothatwithHimacting in themand through them, they, as true authors, consigned towritingeverythingandonlythosethingswhichHewanted.

Therefore, since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacredwritersmust be held to be asserted by theHolySpirit, it follows that thebooksofScripturemustbeacknowledgedasteachingsolidly,faithfullyandwithouterror that truthwhichGodwantedput intosacredwritingsfor thesakeofoursalvation.Therefore"allScripture isdivinely inspiredandhasitsuseforteachingthetruthandrefutingerror,forreformationofmannersanddisciplineinrightliving,sothateveryonewhobelongstoGodmaybeefficientandequippedforgoodworkofeverykind"(2Tim.3:16-17,Greektext)[italicsadded].

It took a century to arrive at the crucial phrase "truth ... for the sake of oursalvation."CardinalNewmanhad taught thatScripture sometimesmadeobiterdicta("incidentalremarks"),withoutintendingtoaffirmthemwithfullauthority.Atthetime,thissolutionwasrejectedbythepope.Inmakingitsrestriction,thecouncil returned to the teaching ofAugustine and Thomas. After the council,somediehardstriedtoplaywiththeLatinwordcausa,whichcanmeaneitherthenouncauseortheprepositionforthesakeof.Thismaneuverhadtobeputdown,anditwas.14Thisteachingonaqualifiedinerrancyisimportant,butitremainson a very general level of truth. It does not address the issue of conflictingteachings on salvation within the Bible-for example,Matthew 5:17-20 versusGalatians2-3.ItisthisparticularconflictthatgaveustheLutheranReformation.Nordoesitaddresstheissuethatfacestheexegeteeveryday:howtointerpretthe variants in parallel versions of the same incident in the Pentateuch or theGospels,orsuccessiverereadingsorrewritingsofthesametraditionwithintheBible.

The thirdmajor teachingof thecouncilhereconcerns thespeciallyqualifiedcharacterofthehistorycontainedinthefourcanonicalGospels.Itamountstoacautious reception of the form criticism of the 1920s as propounded byK.L.Schmidt,MartinDibelius,andRudolfBultmann.Paragraph19reads:

19.HolyMotherChurchhasfirmlyandwithabsoluteconstancyheld,andcontinues to hold, that the four Gospels just named, whose historicalcharacter theChurch unhesitatingly asserts, faithfully hand onwhat Jesus

Christ, while living among men, really did and taught for their eternalsalvationuntilthedayHewastakenupintoheaven(seeActs1:1).Indeed,aftertheAscensionoftheLordtheApostleshandedontotheirhearerswhatHehadsaidanddone.ThistheydidwiththatclearerunderstandingwhichtheyenjoyedaftertheyhadbeeninstructedbythegloriouseventsofChrist'slifeandtaughtbythelightof theSpiritof truth.Thesacredauthorswrotethe four Gospels, selecting some things from the many which had beenhanded on by word of mouth or in writing, reducing some of them to asynthesis,explainingsomethingsinviewofthesituationoftheirchurchesand preserving the form of proclamation but always in such fashion thattheytoldusthehonesttruthaboutJesus.Fortheirintentioninwritingwasthateitherfromtheirownmemoryandrecollections,orfromthewitnessofthosewhothemselves"fromthebeginningwereeyewitnessesandministersof theWord" wemight know "the truth" concerning those matters aboutwhichwehavebeeninstructed(seeLk.1:2-4).

Themainpoints tograspare that for thecouncil, the fourGospelscontain thetradition about Jesus. The sacredwriterswrotewith the deeper understandingthat they received after Easter, a particular emphasis (or admission) in John'sGospel(John14:26;16:13);soJohnisnotjustavideocassetterecordingofthehistorical Jesus, without theological reflection. The evangelists shaped theirmaterialthroughselection,condensation,andthestylepropertopreaching.(Thispoint is the key concession to form criticism.) Finally, the council shares anapologeticconcerntoemphasizethattheGospelwritersstroveforhonestyandtruth(anddidnotintendtodeceive).ThisparagraphbuildsonakeydocumentoftheBiblicalCommissionpublishedonlytheyearbefore(1964).Wewilllookatthisdocumentalittlelater.

Threefurthercontributionsofthecouncilcannowbelisted.Thefirstconcernstheissueofthecanonwithinthecanon.Thatis,grantedthetwentysevenbooksthatmakeup theNewTestament, are somemore important thanothers?Doesthe reader prefer one or two and tend to neglect the others?Does a believingcommunitydosomethingsimilar?AmongBibleknowers, it iseasytopositionsomeone ideologically by what texts the other person quotes (and, byimplication,neglects).MarcionwantedonlyanexpurgatedLukeandPaulinhiscanon.LuthercordonedoffHebrews,James,Jude,andRevelationasaghettooftheunsoundinhisBible.TheTubingenschoolofF.C.Baurhademphasizedthe

conflictswithin theNewTestamentcanon(JamesversusPaul,withLuke-Actsand then John as harmonizers and reconcilers). Ernst Kasemann revived thismodelandledtoitswidespreaddiscussion.Thecouncil'sparagraph18teachesthat the fourGospels enjoy pride of place because of their special witness toJesus. After the Gospels come the letters and other writings of the NewTestament (paragraph 20), and the whole Old Testament (paragraphs 14-16).Thisprioritizingisvisibleintheliturgy.TheorderofreadingisOldTestament,Epistle,Gospel.TheGospel enjoys the climactic finalposition.Worshipers sitforthefirsttworeadingsandstandfortheGospel,whichmaybeaccompaniedby candles and incense. The reading of the Gospel is normally reserved fordeaconsandpriests.ItshouldbenotedthatthecouncildoesnotaddresstheissueoftherelativemeritofeachGospelinrelationtotheotherthree-forexample,therelativeethicalpovertyofJohnoritsspiritualsuperiority."

Thecouncilalsoconcedesanimportantpoint toKarlBarthinparagraph10.Therewereadthattheteachingauthorityofthechurch(themagisterium)isnotabovetheWordofGodbutratherisatitsservice.Iinterpretthisso:thechurch,pope,bishops,clergy,anddevoutlayreadersofScripturearenotsimplytositinjudgment on Scripture; they must not dictate to the Bible what it should orshould not say. Rather, they should humbly submit to the purifying lash ofScripture,asthegreatsaintsandreformerstriedtorealize(St.FrancisofAssisi,St.CatherineofSiena,morequietlySt.Benedict, less successfullySavonarolaandmanyothers).TheScriptures,especiallytheprophetsandJesus,insteadsitin judgment on the church (and synagogue).The council adds that the churchshould listen to the Word carefully and lovingly, preserve the Bible (byhandwrittencopiesorprintededitionsoftheoriginaltexts,bymemorization,andby interpretative study), expound it, and derive itsmessage from it.And herethere emerges an implicit, dangerous, yet inevitable qualification.No one canprepareasermonwithoutinsomesensesittinginjudgmentonthebiblicaltext,atleasttoselectwhattoemphasize,todecidewhatitmeansforthisaudienceatthis time. Thus in reality there is a never-ending dialectic between text andinterpreter,nomatterhowreverentlyitisdone.

Thethirdlesserpointthathasemergedinthereceptionoftheconciliartextisa phrase that occurs in paragraph 12: "Sacred Scripture should be read andinterpretedinthesamespiritinwhichitwaswritten."Thisapparentlyharmlessphrase,derivedfromSt.Jerome,hasbecomeamajorarminthewarchestofthe

conservativebacklashinthechurch.Itisusedasaclubwithwhichtobeatthehistorical critics. It is taken to exclude any reading of the text that is notimmediately devotional and edifying. It implies that thewhole Biblemust betaken as "spiritual reading," as if the whole Bible should read like the longprayer that is the letter to theEphesians or someof the best loved psalms-forexample, Psalm 23. But even the pearl of the Psalter, Psalm 139, containscursing and hatred (vv. 19-22, often omitted inmodern usage), as does Psalm137(v.9).Totheextent that thisviewprevails, itmeans theendofallcriticalscholarshipwithinthechurch.Onlytheenemiesofthefaithwouldenjoycriticalfreedom. The church would be left defenseless and uninformed. This is apoisoned cup. The church is better served by intelligent scholarship, whichpresupposesareasonableacademicfreedom."

ThePontificalBiblicalCommission

InourattempttounderstandthenormativityofScriptureandtraditioninrecentCatholic theologywe turn now to a less solemnorgan ofCatholic thought onScripture,thePontificalBiblicalCommission.Sinceitsreforminthe1960s,thiscommissionconsistsoftwentymembers,namedbybishops'conferencesandthepope.Themembersare fromdifferent regionsof theworldandmeetannuallyduringEaster.Theyworkonadocumentoverfiveyears,onaproblemproposedbythepope.

I will mention three of their documents plus one from the Commission forDialoguewiththeJews.Thefirstdatesfrom1964.Itconcernsthenatureofthehistorical truth of the Gospels.17 The "Instruction" helped prepare for thereceptionofformcriticismatVaticanII,whichwehavealreadyexamined(DeiVerbum,paragraph19).Hereitisonlynecessarytomentionitsreceptionoftheform-critical method's idea of the three Sitze im Leben (life settings) of theGospel tradition. The instruction refers to these as three tempora traditionis,timesorstagesofthetradition:thetimeofJesus,thetimeoftheapostlesandtheoraltransmissionintheearliestchurch,andthetimeofthewritingdownoftheJesus story in the four Gospels by the four evangelists. This was a helpfuldevelopmentalclarification.

In 1983 the Commission for Dialogue with the Jews issued an outstandingdocumentonhowtopresenttheNewTestamentpictureoftheJews,especially

thePharisees,inpreachingandcatechetics,withouthistoricalinjustice,withoutcontempt or hatred, without supersessionism. This last term refers to the ideathat the revelation in theNewTestamenthas simply replaced (superseded) therevelationintheOldTestament,thatthechurchsimplyreplacesthesynagogue,thattheJewsoftodayhavenorighttoacontinuingseparateexistence,thatJesusrendersMosessuperfluous.Thedocumentexplainsthatpolemicsatthetimeofwriting led Matthew and John to a harsher view of the Pharisees than washistoricallyjustifiedorthanwefindappropriatetoday.18

Starting around 1970 there occurred a methodological explosion in biblicalstudies.Therewas,forexample,anarrative-aesthetic,ahistorical,readerresponseliterary method that became very popular in state universities. No Greek orHebreworancienthistorywasneededtoapplyit.Structuralistapproachescamein from France, purely formal. The social sciences entered the field with anemphasis on the anthropology of honor and shame, not to mention liberationtheologyfromLatinAmerica.Ananalysiswiththeprinciplesofancientrhetoricwas advocated. Feminists, psychologists, and fundamentalists joined in. (Thislist is not exhaustive.) This explosive manifold of methods led to studentconfusion. Professors who had invested in one option-for example, rhetoricalanalysis-feltfrustratedthat theirchoicewaspreventedbythecompetitionfromachievingacompletetriumph.Rhetoricgotlostintheshuffle.(Besides,rhetorichadalreadyacquiredabadreputationinPlato'sday.Herejecteditassophistryand style. Aristotle's Rhetoric took a calmer approach. Students still regard itwithreserve.)

Into this lively, confusing debate the Biblical Commission entered in 1993withagreatlyappreciateddocument(130pages)calledTheInterpretationoftheBibleintheChurch.Wecannotenterintomuchdetailhere,soafewpointsmustsuffice.First,inreadingthetext,itisimportanttohaveaneditionthatprovidesthe address of Pope JohnPaul IIwelcoming the document.There hemakes acrucialstatement:"Catholicexegesisdoesnothaveitsownexclusivemethodofinterpretation, but, starting with the historico-critical basis (freed from itsphilosophical presuppositions or those contrary to the truth of our faith), itmakesthemostofallthecurrentmethodsbyseekingineachofthemthe`seedsof the Word."' This sentence makes three points. (1) The historicalcriticalmethod is the basic, normal method. Other methods are grafted on to it orotherwise assimilated to it. (It has been assimilating new methods since the

eighteenth century: text, source, form, redaction criticisms.) (2) The church isopen to new approaches and tests them forwhat is true and good in them (1Thess. 5:21). (3)Methods comewith philosophies or theologies.Wemay notsharethese-forexample,anexclusionaprioriofthepossibilityofmiracles;or,theviewthatScripturecanneverteachanythingotherthanjustificationbyfaithalone.

Thedocument itself thengoeson to list,describe,andevaluatemethodsoldand new, making a distinction between rigorous methods and mere"approaches."Thismaybetoosubtle,orunfair.Aplannedsectiononmaterialist(Marxist)exegesiswasdroppedafterthefallofCommunisminEasternEurope.Feminists arewarned not to grab for power, butwhy should they differ fromother groups who do the same? Some scholars felt that the treatment offundamentalistexegesiswasnotwell informed."Nevertheless, thisfirsthalfofthedocumentcanberecommendedtothestudentasausefulguideandsurvey.

When the document moves to larger hermeneutical issues-the role ofphilosophy, the different senses of Scripture, the relations between the twoTestaments and between the different branches of theology, inculturation, therolesofpatristicand rabbinicexegesis, theusesof theBible in thechurch-thereaderfeelsthatthetextislesssuccessful.Nothingisfalse.Itissimplythattheissuesaretoocomplextobesortedoutinsuchabrieftreatment.Itisalreadyaservicetoraisetheissues,buttheyrequirefurtherwork.211

TheBiblical Commission fully realized thatmorework needed to be done.Their next document was entitled The Jewish People and Their SacredScripturesintheChristianBible.21InittherelationbetweenthetwoTestamentsis illustratedby examiningnine themes that link them: creation, anthropology,the saving God, election, covenant, law, prayer, judgment, the promises toAbraham about a people and a land. Under this last theme are included thethemes of the kingdomofGod and theMessiah. So this document contains apocket biblical theology. Besides this, the document powerfully resists alltendenciestoaMarcioniterejectionoftheHebrewScriptures.Italsoaddressesthe problem of some apparently anti-Semitic texts within the New Testament(e.g.,Matt.23:13-36;27:25;John8:44;1Thess.2:14-16).Jewishleaderswerepleasedbyitsaffirmationthat"theJewishmessianicwaitisnotinvain."

TheLectionary

Moreimportantbyfarfor thedailylifeofbelieversandworshipersis thenewliturgicallectionary,theselectionofbiblicalreadingsforSundaysandweekdays.By designing a three-year Sunday lectionary, the liturgists ensured that thepeople who attended service would be exposed to a wide range of Scripture,especiallytheGospels.YearAfocusesonMatthew,YearBonMark,YearConLuke.JohnisusedatChristmasandEastertideandtofilloutMark'syear,sinceMarkissoshort.ManyofthegreattextsoftheOldTestamentandtheEpistlesarealsoreadtothepeople.ItisatruefeastoftheWordofGod.Italsohasmajorecumenicalimplications.ManyotherChristiandenominationshaveadoptedthisSunday lectionary system to theirownuse.Thismeans thatonmostSundays,ChristiansofdifferentdenominationshearthesameGospelreading.Thisalreadycontributes to a growingunity ofChristian life. (TheChurchofEngland triedanother system, emphasizing John, for ten years and then abandoned it.) ThislectionaryhasbeencriticizedbyChristianantiSemitesforitsabundantofferingoftheHebrewScriptures,butsofarthishashadlittleeffect.ChristianpublishersarelearningtomarketfortheYearofMatthew,theYearofMark,andsoon.Butthatreflectstherealobjectiontothelectionary:itisnoteasytopreachwelleachSundayonsucharichvarietyoftexts.Itishardwork.Thatisthechallengeinthisblessing.

Conclusion

Ihave tried to show fromofficialdocuments and theological construction thatHolyScriptureremainssupremelynormativeforCatholictheologyinmattersoffaithandmorals.OnecanthereforebeagoodRomanCatholicandlivebyakindof sola scriptura, but with some qualifications. First, the Bible in questionincludes the deuterocanonical books. Second, tradition sometimes provides adogmatically binding interpretative norm (e.g., the homoousion in the NiceneCreed).Third, thereremainsthefreedomand,forthosecalled, thenecessitytointerpret the Scriptures in the light of new knowledge (Hammurabi's Code,evolutionary theory)andnewpastoralquestions (e.g.,nuclearwarfare). In thisendlessprocessofreflectiononandinterpretationandapplicationofScripture,theteaching"officers"ofthechurch(theologians,bishops,popes,councils)playaprominent,attimesdecisive,butnotexclusiverole.TheHolySpiritcanworkthrough any of the faithful, not only through the "professionals." Fourth, in

practiceaRomanCatholicwhowantstoremainfaithfultodivinerevelationascontained in the Scriptures must accept that he or she will be living withbelieversforwhomscripturalfidelity isnotahighpriorityandwhoindulgeinunscripturalbeliefsandpractices.Sopatienceandcharityremainnecessaryalsointhismostimportantarea.

I conclude with a word of Scripture, Hebrews 4:12-13, delicious in itsambiguity.ItisabouttheLogos,theWordofGod,todaycommonlyunderstoodtorefertotheBiblebutwhichthechurchfathersunderstoodtorefertotheWordIncarnate,JesusChrist.22NoticetheshiftinpronounsintheNRSVtranslation,herebroughtoutwithitalics:

Indeed, thewordofGod is livingandactive, sharper thanany two-edgedsword, piercing until it divides soul from spirit, joints frommarrow; it isable to judge the thoughts and intentionsof theheart.Andbeforehimnocreatureishidden,butallarenakedandlaidbaretotheeyesoftheonetowhomwemustallrenderanaccount.

PART3

ScriptureandTheology

CantheTruthBeLearned?

Redressingthe"TheologisticFallacy"inModernBiblicalScholarship

ALANJ.TORRANCEIthasbecomecommonplace tohear theologianscriticizedforutilizingbiblicalresourceswith insufficient awarenessof the relevanthistorical-criticaldebates,let alone the semantic and socioscientific tools necessary for academicengagement with the passages concerned. Too frequently such criticisms arejustified.However,aparallelfeatureofsomecontemporarybiblicalscholarshipalsowarrantscomment:theapparentconfidencewithwhichtheresultsofsuchscholarshipcanberegardedasconstitutingwarrantfortheological(and,indeed,ethical)claims-claims,thatis,relatingtothenatureandpurposesofGod.

In A Treatise of Human Nature (1739-1740) David Hume complains of amovethatG.E.Moorewaslatertorefertoas"thenaturalisticfallacy."

Ineverysystemofmorality,whichIhavehithertometwith,Ihavealwaysremark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinaryways ofreasoning...whenallofasuddenIamsurpriz'dtofind,thatinsteadoftheusualcopulationsofpropositions,is,andisnot,Imeetwithnopropositionthat is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change isimperceptible;butishowever,ofthelastconsequence.Forasthisought,oroughtnot,expressessomenewrelationoraffirmation, 'tisnecessarythatitshou'dbeobserv'dandexplain'd;andatthesametimethatareasonshouldbe given; forwhat seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relationcanbeadeductionfromothers,whichareentirelydifferentfromit.'

With parallel regularity biblical scholars proceed in "ordinary ways ofreasoning"when"allofasudden"thereoccursachangethatis"imperceptible"butalso"of the last consequence": themove from talkaboutgod-talk toGod-talkitself,fromdescriptionsofbiblicalclaimsandtheircontextstoprescriptionsas tohowweought tospeakaboutGod. In thischapter Iwish toconsider theconditionsunderwhichbiblicalandhistorical scholarshipmaymake themovefromsaying"Mark,Luke,orPaulclaimPaboutGod" to"Weought (oroughtnot) toclaimPaboutGod." In short, thequestion Iwish toconsiderconcernswhat are the conditions under which biblical scholarship can or should beconceivedasatheologicalenterprise?Thequestionatstakeconcernsthewarrantfor moves from the second-order (historical) study of the context of NewTestamentgod-talk-whatwemightterm"god-talk-talk"-toGod-talkperse,thatis,first-orderclaimsaboutGod.

Ifreligiousclaimsmadebyothers(e.g.,biblicalauthors)aretowarrantfirst-order (contemporary) claims aboutGod, thenwe are obliged to provide someaccountofwhatvalidatesthismoveifwearenottocommitwhatwemightcallthe "theologistic fallacy"-what is, in effect, a form of the naturalistic fallacy.Clearly, some kind of ontological and epistemological framework must beassumed (and warranted, indeed) for any such move from indirect to directstatementsaboutGod.

Onereasonforthewidespreadfailuretoappreciatetheradicalandpotentiallyfallacious nature of the move from second-order to first-order statements lieswith the ambiguity attaching to the use of theword theological.To say that aclaimistheologicalcanmeantwoentirelydifferentthings.Itmaymeanthattheclaiminvolvesreferencetotheconcept"god"-theclaimis"theological."Itmayalsomean,however, that theclaimactuallyrefersto"God"-it is"Theological."In the latter case, "Theological" functions within the context of a "successgrammar" (inGilbertRyle's sense2) as a phrase that successfully refers to theconcreterealityofGod,where"God"functionsasakindofnameandimpliesa(successful)demonstrativeelement.

This ambiguitymeans that if a claim described as theologicalmeets certainformal criteria (i.e., that the concept utilized is "god," and there is no validreason for supposing that the relevant claim fails to refer successfully to itsreferent),itisassumedthattheclaimistobecounteda"Theological"claim.Itisas if an ethical presumption of innocence is assumed unless (ethical) guilt is

proven.

Thisveilsasubliminalargumentofthefollowingkind:

•Step1:ThatgodcreatedmenandwomeninhisownimageisanaffirmationfoundinthePentateuch.

•Step2:ThisaffirmationasitfeaturesinthePentateuchisproperlydescribedas"theological,"giventhatthesubjectofthestatementis"god."

•Step3:ThatwearecreatedintheimageofGodis,therefore,atheologicalstatementthatreferstoGod.

•[Step3b:Giventhattheaffirmationmeetscertainimportantcriteriaitcanbeuniversally affirmed, it is inclusive of persons, endorses those Europeanmoral/intellectual agendas to which modernity subscribes, is deeplyentrenchedintheecumenicaltraditionandunfalsifiablebyhistorico-criticalresearch-thereisnosufficientreasontoquestionthesuccessofitsreference.Innocencemay,indeedoughtto,beassumed.]

•Step4:Itisappropriate,therefore,toaffirmthatGodcreatedusinhisownimage.

•Step5:Godcreatedusinhisownimage.

Dueperhapstothesubliminalimpactofthiskindofthinking,thistextacquiredalmost incorrigible creedal status for a recent generation of liberal andliberationist theologians.'Thiscanonwithin thecanon tooeasily facilitated thefollowing:

•Step6:WhateverisdeemedtobeinclusiveandaffirmativeofGod'simageisvalidlyaffirmedofGod.

• Step 7:Anthropological affirmations constitute the grounds of theologicalaffirmations.

Two Case Studies at the Roots of Contemporary BritishBiblicalScholarship

HereIwillillustratethisconcernwithreferencetotwoverydifferentbooksthat,thoughdoubtlessno longer "cutting-edge" in someof their aimsandmethods,served to define the parameters of theological engagement with the NewTestament over the last three decades in the United Kingdom. The "slipperywarrant"forthemovefromgod-talk-talktoGod-talkthattheyexhibit,farfrombeing addressed by the guild over the intervening years, appears (with somenotableexceptionssuchasBockmuehl,Marshall,Thiselton,andWatson)tohavebeensomewhatuncriticallyadopted.

Our first example is James Dunn's Christology in the Making. In hisintroduction to this immensely influential modern classic (first published in1980, reprinted in 1989 with the same introduction but with an additionalforeword), hewrites, "The following study is simply a historical investigationinto how and in what terms the doctrine of the incarnation first came toexpression."4Tostressthatthisisallthatthestudyisseekingtoaccomplish,heplacestherelevantsectioninitalics.Inaddition,heinsiststhatthebook"isnotaphilosophicalessayontheconceptofincarnationassuch....Noriswhatfollowsan exercise in dogmatic theology."' His concern is "to let the New Testamentwriters speak for themselves, to understand their words as they would haveintended,tohearthemastheirfirstreaderswouldhaveheardthem."6Again,heused italics to emphasize the limited goals in view. By the conclusion of thebook,however,thesemodestaimshavegivenwaytoextravagantlytheologicalconclusionsmakingacomplexseriesofclaimsastowhatitisthatwecelebrateatChristmas,Easter,andPentecost,endingwithaquotationfromKasper'sJesusthe Christ: "In substance the trinitarian confession means that God in JesusChristhasprovedhimselftobeself-communicatingloveandthatassuchheispermanentlyamongusintheHolySpirit."'ThisisfirstorderGod-talk-dogmatictheology, indeed, that bristles with philosophical assumptions vis-a-vis theconceptofincarnation.Allthisreposes,ostensibly,onwhatwassupposedtobeapurelyhistoricalinvestigationofthegod-talkoftheNewTestamentwriters.Inshort,theargumentofthebookrestsonaless-than-subtlemovefromgod-talk-talktoGod-talk.Withoutthatmove,thebookwouldnothavebeenadoptedsowidely as an example of contemporary, sophisticated, historically responsibletheologicalengagementwiththebiblicalmaterial.

Our secondexampleconcernscontributions toanearlierbook (1977)editedby John Hick, entitled The Myth of God Incarnate.' The majority of the

contributors saw themselves as New Testament scholars who, through theirscholarship,feltobligedtodenytheincarnation-thatis,theconcreteanduniqueontologicalidentificationofGodandtheparticularhumanJesusofNazareth.Atthesametime,however,theyhadnocompunctionaboutmakingawholevarietyof"high"claimsaboutthetheologicalsignificanceofJesus.FrancesYoung,forexample,seekstodenythehomoousionyetishappytoaffirm:"IfindsalvationinChrist,becauseinhimGodisdisclosedtomeasa`sufferingGod'...JesusisthesupremedisclosurewhichopensmyeyestoGodinthepresent";9orMauriceWiles:"Itmaybeclaimed,itissupremelythroughJesusthattheself-givingloveof God is most fully expressed and men can be caught up into the fullestresponsetohim";10orMichaelGoulder's"faithintheunityofactivityofGodand Jesus-homopraxis, if aGreekword iswanted rather than homoousia"11-aposition to which he no longer holds; or Leslie Houlden's references to "thecentrality of Jesus for all that concernsman's understanding ofGod" and "thedeepandintimateinvolvementofGodwiththeworld"thatiswitnessedinandthrough Jesus.12 All these statements are affirmed in the context of a bookwhose purpose is to dismiss the affirmation of the homoousion as a myth,indeed,asthethrustofYoung'sandWiles'scontributionsimplies,inconceivable,unwarranted,andungrounded.

So how are we to understand the connection between New Testamentinterpretationandtheologicalstatement?HeikkiRaisanenurgesbiblicalscholarstomove"beyondNewTestamenttheology"(tocitethetitleofhismonograph")andnottoconfusewhatatextmeantwithwhatatextmeans.Thisisconsistentwith the presuppositions ostensibly operative in much of the discipline sinceWrede.WhatisstrikingaboutRaisanen'sapproach,however,ishiscommitmentto avoiding any confusion between a historical, descriptive approach and atheological, normative approach. He summarizes his vision for the field bysuggesting that "`New Testament theology' could be replaced ... with twodifferent projects: first, the `history of earlyChristian thought' (or theology, ifyou like), evolving in the context of early Judaism; second, criticalphilosophical, ethical and/or theological `reflection on theNewTestament,' aswell as on its influence on our history and its significance for contemporarylife";hecontinues,"Mycontentionisnotthatthesetwotasksoughttobecarriedoutseparately,theonefirstandtheotherafterwards;thatdoesnotseemtobethewaythehumanmindworks.Nonethelessthetwotasksoughttobekeptdistinct.1114ChristopherTuckettsummarizesRaisanen'sapproachstillmoresuccinctly:

There should be a distinction made between a "historical," "descriptive"approach,seekingtodescribewhattheoriginalauthorssaidintheiroriginalhistoricalcontexts,anda"theological,""normative"approachinwhichtheNew Testament texts are exploited in the service of a contemporaryChristiantheology...ThetaskoftheNewTestamentexegete...shouldbetoseek to adopt the neutral role of the descriptive historian. The task oftheologizingon thebasisof the text isa logically separable,and logicallysecondary,activity15

One question that this raises, of course, is whether there can ever be atheologically "neutral" option in dealing with such accounts.What should beclearisthatsuch"neutrality"assumesthatGodisnot,inanysense,anintegralpartoftheequation.ItistodetermineinadvancethatGodisnotinvolvedinthishistory,and that therefore reference toGodcannotcontribute toan"objective"accountofwhathappened.

SemanticContinuityandContemporaryGod-talk

It isoftenassumed that the fundamental challenge for constructive theologicalinteractionwith thebiblicalmaterial is theproblemofhermeneutical distance.Few in modern British biblical scholarship have engaged with this issue ingreaterdepththanhasAnthonyThiselton.Inthefirstofhisimpressiveanalysesof the nature and task of biblical hermeneutics,TheTwoHorizons (1980), heintegrated themes from Gadamer and Wittgenstein, arguing that in order forthere to be valid interpretation of biblical texts, there must take place aHorizontverschmelzung-afusionofhorizonswherebywebeginto"indwell"theworld of the biblical authors, to share in their fields of reference and therebybecomeprivytothesubliminalsemanticrulesandlanguagegamesfunctioninginbiblicalmaterial.Thismayindeedberegardedastheconditiosinequanonofunderstanding what they say-not least because, as Wittgenstein16 (and alsoJamesBarr17)hasshown,themeaningsoftermsandsentencesaretheiruse,andthiscannotbeabstractedfromthecontextsoftheiruse,which,forWittgenstein,meanstheirpublicrulesofuse.18Thequestionthatwemustaskhere,however,is a further one: What kind of Horizontverschmelzung might facilitate ourindwelling the theological statements of theNewTestamentwriters in such awaythattheymightfacilitate"first-order"theologicalstatements?

This is emphatically not to play down the significance of Gadamer andThiseltonhere.Theyrightlyestablishthatafusion(orperichoresis?)ofhorizonsisanecessaryconditionformakingtheologicalstatementsthattakeseriouslythesignificance of the history fromwhich they stem. If the semantics of biblicalstatements is not to be "flattened," decontextualized, and crudely transported,thenitisoftheutmostimportancethatwecometoindwellthe"rulesofuse"thatappliedinthediversecontextsfromwhichtheyemergedandinwhichtheyarelocated.

Scholarship insearchofgenuinesemanticcontinuitycannotavoidbecomingembroiled in a massively complex network or hierarchy of hermeneuticalcircularitiesinterrelatingdiverselevelsofinquiry.Archaeologicalstudyoftextsand their contexts, involving research from themicroscopic (genetic codingofanimal skins to piece together ancient parchments) to macroscopic,sociohistoricalresearch,not tomentionanalysisofredactiveprocesses, literaryforms,narrative styles as also thehistoryof religious concepts, rituals, and soon, are all intrinsic to the task. To complicate matters further, most of theselevelscannotbetreatedindependently.Inmostinstances,moreover,thelinesofinfluence between levels of research are bidirectional. Indeed, disagreementbetween biblical scholars often reflects differences in how the relationshipsbetweensuppositionsoperativeatdifferentlevelsareinterpreted.Whatamountsto a diffuse maze of levels of syntactical, historical, socioscientific, andhermeneutical analysis is inescapable in the task of interpreting the semanticrules thatapplywithin the furthercomplexseriesof intratextualhermeneuticalcircularities that condition our interpretation of texts. There are, in sum, noshortcuts.Thesemaybesomeofthenecessary-thoughemphaticallynot,asissooftenassumed,sufficient-conditionsforbiblicallysourcedGod-talk.19

Inthislight,wecannowarticulatewithgreaterspecificitytheissuesthatourquestionrequiresustoaddress:

1.Theextenttowhichgenuinetheologicalperceptiononthepartofbiblicalauthors (if it exists) might constitute part of this complex hermeneuticalmatrix.Ifitdoes,thensuchtheologicalperceptionclearlybecomesintrinsicto the hermeneutical project constituting one of the interrelated levels ofresearchrequisiteformakingsensenotonlyofthewholebutalsoofotherpartsofthewholeaswell.

2.Theextenttowhichparticipationintheveryspecificparadigmintegraltosuch theological perception is necessary for understanding the "sense" ofwhatissaid.

3.Howitisthathermeneuticalinquirymighttakeduecognizanceofanysuchlevel of perception/meaning, given that, as we will see, theologicalperception is bound to a paradigm of a very specific kind if it is to beveridical.

4.Howwearetoconceivetheologicallyoftheconditionsofourbeingprivyto any such theological insight togetherwith the unique paradigmwithinwhichsuchinsightiscouched.

Clearly, by thephrase "theological insight" Imean somethingverydifferentfromany"neutral"entertainingofreligiousideas.ImeantheperceptionofGodtogetherwiththedisclosive"success"ofanyderivativetheologicalaffirmations.Toreiterate:weareconcernedwithwhateveritisthatisbeingassumedwhenascholarappealsappropriately toabiblical textaswarrant forGod-talk (i.e., asconstitutingGod-talkthatwecanreiterateinafirst-ordermanner)asopposedtowarranting simply further reflectionon thegod-talkof the time (i.e., god-talk-talk).20

If theaffirmationof theological statements (of thekinddescribed in the twocasestudiesabove)isnottobeconceivedasmerelycoincidentallyrelatedtothebiblicalmaterialbut,rather,isandrequirestobein"semanticcontinuity"withit,thenwemust bewilling and able to provide reasonswhy semantic continuitywiththewritingsofbiblicalmaterialistheologicallyrelevantand,further,howshared participation in their theologically "veridical" paradigms is possible.These requirements, it will become clear, suggest that a threedimensionalHorizontverschmelzung becomes the necessary condition of hermeneuticalinterpretation.

AthanasiusonMythologyversusTheology

Itwas these concerns thatAthanasiuswas addressingwhen he articulated thegroundsofthepatristicconceptionoftheekkiesiastikonphronema(the"mindofthe church"). Here I am drawing on work by Heron, Florovsky, and T. F.Torrance.'-' Given, moreover, the concern over recent decades to distinguish

theologicalfrommythologicalstatements-thatis,statementsthatvalidlyrefertothe divine from those that simply project culture-specific, anthropomorphiccategoriesontothedivine-itisequallypertinenttoobservethatitwaspreciselythisdistinction(betweentheologeinandmythologein)thatstandsattheheartofAthanasius's arguments vis-a-vis the epistemological necessity of thehomoousion.Athanasius's primary concernwas to ask about the conditions ofour distinguishing (in the task of interpretation [herme- neuein]) betweenmythological projection of human conceptual constructs onto God(mythopoiesis) and warranted theological affirmation (theologein) that wastrue.22

The background to his concerns was, of course, the gnostic/Origenistdisjunctionbetweenthedivineandthehumanrealms-thetraditionalGreekgulfor dichotomy (chorismos) between the realm of intellectual knowing (kosmosnoetos) and the realm of experience (kosmos aisthetos), between the eternaltranscendent realm of ideas and ideals and the spatiotemporal realm ofcontingenthumanhistoryandfleetingcreaturelyexperience.23Operatingwithinthis dichotomy, the Arians affirmed that the Son of God must belong to thecreatedorderasthefirstcreature(protonktisma).Asonewhowasbegotten,hebelonged to the spatiotemporal side of this gulf. There was, therefore, a"qualitative" distinction to bemade (denoting an unbridgeable epistemic gulf)betweenthebeingofGodandthepersonoftheincarnateSonandLogos.

The hermeneutical consequences of such a dichotomy were unambiguouslyclear to Athanasius. There was no sense in which the Logos could mediateknowledgeofGod.Anyviewsthathemighthavevis-a-visthedivinewere,likethe rest of ours, mere epinoiai-creaturely opinions projected across anepistemically unspannable gulf that deprived the church of any warrant forassuming that they couldbe correlatedwith the beingofGod.Howcould theLogos,conceivedintheseterms,beperceivedasconstitutingacontrolupon,orjustificationfor, theologicalstatement?On thisview, theologicalstatementsbycreatures(includingtheLogos)canbeexpressionsoflittlemorethancreaturelyagnosis. For Athanasius, christologically informed statements interpreted intheseterms,constitutemythologein.AsHeroncomments,

By a curious irony, on which Athanasius was not slow to remark, Ariusseemedtopossessagooddealofprivilegedinformation.Butwherehadhegot it from?Athanasiuswas innodoubtabout the source: theArianshad

fabricated this concept of the divine being out of their own minds, thusmakingtheirownintellectsthemeasureofultimatereality,andassigningtoChrist, theWordmade-flesh, the place which their minds could make forhim.24

To confuse the projected constructs of our creaturely minds with God-talk isdelusional(mania).

AsAthanasius sawwith suchclarity, thepossibility that theNewTestamentclaimshaveanyobjectivetheologicalvalueorwarrantwhatsoeverreposesonaninternally consistent dynamic wherein God discloses himself within thecontingent order as the person of the incarnate Logos becoming, thereby, theskopos of Scripture and the topos ("place") or reference point for ourunderstanding God's dealings with humanity. In and through this God giveshimself to be spoken of in and through the one perceived as "Immanuel"Godconcretelyandspecifically(and,onemightadd,inclusively)presentwithandforhumanity in space and time. On such an account, through the person of theLogosourhumanconcepts (noiai)aregiven to refer to thedivine inamannerthataffordsgenuinecognitiveaccess(katadianoian2s)toGodinandthroughtheana-logicaleventoffaith.Thiscontrastsdramaticallywiththeonlyconceivablealternative option: theology is mythmaking (mythologein) driven by arbitraryhumanopinion(kat'epinoian),which,devoidofreference,isultimatelynomorethan the self-deceiving opinions of those who, on their own terms, possessagnosis.Toconfusesuchmythoplastiawiththeologeinis,again,delusion.

TheaffirmationofthehomoousionoftheSon-thatis,oftheLogosTheou-wasthereforeseentobetheconditiosinequanonoftheologicalstatement.Contraryto popular supposition, however, this did not constitute for Athanasius asufficientconditionforGod-talk,theologein.Ahermeneuticalgapstillremains-agap between our own alienated minds and the Logos, with whom God isontologicallyidentified;betweenourownconfusedparadigmsandtheobjectivegivenness of God as Word. In the background of Athanasius's thinking herestood the Pauline insight that human beings are alienated or hostile in theircapacity to think through to the realityofGod (echthroi todianoia), that theirmindset, judgments, or paradigms (phronein) are of the flesh. ForAthanasius,therefore, a transformation of our understanding (noein)-paralleling the NewTestamentmetanoiaofournoeinbygrace-wasnecessaryforveridicalperceptionof theLogos.Thesubjectiveconditionof thiswas thecreativepresenceof the

Holy Spirit. By the Spirit, whatwemight refer to inmodern parlance as our"paradigms"arereconciledandtransformedsuchthatwearegiveneyestoseeand ears to hear what we could not otherwise appropriate. For Athanasius,affirmingthehomoousionoftheSpiritasthesubjectiveconditionoftheologicalreference is the second, necessary condition of theologein-an argumentarticulatedextensivelyinhisLetterstoSerapion.26

This raises the question as to whether there can be a theological NewTestament hermeneutic of any kind if we deny God's free presence withhumanity, firstas the incarnateSon/Logos,andsecondas theHolySpirit,whoconstitutes thesubjectiveconditionofourperceptionof the former,andwhereeachisaffirmedas"ofonebeingwiththeFather"(homoousiostopatri).FortheNicene fathers, the twofoldhomoousionconstitutes thenecessaryconditionbywhichourcontemporaryunderstandingcanparticipate in the"apostolicmind,"enabling semantic continuity with the theological paradigms of the apostles.Through theSpirit, our phronein is given to share in themind of the body ofChrist (to ekklesiastikon phronema). What has taken place, in effect, is atheological fusion of horizons-participation in a reconciled continuity ofmindand, thereby, of reference between the authors of theNewTestament and thecontemporary church. The condition of this is whatwe are calling that "thirdHorizon"madepossiblealoneonthegroundsthatnotonlytheincarnateLogosbutalsotheHolySpiritishomoousiontopatri.27

The Hellenizing of Hermeneutics in the Enlightenment andModernity

Despite the fact that the supporters of Athanasius may have won the day atNicea, Hellenic idealism, with its associated chorismoi (gulfs, dualisms), hascontinued to mold the hermeneutic agenda right through to modernity. G. E.Lessingepitomizedthesuppositionssoinfluentialinhermeneuticsbyintegratingthe key principles from two of the giants of European philosophy: (1) theepistemologyofLeibniz,with itssharpdistinctionbetweennecessary truthsofreason (demonstrable on a priori grounds) and contingent truths (which areknownbysenseperception)28-adichotomythatechoesthatbetweenthekosmosnoetos and the kosmos aisthetos; (2) the thesis of Spinoza's TractatusTheologico-Politicus, that the truth of a historical narrative, however certain,cannotgiveusknowledgeofGod, the latterbeingderivableonlyfromgeneral

ideasthatareindubitablyknown.29Spinozawas,ofcourse,themajorinfluenceon thehermeneuticsofD.F.Strauss,ostensibly the founderofmyth theory inNewTestamentscholarship.

TheseconvictionsgeneratedLessing's repristinationof theGreekchorismos.His"biguglyditch"reposedontheprinciplethat"`accidental' truthsofhistorycan never become the proof of necessary truths of reason."" History and itsclaimscanneverproffertheologicaltruth-onapriorigrounds.Any"leap"fromthe contingent truths of history to the necessary truths of divine revelation is"intellectually impossible."31 The impact of Lessing's resulting immanentismcanbeseeninthesystematicidealismofHegel.

ThegiantofthenineteenthcenturywhotookupthecudgelsfromAthanasiusand rearticulated the central issues for those seduced by the Enlightenment'sHellenizingofChristianitywasSorenKierkegaard.Hesetouttodemonstratetheradical formal incompatibility between a hermeneutic that assumes that wepossess the conditions by which to evaluate New Testament claims and ahermeneutic framed by the radically different theological horizon of the NewTestamentwritersthatsuggeststhatthose"conditions"aregiveninandthroughGod's reconciling self-disclosure inChrist. It is to this thatwemustnow turn,albeitbriefly.

Kierkegaard opens Philosophical Fragments by articulating the centralquestionattheheartofthehermeneuticdebate:"Canthetruthbelearned?"Theproblemsstemmingfromtheattempt toanswer thisquestion in theaffirmativeledSocrates(togetherwithallformsofidealismeversince)toanswernegativelyandadopttheviewthatknowledgemustnecessarilybeaformofrememberingthatwhichisimmanentwithinourmindsinsomeway.WhatKierkegaardrefersto as the "pugnacious proposition" of Plato's Meno is quite simply theproposition that the truthcannotbe learnedanew-wecannot learnwhatwedonot actually know already. The problem is quite simple: "A person cannotpossibly seekwhatheknows, and, just as impossibly, he cannot seekwhathedoesnotknow,forwhatheknowshecannotseek,sinceheknowsit,andwhathedoesnotknowhecannotseek,because,afterall,hedoesnotevenknowwhatheissupposedtoseek."32Theidealist'sanswerisquitesimplytoaffirmthatonemustalwaysalreadyknowwhatoneisseeking;otherwise,onecouldnever"re-cognize" it to be true. Immanentwithin us and complete in advance of everyhermeneutical inquiry lies the totality of theological knowledge-the ideas, the

ideals,theconceptsofGod,andsoon-thatthescholarwilldistillinanyanalysisof any text. Not only is it the case that nothing new is learned, but also thatnothingnewcanbelearned.Theso-calleddiscoveryofanythingthatwecometoknowaboutGodnecessarilyamounts tonomore thanaprocessofanamnesis.ForSocrates,therefore,thetruephilosopherisnomorethanamidwife,andthehighest form of teaching is simply facilitating the birthing of that knowledgealready immanent within the learner (maieuesthai) -helping to deliver thosereligiousideasandidealsthatliewithinusandthatwealreadyknow.Inparallel,thehighestfunctionthatanytextcanachieveistofacilitateourrecallingthoseeternal, timeless, ethical, and transcendent ideas (and ideals) immanentwithinus. Themessage, therefore, to the hermeneutical scholar is the samemessagethatthegodsgaveSocratesatDelphi:gnothiseauton-"Knowthyself!"Itisself-knowledgethataloneleadsusandalonecanleadusintoalltruth.

Whatfollowsfromthis?AsKierkegaardpointsout,"ViewedSocratically,anypointofdepartureintimeiseoipsosomethingaccidental,avanishingpoint,anoccasion."33Andboththeoccasionandtheteacher(whoeverthatmaybe)canonlybeincidentalandinsignificant.34

TheimplicationsoftheSocraticfor"Bibleandtheology"areclear.NeithertheBible,noritsauthorsandtheirhorizons,northepersonofChristcanhaveanyparticular, let alone decisive, significance for apprehending God or any truthwhatsoever about God or, indeed, about humanity. At best, they possess amaieuticfunctionservingtopromptandremindusofwhatwealreadyknow35When this purpose is served, themeans of that promptingor reminding (be itJesusChristorthechurchorScripture)mustdisappearfromviewandmustnotin any sense claim an essentially mediatorial role. To the extent that it issuggestedthatthereisanynecessaryorongoingconnectionbetweenourbeingin relation to the Truth and our being related to Christ or the church, ourrelationshiptotheTruth(totheeternalandtothedivine)isnecessarilydistortedand eclipsed. The relation of the learner to the eternal, to the divine, isundermined and obstructed to the extent that the learner fallaciously anddestructivelyconfusesthetimelessandtheuniversalwiththehistoricalandtheparticular.Totheextent,moreover,thatothertextsorpersonsservetofacilitateour "remembering" what we already know of the divine, they are equallysignificant,whatever form they take. In short, the successor truthof religiousclaims is determined by the extent to which they facilitate our own self-

discovery.

Kierkegaard thenhas theagnosticClimacusconsiderhow thesituationmustlookifitistobeotherwise.Hewrites,"Ifthesituationistobedifferent,"andifthemomentintimeortheoccasionortheteacherbymeansofwhichwecometothe truth is not to be of arbitrary or contingent significance, then the onlyalternativeisthatitbeofreal,andhence,"decisivesignificance.""Ifthatistobethe case (andwedonot gowith theSocratic), then theremust be an intrinsicconnection between the occasion or the teacher and the truth or themessage,such that "for nomomentwill I be able to forget this occasion," because it isconstitutiveof the real relationbetween the self and theeternal.;' If this is thecase, then themoment or occasion or teacher cannot be forgotten and yet thetruthberetained,sincetherealityofthetruthandtheoccasionorteachermustbeintrinsicallyandnotarbitrarilyrelated.

He then pursues the implications of the occasion's being of decisivesignificance.If it is, thenuntil thisoccasiontakesplace, the learner is inerror.The learner can possess neither the truth in embryo nor the conditions forrememberingorrecognizingit.38Thelearnerissimplywithoutthetruthintheserespects.Whatdoesthismean?If"thelearneristoobtainthetruth,theteachermustbringittoher,butnotonlythat.Alongwithit,theteachermustprovideherwith the condition for understanding it, for if the learner were herself theconditionforunderstandingthetruth,thenshemerelyneedstorecollect,because...theconditionandthequestioncontaintheconditionedandtheanswer."39

Soiftheteacherandhistoricaloccasionaretobeofdecisivesignificancethen,Climacusargues,theteacherisnolongermerelyamidwifeandthusincidental;rather, the teacher actually gives birth to the truth, creates anew a state in thehearer thatwasnot tacitly there. In sum, the teacher "gives thecondition"andthereby "gives the truth." Kierkegaard does not hesitate to draw out theimplicationsof this throughClimacus: such a teacherwouldbe required toberegardedasa"savior"fortheteachersaves"thelearnerfromunfreedom,"fromastateoftruthlessness,oferror.Theteacherisalsoa"deliverer"inthattheteacherdelivers"thepersonfromtheself-imprisonment"thatisthevainattempttofindtruthsolelyandexclusivelyinandthroughoneself.Stillfurther,suchateacherisalsoa"reconciler"and,finally,themomentthatisfilledwiththeeternalthathesuggestswecall"thefullnessoftime."

Insum,whatKierkegaardoffersoveragainsttheSocraticoridealistapproachis an affirmation of precisely that which Athanasius was insisting upon inaffirming the epistemological necessity for the Christian faith of the twofoldhomoousion. The theological conditions of God-talk are that the Logos, whomakes himself present to us in an event of the reconciliation of ourminds inChrist,isinthemostconcretesenseGodfromGod,andthattheHolySpirit,thesubjectiveconditionofourperceptionorrecognitionofthatsameLogos,isalsoGodfromGod.Without this, theologicalhermeneuticscanneverbemore thanthe expression of our immanent self-understandings, wherein we utilize thebiblical texts simply to illustrate our prior, subjective values, orientations, andreligious affinities. If the latter is the case,what conceivable theological valuecouldaccruefroma"fusionofhorizons"?Itbecomessuperfluous;ifanything,itdetracts from the truth rather than offering ameans of access to it.Moreover,there is every reason to suppose that noother horizon canprovideprofounderaccess to eternal truths and ideals than our own.There can be no reasonwhygnothi seauton is going tobeparticularlywell servedby engagementwith thehorizons of members of a Jewish sect who lived in an ancient prescientificperiodofhistoryanymorethanwiththoseofanyothercontemporaryreligiousthinker,betheyAnglican,Moonie,BranchDavidian,orScottishPresbyterian.

ContemporaryHermeneuticalImplications

It was Karl Barth who rearticulated the Athanasian option and the radicalincompatibility of Hellenic idealism with the gospel and the existence of thechurch. The idealism that he opposed took the form of the MarburgneoKantianisminwhichhewasraised(andfromwhichBultmann'sprogramofdemythologization never departed) and immanentism, in the form of GermanKulturprotestantismus.Onlytheaffirmationofthetwofoldhomoousionobviateda theological approach to biblical interpretation inwhichwe ceased simply toreiterateourownprioragendasinaloudvoice.TheChristianclaimthatGodisgiven to be known through the witness of the Bible and that it is thustheologicallyrelevantlieswiththefactthatGodisnotonlytherevealerbutalsotherevelationandthe"revealedness."GodistheincarnateWordandtheactivecondition of the perception of that revelation.41 This is not, of course, toquestionthefactthatGodisveiledbythehumanformofhisrevelation-indeed,forBarth,Godisonlyrevealedtohumanitybecauseofthisveiling.

In short, if there is to be aHorizontverschmelzung that facilitatesGod-talk,thenthereneedtobethreehorizons,nottwo.Thereisthehorizonofthepeopleand culture of the biblical period; then there is our horizon in the twenty-firstcentury.Buttherealsohastobeanotherhumanhorizon,throughwhichGodispresentbytheSpiritandwhichfacilitatesthetransformativeintegrationofthesetwohorizons-whatwemightcallthe"mindofChrist."TheNewTestamentbearswitness to the beginnings of a Horizontverschmelzung in which through theincarnateLogos (Immanuel), and through the creative, reconcilingpresenceofthe Holy Spirit, a new humanity is created that participates en Christoconstitutedashisbodyand sharing inhismind. Itsmembers are reconstituted"fromabove"andhaveeyestoseeandearstohearwhattheircultureandnaturalcapacitiescannotprovide.This isnotsomething thathistorical inquiryofeventhe most sophisticated kind or any hermeneutical methodology could everdeliver.(Thatitcouldisthenaiveassumptionof"methodologicalnaturalism,"asC.S.Evanshasarguedsoeffectively.4'-)

Where does this leave us? It presents us with a straight "either ... or ..."-achoice,thatis,betweenincipientidealismwheretheologicalhermeneuticsdoesnot actually perceive the otherness of this text as theologically significant butsimply uses biblical texts to illustrate those prior religious ideas and ethicalprinciples(or,indeed,theagnosticism)thatwealreadypossess.Thealternativeis a theologicalhermeneutic that isgrounded in theperception that these textswitness uniquely to an occasion of decisive significance and where theconditionsofitsGod-talkaregiveninandthroughthisoccasion.Forthistertiumdatum,theimpetusforGod-talkandthecontroluponitreposeinthisparticularevent, and the condition for the interpreter's perception of this resides in thereconcilingpresenceofGodastheHolySpirit.

Itispreciselyhere,however,thatwearefacedwithunavoidableimplications-implicationsthatareexclusiveandhencecarrythepotentialforoffense.Theseconcernthefactthatthereisanessential"intrinsicity,"constitutiveofChristianfaithandunderstanding.Giventhatwecannotsupplytheconditionforthatformofperceptionthatisthesinequanonofanon-Socratictheologicalhermeneutic,there is no possibility of our arguing to it from commonly endorsablefoundationalprinciplesorgrounds internal toournaturalconstitution.There isnopossibilityevenofestablishingbyanyindependent,externalmeansthatsuchadimensionisintegraltothehermeneuticaltaskinthiscase.Thereasonforthis

relates to the nature of the hermeneutical paradigms integral to theologicalperception-an issue that FrancisWatson engaged admirably in his book Text,ChurchandWorld,andthatMarkusBockmuehladdresseswithgreatinsightinthe context of his expose of the "methodological and substantive malaiseobservableinlate-twentieth-centuryNewTestamentscholarship,withitsdeeplycorrosiveconsequencesforagreementaboutthenatureofargumentandeventheverysubjectofstudy1141

AQuestionofParadigms

AnimplicationofwhatIhavesaidisthatthefusionofhorizonsthatalonecanlead to semantic continuitywith thewriters of theNewTestament involves adivinely conditioned transformation and reconstitution of our interpretiveparadigms.Butwhatisthenatureofsuchametanoia,andtowhatextentmayitberegardedasahermeneuticalgoal?

Any such metanoia requires, as Murray Rae argues, to be conceived asrevolutionary rather thanevolutionary.Theologicalperceptionneitherdevelopsnorcandevelopbyvirtueofanyhermeneuticalprogram;itisnottheendresultof any "continuous evolutionary advancement."'AsThomasKuhn has shown,such is the character of the really significant discoveries in science and is notunique,therefore,totheologicaldiscovery.AsKuhnarguesinTheStructureofScientificRevolutions,theparadigmshiftsinvolvedare"areconstructionofthefield fromnewfundamentals, a reconstruction thatchanges someof the field'smost elementary theoretical generalizations as well as many of its paradigmmethods and applications."45What takes place is a discontinuous, qualitativeleap.Whatthismeans,asRaesays,isthat

there is nothing to be done within the old paradigm which may he apropaedeuticfor thenew.Bythestandardof thenewparadigmthosewhocontinuetooperatewithintheoldexistinuntruthandemploystructuresofunderstandingwhichcompelthemtodismisstheclaimsofthosewhohaveundergoneaparadigmatictransition.

This is not dissimilar to Hans Urs von Balthasar's characterization of thedifference between Simon and the unanticipatable discovery and perceptionconstitutiveofPeter-asimilaranalogycanbedrawnin thedistinctionbetweenthe pre-Christian and the Christian Paul.47 If there are useful analogies with

paradigmshifts inscience, it remains thecase that,asEberhardJungelargues,"theologyhastodowithaparadigmchangesuigeneris:theexistentialchangeinhumanunderstandingconveyedinthephrasestotessarkosphroneinandtotoupneumatosphronein(Rom.8:5)."48Thecreativeheuristicdiscontinuity(orleap)that takesplacewhen the concrete "theologicaldimension," towhich theNewTestamentbearswitness,comesintooperationisnottheresultofanyheuristiccapacity on our part. Its epistemic condition is the concrete and dynamicpresenceofGodandGod'screativereconcilingofourminds.

Awholehost ofNewTestamentmetaphors strive together to articulate this:beingborn fromabove, beingborn again, beinggiven eyes to see and ears tohear, the renewal of ourminds, the reconciliation of ourminds,metanoia, thenewcreation,thenewhumanity,participationinthemindofChrist,theanalogyoffaith,and,aswehaveseen,judgmentinaccordancewiththeSpiritcontrastedwith judgment according to the flesh. Our tendency, of course, is to translatethese into the language of ethics, thereby making recourse to universal,immanentethicalcategoriesandagendas.

The offense to academe that emerges is that if this is the case, then theperceptionof itsbeing thecasemustbe irreduciblyboundupwith thekindofperception given within the context of such a unique paradigm shift. Thehermeneutical metanoia that, I am arguing, constitutes the condition of atheologicalhermeneuticsisnotanenhancementorperfectionofprior,immanenthermeneutical conditions nor indeed some kind of optionalGestalt switch ;41rather, it constitutes a unique form of paradigm shift that interprets the oldparadigmasaformofalienationfromwhichoneisdeliveredandwherethenewparadigmisgivenbygrace.The"mind"thatwasinChristJesusismanifestinusbythecreativepresenceoftheSpiritsuchthatwearegiventheeyestodiscernGod's presence in otherwise inconceivable ways-rather as if an intellectual"faculty"wereenabledtofunctionanew,asAlvinPlantingasuggests.so

What thismeans is that there can be no simple appeal to "reason." Reasoncannot be themeans bywhich an old paradigm is abandoned and a new oneadopted, asMurray Rae's interpretation ofKierkegaardmakes so clear.51Anyappealtoreasontojustifythenewparadigmmustnecessarilytakeplacewithinthenewparadigmitself.Thismeansthattherewillinevitablybeperceivedtobeadegreeofcircularityinallourthinking.ThereisasuigeneriscircularitythatappliesspecificallywithinChristianthoughtandthatinvolvesthe"intrin-sicity"

towhich I referred above: perceiving a revelational event to bewhat it is canoccuronlyfromwithinthesphereofthatevent.Thisperception,onemightsay,isintrinsictotheeventofdisclosure.

Fourpotentialrejoindersrequirebriefconsideration.

1. Does this suggest an individualistic approach to the hermeneutical taskimplyingtheequivalentofaprivatelanguage?ThiswasthetellingcriticismthatThiselton,usingWittgenstein's"beetleinabox"analogy,leveledatBultmann'sadvocacyofanesoteric,hermeneuticalparadigmappealingto"deeperlevelsofmeaning."52Where meaning is accessed privately by the self with exclusivereferencetotheself'sexistentialself-understanding,itisdifficulttoseehowonecan avoid Wittgenstein's arguments on the incoherence (meaninglessness) of"private language."53 Thiselton observes, "If with Bultmann we substitute anemphasis on the other-worldly and `my' existential experience in place of thepublictraditionofOldTestamenthistory,theproblemofhermeneuticsbecomesinsoluble."54

As Athanasius saw so clearly, the theological paradigm that underpins atheologicalapproachis irreduciblyboundupwiththelifeofthecommunityofthebodyofChrist.Thereisnodichotomybetweenhavingthatmindwhichwasin Christ Jesus and participating in the body of Christ. This constitutes atheologicalcounterparttotheWittgensteinianinsightthatthereisnosuchthingasaprivatelanguage.Theparadigmwithwhichweoperateiswhatthechurchfathersreferredtoastheekklesiastikonphronema.ss

2.Doesthismeanthatthetheologiancanignorethediverseformsofacademicscholarship applied to Christian resources as irrelevant to a theologicalhermeneutic?Again,theanswerisanegativeonewithonequalification.Whenscholarship goes beyond its remit and draws "theological" conclusions fromprior incompatible paradigms such as naturalism or Enlightenment humanism,then that scholarship must recognize itself for what it is: irreduciblyincompatiblewiththerebeinganytheologicalinsightintherelevanttexts.Totheextent that biblical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) are being truly"scientific" and allowing their conclusions to be conditioned by the objects oftheir inquiry, the relationship should be mutually constructive and dialogical.Such scholarship should serve the integration of the levels of scholarshipintrinsictotheHorizontverschmelzungdiscussedabove.Withoutscholarshipof

thiskind,atheologicalhermeneuticisimpossible.56

Further, it should be remembered that no theological paradigm is static.Engagingwith the results of scholarship at all levels is relevant to theologicalparadigms that remain semper reformanda (always in need of reform). Thathaving been said, it is the nature of the case that the conditions of theHorizontverschmelzungthatfacilitateGod-talkarenotultimatelyattributabletoscholarshipofanykind.

3. Is such a position not ultimately an exclusive one? Every truth claim isnecessarily (logically) exclusive of contrary truth claims. All "inclusivist"positionsarethemselvesinherentlyexclusive.Consequently,theendorsementofinclusivismis incompatiblewithitself.ThetheologicaldynamictowhichIamreferringasunderpinningatheologicalhermeneuticisexclusivepreciselyforthesake of that radically inclusive divine love and communion that alone canconstitutehumanlyaffirmativeandtransformativecommunity.

4.Nevertheless,giventhesekindsofcriticism,mayitnotbethattheidealistparadigmofferstheleastacademicallyoffensivewayforward?TheappealoftheSocratic is substantial: it enables the academic biblical scholar (whetherbelongingtoamajoritygroupor,indeed,toamarginalizedminority)tooperateas a Platonic philosopher-king (to use Richard Rorty's expression) whoconfidently"knowswhateveryoneelseisreallydoingwhethertheyknowitornot, because he knows about the ultimate context (the Forms, the Mind,Language) within which they are doing it."" To such approaches we mustreiterateKarlBarth's"Nein!"andwithallthevehemenceofhisoppositiontothe"higher"culturalidealsoftheGermanChristians.Or,withKierkegaard,"Betterwell-hangedthanill-wed"!-58

Thequestionthatallbiblicalscholarshavetoaddressiswhethertheyendorseanimmanentist/Socraticapproachtothetextsasdefiningthegroundsofrational,academic theology or whether, with Athanasius, they see it as deluded.WhatKierkegaardhasservedtoshowisthatwelookinvainformiddleground.

10

TheMoralAuthorityofScripture

OLIVERO'DONOVAN"There is no authority except fromGod," said the apostle Paul (Rom. 13:1).'Thatistosay,nothingcancommandourfreeobedienceunlessGodhassentit.Weare,ofcourse,self-movingbeings.Butwedonothaveourendinourselves,sothatthepossibilityofmeaningfulself-movement,directedtoapurposefitforus,dependsonGod'sengagementwithus.Whatwecall"authority"-bywhatevermediumitcomestous-encountersusfromGod.Andifnothingcomestousinthatway,ourfreedomremainsunrealized,mereundevelopedpotential.ButtherearemanymediabywhichtheauthorityofGodmayencounterus.Somebelongto the structures of creation.We may become aware of the authority of Godthroughangelsordemons;wemaybecomeawareofitthroughtherelationsinwhich we stand to others-through parents and family, through compatriots,throughteachers.WemaybecomeawareoftheauthorityofGodthroughdeath,asitsaystousinhisname,"Returntodust,youchildrenofmen!"ButauthoritymediatedinthiswaydoesnotencounterusdirectlyfromGod,andthatishowthepossibilityarisesofcorrupt"rulersandauthorities"ofthisworld,astheNewTestament calls them, which will in the end direct our freedom onto self-destructivepaths.Anditisbecauseofthatpossibilitythatthegospelinstructsusto look toanotherauthority, thatofGod'sSon, thatoverrides thevoicesof theelements of the world, instructing our freedom to be truly free. So Christianmoral reasoning begins not with the authority of created structures but ratherwith the authority of Christ. He is the "Last Adam," the sovereign Lord ofcreaturelyauthorities, appointed tobring them to their goal in thepurposes ofGod.

But when we have mentioned the authority of Christ, we have made abeginning-onlyabeginning.Forhisauthority,too,authorizes.Thecrucialthingto understand about all authority is that it is self-communicating. When

commanded,wearemadefree;whenwearefree,wecommand.InaversefromMatthew'sGospelthecenturionatCapernaumsaystoJesus,"Iamamanunderauthority,"andthenhegoeson,"Isaytoone`Go!'andhegoes,andtoanother`Come!'andhecomes"(Matt.8:9).Jesusrecognizedinthisamarkofhisfaith.Tobeunderauthorityistobeinachainofcommandthatauthorizes.Whenthecenturionsays,"Go!"or"Come!"heexercisestheauthoritythathestandsunder.AndsoitisthatJesus'triumphovertherulersandauthoritiesofthisfallenworldauthorizes thosewho standunderhis authority.And from speakingdirectly ofJesus' authority, we are hound to speak of the authorities that his authorityauthorizes. What are these? In the broadest sense, we are speaking of theauthorityofthechurch.Butwemustbecarefulhere:thechurchhasmanyroleswithinit; it isacomplexorganism,asPauldescribes it, likeabody.Therearedifferent authorities to do and say and command different things. "When heascendedonhigh, he led captivity captive," says the apostle to theEphesians,"andhegavegiftstomen.Andhisgiftswerethatsomeshouldbeapostles,someprophets..."(Eph.4:8,11).Andthenfollowevangelists,pastors,teachers,andsoonthroughtheofficesofthechurch.Apostlesandprophetsstandattheheadofthislist,andweknowthattheyoccupyaspecialplace.Thechurch,saysthesameapostle, is"builtuponthefoundationof theapostlesandprophets,ChristJesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph. 2:20). Who, then, are these firstauthoritieswithinthechurch,flankingChristasthefoundationsofawallflankthe cornerstone? They are, it is clear, the authors of the New and OldTestaments.

Talkabout theauthorityofScripturehasbeenmadehorriblydifficultby theFundamentalist Controversy (or, if you prefer, the Modernist Controversy),whichtorturedthechurchforoverahundredyearsandisonlynowfadingintomemory.ButitisallthemoreimportantthatweshouldtalkabouttheauthorityofScripturenow,andso,beforegettingintoaspectsofthequestiononwhichamoral theologian may shed some special light, I offer a thumbnail dogmaticsketch.

1.Scriptureissetapartfromeveryotherliterarycorpussimplybyitsfunctionin the saving purposes ofGod; it is a literary corpus that is, to use JohnWebster'sterm,"sanctified"toitstask.2Butthattaskisofapiecewiththesaving purposes of God to call out Israel and to anoint Christ for thesalvation of the world. The specialness of Scripture belongs to its

connectionwithIsraelandChrist.

2.HolyScriptureisapartofGod'sownself-attestationindeedandword.Itisnotasecondaryreflectiononit,which,haditnotoccurred,wouldhaveleftGod's message about himself intact. In speaking of Scripture, then, weproperly speak of the voice ofGod aswell as of the voice of its humanauthors.

3.TheauthorsofthebooksofScripturewerecalledtoperformhumantasksinGod's service, just as Israelwas. Their specialness does not consist insomeuniquesuperhumanactivity,asthoughwritingaGospelwasdifferentfromwritinganythingelse.Theyare specialbecauseof theirplace in theredeemingworkofGod.Nothinginthehumanityoftheauthorsimpliesanimperfection in their work; nothing in their election to divine serviceauthorizesustoattributetothemanyotherperfectionthantheonerelevantperfection:Godattestshimselfthroughthem.

4.ThefaithdemandedofthereaderofScriptureisfaithinthesavingworkofGod attested there, which is therefore a faith in Scripture too. It implieswillingness to accept the testimony of Scripture without presuming toimprove upon it-by excision, by correction, or by privileging a canonwithinthecanon-butinsteadsimplyseekingtounderstanditinfidelityandobedience,withoutpresuppositionsorconditions.

5.EveryelementofScripturecontributestothetestimonyofthewhole,butthedifferentcontributionsarenotuniform.TherightunderstandingofanygivenelementofScripture isdeterminedby its relation to thewhole;butthatmeansbyitsrelationtothehistoricalshapeoftheeventthatScriptureattests,thecallingofIsraelfulfilledinthecomingoftheChrist.

6.Thechurch'sroleindeterminingthecanonwasinthefirstplaceanactofrecognition, discerning and acknowledging the unity and authority thatbelonged to this literature by virtue of its sanctification by God. At thesametime,secondarily,itwas,liketheframingofthecreedsthemselves,anexerciseofitsauthoritytoteach.TheARCICreportTheGiftofAuthoritysaidwell,"Itwasatthesametimeanactofobedienceandauthority."3

ThechurchmaintainsitsobedientrelationtoHolyScripturebyreadingit(in

particularasthefoundationalactoftheliturgy)andbyexpoundingit,seekingtomakethesenseofthetextunderstood.However,understandingScriptureisnotagoalthatcanbepursuedinisolationfromobediencetowhatisunderstood.

Here, then,we come to thepoint atwhich the interactionof text andmoraljudgmentmustoccur.Thereare twoconjoined intellectual tasks, forneitherofwhichcantherebesecurerules,two"discernments"thatsimplyhavetobemadeandthatmaypossiblybemadewronglywithseriousconsequences.Thereisthetaskofdiscerningwhatthetextmeans,ontheonehand,andthereisthetaskofdiscerning ourselves and our position as agents in relation to the text, on theotherhand.Thefirstdiscernmentisofthetext;theseconddiscernmentisoutofthetext,ofoursituation.Inthefirstdiscernmentthetextisbeforeus:wereadofDavid,ofPeter,ofJesusanddecidewhatitisthatissaidofthem.Intheseconddiscernmentthetextisbehindus:wedonotreadofourselvesinthewaywereadof David, Peter, and Jesus. Yet what it says of them sheds light upon us. Itprovidesuswith thecategoriesandanalogies thatweneedforquestioningourpositionandcomingtopracticalresolutions.TheScripture tellsmenot tobearfalsewitnessagainstmyneighbor,butwhetheraparticularambiguousstatementthat I have in mind will be false or merely discreet is something that theScripturewillnevertellme;ImustjudgethatformyselfundertheHolySpirit'sguidance. Yet everything that the Scripture does tell me about truth andfalsehoodwillcontributetomakingthatjudgmentpossible.

The most mysterious question that anyone has to face is not "What doesScripturemean?"butrather"WhatdoesthesituationthatIamfacingmean?"Ifwehaveevenbeguntoappreciatethenatureofthisquestion,andhoweasilyawronganswermayleadus todestruction,wewillbeonourguardagainstanyproposaltoreversethesequenceofdiscernments-startingwithourownsituationandturningbacktoScripturetolookforsomethingtheretofitit-forthatwouldpresupposethatwealreadyknewtheanswer.Suchproposalsareoftenheardintheological discussion, sometimes with a liberal slant, sometimes with aconservative one. Either way, the mistake is to think that there is a concretemoraltruthimmediatelyandcategoricallyknowntoeveryone,aperemptoryandunchallengeablemoral certainty, and thatwe can negotiate the relation of thiscertaintytowhatwefindinScripture.Thisfailstoallowformoraldanger.Allouractionisexposedtodanger:wemayactonfalseassumptionsaboutthefacts,wemaymisunderstandthesituation,wemayformaninadequateconceptionof

the task,wemay fail to envisage thegood to be pursued, and so on.Nothingexceptperpetualvigilancecanarmusagainstsuchmistakes.

Adisciplineofbiblical"hermeneutics,"ofinterpretation,hasnopointunlessitisundertakenoutofasenseofneedandunlessweareresolvedtobeobedient.Thatwillserveasasummaryofwherewehavecomesofar.Thereis,however,anothersidetoit.Obedienceisadutythatneedsserioushermeneuticreflectionifitistobecarriedthrough.Wecannotobeyinavacuumofunderstanding.

InwhatfollowsIampursuingadisagreementwithKarlBarth,who(inmanyplaces,butespeciallyinthememorable11/2ofChurchDogmatics)undertooktorefoundethicsincontradictiontoKantian"universalism,"asheunderstoodit,onthe basis of the divine command. The question of what makes the divinecommand superior in authority to all other forms of ethical conception wasansweredinanumberofways;onerecurringanswerwasthatitwas"concrete"and"definite,"bywhichBarthmeantsomethinglikethis:itisfocusedupontheimmediatesituationinwhichitisgiven.Itconcerns,ashelikedtosay,thehicetnunc."Wemustdivestourselvesof thefixed idea thatonlyauniversallyvalidrulecanbeacommand.Wemustrealizethatinrealityaruleofthiskindisnotacommand."4TheBible,Barth thought,wasremarkablefor its lackofanythinglike a universal rule; it is "replete with ethics," he tells us rather riddlingly,"except that what is usually understood by `command' and `ethics,' namelyuniversallyvalidrules,isnottobefoundthere....Nothingcanbemadeofthesecommands if we try to generalize and transform them into universally validprinciples.Theircontentispurelyconcreteandrelatedtothisorthatparticularman in thisor thatparticularsituation."'Wemaysay that forBarth, thedivinecommand in the Bible is, like the burning bush, a wonder that at certainunrepeatablepointsinhistoryhasunexpectedlyinvadedandtakencontrolofthelife of some agent, leaving only the choice to obey or to rebel. Our moralexperiencehas,insomemeasure,tobelikethathistoricalwonderandrelatedtoit.

To get a purchase on this point, let us consider what we sometimes callimplicitobedience.Thatepithetsuggeststhatthereisnoroomtostoptothink;the reflective content of obedience seems to be squeezed right out. Thecommand is barked out, and the troops leap to it, likewhen the drill sergeantsays,"WhenIsay`Jump!'youjumpandask`Howhigh?'onthewayup."Isthisnot, after all, the right model for obedience to God? The story of Abraham's

sacrificeofIsaacwouldhardlymakesenseiftherewerenothinglaudableaboutsimply doing what God commands, all questions aside. Yet even implicitobediencedemandsameasureofunderstanding.Thereisawell-wornjokeabouta desperate man who decided to seek guidance from the Bible by randomlyflipping it open and pointing to a verse. On his first attempt he landed onMatthew27:5,whichsaysthatJudaswentandhangedhimself.Tryingagain,helandedonLuke10:37:"Goanddolikewise."Itisnotaparticularlyfunnyjoke,butajokeitis,notatragedy.Whatmakesitajoke?Jokesareaboutfools,andtheheroofthisjokeisaripefool.Hedidnotunderstandsomethingelementaryabout commanding and being commanded. Commands are events that occurwithin a relationship. They are given by someone to someone at a particularjuncture.Theorderbarkedoutatthenewrecruitsbythedrillsergeantrequiresaparade ground. There must be an understood relation between barker andbarked-at. Otherwise, it cannot be obeyed. Imaginewalking quietly down thestreet andhearingavoicemysteriously borne to you through the air: "Presentarms!"Whatareyoutodo?Probably,youthink,youhaveoverheardsomethingfromanearbybarracksnotintendedforyourears.Alternatively,youmaythinkthat itwas thevoiceof an angel sent towarnor commandyou in someway-although,youwillhavetogiveyourmindveryseriouslytointerpretingwhattheangelmeantbyit.Theonethingthatyoucannotpossiblydoissimplypresentarms. You do not have any arms, only an umbrella. The recruits can obey"implicitly," but you cannot. They can obey because they know that they arerecruits in training, that they are standing on a parade ground, that the loud-voicedmanistheirdrillsergeant,andsoon.

Implicitobedienceneedsaframeofreference.EvenAbrahamhadtoreckonthatthiswasYahwehspeakingtohim,thesameYahwehwhosepromisehadledhimoutofMesopotamia to the land thathisdescendantswere tooccupy,whocouldbringhispurposestobearintheteethofseemingcontradiction.ThepointisemphasizedbythewritertotheHebrews:"AbrahamconsideredthatGodwasableeventoraisepeoplefromthedead"(Heb.11:19).Thepageflippingfoolinthejokedoesnotknowhowtorelatehimselftothecommandsthathereads.TheproblemliesnotintheBiblebutratherinafailureofpracticalreasoninhimself.Wemaybetemptedtocallhim"literal-minded,"butthatdoesnotquiteidentifytheproblem.Thebiblicaltextsthatheselectedmakeperfectlygoodsensewhenreadliterally,ontheirownterms;hewouldhaveachievednofurtherclaritybytryingtoreadthemfigurativelyorallegorically.Butheisunabletoreadthemon

theirowntermsatall.Preoccupiedwithfindingareferencetohimself,hedivertstheirliteralsenseoutofitspropercontextandthusarrivesataconclusionthattheyneverintended,literallyorfigurativelyorinanyotherway.

Commands are acts, and acts are performed at certain times and in certaincircumstancesforcertaindefinitepurposes.DivinecommandsareactsofGod,exerting their claim upon their own historical context primarily, on those towhom they are directly addressed. But because any act has a certainintelligibilityinitscontext,andthecontextofGod'sactsishiswilltoblessandredeem the world, God's commands will always have some implications forother times and circumstances. The Decalogue was not of interest only to abarbarouspeoplegatheredatthefootofamountaininArabia;wehaveourownanalogouswaysofhonoringourfatherandourmotherandofnotcovetingourneighbor's goods. But in order to judge their bearing on other times andcircumstances,wehavetoobservetheirplaceintheirhistoricalcontextfirst.Ifwesay,"Thatappliestoustoo,"wearealreadyengagedinmoralreasoning.

KarlBarthaskedus,inorderto"assureourselvesofthespecificcharacterofthe divine command," to distinguish two facts: "(1) that the divine law in theBibleisalwaysaconcretecommand;and(2)thatthisconcretecommandingtobe found in the Bible must be understood as a divine command relevant toourselveswhoarenotdirectlyaddressedbyit."6WhatcontentcanBarthgivetothat"relevance"?Wewillseehowhetriedtoanswerthatquestion,butfirstwemustmakeadistinctionthatBarthfailedtomake.Thecommandsin theBibledo not all display the same kind of concreteness. All emerge from someparticular situation, a moment in narrative history to which they belong;however,notallare"bare"commands,focusedinprincipleontheimmediatehicetnuncofthesituationthattheyaddress.Thereisnotonlytheburningbushtoconsider as a model of the divine command; there is also, and surely moresuitableasaparadigm,thecommandtoAdamandEveinEden:"Youmayfreelyeatofeverytreeofthegarden,butofthetreeoftheknowledgeofgoodandevilyoushallnoteat"(Gen.2:16).ThiscommandisnotableforallthefeaturesthatBarth found most suspicious: it is formal, doing little more, in effect, thanseparatingasphereofpermissionfromasphereofprohibition;itisuniversallyandcontinuallyvalid,notconfinedtoanyhereandnow;anditisgiveninandwiththeorderofcreation,theworldasahumandwelling,representedtousbythegarden.

SomeofthecommandsthatwereadintheBiblearevery"bare"indeed,freeof wider implications and wholly defined by their historical situation, so thatthey could never be obeyed more than once, even analogously. "Go into thevillageoppositeyou,"Jesustoldhisdisciples,"andimmediatelyyouwillfindanasstied,andacoltwithher;untiethemandbringthemtome"(Matt.21:2).Itmight be an edifying liturgical innovation if one Palm Sunday a villagecongregationwalkedacross the fields tomeet itsneighborsandwaspresentedthere with a suitably domesticated horse for the minister to ride back on,everyonewaving palms and singing, "All glory, laud, and honor!"But not oneventhewidestconstructioncouldthisbeconsideredobediencetothecommandthatJesusgavehisdisciples.Thatcommandcannotbeobeyednow.Ontheotherhand,therearecommandswhosecontentmakesitclearthattheyaremeanttobeobeyedwhenevertheyarerelevant.ConsiderthepassageintheSermonontheMountwhereJesussays,"Youhaveheardthatitwassaid...butIsaytoyou...:Bereconciledtoyourbrother....Ifyourrighthandcausesyoutosin,cutitoff....Donotswear....Donotresistonewhoisevil....Loveyourenemies"(Matt.5:21-48).Thesearenotatalllike"Untiethecolt."Theyclaimtodirectouractioninkindsofsituationsthatariseoccasionallyorfrequently.

Inexplaininghowaconcretebiblicalcommandcanberelevanttoustooandnotonly to itsoriginaladdressees,Barth is insomethingofanembarrassment:"Initscapacityaswitness,"hewrites,theBible"claimsnotonlyourrecognitionoffacts,butalsoourfaith,notmerelyourappreciationofthepasteventswhichitattestsbutalsoourrealizationthatmattersarestillthesamehereandnow,andthatasandwhatGodcommandedand forbadeothers,Henowcommandsandforbidsus.TheBiblewillsthatweshouldbecontemporaneouswithandofthesamemindasthoseothermeninregardtothedivinecommand."'Thereare,infact, two different explanations given here, which seem to turn in contrarydirections.Accordingtooneofthem,thecommandhasareachthatgoesbeyondthe limits of its original point of utterance and extends to our time.Whether"matters are still the same here and now" may, of course, be discussed-sometimes they are, sometimes they are not-hut it is true, at least, that thegenericcommandaddressestypesofsituationsthatmaybeinstantiated,perhapsin analogical form, here and now aswell as there and then.According to theother,wemust,infaith,bepartofthesceneonMountSinaiwhenthecommandwasfirstaddressed.Whatevervaliditysuchaconceptionmayhaveindescribingbelievers' participation in saving events-Kierkegaard's "contemporaneity with

Christ" comes to mind-it seems rather heavy stage machinery to negotiate acommonplacemoralcommunication.WedonotneedtotravelbacktothetenthcenturyBCinordertograsptherelevanceofacondemnationofadultery.

Butagainthesegenericcommandsdivideintoatleasttwotypes:moralrulesandpubliclaws.ThemoralrulesintheSermonontheMountareconcernedwithdispositional attitudes: conciliatoriness, self-discipline, restraint, forgiveness,andsoon.Theyareradicallyandsurprisinglyexpressed,withoutmuchinterestinwhetherwewill find themeasy toobeyornot.Theyhavenothingmuch tosaytodilemmasofpracticalcasuistrysuchas"WhatifmybrotherrefusestobereconciledunlessIjoinhiminasolemnoathofundyinghatredtoourenemy?"Suchquestions are left, as itwere, for later.As a result, thesemoral rules arecapable of directing our conduct in a wide variety of circumstances andproducingavariedstyleofperformance.Bycontrast,publiclawsaredesignedtobestraightforwardandeasytokeepwithadegreeofuniformityinperformance.WehaveanoutstandingexampleofalegalcodeinDeuteronomy14-25.Shaped,veryevidently,outofpreexistinglegaltraditions,itaimstomaintainapracticalcontinuity with these while achieving certain reforming aims. It chooses itstopicsapparentlyrandomly,inthelightofquestionsthathavecomeupandlegalrulings that are at hand. It has a lot to say about detailed dilemmas, butcomparativelylittle(thoughnotnothing)aboutunderlyingattitudes.Moralrulesandpubliclawslookdifferent,andtheydodifferentjobs.Inaveryobviouswaymoralrulesaremore"portable,"moreeasilyappliedtochangingsituations,thanpubliclawscanbe.8Westillhavebrothersandsisterstobereconciledto,evenifthereisnotempletoleaveourgiftin.WewouldhaveconsiderabledifficultyinobeyingtheDeuteronomiclawofslavery,howevermuchwemightsympathizewithitsintentions.

These two types of generic moral instruction, as they appear in the Bible,shareacommonfeature:theyareframedbyanarrativecontext.Themetaphorof"framing" is, perhaps, misleading. A picture frame is designed to display thepicture,anditcanberemovedorchanged.Narrative,however, isaconstituentelementinthetext'smoralclaimonus.ThelegalcodeofDeuteronomy14-25isprecededbytwelvechaptersofmixednarrativeandexhortation,explaininghowthislawcodeoriginatedinthebirthofthenationandtheministryofMoses,andwhy a code originating in Israel's nomadic past should have authority over asettled agricultural society governed bymonarchy and other civil institutions.

Thissettingiscontinuallyrelevantforunderstandingthepointofthecommandsastheyarise.Whentoldthatwemustleavethegleaningsofthegrapeharvestforthestrangerpassingby,weareremindedthatGodheardourcrywhenwewerestrangersinthelandofEgypt(Dent.24:22).Similarly,theSermonontheMountis situated inMatthew'sGospel as a prelude to the account of theministry ofJesus and a climax to the account of his birth and commissioning. And this,equally,isnotirrelevanttothosewhocometothistextforguidance.Whenwearetoldnottoresistevil,wearepreparedtohearhowJesusrefusedtoenlisttheaid of legions of angels to resist arrest in Gethsemane. The difference in thecontent of the two texts corresponds to the difference in the narrative thatsupportsthem:ontheonehand,anarrativeaboutthefoundingofaholynation;ontheotherhand,anarrativeaboutthefulfillmentofhistoryandtheredemptionoftheworld.Neitheris"timeless"inthesenseofbeingindifferenttohistoricalcontext. If we call the Sermon on theMount "timeless," and contrast it withDeuteronomy,whatwemeanissimplywhatwemeanwhenwespeakofJesusofNazarethastheSavioroftheworld:hereisthepointatwhichtheparticularhistoryofanationwithwhichGoddealtistakenupintoGod'sall-embracingactofredemption;hereistheeventinwhichwearealldirectlyinvolved,andherearethecommandsthatbelongtothatevent.Atthecenterofthebiblicalmessageis anannouncement aboutwhatGodhasdone inhistory: "When the timehadfullycome,GodsentforthhisSon"(Gal.4:4).Inthatmessagealltheauthorityofthebiblicaltextsfindsitssource.BiblicalcommandsspeakwithauthoritytousbecausethatdeedofGodinhistoryspeakswithauthoritytous.Letussumituplikethis:itisnotthecommandsthattheBiblecontainsthatweobey;rather,itis thepurposesofGod that thosecommands, set in theircontext, reveal tous.ThepurposeofGodistheultimatereasonwhyanythingatallisgoodoreviltodo.TheBibleisauthoritativeforethicsbecauseitspeakstousofthosepurposesanddemonstratesthemintheactsofGodinhistory.

We have begun from commands simply because they form a kind of limitcase.The question about "implicit" obedience is raisedmost sharply by them.ButthereareotherformsofmoralinstructionintheScriptures.Moralteachingisgiveninexhortation,parables,listsofvirtues,andsoon.Narrative,command,prediction,andinvocation(i.e.,prayerandpraise)allteachushowtodirectourwayspleasinglytoGod.WecanlearnofthewrongofadulteryfromthestoryofDavid and Bathsheba, not only from the seventh commandment of theDecalogue.Butofeveryother typeofmoralcommunication thesamemustbe

saidaswassaidaboutthecommands:itclaimsitsauthorityonthebasisofwhatGodhasdone.

Thereareoccasionsonwhichnothingbutimplicitobediencewilldo.Butevenrecognizingthoseoccasionsdependsonthegeneralpresumptionthatwehavetothink throughwhat is required of us patiently and reflectively. Andwhen thechurch is at sea over how to read the message of the Gospels, only patientattentiontoreading,interpretation,andobedientthoughtwilldo.Ashrillcallforimplicit obedience never substitutes for careful exploration of what it is thatmustbeobeyed.And in that exploration therehas tobehermeneutic distance.What that term refers to is a gap between the reader and the text, a gap thatunderstandinghastoovercome.Thisdistanceisoftenunderstoodasahistoricalone,butthatparticularturninhermeneutictheoryled,inmyview,intoablindalley.There isnoreasonwhyIshouldfind thegapanywider in readingPlatothan in reading Emmanuel Levinas. The distance that we have to insist on,rather, arises from the objective standing of the text, especially any text thatclaims to speak to us in the name ofGod. The distance between the text andourselvescanneverbe,andshouldneverbe supposed tobe,swallowedupbyourunderstandingofit.WhateveritmaybethatIhaveconcludedfromreadingthe Scriptures, that conclusion must be open to fresh interrogation, since theScripturesthemselveswillbeitsjudge.If,afterreadingtheBiblefaithfully,Iamconfidentenoughtomakesomeringingdeclaration,thisdoesnotmeanthatmydeclaration is as good as contained within the Bible. In a faithful dogmaticformulation there is, of course, a proper authority. There are times and placeswhere that authority allows for, or requires, a ringing declaration. Yet thequestionofwhetherthedogmaticformulationhasinfactfaithfullyexpressedtheScriptures' emphasis is always worth discussing, even if the outcome of thediscussion isaffirmativeevery time.Thequestion"Whatdoes theBiblemean,andhowdoesitaffectus?"canneverbeoutoforderinthechurch,asthoughthegiving ofwell-founded answers in the past couldmake thewhole question ofmerely antiquarian interest. We must not, then, in the supposed interest of a"biblical" ethic, try to closedownmoral issues prescriptively, announcing thatwealreadyknowwhattheBibleteachesandguardingagainstwronganswersbyforbiddingfurtherexamination.Thechurch'sleadinginstitutionsmay,ofcourse,properlyresolvethatitisinappropriateforthemtoinvestfurthertimeandeffortinstudyofamatterthatmaybeconsideredclosedforallpracticalpurposes.Butwhat the leading institutionsmay quite properly resolve not to undertake, the

Spirit in the church may prompt other believers to undertake, for the wordauthoritymeans,quitesimply,thatwehavetogoonlookingbacktothissourceifwearetokeepontherighttrack.

Why should we find this difficult to accept? The truth is that we resistadmitting indeterminacy in our understanding of the text. Once such anadmissionismade,wefear,"anythinggoes."Ahostoffalseprophetswilltakeadvantageofour respectfuldistance; theywill rush forward towrestScriptureoutofitsplainsense,forceitintoauthorizingwhatcannotbeauthorized.Andofcourseintheshortrun,atleast,thisfearislikelytoprovealltoowellgrounded.Falseprophetsare,andalwayswillbe, legion.Wemust simplyexpect tohearabominationsand absurdities put forward in the confident claim that such arecompatiblewithorauthorizedbyScripture.To this intenseannoyancewe, likegenerationsoffaithfulbelieversbeforeus,arecalled.Thequestionisthis:Whatsacrificeofourfaithwouldwemakeif,toavoidtheannoyanceforourselvesandthedisturbanceforthechurch,wecloseddownonthereadingandinterpretationofHolyScripture,declared that therewasnothing todiscuss?Toour fearswehave to put the question in return ofwhether theSpirit of the livingGod is amatchfortheperversityofhumankind,whetherJesus'promiseaboutthegatesofhellbeingunabletoprevailisseriouslyenoughmeanttobetrusted.

Obediencemustbethoughtfulobedience.This"must"is,intheend,alogicalnecessity, not merely an obligation. Moral instruction is directed to what we"do,"butnobody"does"anythingwithoutthinking.Ifobedienceiswhatwearecalledto,thoughtiswhatwearecalledto,thoughtabouthowwemayframeouraction in conformity to the demand. Thoughtful obedience does not excludeimmediateencounterwiththecommandingGod.Momentsoffearandtremblingbefore God will befall us, but these are not an alternative to reflective andconsideredthinking,the"rationalworship"bywhichourmindsarerenewedto"appreciate distinctions" (Rom. 12:1-2). It is another way of saying that theobediencerequiredofusistheobedienceoffaith-noless!

11

TheFourfoldPatternofChristianMoralReasoningaccordingtotheNewTestament

BERNDWANNENWETSCHTheCircularPatternofMoralReasoning

Thefollowingconsiderationsexplorethenatureofreflectiveethosfromwithinthe scriptural witness of the Christian communities. In highlighting fourpracticesthatItaketobeessentialforthisphenomenon(perceiving,discerning,judging,andgivingofaccount),Iam,however,notsuggestingastraightforwardmethodology of Christian moral reasoning. Contrasting the purism of neo-Kantianethics(anditsdistillationofethicalthoughtandpracticeintoevermorenarrowandisolatedprinciplessuchasthecategoricalimperative),Iwishtodrawattention to a plurality of reflective and deliberative practices that togetherconstitutewhatItaketobethecircleofreflectiveethosasitissuggestedbyaconceptuallyalertreadingoftheNewTestament.

With this attempt, I do not seemyself competing in the traditional field of"NewTestamentethics,"ineitheritsmorehistoricallygearedversion(ethicsintheNewTestament)oritsmoreappliedversion(ethicsoftheNewTestament).Itis certainly legitimate to read theNew Testament in pursuit of itsmost basicmoralprinciples,suchas"love"or"justice,"or,asRichardHayshassuggested,toreaditinpursuitofaseriesof"focalimages,"suchascross,community,andnewcreation.'YetmyinterestinthiscontributiondiffersfromsuchattemptsinthatIwishtoexplorethecorepracticesthatconstituteChristianethics-theartofmoralreasoninginatheologicalvein.

ToputthesamedifferenceinAristotelianterms:ThefourcoreelementsthatIsuggest (perceiving, discerning, judging, and giving of account) representtheoretical virtues rather than practical ones, althoughwemust certainly grantthat the programmatic communal nature of these practices in their Christianversiontendstodiscourageanall-too-strictseparationbetweenthetwotypesofvirtues.Whilethesepractices,asintellectualactivities,donotdirectlyfallunderthe rubricof "moralacts," theyaredirected to suchacts ina teleologicalway.And the way in which these practices engage the human being as a whole,embracingallitsfaculties,suggestsanotherreasonfornotseparatingthemfrommoral action in a categorical way by relegating them to a mere preliminarystatus. For this reason, I have chosen to refer to these intellectual virtues asbelonging to the "reflective ethos" of the church in no less a constitutivewaythan the disposition to act and concrete ways of acting that characterize thiscommunity.

In identifying a number of discursive, reflective, and deliberative practices,myproposalmayappear similar towhatHays suggestedunder theheadingof"thefour-foldtaskofNTethics."2Hesuggestsasequenceof(1)descriptive,(2)synthetic, (3)hermeneutical,and (4)pragmaticoperations,while I thinkof (1)perception, (2) discernment, (3) judgment, and (4) giving of account. Leavingasideforamomentthedifferenceinthewayeachofusformulatestheindividualtasks, a generic difference between the two proposals should be noted at thispoint.WhereasHays'soperationalstepsarederivedfromthetraditionofmoralphilosophy,myinterestisinexploringasetofactivitiesthatIfindsuggestedandcharacterized in the New Testament tradition itself. Strange world: where theNew Testament scholar borrows from a philosophicalethical framework, themoraltheologianborrowshisconceptualframeworkfromtheNewTestament.

Ofcourse,nowhere in theScripturesarewepresentedwithpreciselysuchalist or system of intellectual practices, nor can one be easily distilled from asynopticreadingofthebooksofScripture.MysuggestionremainstheattemptofthemoraltheologiantoreadtheChristianScriptureswithaconceptualcuriosityas towhether thepractices that constituteChristian ethics are to be conceivedand elaborated independently from Scripture or rather within Scripture's ownflow.Althoughthesuggestedsequenceoffourintellectualpracticesmaynotbetotallyexhaustive,Idothinkitfairlycomprehensiveand"rounded."Inspeakingof their rounded comprehensiveness, what I have in mind is that these four

practicescanbeenvisionedasformingacycleinwhicheachmovepresupposesthepreviousoneandcallsforththenext.

Although we should not expect to find the complete cycle represented oralluded to in any one biblical passage, we have clear indicators that biblicalauthorssuchasPaulnotonlyenvisionedtheindividualpracticesastheyappearonmy list but also attended to theway inwhich, for example, judgment andaccountability interlock.Anotherpoint isassociatedwith theproposedcyclicalnatureof thescheme:unlikea linearconstrual,circularityallows for teleologybut disallows hegemony. Speaking of a "cycle" of practices, the quest for onecentral or even overarching practice or any other sort of priority becomesmeaningless. As each practice can be said to flow from another and into yetanother, a teleological relationship between the individual practices must beassumed,butthecircularityofthepatternpreventsthisteleologyfromgroundinghegemonic relations. Even "judgment," with its inner sense of arrival andfinality,doesnotconstituteacaseforsuchhegemony.Nordoestherenderingofanaccountofwhatonehasdonemarktheendoftheprocessofmoralreasoning.Ratherthanputtinganendtothesequence,genuineaccountabilitywillprovokerenewedperception, therebypromptingthecircularpatterntostartanew:whenouractionsandjudgmentsareexposedtothejudgmentofothersasinourgivingof account, they trigger a self-critical reapprehension of our actions that mayleadtoarevisionofourjudgment,therebyprovokinganeventualrenewalofthecategoricalframeworkofourperception.

AtthisearlypointIwishtoruleoutapossiblemisunderstanding.Speakingofacyclicalmotiondoesnotimplytheprincipleddenialofprogression.Althoughsuch a motion will not amount to "progress," there is room for a nonlinear(thoughalwaysvulnerable)"progression"intermsofthegradualrefinementoftheprocessofmoralreasoningthatmay,likeahelix,gaindeptheverytimethecirclecomesaround.

Thinkof thewayanewborndevelops:ababy's (visual)perception ishighlyschematicatfirst,distinguishingonlycontrastoflight;itthenprogressestowardtheidentificationofrealschemes,contourssuchastheshapeofthemother,andfromtheretothediscernmentoffaces,firstofmotherandfather,thenofothers.We experience from the beginning of our life how refined sensory perceptiongivesway to discernment, discrimination, and judgment. Or as Hebrews 5:14describes the progress ofmaturing precisely in terms of the refinement of the

believers' perception by training toward the capacity of moral discernment,"Solid food is for themature,whobyconstantusehave trained their senseofperception to distinguish good from evil [dia ten hexin to aistheteriagegymnasmenaechontonprosdiakrisinkaloutokaikakou]"(mytranslation).

Withthesepreliminaryclarificationsdone,wecannowturntoamoredetailedanalysisofthefourindividualpracticesandtheirinnerrelatedness.

Perception(aesthesis)

SituationandMoralDescription/MoralNotions

Why start with perception or even sensory perception? Is perception notactually a premoral faculty, a spontaneous impression that falls outside of therealmofmoralresponsibility?Itistrue:thewidelysharedassumptionthatethicsis essentially about decision-making does not accommodate perception asmorallyrelevant.Itratherassumesthatdecision-makingconsistsofthedualtaskof(1)identifyingtheappropriatemoralprinciplesorimperativesand(2)findingwaysofhowtheycanbeappliedinagivensituation.Inthisvein,thesituationitselftendstobepresumedasagiven,a"materialcondition"tobedealtwith,amatterofsheerfactuality,awaitingitsmoralevaluation.Yet,ascommonasthisfact-value distinction is in moral theories, it hardly lives up to the reality ofhumanlife.'

Contrary to such a portrayal, a situation is never simply "out there,"determiningourplaceinitasamatterofexternalcircumstance;rather,thewayinwhichweconceiveofasituationisalreadyaconstitutivepartofthesituationthat we are in. Often our judgments are prefigured by the way in which wedescribethesituation.Thelanguagethatweuseisacaseinpoint.Areweawareof themoralemphasis thatourchosen terminologycarries?Theapplicationofso-called moral notions already reveals something about our perception. Itmakesadifferencemorallywhetherwe speakof "abortion"or "terminationofpregnancy," of "dying" on the battlefield or of "being killed" there, of an"embryo"orof"embryonicmaterial."Formulassuchas"thesituationdemands,""the situation leaves no choice," and the like usually only indicate anticipatedjudgmentthatgroundsourperceptionanddescriptionofasituation.Yetevenacaseinwhichasituationispresentedasamatterofoptionsorchoicesmightbefarfrombeingtruthfulperception.

Let us take an example. Imagine a pregnant seventeen-year-old going forcounseling,andthecounselor,tryingtodisplaytheempathylearnedintraining,openstheconversationbysaying,"Iunderstandthatyouarenowinasituationinwhichyouareaskingyourself,`ShouldIkeepthebabyornot?"'Yet,isthisagenuine perception of the situation "teenage pregnancy"? Or, rather, is thecounselor perhaps imposing a "decision" on the youngwomanwhere, in fact,thereisnodecisionforhertomake?Supposethegirlhasbeenbroughtupinafamilyinwhichnothavingandkeepingthebabyisnotanoption,andshehascometothecounseloronlytolearnabouttheinstitutionalsupportthatshemightbeentitledto?Asituationisalwaysmorethanasetofexternalcircumstances;itembraces the agent's (or the observer's) personal convictions, beliefs, anddispositions.4

Ifitisthusunderstoodthatperceptionplaysanimportantroleintheshapingofamoralcharacter,bothindividuallyandcommunally,wemustnowturntothetwo basic dimensions of perception: the sensory-affective and the intellectual-conceptual; bothperceptivedimensions (kardia andnous) are addressed in theNew Testament with regard to their moral significance. We first turn to theconceptualdimension.

ConceptualPerception:TheRenewalofthenous(Rom.12)

InacondensedformulationPauladdressesthecongregationinRomans12:2-5:

Donotbeconformedtothisworldtimebutbetransformedbytherenewingofyourperception,sothatyoumaydiscernwhatisthewillofGod-whatisgoodandacceptableandperfect.ForbythegracegiventomeIsaytoeveryoneamongyounottothinkofyourselfmorehighlythanyououghttothink... because we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individuallymembersoneofanother.(mytranslation)

Paulsummonsthecommunitytoatransformationthatentailstheabdicationoftheschemataofthisworldasaresultoftherenewalofthemind.Nousreferstothemindinaspecificsense,addressingitsfacultytocomprehendrealityasitisespeciallyassociatedwiththeabilitytoconceptualize,thegraspingofrealityinits generic aspects. In Aristotle's philosophy of mind, the nous occupies thecentralpositionbetweensophia(theimmediatevisionoftheends)andphronesis

(the means-to-end rationality) as the conceptualizing faculty of the mind. InPaul'sview,therenewalofthemindisnecessary,giventheschematizingpowerthat theaionholds-mesyschematizesthe:"donotbeconformed to thisworld";literally, "donotbemadeonewith the schemataof thiseon" (my translation).Here,thepassivevoiceisnolessinplacethanitisinthesubsequentcalltobetransformed:"letyourselvesbetransformed."'

Thelattercaseiscertainlyagrammatical"divinepassive":thetransformationcannotbeamere"rethinking"ofthingsasresultingfromanintensifiedeffortbythe humanmind itself; a newmind can only be a gift, part and parcel of thekainektisis,God'screationofanewhumanity,so that the imperativecanonlymean that it is necessary towatchout forGod's activityof renewing.Yet, theinitial call, me syschematizesthe, has a passive voice too, which indicates, asJamesDunnputsit,the"recognitionofapowerorforcetomouldcharacterandconductandwhich`thisage'exercises."6Mainstreampatternsofthoughtaresoubiquitousandpowerfulthatwedonotevenrecognizetheirinfluence;theyhavebecomeasortofsecondskintous.

Yet, how does the Spirit break through this second skin and help people tounlearntheschemataoftheage?TheexamplethatPaulhimselfgivesisrelatedtothechurchasbodyofChrist.Whattheenvisionedtransformationismeanttoovercome is "disordered" thinking about the relationship of members to eachother and to thewholebody.Through thehyperphronein ("think toohighlyofoneself")Paulwants,presumably,tohighlightandrejecttheclassicalideaofthepoliticalsphereasanarenafor thestrivingforexcellenceat thecostofothers.Fromthisclassicalperspective,placeandstatusinsocietyareseenasa"naturalclaim"byvirtueofheritageorpersonalachievement.Paul'scalltotranscendthispattern of thought recalls Jesus' response to the competition over greatnessbetweenhisdisciplesasrecordedinLuke22:24-27andparallels.

There,theschemaofruleinthesecularworld("therulersofthenationslorditover them, and those in authority are called benefactors"), in which "naturalauthority"-theauthorityofmeans-dictatesstatus,isconfronted("butnotsowithyou")withanewwayofunderstandingandexercisingauthority:"Thegreatestamongyoumustbecomeliketheyoungest,andtheleaderlikeonewhoserves."MostsignificantwithintheframeworkofourinquiryisthatJesus'claim"notsowithyou"isnotinanegalitarianfashiondoingawaywiththenotionofauthorityandgreatnessaltogether;rather,itaimsatareconceptualizationofwhatitmeans

tobegreat:frommystrivingtoexceloverothers,whichaimstoletthemappearsmallerinmypresence,towardanotionofserviceorministrythatmarksoutagreatnessthatmakesothersgrowratherthandiminishinmypresence.

In sum: Christian moral reasoning is concerned not simply with moralimperatives ("do not think highly of yourself") but rather with a renewedconceptuality that grounds these imperatives, such as, in our example, theredefinitionofgreatnessinthelightofChrist'sservice.

Sensory-affectivePerception:The"SeeingHeart"(Luke10;Phil.1:9)

Somuchfortheconceptualsideofperception-thenous-initsconstantneedofrenewalinthelightofthegospel.Yetthereisalsoasensory-affectiveside thatthebiblicaltraditionaddresses.Forthis,weturntoLuke10andtheparableofthe good Samaritan. This parable demonstrates that sensory perception like"seeing" does matter morally. Ethics is not about mere acting, acting blindlyperhaps;Christianmoral reasoning isgeared towardactingwithopeneyes.Atstake is truthfulperception that sees thingsas they reallyare insteadofseeingthemaswewouldlikethemtobeanddeclaringthis,andourselves,"aright."AswithPaul'semphasison the liberation from the schemataof the age,Christianmoralreasoningcaresforsensoryperceptionpreciselyasitrecognizesahumantendencytodeceptionandself-deception.Thisiswhytheprophetictradition,asitisreflectedintheNewTestament,hasputgreatemphasisonthesignsofthemessianic age in terms of the recovery of sensory perception: the blind willregain theireyesight,and thedeafwillhave theirhearing restored.Ephphatha:open up! (Mark 7:34). Jesus' liberating ministry is one of creating eyes thatreallyseeandearsthatreallyhearandlisten.

ThisbecomesevidentinthestorythatJesustellsofthethreemenwhowentfromJerichotoJerusalem(Luke10:25-37),allofwhomaresaidtohave"seen"thewoundedvictimlyingthere.YetwhiletheSamaritanhasseenahumanbeingin misery, the other two must have perceived something else: a source ofpotentialdanger-anambushperhaps-oratleastasourceofunacceptabledelayoftheirjourney.Theirseeingreallymakesthedifference;allpartiesintheparableare acting out what they have perceived. When the parable addresses theperception of the protagonists, the Greek employs a participial construction,whichpointsustoanotheressentialfeature.

Whereas it is saidofboth thepriestand theLevite that "seeing theman,hepassed by [idon antiparelthen]," in the case of the Samaritan, the Greek has"seeing him, he felt compassion [idon esplanchnisthe] and went to him andbandagedhiswounds"(mytranslation).TheSamaritan'seyeswere,sotospeak,connectedtohisheart,whichwas"tornopen"-"compassion"isperhapstooweaka translation for what the Greek verb connotes. The Latin translation for"compassion,"misericordia,however,doesilluminatethepointoftheplotwell,asitliterallymeans"tohavetheheartwiththepoor."

Whatwehaveinthesemanticsubtletyofthenarrativeisamoralanthropologyinanutshell,wheretheaffectionsareseenasasortoftransmissionbeltbetweenour sensual perception and will-guided action. By "transmission," we do notmean another "step" in the process but rather the simultaneity of seeing andfeeling suggested by theGreek participial construction: in seeing him, he feltcompassion;theheartwas"in"theeye,sotospeak.'AsLuke10makesclearforus, there need not always be a moment of reflection between perception andaction,a so-calleddeliberation. In facinga factual situation,wedonotalwayshavetopauseandreflectonwhattodo,muchlessponderarangeofalternativesbefore finally settling for themost appropriate one. Acting is not always andnecessarilyafunctionofadecision-makingprocess.'

Thelanguageofournarrativeseemstoemployadifferentlogicthatassumesatransmitter role of the affectionwithin a given simultaneity of perception andaction-impulse. Sowhen our sensual perception is oriented appropriately as amatterofa"seeingorlisteningheart,"therightactioncanbeexpectedto"flow"from it by engaging ourmind andwill accordingly.At times, "eth ics" asweknow it-the cycle of reflection and deliberation-can in fact even function as asurrogateforthelackofordeficiencyinsensoryoraffectiveperception.

Wemayevenfindthemodernsyllogisticaccounttobepartofthestory,ifweallowforsomeimaginativeorevenslightlyspeculativeinterpretation.IfweaskwhatitmighthavebeenthatpreventedthepriestandtheLevitefromturningtothevictim,wecanatleastimaginethemascaughtupinasyllogisticpatternofthoughtsimilartothemodernaccount.Theymightactuallyhavereflectedaboutthe situation (and most likely not without moral considerations that for themperhapscamedowntoaweightingofcompetinggoods):thecongregationinthetemple waiting for them to arrive and celebrate an important feast; thecompulsion that they felt from the Torah to avoid corpse contamination by

approachingoreven touchinga"halfdead"(Luke10:30),whichwouldrenderthemunfitforritualduties;'theweighing-upofthegoodofthemanyrighteousmembersofGod'speopleversusthisoneman'sneed;theprudentanticipatingofthelikelihoodofanambushorofanotherhelpertoarrivesoonwithmoretime,moremedicalexpertise,andso forth.All this isnot,ofcourse, to suggest thatour reading of Luke 10 advocates an emotivist ethics inwhich reflection anddeliberationareoutplayedbytheoverwhelmingroleofaffectiveperception.Weneed to remind ourselves that the emphasis on the latter is to be understoodwithinthecycleofthefourpatterns,notoutsideofit.Withinthiscycleanditseducativesignificance,wearetoreckonwithaffectiveperceptionthatisshapedby the experiences in the other three practices just asmuch as it is felt to be"immediate."

InanexcitingpassageinthebeginningoftheEpistletothePhilippians,Paulconnects both aspects of themoralmeaning of perception, the conceptual andtheaffective,whenhebindsthembothtolove.TheapostlewritesinPhilippians1:9,

And this is my prayer, that your love may abound more and more inknowledge [epignosis: insight, cognition] and depth of perception[aisthesis].(mytranslation)

Here,conceptualandaffectiveperceptionsareconceivedasdistinct spheres inwhich love (agape) should come to flourish.AsmuchasPaul stresses love assomething that should be neither blind nor blinding but rather bound upwithtruthfulperceptionof reality,healso insists thatperceptionneeds tobecomeasphere and indeed an occasion of the enactment and growth of love, lestcognitionandperceptionshrinktowhathasbeendescribedasthecoldgazeofmodernity, thegazethatfreezeseverythingin theglacierofsheerfactuality.Inthe lightofour fourfoldpattern, it isalsonoteworthy that in thispassagePaulnot only demonstrates both perceptive practices, epignosis and aisthesis,simultaneouslybybindingthemtolove;healsomarksthemoutasconstitutivefeatures of the practice of moral discernment when he adds the consecutivephrase"sothatyoucandiscernandprovethatwhichmakesadifference[eistodokimazein hymas to diapheronta]" (Phil. 1:10 my translation). And todiscernmentwenowturn.

Probing,Testing,Discerning(dokimazein)

The term dokimazein as it appears in the biblical tradition is particularlymultifaceted.Originallydrawnfromtheprocessofprobingmetal for itspurityoverthefire,theimageconjuredupisoneofavarietyofmeaningsandpossibleobjects.Dokimazein comprises the testing of humans byGod, as in the "Godwho testsourhearts" (theSeptuagint translationof Jer.11:20 in1Thess.2:4),andGod'seternaljudgmentofhumanactionthroughthefire(1Cor.3:13).Yetthetermalsoconveysasenseoftheself-testingofbelievers(1Cor.11:28),thetestingofthespirits(1John4:1)todeterminewhethertheyarefromGod,andeventhetestingof"everything":"testeverything[pantadokimazesthe]andkeepthegood"(1Thess.5:21mytranslation).Theultimatepurposeof thisactivity,however,istheexploringofthewillofGod(Rom.12:2)inordertoprovewhatpleases the Lord (Eph. 5:10).10 What may be perceived as a perplexingmultiplicityofusagesisactuallytheologicallysignificant.

TransitiveandIntransitive:ProbingGod'sWillbyProvingOurselvesinIt

The grammar of the term dokimazein combines transitive and intransitiveusage:ourtestingofacasecannotbeseparatedfromtheprovingofourselvesinthecaseaseitherworthy(dokimos)orunworthy(adokimos)ofthegospel.Inthebiblical usage dokimazein is construed in this tellingly comprehensive sense,integrating the transitive and intransitivemeanings of "probing" and "testing."OurprobingofGod'swill isnotseparablefromGod'sprobingofourhearts(1Thess. 2:4) and deeds (1Cor. 3:13). Therefore, the translation of "discerning"aimsatmorethanapurelyintellectualoperationandmustassumeaspecificallymoral meaning wherein the discernment of God's will is identical with thediscoveryofthe"goodandacceptableandperfect"(Rom.12:2ESV).

What isatstake indokimazein isnotdisengagedreasoningaboutGod'swillbut rather theexploringof thiswill fromwithinanyconcrete situation. In thisveinwemay say, for example, the followingwith regard tomarriage: in theirsexual lives,Christiansarenot settingout to testandprobe (the institutionof)marriage or a (concrete) partner but rather are testing themselves in what itmeanstobeafaithfulpartner inmarriage;andtheyexpect theirunderstandingand appreciation of this social institution to grow through that probing ofthemselveswithintheinstitution.

CommunityofDiscernment

In all its biblical comprehensiveness, as a simultaneously transitive andintransitiveactivity,discerning/probingismarkedasacommunalanddiscursivetask:Pauladdresses thechurch inRomeasacommunityofdokimazein in thepluralis ecclesiasticus ("ecclesial plural"): "so that you [plural: hymas] candiscern the will of God" (Rom. 12:2 my translation). As regards thecommonalityofthetask,weunderstandthat,ontheonehand,discerningneedsto engage amultitude of voices,moral debate, and arguing, aswell as patientlistening to theperceptionofothers.On theotherhand,probingandexploringcannotbeanendlessroundaboutjourneywithoutafinaldestination.Itisboundto arrive somewhere at its given time, and this arrival we call judgment. Ifperception addresses the question "What is the case?" and discernment isorganized around the question "What is the heart of thematter?" judgment iswhatsettlesbothquestionsbyruling"ThiscaseisamatterofXandnotofY"

Judgment(diakrinein)

Theverbdiakrineinliterallymeans"tocutasunder,tolayapart."Judgmentlaysa substance matter apart, not only analytically (as in discerning) but alsosynthetically. In the process of the laying apart of the different aspects andcomponentsof a situation, anewcombinationbecomesvisible: "This, beingamatterofX[analytical],belongshere[synthetical],whilethat,beingamatterofY, belongs there." If the will of God is the core object of this inquiry, thefundamentalformthatajudgmentinChristianmoralreasoningassumeswillbe"ThisisamatterinaccordwithGod'swill,whilethatisnot(itisagainsthiswill,orperhapsismerelyamatterofpreference,etc.)."

Judging often appears as a subdiscipline of logic: reaching syllogisticconclusions,movingfrommaximstoderivationsofvariousdegrees,andsoon.Yet while syllogistic reasoning is an important dimension of the activity ofjudging,itisbynomeansthewholeofthematter.Whenallissaidanddone,ajudgmentcannotbeconstructedlikeamathematicaloperation,withallrelationsbetweentermspreciseandlinear.Ratherthanbeingconstructedorachievedbyfollowingastrictmethod,moraljudgment"emerges"fromthesoilofperceptionanddiscernmentinawaythatisopenforillumination.Theologicallyspeaking,judgment cannot defy the illuminatio spiritus sancti, as it is theSpirit of truth

that empowers the discernment of the spirits (1 Cor. 12:10), which leads toproper judgment.Or, as the letter described thedecision taken in the apostles'council, "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us" (Acts 15:28 mytranslation).

This latter quotation reinforces the communal nature of judgment as a taskperformedbythebodyasawhole,whichagainindicatesthatmoraljudgmentismore thana resultofpayingattention to the technicalitiesofaprocedure.Thealertness of the community as awhole is required in order to discernwhen ajudgmentis"ripe"orwhenjudgmentwouldbetheprematureinterruptionofthediscernment process.' Yet, if and when the time is ripe, judgment must beventured.ItcanbeboldlyventuredpreciselyunderthebiblicalrecognitionthateveryjudgmentmusteventuallyexposeitselftoGod'sfinaljudgment.Itisfromthisfinaljudgmentthatanytemporalhumanjudgmentreceivesitsempowermentanddignity-asprovisionaljudgmentthatneverthelesscanandmustbeventuredasdefiniteaction.12

GivingofAccount(logondidonai)

In1Peter3:15weread,

Alwaysbereadytogiveanaccountofyourdeeds[makeyourdefense]toanyonewhodemands fromyouanaccounting for thehope that is inyou.(mytranslation)

Although an act of judgment completes and ends a process of moraldeliberation or reflection and literally cuts off further considerations or otherpossible directions, no human judgment can be considered irrevocable. Thisdifference between definiteness and irrevocability is often overlooked, andweakness in judgment is easily confusedwith tolerance,whereas an apodicticjudgmentalhabit,ontheotherhand,ismistakenforstrengthofjudgment.

LiberatedAccountability

ThejustificationthatarisesfromGod'smercifuljudgmentonsinnersliberatesthem both to judge boldly and to revise a wrong judgment. The freedom toventure judgment, as it arises from the iustitia aliena of divine justification,comestooccupyexactlythelocationthatisotherwiseheldbytheurgetoself-

justification. Self-justification is the attempt to absorb and anticipate thejudgmentthatothers(includingGod)mighthaveonourowndeedsbyprovidingan irresistible justificatory account of "what really happened" in a course ofactionand"whatitreallywasabout.""

Incontrasttothis,itisaclearsignofliberatedaccountabilityifoneiswillingandabletoexposeoneself,one'sactionandone'sjudgment,toothersandtheirjudgment (1Cor.14:29).Herewecanuseamaritimemetaphor. Innavigatingourshipofmoralreasoningafterithasleftthehavenofprejudicesandsailedtheopensea,whereitisexposedtothewindsofprobingandtesting,andhasarrivedatasafehavenofjudgment,wemustbewillingstilltoweighanchoragainbyexposing our judgment to the judgment of others by the giving of account.Otherwise,ourportof judgment, even if itwas totally right at the time itwasreached,becomesjustanotherhavenoffutureprejudices.Inthisvein,thegivingof account within the cycle of Christian moral reasoning is categoricallydifferent from the recently emerging culture of "accountability" in which themanagerialist imperative of benchmarking and controlling that has conqueredmost of our public institutions teaches people to present themselves andwhattheyhavedoneinthebestpossible,ifnotdeceptive,light.14

My description of the fourfold task of Christian ethics has focused on thereflective-deliberativemomentsandnotontheperformanceofactionsassuch.Yet, as we have noted, the discrimination is analytically necessary but notabsolute.Thisisclearwhenwelookathowjudgingandactionarerelated:sinceactingisnotsimplyimpulse-drivenbehaviorbutratherisintentionalactivity,itcanbestipulated thateveryactionembodiesaparticular judgment.That is thereasonwhytheagentcanbeheldaccountableforit.ItisnotthatIjudgefirstandthen transforma judgment intoaction.Thatwouldbea simplification.Rather,my particular course of action is an implicit account of the way in which Iperceive reality as I have learned to discern alternatives and to judge types ofaction.Althoughsometimestheactionspeakslouderthanthewords,theimplicitnature of action as embodied judgment typically calls for amoment of logondidonai-givingreasons.

TheNarrativeStructureofWitness

Althoughthesituationenvisionedin1Peter3:15,quotedabove,isapologetic,to counter false accusations, it expresses the logic of witness in general: it is

expectedthataction-Christianactionintheworld-willarousecuriosityaboutthejudgments on life, death, and so on that underlie it. As Jesus puts it in theSermonon theMount, "Letyour light so shinebeforemen, that theymayseeyourgoodworksandgiveglory toyourFatherwho is inheaven" (Matt.5:16RSV).Thepowerofwitnessistoliveinsuchawayastostirupsuchcuriositythatdemandsanaccountofthehopeexpressedinthosegoodworks.

As philosophers such as Alasdair Maclntyre15 and theologians such asStanleyHauerwasandL.GregoryJones16haveremindedus,thegivingofsuchanaccounttypicallywilltakeonanarrativeformatifitistobetransparenttoitssources. If the questioner demands, it will have to go into detail about theunderlyingjudgments,distinctions,andperceptions-allthewaybackwardinthedescribedcycleofmoralreasoning,asitwere.Anditmayhappenintheprocessof giving an account of our judgments and actions that our own perception ischallenged to transformation so that we are to start afresh the cycle ofintellective-affective practices that marks the reflective ethos of the Christiancommunity.

Conclusion

In contrast to the frequent habit of immediately focusing on the substantivecharacteristics ofChristian ethics as they can be found in theNewTestament(such as the concept of love) and being rather blurry when it comes to theprecisewayinwhichtheseareappliedtovariouscircumstances,myinquiryhasaimed at an analytical account of the distinctive reflective and deliberativepractices that together characterizeChristianmoral reasoning according to theNewTestament. In spite of themore formal focus, I hope that it has becomeclearthattheideaofacycleofreflective-deliberativepracticesdoesnotsuggesta "methodology," a mere technical array of functional patterns that can beabstracted from the substantive framework of doctrinal and ecclesial patternsthat make moral reasoning theological and Christian in the first place: faith,hope,andlove.

As the individual analysis of the four features will have indicated, each ofthemcanbeappropriatelyunderstoodonlyas rooted inorgeared toward (oneof)thethreetheologicalvirtues.

1.Thediscussionofthesignificanceofperceptionforthemorallifehadtobe

specifiedintermsofasortofagapeicaesthetics:perceptionrootedinlove(Phil.1:9).

2. Discernment had to be specified as the distinguishing of spirits, gearedtoward the discerning of God's will: the good, the pleasing, and perfect(Rom.12:1-2).

3. Judgment had to be qualified as being rooted in God's judgment that isappropriated ineucharistic faith.Theappropriatenessor inappropriatenessof human deeds is measured in terms of their "fittingness" with thesacramentalpracticeofthechurch:"YoucannotdrinkthecupoftheLordandthecupofdemons.YoucannotpartakeinthetableoftheLordandthetableofdemons"(1Cor.10:21).Inthislight,theEucharistcanbeseenasa"formofjudgment"vinitsownright.Godisnotpunishingtheevildoersinthatheaddsapenaltytotheirdeeds.Itisratherthenonfittingnessoftheirdeedswith theEucharist thatequals judgment:"Foranyonewhoeatsanddrinkswithoutdiscerningthebodyeatsanddrinksjudgmentuponhimself"(1Cor.11:29ESV).Inasimilarfashion,Paulmakesbaptismthemoralunitof measure of the lives of believers when he speaks of the body as the"templeoftheholySpirit"(1Cor.6:19ESV)inthecontextofdiscussingsexualsins,thelogicofdispossessionofone'sownselfbeingessentiallyabaptismalone:"DoyounotknowthatallofuswhohavebeenbaptizedintoChrist Jesus were baptized into his death? ... No longer present yourmembers to sin as instruments of wickedness, but present yourselves toGodas thosewhohavebeenbroughtfromdeath to life,andpresentyourmembers to God as instruments of righteousness" (Rom. 6:3, 13 NIV,slightlyrevised).

4.Thegivingofaccounthadtobeunderstoodasamatterofwitness:itsgazeis not fixated on one's ownworks and their defense in a selfjustificatoryfashionbutratherislookingforwardtoGod'seventualvindication,sothatgivinganaccountofourworksisnodifferentfromgivinganaccountofthehopethatisinus.

12

TheApostolicDiscourseandItsDevelopments

KEVINJ.VANHOOZERIntroduction:AChallenge,Gambit,andConstrual

"Muchineveryway."(Rom.3:2)

Paul's estimation of the advantage of the Jew comes close to serving as aresponsetooursetquestion-"TowhatextentistheNewTestamentauthoritative,andhowdoesitshapeandprescribeChristiantheology?"-butultimatelymaysaytoo much. Not everything that readers may extract or infer from the NewTestament is necessarily normative for all times and places: etymologies ofGreek terms; sources that may have been used in the process of textualcomposition; background cultural practices; assumptions about botanicalphenomena.'

David Kelsey challenges theologians to go beyond mere professions ofbiblical authority in order to specify exactly how one is to use the Bibleauthoritatively to formulate doctrine. His Proving Doctrine: The Uses ofScripture inModern Theology (1999) contains three relevant lessons: (1) thewayScripturefunctionsauthoritativelyintheologyisinseparablefromaviewofGod, an inseparability that I call "first theology"; (2) one's first theologyinvariably involves an "imaginative construal," a decision to take theBible assomething or other based on our discernment of how God relates to thecommunity of readers via Scripture; (3) all the theologians whom KelseyexaminesconstruetheBiblesingularly,asonetypeofthingonly.2Itisfarfromobvious,however,thattheNewTestament'sdiversehistorical,narrative,ethical,andotherstatementscanbesubsumedunderasinglesystematicconstrual.3

PaulRicceurpursuesfirst theologywithout theologians.Hisgambit involvessacrificingnotapawn,orabishop,butthequeenofthesciences.Hewagersthat

hewill come to a fuller understanding of the biblical text by attending to theways in which its diverse literary forms (the "originary language of faith")reconfigure existence, and by excluding systematic theologians from theconversation.Riccurpreferstohavetheexegeteashisdialoguepartnerbecausesystematic theologians, in their haste to arrive at the clarity and closedness ofconcepts,runroughshodoverthetextualityoffaith'sexpression.'

WhilenosystematictheologiantodatehastakenupRicceur'ssuggestionthatunderstandingScripture'ssubjectmatterrequiresattentiontothediverseliteraryformsinwhichitispresented,thisispreciselyoneofthepurposesofthepresentchapter: to appropriate certain Ricceurian insights for the sake of my ownimaginativeconstrualofScriptureasdiscourse.'

My own exegetical dialogue partner, C. H. Dodd, in his The ApostolicPreachingandItsDevelopments(1936),discoveredintherecordedsermonsofActsacorekerygmathatappearsinPaul'slettersandundergirdsMark'sGospellikeathemewithvariations.IncontrasttoBultmann,whostressedtheeventofpreaching,Doddfocusedonthecontent:"aproclamationofthefactsofthedeathandresurrectionofChrist inaneschatologicalsettingwhichgivessignificancetothefacts."6Inshort,DoddconstruesScriptureaskerygma.7

AThesis(andSomeCorrectives)

TheDefinitionofDiscourse

Dodd probably exaggerates the distinction between the church's preaching(kerygma)andteaching(didache).Suchadistinctionoweslesstodifferencesinthesubstanceofthemessagethantothediversesettingsofthecommunicators!Furthermore,theformcriticinDoddisoverlyconcernedwithreconstructingtheshapeoftheearliestkerygmaratherthanexploringthekerygmathatwehave.Itherefore propose the followingmodification of Dodd's title and to let it alsoserve as my answer to our guiding question: not kerygma butdiscourse"somethingsomeonesaystosomeoneaboutsomethinginsomeway."9What New Testament studies should study, and what is also authoritative fortheology,isnothinglessthantheapostolicdiscourseanditsdevelopment.

TheVarietyofDiscourse

AnimmediatebenefitofthisproposalappearsincontrasttothatofKelsey,forwhomone'simaginativeconstrualinvolvesthedecisiontoreadalloftheBibleasasinglekindofspeechorliterarygenre."Discourse"admitsofmanyvarietiesandsavesusfromhaving toconstrue theBiblenarrowly in termsofone thingonly.10

Abriefstatementofmyownfirsttheologyisnowperhapsinorder.Onceupona time, if asked what in the New Testament was authoritative, I would havereplied, "Revelation." (On thispoint,Thomists, evangelicals, andBarthians allagree, though they parse "revelation" differently.) Theology's task, I thought,wastheextractionofpropositionalrevelationortruthcontentfromScriptureandits consequent organization into a consistent conceptual system.Twopictures-oneofScriptureasrevelationandoneoftheologyasatwo-stageprocess,fromdescriptiveexegesis("whatitmeant")tonormativedogmatics("whatitmeans")-heldmecaptive."

Thereisamorecompellingpicture.Exegesisandtheologyarenotinarelayrace but rather in a dance: an exegetical-theological two-step in which theinterpreter,likethenimbleMr.Fezziwig,advancesandretires,holdshandswithhispartner,then"cutssodeftly"thatheappearstowinkwithhislegs,makingitimpossibletosaywhichpartnerisleading,biblicalstudiesorsystematics.12

TheDramaofDiscourse

Scripture is not simply a propositional shaft to be exegetically mined andtheologically refined like somuch textual dross to be purified into systemsofphilosophyormorality.Onthecontrary,boththeformandcontentof theNewTestamentareelements in thedivinedramaof revelationand redemption (i.e.,focusingonthetriunemissionsofWordandSpirit,whatGodsaysanddoesonthestageofredemptivehistory).ItfollowsthattheologicalinterpretationoftheNew Testament must attend to yet another kind of context alongside thegrammatical-historical,literary,andcanonical:thetheodramatic.

Theology facilitates the church's participation in the ongoing evangelicalaction by helping us to understand the New Testament as the church'sauthoritativescriptthat,ascovenantdocument,bothrecordswhatGodhassaidor done and solicits our fitting response.13 Doctrine, as direction for fittingparticipation in the already-finished-yet-ongoing drama of redemption whose

center and climax is JesusChrist, is both theology's product and a part of theinterpretative process. And what norms doctrine is precisely the apostolicdiscourseanditsdevelopments.

Thepresentchapterpursuestwoprimarygoalsandadvancestwotheses.

The first goal: Clarify the concept of apostolic discourse, especially withregardtothewoefullyneglectedaspectofitsmanifoldforms("insomeway").The corresponding thesis: Attending to these literary forms is conducive totheodramaticunderstanding."Thevery formof the text shapes responses inusthatmakeithardtobecomeamerespectatororameremoralist.1114

Thesecondgoal:Negotiateasettlementbetweenauthorialdiscourse-orientedand canon-oriented theological interpreters of Scripture. The correspondingthesis:Attendingtotheforms,smallandlarge,ofapostolicdiscourseisthebestwaytomaketheauthorialdiscourselionliedownwiththecanonicallambandthus to realize the promise of a combined linguistic-canonical (or, canonical-linguistic)approach.15

And so to an extended exegesis of my definition of discourse: "somethingsomeonesaystosomeoneaboutsomethinginsomeway."

TheElementsofDiscourse

"Something":TheSenseofDiscourse

It is appropriate that we begin with the "what," or sense, of discourse(something someone says), for propositional content has preoccupiedWesterntheologyformuchofitshistory,andmostinterpretativedisagreementsareoverwhattextsareactuallysaying-theirverbal-textualmeaning.

Toconstruetextsasdiscourseistoclaimthattheyhavedeterminatemeaning:saying something is markedly different from saying anything, everything, ornothing. Modern New Testament scholars hold that we cannot determine thecontentofthetext,orthemeaningofitsconfiguration,withoutfirstestablishingitscontext.Toestablish the"what"ofdiscoursewe thereforeneedalso toask,"Where?" "When?" and perhaps "Why?" Such questions tend to relocatedecisionsaboutthesenseofthetexttotheworldbehindthetext.Discoursedoes

indeedinvolvesuchcontextualmatters,butthecentral,andmoreencompassingquestion, is "Who?" Who is actualizing the potential meaning of words andusingthemtosaysomethingtosomeone?

"Someone":TheSubjectofDiscourse

Thepointinhighlightingapostolicdiscourseisneithertodemeantheroleofthereadingcommunitynortolessenthesignificanceofthecanonbutrathertosituate them theologically."The recent dispute betweendiscourse-oriented andcanon-orientedapproachestothetheologicalinterpretationofScriptureismuchto be regretted." There is little to be gained in pitting an author-centeredhermeneutic against a text-centered one18 or in forcing the vague notion of"canonicalintentionality"todoauthorialwork.Interpretershavenorecoursebutto imaginewhat a string ofwordswouldmeanwere they uttered in such andsuch a context by such and such a person. The question "Which sense?" thusshadesintoanother:"Whoseintentionality?`9

APOSTOLICDISCOURSE

Inresponsetothislastquestion,wedowelltorecallKierkegaard'sessay"OntheDifferencebetweenaGeniusandanApostle"(1847).Thegeniusspeaksofwhat she is the first toknow thanks tohergreaterpowersof ratiocination.Bycontrast, theapostle speakseitherbecausehehas seenorbecausehehasbeentold.Equallyimportantistheelementofcommissioning.Anapostleisonesentoutwithamessage,one"setapartforthegospel"(Rom.1:1-2)byhavingseenandbeencommissionedbytherisenLord(Acts9:15;22:21;26:16;1Cor.15:7-8).20Intrinsicinthenotionof"apostolic,"then,isthe"who"ofdiscourse.Andbecause testimony is a speech-act that "asks to be trusted,""who is testifyingmakesallthedifference.

The actual authors of the New Testament may not have been eyewitnessesthemselves, yet Richard Bauckham contends that the Gospel texts "are muchclosertotheforminwhichtheeyewitnessestoldtheirstoriesorpassedontheirtraditionsthaniscommonlyenvisagedincurrentscholarship.1122Healsonotesthatintheancientworld,"thehistorianhimselfshouldhavebeenaparticipantinthe events he narrates."23 From a somewhat different vantage point, FrancisWatsondepicts theevangelists asactorswhoseauthorial speechwasakindofreading(oftheOldTestamentand,inthecaseofMatthewandLuke,ofMark)

thatimprovedor"improvised"onwhatproceeded.21Invariousways,then,wemay say that the apostles participate in the economy of triune communicativeaction.Accordingly,Ihaveaslightrevisiontoourdefinition:apostolicdiscourseconcerns "something someone says in someway to someone about somethingthatonesawforoneselforwastoldbysomeoneelse(notleast,theHolySpirit)."

DIVINEDISCOURSE

In churches the world over ministers conclude the weekly reading of theapostolic discourse by saying, "The word of the Lord." The congregationresponds, "Thanks be to God." These theologically laden utterances call fordeeper reflection thanwehavespaceforhere.Suffice it tosay that thechurchhas taken the apostolic discourse as authoritative precisely because itcommunicatesthewordofGod.

ScripturerepeatedlydepictsGodasspeaking,andthecreedsconfessthattheSpirit of God locutus est per prophetas.21 It is precisely this emphasis ondiscourse that saves an author-oriented approach from the sting of Barth'scriticism that the traditional view freezes theWord of God in a text, therebycagingthe"birdinflight"intheprisonhouseoflanguage.Discourseisrealizedin theeventof speakingandhearing/reading, andGod isLordofbothevents.The external testimony of the apostles is fixed; the internal testimony of theSpirit is free. In brief:we can affirm theBible asGod's speech in away thatpreserves God's sovereign freedom (i.e., the authorial activity of God asspeaking subject), precisely by doing justice to the notion of texts as writtendiscourseasopposedtotextsassimplycontainersofpropositionalrevelation.

Brevard Childs worries that Nicholas Wolterstorff's call for a "secondhermeneutic," one that reads for the divine discourse, implies that God iscommitting new illocutionary actswith old verbalwineskins, thus ignoring orviolating the human meaning.26 The remedy is to view divine authorship intheodramatic terms. It is theHoly Spiritwho inspires-prompts and directs-theapostolicdiscourseinallitsdiversity.Godspeaksthroughapostolicdiscourseasaplaywrightspeaksthroughthevariouscharactersinaplay,allofwhosevoices,intheirparticularregisters,areneededtoachievethetotalcommunicativeeffect.IfGodsaysmorethandothehumanauthors,thisbestcomestolightinviewofthewholecanonicalscript,atwhichpointthemeaningandchristologicalfocusof the theodrama isbest seenandmost fullyappreciated. Insteadofa"second

hermeneutic," then, there is only a single hermeneuticwithmultiple levels ofdescriptionincluding,atthemostencompassinglevel,thetheodramaticcontextthatbringstolightwhatwemaycalltheplaincanonicalmeaning.

DOMINICALDISCOURSE

TheapostolicdiscourseistestimonycommissionedbytherisenChrist.27Thedivine discourse is the dominical discourse. Scripture is the visible/audiblerepresentation of the lordship of Jesus Christ, a vital ingredient in hiscommunicative self-presentation.Wesee this in theLukanwritings,where thecareerofJesusinLukeismirrored,andcontinued,bythecareerofthe"word"(logos)inActs.28TheSpiritwhoaccompaniesandministersthewordofGodisalso the Spirit of Christ (John 16:13, 14; 1 Pet. 1:11; cf. Rev. 19:10). TheapostolicdiscourseisultimatelyafunctionoftheSon'spropheticoffice.29

"Says":ThePredicateofDiscourse

TotheextentthatapostolicdiscourseisunderthelordshipofChrist,wemaygoevenfurtherandsuggestthatitincludesChrist'skinglyandpriestlyofficesaswell,forthewordoftheLordnotonlyinformsbutalsorulesandmediates.Torepeat: saying something must not be reduced to stating something. On thecontrary,sayingisaformofdoing,andmanythingsmaybedonewithwords.The"predicate"ofdiscoursethusreferstothevariousthingsthatauthorsdoascommunicative agents: illocutionary acts.30 The apostolic discourse involvesmore, but not less, than propositional proclamation. Authors can say/domorethanonethingatatime:onecanbearwitnesstotheChristandnarrateastoryand allude to the Old Testament and encourage someone, all in a singlediscourse.

"ToSomeone":TheIndirectObjectofDiscourse

The event of discourse is in one sense incomplete until it achieves whatRicceur refers to as its interlocutionary or "allocutionary" act-its address tosomeone.31Heretootheessentiallydialogicalanddramaticnatureofdiscoursecomestothefore.Everydiscourseisaninitiativeinlanguagethatexpectssomekindofansweringresponse:"Toassertsomethingistoexpectagreement,justastogiveanorderistoexpectobedience."32

New Testament scholars understand the importance of establishing theidentity,andethnicity,oftheoriginaladdressees.YetScripturewasintendedforfuturegenerationsaswell.TheapostlePaulsaysthatthethingsthathappenedtoIsrael inthewilderness"werewrittendownforourinstruction"(1Cor.10:11).Towhom,exactly,does"our"refer?Wehaveseenthereader,andheisus!Thecontemporarychurch is in thesamesituation,eschatologicallyspeaking,as theprimitive church: between the times, between the first and second advents ofChrist.

MarkusBockmuehl thus rightlycalls forNewTestamentstudies to focusontheimpliedoridealreader,thereaderenvisagedbythediscourseitself,fortheideal reader is a disciple, one "drawn into an act of reading that involves anactive part on stage."33This aspect of discourse brings a new figure into thespotlightoftheologicalinterpretationofScripture:theimpliedcanonicalreader.The person or community to whom the apostolic discourse is ultimatelyaddressedisonewhoisabletoseeChristintheOldTestamentandthechurchasthenewIsrael,thusablefaithfullytoenactthescript.

`AboutSomething":TheReferentofDiscourse

Thereferentofapostolicdiscourseisnotsimplytheworld"behind"theNewTestamenttextbutalsotheworld"of"and"infrontof"it:whatGodisdoinginChristthroughtheSpirit(cf.2Cor.5:19)torestoreIsraelandtorenewcreation.

Inaword:theapostolicdiscourseisaboutthegospel.ThisgospelcentersonJesusChrist,thoughPaulcanalsoidentifyhimselfasanapostle"setapartforthegospelofGod"(Rom.1:1).34Thisisthesamegospelthatis"thepowerofGod"(Rom.1:16), the samegospel inwhich is revealed "the righteousnessofGod"(Rom. 1:17). The revelation of God's righteousness is accomplished not in astatement but rather in an eschatologically freighted theodrama inwhichGodhas to demonstrate that he can remain godlywhile establishing right relationswiththeungodly(Rom.3:21-26).Totheextentthatapostolicdiscourseisabout"righteousness of God," then, it is not simply theological discourse, buttheodiceandiscourse.35

"InSomeWay":TheFormofDiscourse

Eachofmythreedialoguepartnershas,inhisownway,promptedmetofocus

on this single neglected aspect of discourse.36 Kelsey, for example, proposesthat ultimately it is the patterns (not the content) in Scripture that make itnormative for theology, but he fails adequately to relate these patterns to theforms of apostolic discourse.37 Instead, he argues that the decisionimaginatively to construe the Bible as having a certain kind of pattern isdetermined not by exegesis but rather by something "pre-textual." He thusoverlookstheembeddedpatternsinScriptureintrinsictoitsformsofdiscourseandliterarygenres.

Indeed, as far as I know, no systematic theologian has focused on thesignificanceofScripture'sdiverseliteraryformstotheextentthatexegetesandhermeneuticphilosophershave,andthisinspiteof,forexample,officialVaticanpronouncements since Divino Afflante Spiritu about the importance of theBible'sliterarygenres.WhatwedoseeistheologiansreadingallofScriptureasif it were only one kind of genre, so that everything becomes apocalyptic(Pannenberg),orwisdom(Bultmann),ornarrative(Barth),ordoctrine(Hodge):"entire theological constructs have gravitated toward certain genres as theirlinchpin."'

POETICANALYSIS

Totaketheapostolicdiscourseasnormativefor theology,onemustdomorethan read it as direct communication-that is, as a straightforward teaching ofrevealedtruths.Theologiansmustdomore(butnotless!)than"narrow"analysisthatsimplydistillsclearpropositionsfromtextsinordertoassesstheircogency.Thiskindofanalysis-"thedissectionofsentencestructuresandinvestigationoflanguageasthebestmeansofinvestigatingconcepts"39-yieldsonlythintextualdescriptionsthatoverlookthecognitivesignificanceoflargerformsofdiscourse,such as literary genres. The conceptual tools of the AngloAmerican analytictrade seem better suited to sentence-long discourse than to larger discursiveforms.Inthisconnection,wemaynoteBenOllenburger'scriticismofNicholasWolterstorff:"AmongmypuzzlementsinreadingDivineDiscourseisitsalmostexclusiveattentiontosentences."40

Wilbur Howell insists that Englishmen of the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturiesconsideredpoetry"tobethethirdgreatformofcommunication,openandpopularbutnot fullyexplainedby rhetoric, conciseand leanbutnot fullyexplained by logic," containing instead "both characteristics at once."" If "the

defining principle of literature is that meaning is communicated throughform,"42 then New Testament scholars and systematic theologians would dowelltomeetonthefertilegroundofpoetics-"thesystematicworkingorstudyofliteratureassuch"43-andtocultivateliterary-poeticaswellaslinguistic-analyticcompetence.

THEDRAMATICSOFBIBLICALLITERATURE

Asafourteen-year-old,IreadPrideandPrejudicebutfailedtounderstandit.IgraspedthepropositionalcontentbutmissedAusten'svoice; Icaught thestorybut missed the satire. Something similar occurs when readers get the Bible'spropositional contentbut fail tohear thevoiceofGod.TheNewTestament ismore than literature, but not less.AbrahamKuyper offered this answer to thequestion ofwhy there are somany literary forms in theBible: so that all thecordsofthehumansoul,andnottheintellectonly,couldbetouched.44

Fully to attend to apostolic discourse calls for dramatics-the systematicworkingorstudyofdramaassuch,includingitsdialogicalforms.Theodramais,Isubmit,the"formofforms"inwhichotherbiblicalspeechandliterarygenresliveandmoveandhavetheirbeing.Moretothetheologicalpoint: theformofdrama confronts the reader not only with words that describe divinecommunicativeactionbutalsowithvoicesthatarethemselvesingredientinthataction-voices that draw the reader into the action, eliciting various kinds ofresponse.

HowdoesimaginativelyindwellingthediscursiveformsoftheBiblehelpusdiscern the theologically normative from the culturally relative, core beliefsabout God from incidental remnants of obsolete worldviews? It does so byenabling us to keep our eye on the theodramatic action and on the task ofmovingitforward.Thehistoricalscenesandtheculturalpropsmayvary;notsowhatGodisdoinginChristtoformhischurchandrenewcreation.Eachformofapostolic discourse contributes to the church's ability to understand andparticipateinthisdivinemissionarywork.Somesituationscallforarehearsalofthegospelnarrativetoreminduswhoandwhereweareinthetheodrama;otherscallforagooddoseofapocalyptic,andstillothersaparabolicwisesaying.

`AndItsDevelopments":TheLifeofDiscourse

CANONICALDEVELOPMENTS

WhatisdoctrinallynormativeintheNewTestamentiscanonicaldiscoursethatis, the apostolic discourse in canonical context, viewed as part of what isultimately a unifiedwork.45Wemay now pose the crucial question: "Whosework is it?" Canonical approaches to interpretation, to the extent that theyrequireinterpreterstoreadthetextasaunifiedwork,needtobeunderwrittenbyapremiseeitherofdivineauthorshiporof somecollectivecommunal intent. Ihavedealtwith the phenomenonof intracanonical development elsewhere andhavearguedthattheNewTestament,andJesushimself,worksasingularkindofdivineimprovisationontheOldTestament.46HereIwant toreflectfurtheronthe role of the risen Christ in incorporating the apostolic discourse into thecanon.

DavidPaoarguesthatLukebaseshisaccountoftheActsoftheApostlesonthe Isaianic "new exodus"motif, and that the "word of the Lord" is themainactor or central character in the book of Acts.47Where previous scholarshipfocusedonthecontentoftheapostolicdiscourse,Paoexaminesthe"pattern"oftheword'sjourneyfromJerusalemtoRome.Thejourneyisactuallyaconquestnarrative:despiteopposition,thewordoftheLord"grewandmultiplied"(Acts12:24),advancingthroughSamariatoCorinthandEphesusandbeyond.41

ThereisnothinginPao'saccountoftheconquestnarrativeofthewordoftheLord that pertains directly to the process of canonization. Nevertheless, Paoidentifiesthegoaloftheword'sjourneyintothefarcountryas"theconstructionof the community of the word."49 It is significant that Acts treats the twothemes-thepowerofthewordandtheformationofthecommunity-together.Theword"conquers"onlyinthesensethat,togetherwiththeSpirit,itconvictsandpersuadeshearers/readersofitstruth,therebyformingacommunityofobedientinterpreters.IftheeventofGod'srevelationinJesusincludesitsownreception,andiftheSpiritwhoistheLordofthehearing(Barth)isalsotheSpiritofJesusChrist,thenmaywenotconcludethatthepropheticactivityofJesusincludesthereceptionoftheapostolictestimonythathealsocommissioned?Ifso,maythisnotrespond,atleastinpart,towhatChildsnamesasthemostfundamentalflawin authorial discourse interpretation: "the failure to understand the role of thechurch in collecting, shaping and interpreting theBible,which is the issue ofcanon"?50 The process of the church's gradual recognition of certain texts asapostolic,whichfromahistoricalperspectiveappearsbothtaintedandarbitrary,

makes good theological sense when viewed in christological perspective. TheproperdogmaticlocationofthecanonmaywellbethepropheticofficeofJesusChrist:"Youhaveheardthatitwassaid....ButIsaytoyou..."(Matt.5:21-44).

POSTCANONICALDEVELOPMENTS

NewTestament scholars and systematic theologiansdowell to attend to thehistoryofreceptionoftheapostolicdiscourse,butoneshouldnotbetooquicktoequate"effectivehistory"withfaithfulcontinuationorwithtruth.ThehistoryoftheNewTestament'sso-calledeffectsincludebeatificaswellashorrificvisions-slavery, the Inquisition, and the Holocaust, to name but a few The drama ofdoctrinestemsfromthechurch'shavingtomakedecisionsaboutwhattosayanddo in new situations that correspond towhat is said anddone in the apostolicdiscourse-hencetheimportanceoflearninggoodcanonicaljudgment.Buthow?

RobertGundry,notingthediversity in theNewTestament,eveninregardtotheway thevariousevangelists identifyJesusas theChrist,askswhether theircanonizationmeansthattheyshouldbesynthesizedorallowedtostandnextto,or even in tension with, one another." Does the canon call for and enable asystematizingviewofJesus,ordoesitdelimitaspacewithinwhichathousand(well,at least fourorfive)Christologiesmaybloom?Does thecanonical formitselfprivilegetheworkofthetheologianoroftheexegete?Forhispart,Gundrycallsattentiontotheoccasionalnatureofthedocumentsandoptsforpreservingthecanon'sbiblio-diversity."

Gundry's points are both sobering and salutary to aspiring systematictheologians.Heisrighttoremindusoftheoccasionalanddiversenatureofthetexts, and to delimit hermeneutical freedom by textual fidelity. Indeed, hiscommentsareentirelyinkeepingwiththerecentemphasisontheologyasaformofsapientiathattakesparticularsituationsintoaccount.53Whatmattersmostforthisapproacharenottheparticularwordsorconceptsthattheapostlesemployedbutrathertheirpatternsofjudgment.

Jesus himself exercises a special kind of patterned judgment when heunderstands himself to be the fulfillment of the Scriptures (Luke 24:27).Typological interpretation is ultimately a form of theodramatic judgmentwherebyoneunderstandsoneselfandone'schurchcommunityascaughtup inthesamebasicaction(thoughinanewscene)astheprimitivechurch.

How may we learn to form judgments that display creative apostolicunderstanding? The short answer: by becoming members of the "society" ofbiblical literature. We acquire habits of apostolic judgment when weimaginatively indwell the diverse literary formsof theNewTestament, lettingthem serve as interpretative frameworks, as modes of cognition andexperience.54 It is within the canonical galaxy of the various worlds of thebiblical texts that "we learn to think accurately, behave morally, preachpassionately,singjoyfully,prayhonestly,obeyfaithfully."55

Crosswords,TheologicalDiscourse,andtheChristospectiveConscienceoftheCanonicalText

ThechallengeoftheologicalinterpretationofScriptureistorenderjudgmentsconcerningwhatis"meetandright"56tosayanddoasdisciplesofJesusChristinlightoftheapostolicdiscourse.

"MEET":FITTINGNESS

Something ismeet if it is fittingorbefits.Theapostolicdiscourse thatgivesvoice to the theodramatic action is the Christian's ultimate criterion fordiscerning the true, the good, and the beautiful. These are all functions offittingness,andwhatisfittingisultimatelyamatterofwhatbefitsthegospel:thetheodramaticformofJesusChrist.57

The apostolic discourse opens up a window onto what we could call "thestrange newontology" of theBible: an account not of being-in-general but ofbeing-in-Christ (2 Cor. 5:17).What is normative for Christian doctrine is notsomescientificallyoutmodedworldview,butthestrangenewworldviewoftheBible, rendered in and through a variety of word views (i.e., literary genres).Historical narrative is fine for describing the past, butwe need apocalyptic todepicttheendofhistory.Scientificdiscourseisfine(thoughnotexhaustive)forexplaining the causal regularities observed in nature, but we need wisdomdiscourseifwearetodiscernadeeperdimension,thecreatedorder,underneaththe surface phenomena. The various forms of apostolic discourse provide"training in Christianity" (Kierkegaard) by discipling and directing ourimaginations to discern diverse theodramatic patterns, all of which ultimatelyoriginateandend"inChrist."

"RIGHT":RIGHTEOUSNESS

TheNewTestamentisnotonlyprofitablebutalsoauthoritativefortraininginrightness: for speaking, thinking, and acting fittinglywith regard to the truth,goodness,andbeautymadeknowninJesusChrist."Theologicalinterpretationofthe Bible involves right (i.e., developed apostolic) judgments about rightnessand,ultimately,therighteousnessofGod."ForintheselastdayshehasspokentousbyaSon"(Heb.1:2),theonewhoselifeandworkistheverysubstanceoftheodrama, the onewho embodiesGod's right-doing. God's right-doing is theheart of the gospel, the revelation of God's righteousness (Rom. 1:17) thatclimaxes in God's justifying the ungodly bymeans of Christ's cross.59 God'sright-doingalsofeaturesprominently inwhat isperhaps themostcontroversialissueinthephilosophyofreligion,theproblemofevil,inasmuchasitforcesustochoosebetweenGod'spowerandhisgoodness/righteousness.

Does theapostolicdiscourseof thecross"answer" theproblemofevil?Thepriorquestion,ofcourse, iswhetheroneought tobe seekingsuchanswers,orevenwhetherevilconstitutesa"problem"thatadmitsofasolution.AccordingtoTerrence Tilley, "theodicy" is not an apostolic form of discourse but rather amodern one that warps the way biblical texts are read.60 A theodicy is amonological, theoreticaldiscourse thatdoesnotsolvebut instead inadvertentlycontributesfurthertotheproblemofevilbyfailingtodealwithrealevils.Itskeydeclarativeassertion-"theWorldisaswellasitcouldbemadebyinfinitePowerandGoodness"61-cannotbesustainedinthefaceofongoingsin,suffering,andevil.Theodiciescrossthefinelinebetweenutteringtruepropositions("Youwillgetyourrewardinheaven")andadministeringverbalopiates.62

Tilley's study is essentially a plea to recognize the need for a variety ofspeech-actsandformsofdiscourse,notjustassertives,todealwithevil.Butthisis precisely what we find in the New Testament: in contrast to the standarddiscourseofanalyticphilosophyof religion, theapostolic theodiceandiscoursenotonlydeclaresbutalsowarns,exhorts,consoles.And,asconcernsevil,alittleapocalyptic discourse goes a long way. The point is that God's right-doingrevealedinJesus'deathonthecrossrequiresseveralformsofdiscourseinorderfully to articulate it.63 It is just these forms of cognition and experience thatought to form, inform,and transform theological judgment.When theydo,wegetnotan"answer" to theproblemofevilbut ratherawayofperceiving(andrespondingto)evil:astemporary,asdefeated,yetneverthelessassomethingwe

ought to oppose. We also get a precious insight into suffering from theperspectivenotonlyofeternitybutalsoofthetheodrama(Rom.8:18).

What Eugene Peterson says about Leviticus applies equally to apostolicdiscourse: "Leviticus is anextended schooling for trainingour imaginations tograspthatvirtuallyeverythingthatwedohastodowithGodbutrequiresGod'saction to make it (us) fit for God."64 Everything depends on using the NewTestament to train right theological judgment,especiallyabout the rightnessofGodrevealedinthegospel.

Conclusion:TowardTheologicalUnderstanding

The apostolic discourse, received in faith, is normative for theologicalunderstanding.Butwhatisunderstanding?Ithastodowithgraspingthewhole,andourplaceinit,anditrequiresnotonlyreasonbutalsoimagination-notthatidolatrousprojectionofman-madeimagesbutratherthatsyntheticpowerwhichdiscerns and discovers patterns that are truly there, in history and in the text.StevenMillhauser's novelMartinDressler: TheTale of anAmericanDreamerdepictssuchunderstandingwhenthemaincharacter,afterexploringahotelfromtop to bottom and interrogating everyone frombookkeepers to chambermaids,graspshowitsvariouspartsfittogether:"Thedetailsinterestedhim...buttheyhadnomeaninguntiltheywereconnectedtothelargerdesign.Thenhegraspedthem,thenheheldtheminplaceandfeltadeepandalmostphysicalsatisfaction-and...realized...thatthe[hotel]itselfwaspartofablockofbuildings,andalltheblockswentrepeatingthemselves,rectanglebyrectangle,ineverydirection,untiltheyformedacity.""

Theproject of theological interpretationofScripture has nothing to dowithhotels,ofcourse.Itdoes,however,havetodowiththeFather'shouse,inwhichtherearemanyrooms(John14:2).Ittakesimaginationtograspthatedificetoo.In exercising authority over and training our imaginations, the apostolicdiscoursehelpsusbothtounderstandandtofitintotheholystructureofwhichJesus Christ is the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20-22). Indeed, in the mouths of itsministers and in the power of the Spirit, the apostolic discourse (and itstheological interpretation) is, to use Kierkegaard's phrase, "upbuilding"discourse-theindispensableandchiefmeansofthechurch'sedification.66

ContributorsMarkusBockmuehl isaFellowofKebleCollegeandprofessorofbiblicalandearlyChristianstudiesat theUniversityofOxford,havingpreviouslytaughtatthe Universities of Cambridge and St. Andrews. Among his books are TheEpistletothePhilippians(Hendrickson,1998);JewishLawinGentileChurches:HalakhahandtheBeginningofChristianPublicEthics(BakerAcademic,2003);and Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study (Baker Academic,2006).

James Carleton Paget is senior lecturer in New Testament studies at theUniversityofCambridge andFellowand tutorofPeterhouse.Hispublicationsinclude The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background (Mohr Siebeck,1994)andanumberofarticlesonsubjects related toearlyChristianityand itsorigins.

WalterMoberly is professor of theology and biblical interpretation atDurhamUniversity. His publications include TheOld Testament of theOld Testament(Fortress,1992;reprint,Wipf&Stock,2001);TheBible,Theology,andFaith:AStudyofAbrahamandJesus(CambridgeUniversityPress,2000);andProphecyandDiscernment(CambridgeUniversityPress,2006).

Jan Muis is professor of systematic theology and biblical theology at theProtestantTheologicalUniversityinUtrecht.HeistheauthorofOpenbaringenInterpretatie(Boekencentrum,1989),onBarth'sandMiskotte'sunderstandingofHolyScripture;CredoinCreatorem,onChristianthoughtaboutGodascreator(Utrecht Faculteit derGodgeleerdheid, 1998); and a number of articles on thedoctrineofGodandontheologicalepistemology

OliverO'Donovan,FBA,anAnglicanpriest,wasRegiusProfessorofMoralandPastoralTheologyandcanonofChristChurchattheUniversityofOxfordfrom1982 to 2006, and since then he has been professor of Christian ethics andpractical theology at the University of Edinburgh. His writings includeResurrection and Moral Order: An Outline for Evangelical Ethics (Apollos,1986; 2nd ed., 1992); The Desire of the Nations: An Outline for Political

Theology (Cambridge University Press, 1996); The Just War Revisited(CambridgeUniversityPress,1996);TheWaysofJudgment(Eerdmans,2005);and From Irenaeus to Grotius: A Sourcebook in Christian Political Thought(Eerdmans,1999),co-editedwithhiswife,JoanLockwoodO'Donovan.

Alan Torrance is professor of systematic theology at the University of St.Andrews.Previously,hetaughtatKingsCollegeLondonandattheUniversitiesof Otago, Aberdeen, and Erlangen. Among his publications are Persons inCommunion(T&TClark,1996),severaleditedandcoeditedvolumes(includingmostrecentlyTheDoctrineofGodandTheologicalEthics,T&TClark,2006),andanumberofarticlesonChristiandogmaticsandphilosophicaltheology.

Kevin J. Vanhoozer is research professor of systematic theology at TrinityEvangelical Divinity School. Previously he taught for eight years at theUniversityofEdinburgh.HeistheauthorofBiblicalNarrativeinthePhilosophyofPaulRicwur:AStudyinHermeneuticsandTheology(CambridgeUniversityPress,1990);IsThereaMeaninginThisText?TheBible, theReader,andtheMorality of Literary Knowledge (Zondervan, 1998); and The Drama ofDoctrine: A Canonical-Linguistic Approach to Christian Theology(Westminster/John Knox, 2005). He is also the editor of The CambridgeCompanion to Postmodern Theology (Cambridge University Press, 2003);Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (SPCK and BakerAcademic,2005);andaco-editorofEverydayTheology:HowtoReadCulturalTextsandInfluenceTrends(BakerAcademic,2007).

BenedictThomasViviano,OP,isprofessorofNewTestamentattheUniversityof Fribourg in Switzerland. He is the author of "Matthew," in New JeromeBiblical Commentary (Prentice-Hall, 1990); The Kingdom of God in History(Wipf& Stock, 1998); Trinity-Kingdom-Church: Essays in Biblical Theology(Fribourg Academic Press and Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 2001); andMatthewandHisWorld:TheGospeloftheOpenJewishChristians(FribourgAcademicPressandVandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2007).HealsoisacontributortoJudaisme,anti-judaisme, et christianisme (Saint-Augustin, 2000) and Marie Madeleine:Appropriations contemporaines (Sainte Baume, 2007) and is coeditor of Ledialogueinterreligieux(FribourgAcademicPress,2007).

J. Ross Wagner is associate professor of New Testament at PrincetonTheologicalSeminary.HeistheauthorofHeraldsoftheGoodNews:Pauland

IsaiahinConcert in theLetter to theRomans(Brill,2002)andofanumberofarticlesontopicspertainingtotheNewTestamentandtotheSeptuagint.

BerndWannenwetschisuniversitylecturerinethicsattheUniversityofOxfordand Fellow of Harris Manchester College. He formerly taught systematictheologyandethicsat theUniversitiesofErlangen-NurembergandMainz.Hispublications includeDie Freiheit der Ehe:Das Zusammenleben von Frau andMann in derWahrnehmung evangelischer Ethik (Neukirchener Verlag, 1993);GottesdienstalsLebensform:EthikfurChristenburger (Kohlhammer,1997), inEnglish as PoliticalWorship: Ethics for ChristianCitizens (OxfordUniversityPress,2004).

JohnWebsterisprofessorofsystematictheologyattheUniversityofAberdeen.His publications include several books on the theology ofBarth andworks indogmatic theology such as Word and Church: Essays in Church Dogmatics(T&TClark,2001);Holiness (SCMPress,2003);HolyScripture:ADogmaticSketch (Cambridge University Press, 2003); and Confessing God: Essays inChristianDogmaticsII(T&TClark,2005).

N.T.WrightisBishopofDurham(England).HetaughtNewTestamentstudiesfor twenty years at the University of Cambridge, McGill University, and theUniversityofOxford.HehasbeenvisitingprofessorattheHebrewUniversityinJerusalem,HarvardDivinitySchool,andtheGregorianUniversityinRome.Hehas published over forty books, including TheClimax of theCovenant (T&TClark,1991),themultivolumeChristianOriginsandtheQuestionofGod(SPCKandFortress,1992-),and the"Everyone"commentarieson theNewTestament(SPCKandWestminster/JohnKnox,2001-).

WorksCitedAejmelaeus, Anneli. 2006a. "Faith, Hope, and Interpretation: A Lexical andSemantic Study of the Semantic Field of Hope in the Greek Psalter." InStudiesintheHebrewBible,Qumran,andtheSeptuagint:EssaysPresentedtoEugeneUlrichontheOccasionofhisSixty-FifthBirthday,ed.P.W.Flint,E.Tov,andJ.V.VanderKam,360-76.Supplements toVetusTestamentum101.Leiden:Brill.

2006b. "Von Sprache zur Theologie: Methodologische Uberlegungen zurTheologie der Septuaginta." In The Septuagint and Messianism, ed. M. A.Knibb, 21-48.BibliothecaEphemeridumTheologicarumLovaniensium 195.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.

Forthcoming. "Levels of Interpretation: Tracing the Trail of the SeptuagintTranslators."COLLeGIUM.http://www.helsinki.fi/collegium/e-series/.

ARCIC (Anglican/RomanCatholic InternationalCommission). 1998.TheGiftof Authority: Authority in the Church III. http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/Arcicgf3.htm.

Ashton, John, ed. 1997.The Interpretationof John.Studies inNewTestamentInterpretation.2nded.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

Ayres, Lewis. 2006. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-CenturyTrinitarianTheology.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Ayres,Lewis,andStephenE.Fowl.1999."(Mis)ReadingtheFaceofGod:TheInterpretationoftheBibleintheChurch."TheologicalStudies60:513-28.

Bachli,Otto.1987.DasAlteTestament inderKirchlichenDogmatikvonKarlBarth.Neukirchen-Vluyn:NeukirchenerVerlag.

Baer, David A. 2001.WhenWe All Go Home: Translation and Theology inLXX Isaiah56-66. Journal for theStudyof theOldTestament:SupplementSeries318.Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress.

Barnes, Michael. 2002. Theology and the Dialogue of Religions. CambridgeStudiesinChristianDoctrine.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Barnett,PaulW.1993."Apostle."InDictionaryofPaulandHisLetters,ed.G.EHawthorneandR.P.Martin,45-51.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress.

Barr, James. 1961. The Semantics of Biblical Language. Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress.

1999. The Concept of Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective.Minneapolis:Fortress.

Barsam, Ara Paul. 2001. "Reverence for Life: Albert Schweitzer's MysticalTheologyandEthics."DPhilthesis,OxfordUniversity.

2007. Reverence for Life: Albert Schweitzer's Great Contribution to EthicalThought.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

Barth,Karl.1922.DerRomerbrief.2nded.Munich:Kaiser.

1933. The Epistle to the Romans. Trans. E. C. Hoskyns. London: OxfordUniversityPress.

1957.ChurchDogmatics.Trans.G.W.BromileyandT.F.Torrance.Vol.11/2.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

1974. Karl Barth-Eduard Thurneysen Briefwechsel. Vol. 2,1921-1930. Ed. E.Thurneysen.Gesamtausgabe5.Zurich:TheologischerVerlag.

1975a.Anselm,Fidesquaerensintellectum:Anselm'sProofoftheExistenceofGod in the Context of His Theological Scheme. Trans. I. W. Robertson.PittsburghReprintSeries2.2nded.Pittsburgh:PickwickPress.

1975b.ChurchDogmatics.Trans.G.W.Bromiley.2nded.Vol.I/1.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

1976a. Das christliche Leben: Die kirchliche Dogmatik IV/4, Fragmente ausdem Nachlafl, Vorlesungen 1959-1961. Ed. H. A. Drewes and E. Jungel.Gesamtausgabe2/7.Zurich:TheologischerVerlag.

1976b.ErkldrungdesJohannes-Evangeliums(Kapitel1-8):VorlesungMunster,Wintersemester 1925/1926,wiederholt in Bonn, Sommersemester 1933. Ed.W.Furst.Zurich:TheologischerVerlag.

1991.TheGottingenDogmatics:InstructionintheChristianReligion.Trans.G.W.Bromiley.Ed.H.Reiffen.Vol.1.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Barthelemy, Dominique. 1978. "L'Ancien Testament a muri a Alexandrie." InEtudes d'histoire du texte de l'Ancien Testament, 127-39. Orbis Biblicus etOrientalis 21. Fribourg: Editions Universitaires; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht.

Bauckham, Richard. 1998a. "The Scrupulous Priest and the Good Samaritan:Jesus'ParabolicInterpretationoftheLawofMoses."NewTestamentStudies44:475-89.

ed. 1998b. TheGospels forAll Christians: Rethinking theGospelAudiences.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

2006.JesusandtheEyewitnesses:TheGospelsasEyewitnessTestimony.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Bauer,W.,etal.1999.Greek-EnglishLexiconoftheNewTestamentandOtherEarlyChristianLiterature.3rded.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Beretta, Francesco. 1999. "De l'inerrance absolue a la verite salvifique de1'Ecriture."FreiburgerZeitschriftfurPhilosophicandTheologie46:461-501.

Berkhof,Hendrikus.1990.ChristianFaith:AnIntroductiontotheStudyof theFaith.Trans.S.Woudstra.Reved.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Bertram,G.1961."Septuaginta-Frommigkeit."DieReligion inGeschichteandGegenwart5:1707-9.

Bieringer, Raimund. 2006. "Annoncer la vie eternelle: L'interpretation de laBible dans les textes officiels de l'Eglise catholique romaine." RevuetheologiquedeLouvain37:489-512.

Bockmuehl, Markus. 2001. "Resurrection." In The Cambridge Companion to

Jesus,ed.M.Bockmuehl,102-18.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

2003.JewishLawinGentileChurches:HalakhahandtheBeginningofChristianPublicEthics.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

2006. Seeing the Word: Refocusing New Testament Study. Studies inTheologicalInterpretation.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

Bockmuehl,Markus, andMichael B. Thompson, eds. 1997. A Vision for theChurch:StudiesinEarlyChristianEcclesiologyinHonourofJ.P.M.Sweet.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

Boyd-Taylor,Cameron.2006. "InaMirrorDimly-Reading theSeptuagint as aDocumentofItsTimes."InSeptuagintResearch:IssuesandChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures,ed.W.KrausandR.G.Wooden,15-31.Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature.

Braaten, Carl E., andRobertW. Jenson, eds. 2003. InOneBody through theCross: The Princeton Proposal for Christian Unity; A Call to the ChurchesFromanEcumenicalStudyGroup.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Braybrooke, Marcus. 1990. Time to Meet: Towards a Deeper RelationshipbetweenJewsandChristians.London:SCMPress;Philadelphia:TrinityPressInternational.

Brown, Raymond E. 1963. "Unity and Diversity in New TestamentEcclesiology."NovumTestamentum6:298-308.

1984.TheChurchestheApostlesLeftBehind.NewYork:PaulistPress.

Bultmann, Rudolf. 1971. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Trans. G. R.Beasley-Murray.Philadelphia:Westminster.

Chadwick, Henry. 1967. "Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim." In Encyclopaedia ofPhilosophy,ed.P.Edwards,vol.4,443-46.NewYork:Macmillan.

Chapman, StephenB. 2006. "Reclaiming Inspiration for theBible." In Canonand Biblical Interpretation, ed. C. G. Bartholomew et al., 167-206. The

ScriptureandHermeneuticsSeries7.GrandRapids:Zondervan.

Childs, Brevard S. 1979. Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.Philadelphia:Fortress.

1985.TheNewTestamentasCanon:AnIntroduction.Philadelphia:Fortress.

1992.BiblicalTheologyoftheOldandNewTestaments:TheologicalReflectionontheChristianBible.Minneapolis:Fortress.

2004.TheStruggle toUnderstand IsaiahasChristianScripture.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

2005. "Speech-Act Theory and Biblical Interpretation." Scottish Journal ofTheology58:375-92.

Claussen, Johann Hinrich. 1997. Die Jesus-Deutung von Ernst Troeltsch imKontext der liberalen Theologie. Beitrage zur historischen Theologie 99.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

Coady, C. A. J. 1992. Testimony: A Philosophical Study. Oxford: ClarendonPress;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Cougar,Yves.1966.TraditionandTraditions:AnHistoricalandaTheologicalEssay.Trans.M.NasebyandT.Rainborough.London:Burns&Oates.

Cullmann, Oscar. 1956. "The Tradition." In The Early Church, ed. A. J. B.Higgins,55-99.Philadelphia:Westminster.

Culpepper,R.Alan.2005. "Designs for theChurch in theGospelAccountsofJesus'Death."NewTestamentStudies51:376-92.

Dalferth, Ingolf U. 1994. Der auferweckte Gekreuzigte: Zur Grammatik derChristologie.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

Danielou,jean.1953."ReponseaOscarCullmann."DieuVivant24:105-16.

Davies,W.D.,andE.P.Sanders.1999."Jesus:FromtheJewishPointofView."InTheCambridgeHistoryofJudaism,ed.W.Horburyetal.Vol.3,TheEarly

RomanPeriod,618-77.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Davis,EllenF.,andRichardB.Hays,eds.2003.TheArtofReadingScripture.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

de Jonge, Marinus. 1988. Christology in Context: The Earliest ChristianResponsetoJesus.Philadelphia:Westminster.

de la Potterie, Ignace. 1988. "Interpretation of Holy Scripture in the Spirit inWhich ItWasWritten." In Vatican II: Assessment and Perspectives, ed. R.Latourelle,220-66.NewYork:PaulistPress.

Dias,PatrickV.1968.VielfaltderKircheinderVielfaltderJunger,ZeugenandDiener.OkumenischeForschungen1/2.Freiburg:Herder.

1974. Kirche in der Schrift and im 2. Jahrhundert. Handbuch derDogmengeschichte.Freiburg:Herder.

Dodd, C. H. 1936a. The Apostolic Preaching and Its Developments: ThreeLectureswith anAppendixonEschatologyandHistory.London:Hodder&Stoughton.

1936b. The Present Task in New Testament Studies: An Inaugural LectureDelivered in the Divinity School on Tuesday, 2 June, 1936. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Dreyfus, Francois. 1985. "Divine Condescendence (synkatabasis) as aHermeneutic Principle of the Old Testament in Jewish and ChristianTradition."Immanuel19:74-86.

Dunn, James D. G. 1988. Romans. 2 vols. Word Biblical Commentary 38A,38B.Dallas:Word.

1989.ChristologyintheMaking:ANewTestamentInquiryintotheOriginsoftheDoctrineoftheIncarnation.2nded.London:SCMPress.

2006.UnityandDiversityintheNewTestament:AnInquiryintotheCharacterofEarliestChristianity.3rded.London:SCMPress.

Evans, C. Stephen. 1999. "Methodological Naturalism in Historical BiblicalScholarship."InJesusandtheRestorationofIsrael:ACriticalAssessmentofN. T.Wright's Jesus and the Victory of God, ed. C. C. Newman, 180-205.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress.

FernandezMarcos,Natalio.2001.TheSeptuagintinContext:IntroductiontotheGreekVersionoftheBible.Trans.W.G.E.Watson.Leiden:Brill.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1979. "The Semitic Background of the New TestamentKyrios-Title." InAWanderingAramean:CollectedAramaicEssays,115-42.SocietyofBiblicalLiteratureMonographSeries25.Missoula,MT:ScholarsPress.

1982.AChristologicalCatechism:NewTestamentAnswers.NewYork:PaulistPress.

Florovsky, Georges. 1962. "The Concept of Creation in Athanasius." StudiaPatristica6:36-57.

Ford,DavidE1979."Earth'sInterpretationoftheBible."InKarlBarth:StudiesofHisTheologicalMethods,ed.S.W.Sykes,55-87.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Frey,Clemens.1993.ChristlicheWeltverantwortungbeiAlbertSchweitzer,mitVergleichen zu Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Albert Schweitzer Studien 4. Bern: PaulHaupt.

Frymer-Kensky, Tikva, et al. 2002. "Controversy: Jewish-Christian Dialogue:JonD.Levenson&Critics."Commentary113,no.4:8-21.

Geiselmann,JosefRupert.1962.DieHeiligeSchriftanddieTradition:Zudenneueren Kontroversen fiber das Verhdltnis der Heiligen Schri ft zu dennichtgeschriebenenTraditionen.QuaestionesDisputatae18.Freiburg:Herder.

Gilbert, Maurice. 2002. "Textes bibliques dont l'Eglise a defini le sens." InL'autoritedel'Ecriture,ed.J.-M.Poffet,71-94.LectioDivina.Paris:Cerf.

Gilbertson,Michael. 2003. God and History in the Book of Revelation: NewTestament Studies inDialoguewith Pannenberg andMoltmann. Society for

New Testament Studies Monograph Series 124. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.

Grasser,Erich.1979.AlbertSchweitzeralsTheologe.BeitragezurhistorischenTheologie60.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

1984. "Albert Schweitzer and Rudolf Bultmann: Ein Beitrag zur historischenJesusfrage." InRudolfBultmannsWerkandWirkung, ed.B. Jaspert, 53-69.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.

. 2003. "Das Paulusbild Albert Schweitzers." Zeitschrift fur Theologie andKirche100:187-98.

Griffiths,PaulJ.2003."OnDominusJesus:ComplementarityCanBeClaimed."InLearningfromOtherFaiths,ed.H.Haring,J.M.Soskice,andF.Wilfred,22-24.Concilium.London:SCMPress.

Guinot, jean-Noel, ed. 1980.Commentaire sur Isale.ByTheodoret,Bishop ofCyrrhus.Vol.1.Sourceschretiennes276.Paris:Cerf.

Guitton,jean.1992.PortraitduPereLagrange.Paris:RobertLaffont.

Gundry, Robert H. 2005. "Hermeneutic Liberty, Theological Diversity, andHistorical Occasionalism." In The Old Is Better: New Testament Essays inSupport of Traditional Interpretations, 1-17. WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzumNeuenTestament178.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

Gunkel, Hermann. 2006. Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and theEschaton:AReligio-HistoricalStudyofGenesis1andRevelation12.Trans.K.W.WhitneyJr.BiblicalResourceSeries.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Ginzler,Claus.1996.AlbertSchweitzer:EinfuhrunginseinDenken.Munich:C.H.Beck.

Gzella, Holger. 2002. Lebenszeit and Ewigkeit: Studien zur Eschatologie andAnthropologic des Septuaginta-Psalters. Bonner biblische Beitrage 134.Berlin:Philo.

Hanhart, Robert. 1984. "Die Bedeutung der Septuaginta in neutestamentlicher

Zeit."ZeitschriftfurTheologieandKirche81:395-416.

1999. Studien zur Septuaginta and zum hellenistischen Judentum. Ed. R. G.Kratz.ForschungenzumAltenTestament24.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

2002. "Introduction: Problems in the History of the LXX Text from ItsBeginningstoOrigen."InTheSeptuagintasChristianScripture:ItsPrehistoryand the Problem of Its Canon, ed. M. Hengel, trans. M. E. Biddle, 1-17.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

Harl,Marguerite,ed.1986-.LaBibled'Alexandrie.Paris:Cerf.

Harnack, Adolf von. 1908. TheMission and Expansion of Christianity in theFirstThreeCenturies.Trans.J.Moffatt.Reved.2vols.London:Williams&Norgate;NewYork:G.P.Putnam'sSons.

Harrington,DanielJ.1982.TheLightofAllNations:EssaysontheChurchinNewTestamentResearch.GoodNewsStudies3.Wilmington,DE:Glazier.

Harris, Harriet A., and Christopher J. Insole. 2005. "Verdicts on AnalyticalPhilosophyofReligion."InFaithandPhilosophicalAnalysis:TheImpactofAnalyticalPhilosophyonthePhilosophyofReligion,ed.H.A.HarrisandC.J.Insole,1-20.Aldershot:Ashgate.

Hauerwas,Stanley,andL.GregoryJones.1989."Introduction:WhyNarrative?"InWhyNarrative?ReadingsinNarrativeTheology,ed.S.HauerwasandL.G.Jones,1-18.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Hays,RichardB.1989.EchoesofScriptureintheLettersofPaul.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.

1996. The Moral Vision of the New Testament: Community, Cross, NewCreation; A Contemporary Introduction to New Testament Ethics. SanFrancisco:HarperSanFrancisco.

Hengel,Martin,ed.2002.TheSeptuagintasChristianScripture: ItsPrehistoryandtheProblemofItsCanon.Trans.M.E.Biddle.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

Henry, Carl F. H. 1990. "Canonical Theology: An Evangelical Appraisal."

ScottishBulletinofEvangelicalTheology8:76-108.

Heron,Alasdair I.C.1981."Homoousioswith theFather."InTheIncarnation,ed.T.F.Torrance.Edinburgh:HandselPress.

Hick,John,ed.1977.TheMythofGodIncarnate.Philadelphia:Westminster.

Horbury,William.1997. "Septuagintal andNewTestamentConceptionsof theChurch."InAVisionfortheChurch:StudiesinEarlyChristianEcclesiologyinHonourofJ.P.M.Sweet,ed.M.BockmuehlandM.B.Thompson,1-17.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

.2003.MessianismamongJewsandChristians:TwelveBiblicalandHistoricalStudies.London:T&TClark.

Hossfeld, Frank-Lothar, and Erich Zenger. 2005. Psalms 2: A Commentary.Trans.L.M.Maloney.Hermeneia.Minneapolis:Fortress.

Howell,WilburS.1961.LogicandRhetoricinEngland,1500-1700.NewYork:Russell&Russell.

Hubner, Hans. 1990. Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. 3 vols.Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

Hume,David.1962.ATreatiseofHumanNature:BeinganAttempttoIntroducethe Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects. Ed. D. G. C.Macnabb.London:Collins.

Jenson,RobertW.2006."OntheDoctrineofAtonement."CTIReflections9:1-13.

Jeremias,Joachim.1969.JerusalemintheTimeofJesus.Trans.F.H.CaveandC.H.Cave.3rded.London:SCMPress.

Jobes, Karen H. 2006. "The Septuagint Textual Tradition in 1 Peter." InSeptuagintResearch:IssuesandChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures, ed. W Kraus and R. G. Wooden, 299-322. Society of BiblicalLiterature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta: Society of BiblicalLiterature.

Jobes, Karen H., andMoises Silva. 2000. Invitation to the Septuagint. GrandRapids:BakerAcademic;Carlisle:Paternoster.

Jungel, Eberhard. 1989. "Response to Josef Blank." In Paradigm Change inTheology:ASymposiumfortheFuture,ed.H.KungandD.Tracy,297-304.NewYork:Crossroad.

Kasemann,Ernst.1951."BegrundetderneutestamentlicheKanondieEinheitderKirche?"EvangelischeTheologie11:13-21.

1960."AmtandGemeindeimNeuenTestament."InExegetischeVersucheandBesinnungen,vol.1,109-34.Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

1964. "The Canon of the New Testament and the Unity of the Church." InEssaysonNewTestamentThemes,95-107.Trans.W.J.Montague.StudiesinBiblicalTheology41.London:SCMPress.

1968.TheTestament of Jesus:AStudy of theGospel of John in theLight ofChapter17.Trans.G.Krodel.NewTestamentLibrary.London:SCMPress;Philadelphia:Fortress.

1969."UnityandMultiplicityintheNewTestamentDoctrineoftheChurch."InNew Testament Questions of Today, 252-59. Trans. W J. Montague. NewTestamentLibrary.London:SCMPress.

ed. 1970. Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dolzumentation and k ritischeAnalysezurgegenwartigenDiskussion.Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

1980.CommentaryonRomans.Trans.G.W.Bromiley.London:SCMPress.

1982.KirchlicheKonflikte.Vol.1.Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

1998. "Theologischer Ruckblick bei der akademischen Feier in der Aula derUniversitatTubingenam12.Juli1996ausAnlaIseines90.Ge-burtstages."Transparent52:8-14.

Kasper,Walter.1976.JesustheChrist.Trans.V.Green.London:Burns&Oates;NewYork:PaulistPress.

2006. "Mission of Bishops in theMystery of the Church: Reflections on theQuestionofOrdainingWomentoEpiscopalOfficeintheChurchofEngland."Address to the Church of England Bishops' Meeting, 5 June 2006.http://www.cofe.anglican.org/news/pr6006b.html.

Kelly,J.N.D.1978.EarlyChristianDoctrines.Reved.SanFrancisco:Harper&Row.

2006.EarlyChristianCreeds.3rded.London:Continuum.

Kelsey, David H. 1999. Proving Doctrine: The Uses of Scripture in ModernTheology.Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational.

Kierkegaard,Soren.1985.PhilosophicalFragments,JohannesClimacus.Ed.H.V.HongandE.H.Hong.Kierkegaard'sWritings7.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Kinzer, Mark. 2005. PostmissionaryMessianic Judaism: Redefining ChristianEngagementwiththeJewishPeople.GrandRapids:BrazosPress.

Kirchschlager,W.1995."DieEntwicklungvonKircheandKirchenstrukturzurneutestamentlichen Zeit." Aufstieg and Niedergang der romischen WeltI1.26.2:1277-1356.

Koch, Dietrich-Alex. 1986. Die Schrift als Zeuge des Evangeliums:UntersuchungenzurVerwendungandzumVerstdndnisderSchriftbeiPaulus.BeitragezurhistorischenTheologie69.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

Kraus,Wolfgang. 1995.DasVolkGottes: ZurGrundlegung der Ekklesiologiebei Paulus. Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament 85.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

Kraus,Wolfgang, andMartin Karrer, eds. Forthcoming. Septuaginta Deutsch.Stuttgart:DeutscheBibelgesellschaft.

Kuenzlen,Heiner.2005."DerHeiligeGeististeinPolemiker!ErnstKasemann."Offene Kirche (Wurttemberg) 4, no. 1: 9. http://www.offene-kirche.de/ ?select=2&sub=5.

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Kung, Hans. 1962. "Der Fruhkatholizismus im Neuen Testament als kontro-verstheologischesProblem."TheologischeOuartalschrift142:385-424.

1964. "Der Friihkatholizismus im Neuen Testament als kontroversthe-ologisches Problem." InKirche imKonzil, 125-55. 2nd ed. Herderbiicherei140.Freiburg:Herder.

Kuyper, Abraham. 1954. Principles of Sacred Theology. Grand Rapids:Eerdmans.

Lannert, Berthold. 1989. Die Wiederentdeckung der neutestamentlichenEschatologie durch Johannes Weiss. Texte and Arbeiten zumneutestamentlichenZeitalter2.Tubingen:Francke.

Lanser,SusanSnaider.1981.TheNarrativeAct:PointofViewinProseFiction.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Lash,Nicholas.1986."Performing theScriptures." InTheologyon theWay toEmmaus,37-46.London:SCMPress.

Leibniz,GottfriedWilhelm. 1989. "OnContingency." InPhilosophicalEssays,ed.R.AriewandD.Garber,28-30.Indianapolis:Hackett.

Lessing,GottholdEphraim.1956.Lessing'sTheologicalWritings:SelectionsinTranslation.Ed.H.Chadwick.LibraryofModernReligiousThought.London:A&CBlack.

Levenson, JonD. 1993.TheHebrewBible, theOldTestament, andHistoricalCriticism: Jews and Christians in Biblical Studies. Louisville:Westminster/JohnKnox.

2001."HowNottoConductJewish-ChristianDialogue."Commentary112,no.12:31-37.

2004."TheAgendaofDabruEmet."ReviewofRabbinicJudaism7:1-26.

Lienhard,JosephT.1995.TheBible,theChurch,andAuthority:TheCanonofthe Christian Bible in History and Theology. Collegeville, MN: LiturgicalPress.

Lindbeck,GeorgeA.1984.TheNatureofDoctrine:ReligionandTheologyinaPostliberalAge.Philadelphia:Westminster.

2003. "The Church as Israel: Ecclesiology and Ecumenism." In Jews andChristians:PeopleofGod,ed.C.E.BraatenandR.W.Jenson,78-94.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Lohfink,Gerhard.1999.DoesGodNeedtheChurch'TowardaTheologyofthePeopleofGod.Trans.L.M.Maloney.Collegeville,MN:LiturgicalPress.

Loisy, Alfred. 1908. The Gospel and the Church. Trans. C. Home. London:Pitman.

Lowe, Malcolm. 2000. "The Critical and the Skeptical Methods in NewTestamentResearch."Gregorianum81:692-721.

Maclntyre, Alasdair C. 1981. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress.

1988.WhoseJustice?WhichRationality?NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress.

Malcher, Ingo.2003."FolterknechtmitHangzurheiligenMesse:PedroDuranSaenz soll wahrend Argentiniens Diktatur die deutsche Studentin ElisabethKasemannumgebrachthaben."DieTageszeitung,9October2003,13.http://www.taz.de/index.php?id=archivseite&ressort=me&dig=2003/10/09/a0156.

Marshall,BruceD.2001."Israel:DoChristiansWorshiptheGodofIsrael?"InKnowing the Triune God: The Work of the Spirit in the Practices of theChurch,ed.J.J.BuckleyandD.S.Yeago,231-64.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Marshall, I.Howard,KevinJ.Vanhoozer,andStanleyE.Porter.2004.BeyondtheBible:Moving fromScripture toTheology.AcadiaStudies inBible andTheology.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic;MiltonKeynes:Paternoster.

Martens, Elmer A. 2005. "Moving from Scripture to Doctrine." Bulletin forBiblicalResearch15:77-103.

Matlock,R.Barry.1996.UnveilingtheApocalypticPaul:Paul'sInterpretersandthe Rhetoric of Criticism. Journal for the Study of the New Testament:SupplementSeries127.Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress.

McClendon, James W, and James M. Smith. 1975. Understanding ReligiousConvictions.NotreDame,IN:UniversityofNotreDamePress.

McCormack, Bruce L. 1995. Karl Barth's Critically Realistic DialecticalTheology: Its Genesis and Development, 1909-1936. Oxford: ClarendonPress;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

McDonald, James I. H. 1980. Kerygma and Didache: The Articulation andStructure of the Earliest Christian Message. Society for New TestamentStudiesMonographSeries37.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

McDonald,LeeMartin,andJamesA.Sanders.2002.TheCanonDebate:OntheOriginsandFormationoftheBible.Peabody,MA:Hendrickson.

McGovern,ThomasJ.1999."TheInterpretationofScripture`intheSpirit.IrishTheologicalQuarterly64:245-60.

Meeks,Wayne A. 1972. "TheMan fromHeaven in Johannine Sectarianism."JournalofBiblicalLiterature91:44-72.

Meier, John P. 2001. "Jesus, the Twelve, and the Restoration of Israel." InRestoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives, ed. J. M.Scott, 365-404. Journal for the Study of Judaism: Supplement Series 72.Leiden:Brill.

Menken,MaartenJ.J.1988."DieFormdesZitatesausJes6,10injob12,40:EinBeitrag zumSchriftgebrauchdesviertenEvangelisten."BiblischeZeitschrift32:189-209.

.2004.Matthew'sBible:TheOldTestamentTextoftheEvangelist.BibliothecaEphemeridumTheologicarumLovaniensium173.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.

Metzger, BruceM. 1981.Manuscripts of theGreekBible:An Introduction toGreekPalaeography.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Mildenberger, Friedrich. 1991-1993. Biblische Dogmatik: Fine biblischeTheologieindogmatischerPerspektive.3vols.Stuttgart:Kohlhammer.

Millhauser,Steven.1997.MartinDressler:TheTaleof anAmericanDreamer.NewYork:VintageBooks.

Minear,PaulS.1960.ImagesoftheChurchintheNewTestament.Philadelphia:Westminster.

Moberly, R. W. L. 2006. Prophecy and Discernment. Cambridge Studies inChristianDoctrine.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Montagnes, Bernard. 2006. The Story of Father Marie-Joseph Lagrange:Founder ofModern Catholic Bible Study. Trans. B. Viviano. American ed.NewYork:PaulistPress.

Moule, C. F. D. 1959. An Idiom Book of New Testament Greek. 2nd ed.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Muis,Jan.1999."SprichtGottinderheiligenSchrift?DogmatischeAnalysederdreifachenGestaltdesWortesGottes."Zeitschrift furdialektischeTheologie15:131-54.

2000."DieRedevonGottanddasRedenGottes:EineWiirdigungderLehrederdreifachenGestaltdesWortesGottes."Zeitschrift furdialektischeTheologie16:59-70.

Muller,Mogens.1996.TheFirstBibleoftheChurch:APleafortheSeptuagint.JournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestament:SupplementSeries206.Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress.

Neuhaus,RichardJohn,ed.1989.BiblicalInterpretationinCrisis:TheRatzingerConferenceonBibleandChurch.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Newman, John Henry. 1903. "Private judgment on Scripture." In SelectedTreatises of St. Athanasius in Controversy with the Arians, vol. 2, 247-49.

London:Longmans,Green.

Noll, Mark A., and Carolyn Nystrom. 2005. Is the Reformation Over? AnEvangelicalAssessmentofContemporaryRomanCatholicism.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

O'Donovan,Oliver.2005.TheWaysofJudgment:TheBamptonLectures,2003.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

O'Keefe,JohnJ.,andRussellR.Reno.2005.SanctifiedVision:AnIntroductionto Early Christian Interpretation of the Bible. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversityPress.

Ollenburger, Ben C. 2006. "Pursuing the Truth of Scripture: Reflections onWolterstorff's Divine Discourse." In But Is It All True? The Bible and theQuestionofTruth,ed.A.G.PadgettandP.R.Keifert,44-65.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Pannenberg,Wolfhart.1977.Jesus,GodandMan.Trans.L.L.WilkinsandD.A.Priebe.2nded.Philadelphia:Westminster.

Pao,DavidW.2002.Actsand the IsaianicNewExodus.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

Parris,Matthew2007."ShoutYourDoubtOutLoud,MyFellowUnbelievers."TheTimes,21April2007,19.

Pelikan,Jaroslav.1971.TheChristianTradition:AHistoryoftheDevelopmentof Doctrine. Vol. 1, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.

Peterson,EugeneH.2005.ChristPlaysinTenThousandPlaces:AConversationinSpiritualTheology.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Pietersma, Albert. 2006. "Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and Limits(The Psalter as a Case in Point)." In Septuagint Research: Issues andChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures,ed.W.KrausandR.G. Wooden, 33-45. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint and CognateStudies53.Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature.

Pietersma, Albert, and Benjamin G. Wright, eds. 2007. A New EnglishTranslationoftheSeptuagint.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Pincoffs, Edmund L. 1986. Quandaries and Virtues: Against Reductivism inEthics.Lawrence:UniversityPressofKansas.

Plantinga, Alvin. 2000. Warranted Christian Belief. New York: OxfordUniversityPress.

Pleitner,Henning.1992.DasEndederliberalenHermeneutikamBeispielAlbertSchweitzers. Texte and Arbeiten zum neutestamentlichen Zeitalter 5.Tiibingen:Francke.

Pontifical Biblical Commission. 2001. L'interpretazione della Bibbia nellaChiesa:AttidelSimposiopromossodallaCongregazioneperladottrinadellafede; Roma, settembre 1999. Atti e documenti 11. Vatican City: Libreriaeditricevaticana.

2002. The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible.VaticanDocuments.VaticanCity:Libreriaeditricevaticana.

Pratt,MaryLouise.1977.TowardaSpeechActTheoryofLiteraryDiscourse.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Radner,Ephraim.2004.HopeamongtheFragments:TheBrokenChurchandItsEngagementofScripture.GrandRapids:BrazosPress.

Rae, Murray. 1997. Kierkegaard's Vision of the Incarnation: By FaithTransformed.Oxford:ClarendonPress;NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

2007. "Texts in Context: Scripture and the Divine Economy." Journal ofTheologicalInterpretation1:1-21.

Rahner, Karl, and Joseph Ratzinger [Benedict XVI]. 1966. Revelation andTradition.Trans.W.J.O'Hara.Quaestionesdisputatae17.NewYork:HerderandHerder.

Raisanen, Heikki. 1990. Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and aProgramme.London:SCMPress;Philadelphia:TrinityPressInternational.

2000. Beyond New Testament Theology: A Story and a Programme. 2nd ed.London:SCMPress.

Ratzinger, Joseph [Benedict XVI]. 1998. Milestones: Memoirs, 1927-1977.Trans.E.Leiva-Merikakis.SanFrancisco:IgnatiusPress.

Rausch,ThomasP.1988."UnityandDiversityinNewTestamentEcclesiology:Twenty-FiveYearsafterKasemannandBrown." IrishTheologicalQuarterly54:131-39.

Reicke, Bo Ivar. 1946. The Jewish "Damascus Documents" and the NewTestament.SymbolaeBiblicaeUpsalienses6.Uppsala:Wretmans.

Reno,RussellR.2002.IntheRuinsoftheChurch:SustainingFaithinanAgeofDiminishedChristianity.GrandRapids:BrazosPress.

Ricceur, Paul. 1974. The Conflict of Interpretations. Northwestern UniversityStudies in Phenomenology & Existential Philosophy. Evanston, IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress.

1976.InterpretationTheory:DiscourseandtheSurplusofMeaning.FortWorth:TexasChristianUniversityPress.

1977."TowardaHermeneuticof the IdeaofRevelation."HarvardTheologicalReview70:1-37.

1980.EssaysonBiblicalInterpretation.Ed.L.S.Mudge.Philadelphia:Fortress.

1995. Figuring the Sacred: Religion, Narrative, and Imagination. Ed. M. I.Wallace.Trans.D.Pellauer.Minneapolis:AugsburgFortress.

Rodger, Patrick Campbell, and Lucas Vischer, eds. 1964. The Fourth WorldConference on Faith and Order:Montreal 1963. Faith and Order Paper 42.London:SCMPress.

Rosel,Martin. 2006. "Towards a `Theology of the Septuagint."' In SeptuagintResearch:IssuesandChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures,ed. W. Kraus and R. G. Wooden, 239-52. Society of Biblical LiteratureSeptuagintandCognateStudies53.Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature.

Rossler, Andreas. 1990. "Albert Schweitzer and das freie Christentum." InAlbertSchweitzerheute:Brennpunkte seinesDenkens, ed.C.Gunzler, 227-64.BeitragezurAlbert-Schweitzer-Forschung1.Tubingen:Katzmann.

Ryken, Leland. 2005. "Literary Criticism." In Dictionary for TheologicalInterpretationof theBible, ed.KevinJ.Vanhoozer,457-60.London:SPCK;GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

Ryle,Gilbert.1949.TheConceptofMind.London:Hutchinson.

Sanders,JamesA.1972.TorahandCanon.Philadelphia:Fortress.

1984. Canon and Community: A Guide to Canonical Criticism. Guides toBiblicalScholarship.Philadelphia:Fortress.

1987. From Sacred Story to Sacred Text: Canon as Paradigm. Philadelphia:Fortress.

Schaper, Joachim. 1995. Eschatology in the Greek Psalter. WissenschaftlicheUntersuchungenzumNeuenTestament2/76.Tubingen:MohrSiebeck.

2006. "Messianic Intertextuality in the Greek Bible." In The Septuagint andMessianism, ed. M. A. Knibb, 371-80. Bibliotheca EphemeridumTheologicarumLovaniensium195.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.

Schenker, Adrian, ed. 2003. The Earliest Text of the Hebrew Bible: TheRelationship between the Masoretic Text and the Hebrew Base of theSeptuagint Reconsidered. Society of Biblical Literature Septuagint andCognateStudies52.Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature.

Schnackenburg,Rudolf.1961.DieKirche imNeuenTestament: IhreWirklich-keit and theologische Deutung, ihr Wesen and Geheimnis. Quaestionesdisputatae14.Freiburg:Herder.

1965.TheChurchintheNewTestament.Trans.W.J.O'Hara.NewYork:HerderandHerder.

Schulik,Ulrich. 1990. "ZwischenEschatologie andEthik:Aspekte derReich-Gottes-Vorstellung Albert Schweitzers." In Albert Schweitzer heute:

Brennpunkte seines Denkens, ed. C. Gunzler, 265-78. Beitrage zurAlbertSchweitzer-Forschung1.Tubingen:Katzmann.

Schunack, G. 1992. "Soxtp&~w." Exegetisches Worterbuch zum NeuenTestament1:825-29.

Schweitzer,Albert.1901.DasMessianitiits-andLeidensgeheimnis:EineSkizzedesLebensJesu.Tubingen:Mohr.

1906. Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Fine Geschichte der Leben-JesuForschung.Tubingen:Mohr.

1913. Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung: Zweite, neu bearbeitete andvermehrteAuflagedesWerkes"VonReimaruszuWrede."Tubingen:Mohr.

1914.TheMysteryof theKingdomofGod:TheSecretofJesus'MessiahshipandPassion.Trans.WLowrie.London:A&CBlack.

1930.DieMystikdesApostelsPaulus.Tubingen:Mohr.

.1933.OutofMyLifeandThought:AnAutobiography.Trans.C.T.Campion.NewYork:Holt.

1951. Christianity and the Religions of the World: Lectures Delivered at theSelly Oak Colleges, Birmingham, February 1922. Trans. J. Powers. NewYork:Macmillan.

1955.TheMysticismofPaul theApostle.Trans.W.Montgomery.NewYork:Macmillan.

1973.AusgewahlteWerkeinfunfBanden.Ed.R.Grabs.2nded.5vols.Berlin:Union-Verlag.

1987.Leben,WerkandDenken,1905-1965:MitgeteiltinsemenBriefen.Ed.H.W.Bahr.Heidelberg:L.Schneider.

1988.GesprachefiberdasNeueTestament.Ed.W.Dobertin.Munich:Bechtle.

1995.ReichGottesandChristentum.Ed.U.Luz,U.Neuenschwander,andJ.Zi

rcher.WerkeausdemNachlaI.Munich:C.H.Beck.

2000.TheQuestoftheHistoricalJesus.Ed.J.Bowden.Trans.W.Montgomeryetal.1stcompleteed.London:SCMPress.

2001.Predigten,1898-1948.Ed.R.BrullmannandE.Grasser.WerkeausdemNachlaI.Munich:C.H.Beck.

2003.Vortrage,Vorlesungen,Aufsatze.Ed.C.Ginzler,U.Luz,andJ.Zircher.WerkeausdemNachlaI.Munich:C.H.Beck.

Schweitzer,Albert,andHeleneBresslau.1992.DieJahrevorLambarene:Briefe1902-1912.Ed.R.SchweitzerMillerandG.Woytt.Munich:C.H.Beck.

Seitz,ChristopherR.2001. "TwoTestamentsand theFailureofOneTraditionHistory."InFiguredOut:TypologyandProvidenceinChristianScripture,35-47.Louisville:Westminster/JohnKnox.

2006."TheCanonicalApproachandTheologicalInterpretation."InCanonandBiblical Interpretation, ed. C. G. Bartholomew, 58-110. Scripture andHermeneuticsSeries7.GrandRapids:Zondervan.

Shapland,C.R.B., ed. 1951.TheLetters ofSaintAthanasiusConcerning theHolySpirit.NewYork:PhilosophicalLibrary.

Silva,Moises.2001."TheGreekPsalter inPaul'sLetters:ATextualStudy."InTheOldGreek Psalter: Studies inHonour ofAlbert Pietersma, ed.R. J.V.Hiebert,C.E.Cox,andP.J.Gentry,277-88.JournalfortheStudyoftheOldTestament:SupplementSeries332.Sheffield:SheffieldAcademicPress.

Smith, D. Moody. 1999. John. Abingdon New Testament Commentaries.Nashville:Abingdon.

Soding, Thomas. 2006. "Der biblische Kanon." Zeitschrift fur katholischeTheologie128:407-30.

Soulen,R.Kendall.2003."HallowedBeThyName!TheTetragrammatonandtheName of the Trinity." In Jews andChristians: People ofGod, ed.C. E.BraatenandR.W.Jenson,14-40.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Sternberg,Meir.1985.ThePoeticsofBiblicalNarrative:IdeologicalLiteratureandtheDramaofReading.Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress.

Sutherland,StewartR.1989."TheConceptofRevelation."InReligion,ReasonandtheSelf.EssaysinHonourofHywelD.Lewis,ed.S.R.SutherlandandT.A.Roberts,35-45.Cardiff,UK:UniversityofWalesPress.

Swete, Henry Barclay. 1900. An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Swetnam,James.1981."JesusasLogosinHeb4:12-13."Biblica62:214-24.

Sykes, Stephen W. 1979. "Barth on the Centre of Theology." In Karl Barth:Studies of His Theological Methods, ed. S. W. Sykes, 17-54. Oxford:ClarendonPress.

Thiering,Barbara.1981."MebaqqerandEpiskopos in theLightof theTempleScroll."JournalofBiblicalLiterature100:59-74.

Thiselton,AnthonyC.1980.TheTwoHorizons:NewTestamentHermeneuticsand Philosophical Description with Special Reference to Heidegger,Bultmann,Gadamer,andWittgenstein.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Tilley,TerrenceW.2000.TheEvilsofTheodicy.Eugene,OR:Wipf&Stock.

Torrance, T. E 1975. "Athanasius: A Study in the Foundations of ClassicalTheology." In Theology in Reconciliation: Essays Towards Evangelical andCatholicUnityinEastandWest,215-66.London:Chapman.

Tov, Emanuel. 2005. "The Evaluation of the Greek Scripture Translations inRabbinic Sources." In Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX andEzekiel inHonour of JohanLust, ed. F.GarciaMartinez andM.Vervenne,385-99. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 192.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.

Treier, Daniel J. 2006. Virtue and the Voice of God: Toward Theology asWisdom.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Tuckett, Christopher M. 2007. Review of Moving Beyond New Testament

Theology?EssaysinConversationwithHeikkiRdisdnen,ed.T.PennerandC.Vander Stichele. Review of Biblical Literature 01. http://bookreviews.org/pdf/5287-5567.pdf.

Ulrich,EugeneC.1992."TheCanonicalProcess,TextualCriticism,andLatterStages in theComposition of theBible." In Sha'areiTalmon: Studies in theBible,Qumran,andtheAncientNearEastPresentedtoShemaryahuTalmon,ed.M.FishbaneandE.Tov,267-91.WinonaLake,IN:Eisenbrauns.

.1999.TheDeadSeaScrollsandtheOriginsoftheBible.StudiesintheDeadSeaScrollsandRelatedLiterature.GrandRapids:Eerdmans;Leiden:Brill.

Ulrichs, Karl Friedrich. 2001. "Kasemann, Ernst." Biographisch-Bibliograph-ischesKirchenlexikon18:775-78.http://bbkl.de/k/kaesemann_e.shtml.

vanderKooij,Arie.1997."ZurTheologiedesJesajabuchesinderSeptuaginta."In Theologische Probleme der Septuaginta and der hellenistischenHermeneutik, ed. H. G. Reventlow, 9-25. Veroffentlichungen der Wissen-schaftlichen Gesellschaft fur Theologie 11. Gi tersloh: Chr. Kaiser, Gi ter-sloherVerlagshaus.

Vanhoozer, Kevin J. 2002. First Theology: God, Scripture and Hermeneutics.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress;Leicester:Apollos.

ed. 2005a. Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible. London:SPCK;GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

.2005b.TheDramaofDoctrine:ACanonical-LinguisticApproachtoChristianTheology.Louisville:Westminster/JohnKnox.

Viviano,Benedict T. 2007.Matthew andHisWorld: TheGospel of theOpenJewishChristians;StudiesinBiblicalTheology.NovumTestamentumetOrbisAntiquus61.Fribourg:AcademicPress;Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

von Balthasar, Hans Urs. 1986. Prayer. Trans. G. Harrison. San Francisco:IgnatiusPress.

Wagner,J.Ross.2002.HeraldsoftheGoodNews:IsaiahandPaul"inConcert"in the Letter to the Romans. Supplements to Novum Testamentum 101.

Leiden:Brill.

2007."Identifying`Updated'PropheciesinOldGreek(OG)Isaiah:Isaiah8:11-16asaTestCase."JournalofBiblicalLiterature126:251-69.

Wannenwetsch,Bernd.1998."`IntrinsicallyEvilActs';or:WhyEuthanasiaandAbortionCannotBeJustified."InEcumenicalVenturesinEthics:ProtestantsEngage Pope John Paul II'sMoral Encyclicals, ed. R.Hatter and T.Dieter,185-215.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

2000. "Plurale Sinnlichkeit: Glaubenswahrnehmung im Zeitalter vir- tuellerRealitat." Neue Zeitschrift fur systematische Theologie and Reli-gionsphilosophie42:299-315.

2002. "Members of One Another: Charis, Ministry and Representation; APolitico-EcclesialReadingofRomans12."InARoyalPriesthood?TheUseoftheBibleEthicallyandPolitically;ADialoguewithOliverO'Donovan,ed.C.G.Bartholomewetal.196-220.ScriptureandHermeneuticsSeries3.GrandRapids:Zondervan.

2004. Political Worship: Ethics for Christian Citizens. Oxford Studies inTheologicalEthics.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

2005."`ResponsibleLiving'or`ResponsibleSelf'?BonhoefferianReflectionsonaVexedMoralNotion."StudiesinChristianEthics18:125-40.

Forthcoming. "Die ethische Dimension der Liturgie." In Neues Handbuch derLiturgiewissenschaft.Ed.R.Messneretal.Regensburg:Pustet.

Watson, Francis. 1997. Text and Truth: Redefining Biblical Theology. GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

2006."Authors,Readers,Hermeneutics."InReadingScripturewiththeChurch:TowardaHermeneuticforTheologicalInterpretation,ed.A.K.M.Adametal.,119-24.GrandRapids:BakerAcademic.

Weaver,Walter P. 1999.TheHistorical Jesus in theTwentiethCentury: 1900-1950.Harrisburg,PA:TrinityPressInternational.

Webb, William J. 2001. Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring theHermeneuticsofCulturalAnalysis.DownersGrove,IL:InterVarsityPress.

Webster, John. 2001. "The Dogmatic Location of the Canon." In Word andChurch:EssaysinChristianDogmatics,9-46.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

2003. Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch. Current Issues in Theology 1.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

. 2007. "Resurrection and Scripture." In Christology and Scripture:Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. A. T. Lincoln and A. Paddison, 138-55.LibraryofNewTestamentStudies348.London:T&TClark.

Werner, Martin. 1941. Die Entstehung des christlichen Dogmas: Problem-geschichtlichdargestellt.BernandLeipzig:PaulHaupt.

1957.TheFormationofChristianDogma:AnHistoricalStudyof ItsProblem.Trans.S.G.F.Brandon.London:A&CBlack.

Westcott,BrookeFoss.1895.AnIntroduction to theStudyof theGospels.8thed.LondonandNewYork:Macmillan.

Wigoder,Geoffrey,ed.1988.Jewish-ChristianRelationsSincetheSecondWorldWar. Sherman Studies of Judaism in Modern Times. Manchester, UK:ManchesterUniversityPress.

Wilk,Florian. 1998.DieBedeutungdes Jesajabuches furPaulus.ForschungenzurReligion andLiteratur desAlten andNeuenTestaments 179.Gottingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.

2006. "The Letters of Paul as Witnesses to and for the Septuagint Text." InSeptuagintResearch:IssuesandChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures, ed. W. Kraus and R. G. Wooden, 253-71. Society of BiblicalLiterature Septuagint and Cognate Studies 53. Atlanta: Society of BiblicalLiterature.

Wilken, Robert L. 1997. "In Dominico Eloquio: Learning the Lord's Style ofLanguage."Communio24:846-66.

Williams,Rowan.1979a."BarthontheTriuneGod."InKarlBarth:StudiesofHisTheologicalMethods,ed.S.W.Sykes,147-93.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

.1979b. The Wound of Knowledge: Christian Spirituality from the NewTestamenttoSt.JohnoftheCross.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

.1980."TheViaNegativaandtheFoundationsofTheology:AnIntroductiontotheThoughtofV.N.Lossky."InNewStudiesinTheology1,ed.S.W.SykesandD.Holmes,95-118.London:Duckworth.

.1982.Resurrection:InterpretingtheEasterGospel.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

. 1983. "What Is Catholic Orthodoxy?" In Essays Catholic and Radical: AJubileeGroupSymposiumforthe150thAnniversaryoftheBeginningof theOxfordMovement1833-1983,ed.R.WilliamsandK.Leech,11-25.London:BowerdeanPress.

.1987.Arius:HeresyandTradition.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

. 1988. "The Suspicion of Suspicion: Wittgenstein and Bonhoeffer." In TheGrammaroftheHeart:NewEssaysinMoralPhilosophyandTheology,ed.R.H.Bell,36-53.SanFrancisco:Harper&Row.

1989a. "Does It Make Sense to Speak of Pre-Nicene Orthodoxy?" In TheMakingofOrthodoxy:EssaysinHonourofHenryChadwick,ed.R.Williams,1-23.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

1989b. "Language,Reality andDesire inAugustine'sDeDoctrina."LiteratureandTheology3:138-50.

1991."TheLiteralSenseofScripture."ModernTheology7:121-34.

1993."DoctrinalCriticism:SomeQuestions."InTheMakingandRemakingofChristianDoctrine:EssaysinHonourofMauriceWiles,ed.S.CoakleyandD.A.Pailin,239-64.Oxford:ClarendonPress.

1995a. "Reading theBible." InARay ofDarkness: Sermons andReflections,134-37.Cambridge:CowleyPublications.

1995b."TheologyandtheChurches."InMichaelRamseyasTheologian,ed.R.GillandL.Kendall,9-28.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

2000a. "Beginning with the Incarnation." In On Christian Theology, 79-92.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000b. "Between theCherubim:TheEmptyTomband theEmptyThrone." InOn Christian Theology, 183-96. Challenges in Contemporary Theology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000c. "The Discipline of Scripture." In On Christian Theology, 44-58.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000d. "The Judgement of the World." In On Christian Theology, 29-43.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000e.LostIcons:ReflectionsonCulturalBereavement.Edinburgh:T&TClark.

2000f. "The Nature of a Sacrament." In On Christian Theology, 197-208.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000g.OnChristianTheology.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000h. "Theological Integrity." InOnChristianTheology, 3-15.Challenges inContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000i."TrinityandPluralism."InOnChristianTheology,167-80.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000j."TrinityandRevelation."InOnChristianTheology,131-47.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2000k. "The Unity of Christian Truth." In On Christian Theology, 16-28.ChallengesinContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

20001. "Word and Spirit." In On Christian Theology, 107-27. Challenges inContemporaryTheology.Oxford:Blackwell.

2001a."AHistoryofFaithinJesus."InTheCambridgeCompaniontoJesus,ed.M.Bockmuehl,220-36.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

2001b. "The Unity of the Church and the Unity of the Bible: An Analogy."InternationalekirchlicheZeitschrift91:5-21.

2003a. The Dwelling of the Light: Praying with Icons of Christ. Norwich:CanterburyPress.

2003b. "Historical Criticism and Sacred Text." In Reading Texts, SeekingWisdom: Scripture and Theology, ed. G. Stanton and D. F. Ford, 216-28.London:SCMPress.

2004.AnglicanIdentities.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

2005a.GraceandNecessity:ReflectionsonArtandLove.ClarkLectures2005.Harrisburg,PA:Morehouse.

2005b.WhyStudythePast?TheQuestfortheHistoricalChurch.GrandRapids:Eerdmans;London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

2007. "The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing." Archbishop's Larkin StuartLecture, Toronto, 16 April 2007. http://www.archbishopofcailterbury.org/sermons-speeches/070416.htm.

Willitts, Joel. 2007a.Matthew'sMessianic Shepherd-King: In Search of "TheLost Sheep of the House of Israel." Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir dieneutestamentlicheWissenschaft147.Berlin:deGruyter.

.2007b."Matthew'sMessianicShepherd-King:InSearchof`theLostSheepoftheHouseofIsrael."'HTSTheologicalStudies63:365-82.

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1974. Philosophical Investigations. Trans. G. E. M.Anscombe.Oxford:Blackwell.

2001. On Certainty. Ed. G. E. M. Anscombe and G. H. von Wright. SanFranciscoandLondon:HarperCollins.

Wolterstorff,Nicholas.2004."TheUnityBehind theCanon." InOneScripture

orMany?Canon fromBiblical,Theological andPhilosophical Perspectives,ed.C.HelmerandC.Landmesser,217-32.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

.2006."TrueWords."InButIsItAllTrue?TheBibleandtheQuestionofTruth,ed.A.G.PadgettandP.R.Keifert,34-43.GrandRapids:Eerdmans.

Wright,N.T.2005.ScriptureandtheAuthorityofGod.London:SPCK.

Wytzes, Jelle. 1957. "TheTwofoldWay I: Platonic Influences in theWork ofClementofAlexandria."VigiliaeChristianae11:226-45.

1960. "The Twofold Way II: Platonic Influences in the Work of Clement ofAlexandria."VigiliaeChristianae14:129-53.

Young,FrancesM.1990.TheArtofPerformance:TowardsaTheologyofHolyScripture.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.

Ziegler, Joseph, ed. 1975. Eusebius Werke IX: Der Jesajakommentar. Berlin:Akademie-Verlag.

Zizioulas, loannis. 2001. "Uniformity,Diversity and theUnityof theChurch."InternationaleKirchlicheZeitschrift91:44-59.

ScriptureIndex

SubjectIndex

1.Studies inTheological Interpretation(BakerAcademic,2006-);JournalofTheological Interpretation (2007-); Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed., Dictionary forTheological Interpretation of the Bible (London: SPK; Grand Rapids: BakerAcademic,2005);BrazosTheologicalCommentaryontheBible(BrazosPress,2005-);TheTwoHorizonsNewTestamentCommentary(Eerdmans,2005-).

2.See,forexample,Radner2004;Reno2002.

3. For an analysis of the aporetic state of New Testament studies andsuggestionsforthepossiblerecoveryofacommonconversation,seeBockmuehl2006.

1. In this essay the term Old Greek is reserved for the putative originaltranslationofaparticularbook.ThetermSeptuagintisemployedintwoways:first,torefertothebroadstreamoftransmissionoftheOldGreektext,includingefforts to revise theOldGreek to bring it into closer conformity to aHebrewexemplar; second, to refer more generally to the books that are eventuallycollected(thoughneverinasinglestandardizedform)astheGreekBible.

2.Childs1992:63.

3. Childs 2004:313. A case in point is the sharp disagreement betweenAugustineandJeromeoverthelatter'sdecisiontobasehisLatintranslationonaHebrewtextratherthanontheSeptuagint.Yetevenashevigorouslydefendedthe Septuagint as inspired Scripture, Augustine (De civitate Dei 18.42-44)continued toaffirmtheauthorityof theHebrewtext.AndJerome,forhispart,when commenting on Isaiah, interprets the Septuagint alongside the Hebrew.(On Jerome's theologically sophisticated handling of the important differencesbetweentheMasoreticTextandtheSeptuagintatIsa.6:9-10,seeChilds2004:94.)

6. I offermy sincere thanks to themembers of the jointBiblical/SystematicTheologySeminarattheUniversityofSt.Andrews,andespeciallytoProfessorMarkusBockmuehlandtomyrespondents,DanielDriverandDavidLincicum,for stimulating discussion that has pressed me to sharpen my thinking at anumberofpoints.However,muchasImightwishtoshifttheblame,Ialoneamresponsibleforanydeficienciesthatremainintheargumentthatfollows.

7.Seitz2001:90-96.

4.Childs1992:67-68(italicsinoriginal).

5.Hubner1990:1.62.

8.SeeSwete1900:197-230.

9.SeefurtherHanhart1984(reprintedinHanhart1999:194-213);2002.

10. Evidence for a "Hesychian" recension continues to be debated. On thehistory of the origin and transmission of the Greek versions, see FernandezMarcos2001.

11. See, for example, for Paul, Koch 1986; for 1 Peter, Jobes 2006; forMatthew,Menken2004.

12.Forexample,Isa.6:10inJohn12:39-41;cf.Mark8:17-21;Rom.11:7-8.SeethedetailedtreatmentofthesetextsinMenken1988;Wagner2002:246-51.

13.At the same time, thedegreeof fluidity in theGreek text shouldnotbeexaggerated. Paul's citations from Psalms, and to a lesser extent those fromIsaiah,attestthecontinuingsurvivalinthemiddleofthefirstcenturyofwhatisessentiallytheOldGreektextofthesebooks.SeeSilva2001;onthetextofOldGreekIsaiahinPaul,seeWilk2006;cf.Wagner2002:24n86.

14.SeeHanhart2002:5-9.

15.TheLetterofAristeasmayplausiblyberead,atleastinpart,asadefenseof"theSeptuagint"againstthosereviserswhosoughttoconformthetranslationmorecloselytoaprotoMasoreticformofthetext(Muller1996:46-58).Philo'saccountofthetranslationportraysthetranslatorsasinspiredprophets.OnPhiloandonlaterelaborationsofthemiraculousnatureofthetranslation,seeMuller1996:61-64,68-97.

16. Hanhart 2002: 5. According to Emanuel Tov (2005: 385), increasingdiscomfortwith theSeptuagint in rabbinic circles stemmed from"thegrowingrecognitionthatthecontentoftheSeptuagintversiondifferedfromtheHebrew

textthatwasinuseinPalestineinthelastcenturiesBCEandthefirstcenturiesCE."Rabbinicsourcesevincepositiveattitudes towardtheSeptuagint(e.g.,m.Megillah 1:8,whereGreek is said to be the only other language inwhich theTorahmaybewritten;b.Megillah9a,whichpresentsthetranslatorsasinfusedwithdivinewisdom)togetherwithcriticismsofthetranslators'divergencesfromtheHebrewtext(b.Megillah9a-b).AsMartinHengel(2002:44)observes,theharshestpolemicsappearratherlate(Soferim1:6-7;SeferTorah1:8;MegillatTaanitBatra21).

17.SeeHengel2002:108(contraKoch1986:81);cf.Wagner2002:22n82.

18."ThechurchfatherspresumedtheauthorityoftheSeptuagint,buttheydidnot confuse authority with clarity. Some Greek words posed problems, andrecourse to the Hebrew held out hope of shedding light on difficult words"(O'KeefeandReno2005:50).

19.Forexample,atIsa.8:15TheodoretadducesthereadingsofSymmachusand Aquila in order to clarify the meaning of the Septuagint (Theodoret,CommentaryonIsaiahonIsa.8:15[=Guinot1980:310]).

20. See, for example, Eusebius's comments on Isa. 8:11-13 (Eusebius,CommentaryonIsaiahonIsa.8:11-13[=Ziegler1975:58]).

21.SeeSwete1900:39-40n4;Metzger1981:33-35.

22. Aejmelaeus 2006b: 23 (my translation); cf. Childs (1979: 664): "Whenviewed in the light of the entire canonical process, the formal differencesbetweenthetwoBiblestext,scope,orderappearasminorvariationswithintheoneunifiedbodyofsacredtradition."

23. See Bertram 1961. Recent advocates of such a concept include HansHubner (1990: 1.61-62) and, in more nuanced form, Joachim Schaper (2006:379-80).ForobjectionstoBertram'sviews,seevanderKooij1997:9-10.

24. See further Aejmelaeus 2006b; Aejmelaeus forthcoming; Boyd-Taylor2006;Pietersma2006;Wagner2007.AmoreoptimisticperspectiveisofferedbyRosel2006.

25.Hengel(2002)continuestoemphasizethesepointsinhisrecentworkontheSeptuagint.

26.Forexample,according toSchaper (2006:376), the IsaiahTargumoften"makes more explicit" an interpretive tradition "already present in theSeptuagint."Tov (2005:391,388) claims that although theSeptuagint evinces"only a thin layer of Jewish exegesis," it "shows more links with rabbinicinterpretationsthantheotherGreekversions."

27. See Hanhart 2002: 7-8. Compare the early use of Aramaic it1C indevotionaladdresstoJesus(1Cor.16:22).SeefurtherFitzmyer1979.

28.AsHubner1990:1.57,64rightlyemphasizes.

29. Quite the opposite is the case with regard to, for example, Paul'sappropriationofIsaiah.SeeWagner2002;Wilk1998.

30.Thiswayofstatingthematterishardlyacaricatureoftheissueasithassometimes been framed in the scholarly literature. Dominique Barthelemy(1978:138),forexample,speaksof theSeptuagintasan"attempt toenter intodialoguewithHellenism"andclaimsthat"thechurchistheinheritorofthegreatopennesstowardsthenationsthattheSeptuagintwas"(IowethereferenceandtranslationtoBarr1999:577).SuchacharacterizationoftheSeptuagintrequiresconsiderablenuancing,tosaytheleast.TheGreekversionofIsaiah,forinstance,oftenappearsfarlessuniversalisticinoutlookthandoesitsHebrewcounterpart:"It is often with respect to Hebrew Isaiah's most generous statements to andabout the nations that the [Greek] translator shows a reluctance that at pointscomesclosetohostility"(Baer2001:199).AstrikingexampleistherenderingofOldGreek Isa. 19:24-25. In theMasoretic Text the oracle speaks ofGod'sredemption of Assyria and Egypt, but the Old Greek restricts the promise ofsalvationtotheJewishDiasporaintheselands.

33. Childs 1992: 64-68. Childs bases his argument for the status of theSeptuagintnotonlyontheNewTestamentuseoftheSeptuagintbutalsoontheargument from catholicity-that is, the reception of the Septuagint by themostancientChristiancongregations.

34.Childs1992:68.

35.Childs1992:67.ThepositionthatChildsstakesouthereismorecomplexand sophisticated than his earlier statement in Childs 1979: 659-71. For anilluminating analysis of the evolution of Childs's views, see the forthcomingdoctoral dissertation by Daniel Driver (University of St. Andrews, 2008),provisionally entitled "Brevard Childs: On the Logic of Scripture's TextualAuthorityintheMysteryofChrist."

31.Childs1992:66-68;Barr1999:572-76.

32.Childs1992:63.

36.Childs1985:518-30.

37.Childs1985:529(italicsadded).

38. Childs 1985: 529 (italics added). The context makes it clear that by"purity"Childsmeans"thetruestwitnesstothegospel":"Theprocessofseekingto discern the truest witness to the gospel from within the church's multipletraditions functions to remind the interpreter of the canonical corpus that theelement of theological interpretation is not only constitutive of the church'sscriptures in general, but has also entered into the textual dimensions of thetraditionaswell"(Childs1985:529).

39.Childs1992:67-68.

40. Similarly Seitz (2006: 96): "FollowingAugustine, a canonical approachwillacknowledge theHolySpirit's activity inbothHebrewandGreekcanons,whichguideandconstraintheChurch'sreflectionandconfession."

41.Childs1992:87.

42. Examples from Ulrich 1992 (reprinted in Ulrich 1999: 51-78). Ulrich(1999:73) emphasizes that in these instances "the creative, secondary editorialworkwasalreadydoneattheHebrew(or,forDaniel,Aramaic)levelwithintheJewishcommunity."SeefurtherSchenker2003.

43.SeeChilds1979:95.

44.ThephraseisonedefinitionChildsgivesofwhathemeansbythepersewitness of the Old Testament (Childs 1992: 722); cf. "Israel's voice of directdiscourseproclaimingthepromise"(Childs1992:722).

45.Schaper1995;2006.Cf.Gzella2002.

46."Whentheearlychurchspokeof thecoercionorpressureexertedbythebiblicaltextonthereader,itwasaformulationgroundedontheconvictionthatthe written Word possessed a voice constantly empowered by God's Spirit"(Childs2004:296).On the importanceofpneumatology for anaccountof the"sanctification"of theSeptuagint, and thusof its theological authority, see theconcludingsectionofthisessay.

47.TheimpressivecommentarybyFrank-LotharHossfeldandErichZenger(2005)devotesanunusualamountofattentiontotheSeptuagintundertherubricofreceptionhistory,buttheauthorsdonotraisethequestionofthesignificanceoftheSeptuagintfordiscerningtheshapeofthePsalter.

48.Childs1992:721.Cf.Hubner1990:1.67.

51.jobesandSilva2000:25872.

52. On becoming the sort of readers implicitly addressed by the NewTestamenttexts,seeBockmuehl2006.

53.Childs1992:87.SeefurtherWilken1997.

54.Howthemodernchurchmaycriticallyappropriatethebest insightsfromits long traditionof theological interpretation is thoughtfullyexplored inDavisandHays2003.

49.SeeespeciallythenowclassicstudyHays1989.

50.Forthelatter,seeAejmelaeus2006a.

55.This,ofcourse, iswhatmanyEasternChristianscontinuetodotodayastheyreadandheartheGreektextoftheOldTestamentasHolyScripture.HowrenewedattentivenesstotheSeptuagintbyWesternChristiansmayreshapeour

readingof theChristianBibleandenrichourunderstandingandarticulationofChristian doctrine is a question that can he answered only as we in theWestbegintoengagethesetextsonceagain.

58.Childs2004:313.

59.EffortscurrentlyunderwaytoproducereliableandaccessibletranslationsoftheSeptuagintinseveralmodernlanguagesthusholdpromiseforthechurchaswellas theacademy(Hari1986-;Kraus andKarrer forthcoming;PietersmaandWright2007).

60.Webster2003:5.

56.Childs2004:299-324.

57.Childs2004:312.

65.Origcii,EpistulaadAfricanum;Augustine,DecivitateDei15.14;18.42-44.OnOrigen'sEpistulaadAfricanum,seeHanhart2002:9-11.

66.Webster2003:41.

61.Webster2003:26.

62.Webster2003:27-28.

63.Webster2003:29-30.

64.Webster2003:26.

1. Early parts of thismaterial were presented at the CTI Pastor-TheologianConference in Sedona, AZ (June 2006). I am grateful for comments receivedfromtheconferenceparticipantsonthatoccasion,frommembersofthe2007St.Andrewsseminarthatgaverisetothisbook,andfromRichardC.Beaton.

2.SeeKasper2006(withreferencetowomenbishops).

3.BraatenandJenson2003;cf.NollandNystrom2005.

4.RodgerandVischer1964;Kasemann1969;Brown1963.

5.Kasemann1969:253.

6.Kiiscmann1969:254.

7.Kiiscmann1968:10.

8.Kiiscmann1969:256.

9.Kiiscmann1969:256-57.

10.Kiiscmann1969:257.

11.Kiiscmann1969:257.

12.Brown1963:298-99(italicsadded).

13.InthepostwarperiodthisinterpretationwasmadepopularbywriterssuchasBoReicke(1946),JoachimJeremias(1969:260-63),andothers(see,e.g.,thelistinThiering1981:69-70n25),thoughitscogencywasattimesoverstated.

14.Brown1963:307.

15. A similar view was taken by Thomas Rausch (1988), who adoptedBrown'scriteriabutaddedkoininiaandtoleranceofdiversity.

16.Kiscmann1960.

17.Kiisemann1964:95(Germanoriginal,1951).

18.Kiscmann1964:103.

19.See,forexample,PatrickDias's1965dissertation,publishedintheseriesOkumenische Forschungen, jointly (!) edited by Hans Kung and JosephRatzinger (Dias 1968; cf. the laterworkDias 1974). Compare previously, forexample,PaulMinear(1960:221-49),whospeaksofinterrelated"images,"andRudolf Schnackenburg (1965: 55-117 [German original, 1961]), whosystematizes"theologicalguidingideas"andtheir"basicunity."

20. I commissioned one such collection ten years ago. See Bockmuehl andThompson1997.

23.Kung1964:149,153.

21.Kung1962(reprint,Kung1964).

22.Kung1964:146-48

24."Theconciliatoryandeven-mindedtraitsofoldagenevercaughtupwithme,becauseIbelieveonereallyoughttogettothebottomofmanythings,andthereis toomuchagainstwhich,preciselyasaChristiananda theologian,oneought to polemicize" (Kiiscmann 1970: 357 [my translation]; see further pp.361-62).

25. See, for example, Ulrichs 2001. The German government deniedKiisemannsupport,andhewasforcedtopayaransomof$22,000toretrieveherbadly abused body (which was then buried at Tubingen). In 2003 Germanprosecutors formally filed an extradition request for those responsible, but theArgentiniancourtsrefused.SeefurtherMalcher2003.

28.ReprintedasKasemann1998(mytranslation).

29. "Frankly, after a lifetime's preoccupation with the detail as well as thetotality ofNewTestament theology, I am unable to hear the voice of the oneChristinallthewitnesses.Evenifthechurch'sexperienceoftwothousandyearswere tobearwitness to it, thatwouldnotdistractme in theslightest,noreveninterestme"(Kasemann1970:365[mytranslation]).

26.CitedinUlrichs2001;cf.Kasemann1982:244.

27.CitedinKiienzlen2005.

30.Kiiscmann1970:377.

31.Kiiscmann1970:410.

32.Harrington1982:41.

33.Williams1991;2000g:44-59.Cf.Websterbelow,pp.116-18,121-22.

34. A point powerfully stated by loannis Zizioulas (2001: 57, and passim),whogoesoninthesamebreathtodemandtheologicalcriteriafordistinguishingbetweenlegitimateandillegitimatediversity.

35.Dunn2006:455.

36.Brown1984:149.

37.Brown1984:147-48.

38.SeestudiessuchasKinzer2005;Lindbeck2003;Marshall2001;Soulen2003aswellasthe2002VaticandocumentontheOldTestamentasJewishandChristianScripture(PontificalBiblicalCommission2002).

39.Horbury1997:1.

42.Lindheck2003:85,citingHarnack1908:2:279-89andPelikan1971:25-26.

43.SecBockmuehl2006:215-20,227-28.

40. For the construal of Pauline ecclesiology in terms of Israel, see Kraus1995.

41.SccfurtherBockmuehl2006:222-23andn.65;alsoLohfink1999.

46. Dunn 2006: 115. The quotation continues: "but only larger or smallergroups of disciples either observing his mission or hindering his mission orparticipatinginsomesmallwayinhismission."

44.Kiisemann1964:106(italicsadded).

45.Loisy1908:166.

47.SeeMeier2001;Horbury2003:157-88;DaviesandSanders1999:635-36. For fuller documentation, including positions that dissent from theconsensus,seeBockmuehl2006:211-15.

48. And not vice versa. The apostolic form without the apostolic missioninvitesdeathbyorthodox sclerosis,while the latterwithout the former invitesfermentationofacult.

49. For a rather far-reaching attempt to expound political and geographicdimensionsofMatthew's"lostsheep" logia,seeWillitts2007a(summarized inWillitts2007b).

50. Walter Kirchschlager (1995: 1336) rightly sees the gathering of acongregationofdisciples(Jungergemeinde),howeverlooselydefined,aspartofJesus'ipsissimaintentio.R.AlanCulpep-per(2005)identifiesfurther"church-building"metaphorsinthepassionnarratives.

1.AsIwritethisessay,IhavejustreadMatthewParris'slatestperiodicsalvoagainstreligioninTheTimes(Parris2007).Inresponsetothosewhoaskwhyhecontinuesto"bangon,"hesays,"AnadhominemresponsewouldbetoremarkthatwhentheChurchhadtheupperhanditwashappytopersecute,imprisonorbeheadnon-believers and fight crusadesagainstother religions....On thebackfootat last, itdiscovers (first)abrotherhoodbetweenall its sects.Thenas thesituation deteriorates Christianity discovers within itself a respect first forJudaism(suddenlyweareall`Judaeo-Christians'),thenwomenwithaChristianvocation,thenfordivorcees,andfinallyfindsacommonpurposewithreligionssuchasIslam,too(the`faith'community).Needsmust."

2. In an interfaith context, "Abrahamic" is an eirenically suggestive, ratherthandescriptivelyilluminating,epithetfortherespectivereligioustraditions.

3.ThetextisavailableonlineonthewebsiteofTheInstituteforChristianandJewishStudies:www.icjs.org/what/njsp/dabruemet.html.

4.InthewidercontextthereisalsothedistinguishedprecedentofPopeJohnPaulII,whosaid,inanaddresstoMuslimson9May1985aspartofawelcometoacolloquiumon"HolinessinChristianityandIslam,""AsIhaveoftensaidinothermeetingswithMuslims,YourGodandours isoneandthesame,andweare brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham" (see www .vatican.va/holyfather/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/may).

5.Frymer-Kenskyetal.2002.Levensonwasaccusedof"hadfaithasaJewish

thinker" (p. 8), and his argument was extensively (and astonishingly)misrepresented by scholars whose ability to read clearly seems to have beendisplaced by their indignation at his daring to wield the knife on somecontemporarysacredcows.

6.Levenson2001:37.Seealso,morefully,Levenson2004,especiallypp.6-10.

7.Scripturequotationsthroughoutthischapteraretheauthor'stranslation.

8.www.sternberg-foundation.co.uk/founders-bios.html#braybrooke.

9.Braybrooke1990:89-90.

10.Braybrooke takes a similar approach to Jesus'words of authorization ofuniversal mission in Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8. His point that "bothformulations...clearlydonotgobacktoJesushimself"comesinthecontextofproviding reasons why Christians should "abandon a missionary approach"towardthoseofotherfaiths(Braybrooke1990:97).

11.Meeks1972(reprintedinAshton1997:169-205).

12.Smith1999:269.Admittedly,Smith subsequentlyoffersamorepositiveconstrualofJesus'words;thoughhedoessobyappealtoHebrews10:20ratherthantotheintrinsicdynamicofJohannineChristology.

13. The essays in Bauckham 1998b suggestively highlight some of thedifficultiesthatattachtocertaincommonassumptionsaboutthecompositionoftheGospels.

14.Atmy timeofwriting,RowanWilliams also discusses John14:6 in hisLarkinStuartLecture, "TheBibleToday:ReadingandHearing."Heobserves,among other things, "The point is that the actual question being asked is notaboutthefateofnon-Christians;itisabouthowthedisciplesaretounderstandthedeathofJesusasthenecessaryclearingofthewaywhichtheyaretowalk....Ifweaskwhatthequestionisthatthepassageoverallposes,orwhatthechangeis that needs to be taking place over the time of the passage's narration, it isabout themove from desolation in the face of the cross (Jesus' cross and the

implicitdemand for thedisciple tocarry the cross also) to confidence that theprocess is theworkof lovecoming fromand leading to theFather" (Williams2007).

15. On the possible significance of the repeated definite article, seeMotile1959:112.

16.AsRudolfBultmann(1971:605-6)putsit,JesusistheaccesstoGodnot"in the sense that he mediated the access and then became superfluous," butrather"heisthewayinsuchamannerastobeatthesametimethegoal."

17.ThroughoutJohn'sGospel"havefaith,believe"(pisteuo)istheprimetermofappropriateresponse to,Jesusand introduces theparagraphonwhichwearefocusing(John14:1).

18.Forapithypresentationofthemainissuesinthedebateaboutthemeaningofmonogenesanditsrelationtomonogennetos("only-begotten"),seeBaueretal.1999,s.v.monogenes.

19. Compare the "Johannine thunderbolt" in the Synoptic Gospels (Matt.11:25-27;Luke10:21-22).

20.Thusthereisanimplicitoudeisexhymon,asinJohn7:19.

21. I discuss this elsewhere in terms of the principle that "the possibility ofexperiencinggraceandthepossibilityofexperiencinggraceasgrace,arenotthesamething"(Moberly2006:248);thewordingcomesfromNicholasLashinhisconstrualofKarlRahner'stheology.

22. This is not, of course, to deny thatChristian sectarianism is a recurrentphenomenon.ThepointiswhatarightunderstandingofScriptureentails.

23. So tooRowanWilliams, in his discussion of John 14:6, observes, "ThetextinquestionindeedstatesthatthereisnowaytotheFatherexceptinvirtueofwhatJesusdoesandsuffers;butpreciselybecausethatdefinesthewaywemustthen follow, it is (to say the least) paradoxical if it is used as a simple self-affirmation for the exclusive claimof theChristian institutionor theChristiansystem. There is, in otherwords, away of affirming the necessity of Christ's

crucified mediation that has the effect of undermining the very way it issupposedtooperate"(Williams2007).

24.Thisisperhapsespeciallythecaseinthestoryofthemanbornblind(John9).

25. John does not use the Greek term mysterion. My point here concernsconceptualityratherthanterminology.

26.Barnes2002:246.

27.Griffiths2003:24.

1.Wright2005.

2.Jenson2006.

3.Kasemann1980:viii.

1.Barth1974:628.

4.For amoremeasured, but brief, discussionof the subject, seeSchweitzer1973:5.375-77.SeealsoRiissler1990.

2.Schweitzer2003:246.

3.Schwcitzcr2003:272.

5. Note here Schweitzer's close relationship with Martin Werner (theycorresponded on a regular basis from the 1920s onward), and Werner'sdedicationofDieEntstehungdes christlichenDogmas (Werner 1941;ET,TheFormationofChristianDogma[Werner1957])tohisfriendshipwithSchweitzer.

8.SeeSchulik1990:275.

6.SeeMatlock1996,especiallypp.58-59.

7.Schweitzer1995.

9. See Barsam 2001 (see now the published version, Barsam 2007, whichappearedtoolateforconsultationhere).

12.SchweitzerandBresslau1992.

13.SchweitzerandBresslau1992:79.

14.SchweitzerandBresslau1992:53.

10.Schweitzer1987:118-19.

11.Schweitzer2003:370.

17. See especiallySchweitzer 1901; 1906 (also the enlarged second edition,Schweitzer1913[ET,Schweitzer2000]).

18.Forasummary,seeGrasser1979.

15.SchweitzerandBresslau1992:70.

16.Schweitzer1987:118-19.

19.SeeLannert1989:196-97.

20.Forthis,seePleitner1992.

21.QuotationsaretakenfromtheEnglishtranslation,Schweitzer2000.

22.Schweitzer2000:479.

23.Schweitzer2000:480.

24.Schweitzer2000:480.

29.Schweitzer2000:483.

30.Schweitzer2000:483.Notehiswordsfrom1903:"TheeternalnatureofJesuscannotbedescribedbutcanonlybeconceivabletothosewhoareboundtohimincommunity"(Schweitzer2003:275).

25.Schweitzer2000:481.

26.Schweitzer2000:484.

27.Schweitzer2000:481.Seealsowordsfrom1926inSchweitzer2003:368.

28.Schweitzer2000:482.

33.Schweitzer2000:486.

34.Schweitzer2000:486.

35.SeePleitner1992.

31.Schweitzer2000:483,482.

32.Schweitzer2000:486.

36. Schweitzer 1988: 124. For a more vehement expression of Jesus'relationshiptotheworld,seeSchweitzer2003:280.

37."Tothequestion,HowcanamanbeintheworldandinGodatoneandthesametime,wefindthisanswerintheGospelofJesus:'Bybeingandworkingin thisworld as onewho is not of theworld"' (Schweitzer 1951: 73-74). SeefurtherFrey1993:158.

38.Pleitner1992.

39.Forashortaccountofthis,seeWeaver1999:45-71.

40.Schweitzer2000:405.

41.Schweitzer2000:405-6.

42.Schweitzer2000:402.

43.Schweitzer2000:407-8.

44.OnTroeltsch, and the general theological background of the period, see

Claussen1997.

45.Schweitzer'sconcernwiththepersonalityofJesus,understoodintermsofhiswill, ispreciselywhatdifferentiateshimfromBultmannwithhisinsistenceonthecentralroleofthekerygmaticChristandhisnegligibleinterestinethics.SeeGrasser1984:67-68.

48. For accounts of Schweitzer's work on Paul, seeMatlock 1996; Grasser2003.

46.Schweitzer1914:274-75(Germanoriginal,1901).

47.SchweitzerandBresslau1992:130.

49.Schweitzer1951:214-15.

50.Schweitzer1955:378(Germanoriginal,1930).

51.Schweitzer1955:378.

52.Schweitzer1951:394.

53.On this and the general "Enlightenment" tone of Schweitzer'swork, seeMatlock1996:58-59.

54.Forarecentaccount,seeGunzler1996.

58. Note this comment by Schweitzer: "All living knowledge of God restsuponthisfoundation:thatweexperienceHiminourlivesaswill-to-love"(1933:277).

59.Bockrnuehl2006:20.

55.Barsam2001:42-43.

56.Schweitzer1955:379.

57.Barsam2001:32-33.

60.Schweitzer1987:118-19.

61.Inasermondated22March1903SchweitzerexplicitlyrejectstheideathatJesusissimplyamoralexemplar:"Hewantstobemorethananexample,hewillbetheforce[Kraft]whichanewworldhopesfor"(2001:457).

1. For instance, Hendrikus Berkhof (1990: 97-98) distinguishes fourcategories: texts about God's saving and revealing acts; texts about necessaryimplicationsoftheseevents;textsthatpresentanimageoftheseeventsortheirimplications;textsthatrepresenttheoutdatedworldviewoftheirtime.

2.InthisessayIwillspeakofScriptureinsteadoftheNewTestamentbecausebothBarthandMildenbergertreattheNewTestamentnotasaseparateentitybutratheraspartofScripture.

3.NumbersinthetextrefertoBarth'sChurchDogmatics(CD).

4.ForananalysisofthedifferentusesofthetermGestalt("form")inBarth'sreflections,seeMuis1999:138-44.

5.SeeMuis1999:150-53.

6. This means that Christ is categorically different from Scripture andproclamation; it ismisleading to subsume the threeunder theconcept "Word."SeeBarr1999:692n18;Muis2000:63.

7.Muis1999:138-50.

8.Barth1975a:40--44.

11.Mildenberger1991-1993.

12.NumbersinthetextrefertoMildenberger'sBiblischeDogmatik(BD).

9.SeeMcCormack1995:331-37.

10.SeeBachli1987:99-100.

13.Asaconsequence,Mildenbergeroffers "nodiscussionofways inwhich

theuseoftheBiblewithinthe[theological]schememaybeassessed,verifiedorfalsifiedonthebasisofthebiblicaltextsthemselves"(Barr1999:528).

14.SeeBarr1999:519,526.

15.Fortheterm"reversible,"seeLindbeck1984:85,87.Mildenberger(BDI,216)canincidentallycallJesustheWordofGodthathasbecomeflesh,butthisdoesnotdeterminehisthought.

16.Mildenberger(BDII,389-91)acknowledgesthattheLogosChristologyofthe early church is a break with Hellenistic metaphysics. Even so, it usesmetaphysical concepts to say who Jesus Christ is for us, and in this way itremainsindebtedtothemetaphysicaltraditionanditsinsolubleproblems.Inhisview,thisisalsothecaseinBarth'sChristology.

17. JamesDunn (2006: xxxix) says that thediversity in theNewTestament"shouldbesomethingliberatingandexciting,sinceitundergirdstheaffirmationthatGodcontinuestospeaktothediverseandspecificsituationsoftoday"

18.SecMildenberger's(BDI,256-57)interactionwithBrevardChildsaboutAmos'sproclamationofdivinejudgment.

21.Barth1976a:407-8.

22. Barth 1976a: 429. To be fair, in small print Barth (1976a: 432-35)discusses carefully the relevant New Testament texts about the kingdom ofChristandexplores the implicitevidencein theNewTestamentasawholeforhisboldclaim.

19.The exaltedman Jesus is the center of theNewTestament (Dunn2006:247,405-6).

20. I take this term fromDavid Ford (1979: 78),who uses it in a differentcontext.

23.SeeDunn2006:31,406-8.

26.Barth1976b.Cf.CD11/2,95-99.

27.Marinusdejonge(1988:79-88)evendoubtswhetherwecanreallyspeakaboutincarnationhere.

28.Dunn1989;Dalferth1994:106-18.

29.Berkhof (1990:97-98,289-98)considerspreexistenceand incarnationasnonnecessaryimages,apparentlybelongingtohisthirdcategoryoftexts(seen.1above).Dalferth (1994:31)considers incarnationasa secondary interpretationof the primary confession and interpretation of God's eschatological, savingagencyinChristasresurrection.

30.Pannenberg1977:150-53;Kasper1976:174-76.

24.McCormack1995:207,223-24,249-50,312-13,359-0,367.

25.Barth1991:131-41.

31.Dunn (2006: 246) seems to support this argument, but elsewhere (Dunn1989:63,259)herejectsit.

32.SeeDunn2006:420;Sykes1979:41-42,47-51.

33.Interestingly,therehasbeenashiftinDunn'sviewontherelationbetweenJohn and Nicea: the importance of incarnation as God's self-revelation hasbecomemoreandmorecleartohimonthebasisofthewholeofJohn'sGospel.Cf.Dunn2006:249,412;1989:xxvii-xxviii,261-65.

34. I amgrateful toDr.Gerrit vanEk for his helpful comments on the firstdraftofthisessay.

1.SeeWilliams2005a:135-36.

2.Williams2005b:95.

3.Williams1982:30.

4.Williams2000c:144.

5.Williams1979b:63.

6.Williams1979b:30.

7.Williams1979b:46.

8.Williams2001b:6.

9.Williams2005a:137.

10.Williams2005a:137.

11.Williams1980:107.

12.Williams1987:242.

13.Williams1987:243.

14.Williams1987:242.

15.Williams2005a:149.

16.Williams2005a:158.

17.Williams2001b:10.

18.Williams2003a:4-5.

19.Williams2003a:6-7.

20.Williams2003a:14.

21.Williams2003a:xx.

22.Williams2003a:14.

27.Williams1982:63;seealsoWilliams1995b(essayonMichaelRamsey).

23.Williams2001a:230.

24.Williams2001a:230.

25.Williams2001b:12.

26.Williams2001b:13.

28.Williams1982:63-64.

29.Williams1979a;20001(Germanoriginal,1980).

30.Williams20001:123.

31.Williams20001:126.

32.Williams2000j:132.

33.Williams2000j:131.

34.Williams2000j:134.

35.Williams2000j:136.

38.Williams1989a:17.

39.Williams1989a:18.

40.Williams2004:7.

41.Williams2004:7.

42.Williams2004:26.

43.Williams2004:45.

36.Williams1983;1989a;1993;2000a;2000d;2000h.

37.Williams1989a:15.

44.Williams2001b:5.

45.Williams2003b:226.

46.Williams2000d:30.

47.Williams2003b:223.

48.Williams2005a:37-38.

49.Williams2005a:60.

50.Williams2005a:61.

51.Williams2005a:82-83.

52.Williams2005a:89.

53.Williams2005a:90.

54.Williams2000f:207-8.

55.Williams2003a:74.

56.Williams2003a:74.

57.Williams2003a:77.

58.Williams2003a:35.

63.Williams1982:49.Itisworthnotingthatinsettingoutthisunderstandingof Scripture as sign, Williams most commonly speaks of narrative texts,especially the resurrection narratives, whose indeterminacy and obliquenesscoherewellwithhispresentation;itisnoteasytoseehowRomansorHebrewswouldfareonthisaccount.

64.Williams2000b:193,194-95.

59.Williams1982:1.

60.Williams1982:2.

61.Williams1982:11.

62.Williams1982:26.

65.Williams2003b;seealsoWilliams2000c:53-55.

66.Williams2003b:220.

67.Williams2003b:221.

68.Williams2003b:222.

69.Williams2003b:223.

70.Williams2003b:248.

71.Williams2003b:224.

72.Williams2003b:224.

73.Williams2003b:225.

74.Williams2003b:227.

75.Williams2003b:225.

76.Williams1988:44.

77.Williams1988:40.

78.Williams1995a:134.

79.Williams1995a:136.

80.Williams2000c:46.

81.Williams2000c:47.

82.Williams2000c:49.

83.SeeLash1986;Young1990.

84.Williams2000c:56-57.

85.Williams2000c:52.

86.Williams2000k:24.

87.Williams2000k:25.

88.Williams's recent Larkin Stuart Lecture "TheBible Today:Reading andHearing" gives some space to these matters in speaking of Scripture as theaddress of the risen Christ, partly in response to critics who heard earlierstatementsasaclaimthat"wearegivenonlyamethodofinterpretationbytheform of Scripture-a method that, by pointing us to the conflict and tensionbetween texts simply leaves us with theologically unresolvable debate as auniversalnormforChristiandiscourse"(Williams2007).

89.Williams2000h:13.

90.Bockmuehl2006:82-86.

91.Williams2000i:172.

92.Williams1982:120.

93.Williams2005a:89.

94.Williams2000j:142.

95.Williams1989b:141.

96.Williams1989b:142.

97.Williams1989b:148.

1.Montagnes2006.

2.Guitton1992.

3. The text of the encyclical is available at

www.vatican.va/holy_father/pitis_xii/cncyclicals/ documents/hf_p-xii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html(italicsadded).

4.Thisisillviewednowadays,butthatisnotourmainconcern.Onthethemeof condescension (paragraph 37), seeDreyfus 1985. The reference toThomasAquinas,theAngelicDoctor,isfoundinhiscommentaryonHebrews,chapter1,lectio4,paragraph64.

5.Ricceur1977(reprintedinRicceur1980).

6.ET,Gunkel2006.Lagrange'sanswerwasacceptedin1948bytheBiblicalCommission.

7.Cullmann1956;cf.Danielou1953.

10. Rahncr and Ratzinger 1966; Ratzinger 1998. On the role of churchauthorityininterpretingScripture,see,amongrecentpublications,Gilbert2002(he calculates that there are twelve biblical verses whose meaning has beendefined, all done at Trent, all having to dowith sacraments); Bieringer 2006.Istina 51 (2006): 225-330 presents a symposium on Catholic and Orthodoxhermeneutics.

11. SccKelly 2006 (first edition, 1950): 213, 238-39, 286, 290, 294;Ayres2006.SeealsoTorranceinchapter9ofthepresentvolume.

8.Geiselmann1962:282.

9.Cougar1966.

12. Sanders 1972; 1984; 1987; Childs 1992;McDonald and Sanders 2002;Soding2006.

13. The text of Dei Verbum is available at www.vatican.va/archive/hist-coLincils/ii- vati cancouncil/documents/vat-ii const 19651118dei-verbumen.html.

14.SeeBeretta1999.

15.Onthismatter,seethechapteronthecanoninViviano2007:270-89,and

theliteraturetherecited.SeealsoLienhard1995;Neuhaus1989.

16.SeedelaPotterie1988;McGovern1999;Lowe2000;Levenson1993.

17. Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) 712-18; an English translation isavailableinFitzmyer1982:131-40.

18."NotesontheCorrectWaytoPresenttheJewsandJudaisminPreachingandCatechesisintheRomanCatholicChurch"(June1985);availableinEnglishinWigoder1988:149-59.

19.Forcriticism,seeAyresandFowl1999.

20. There is a symposium on the document published by the Vatican:L'interpretazionedellaBibbianellaChiesa,with texts inEnglish,German,andItalian(PontificalBiblicalCommission2001).

21.PontificalBiblicalCommission2002.

22.Swetnam1981.

1.Hume1962:book3,part1,section1.

2.WordssuchaswinorrefutearewhatGilbertRylereferstoas"achievementwords" or "success words" with a success grammar (Ryle 1949: 143). See"Achievements"inRyle1949:143-47;seealso211-12.

3.Thisisalsothecasewithconservativeevangelicals,butlesssurprisinglyso,giventheircommitmenttothereliabilityofScriptureasawhole.

8. Hick 1977. This epitomized the kind of suspicion that has been cast onthosewithinNewTestamentcircleswhoseemedtobetoowelldisposedtowardNiceneorthodoxyoverthethreedecadessince.

4.Dunn1989:10.

5.Dunn1989:9.

6.Dunn1989:9.

7.Dunn1989:268.

9.Hick1977:38.

10.Hick1977:38.

11.Hick1977:62.

12.Hick1977:132.

13.Raisanen1990(secondedition,2000).

14.Raisanen2000:8.

15.Tuckett2007:2.

18. The fact that there are "rules of use" is, perhaps, a factor insufficientlyappreciatedbyBarr,asreflectedinhisgeneralsuspicionoflexicography

16.Wittgenstein1974:20,80-82.

17.Barr1961.

19. They are not sufficient conditions per se because scholars who aremaximally accomplished in all the relevant fieldsmay still be unwarranted intheir theological conclusionsbecause they lack a necessary condition,which ahumble reader of Scripture might conceivably possess: whatever is meant by"eyes to see" or discernment "according to the Spirit," or what is, forKierkegaard,theredemptionoftheirreason.

20. Clearly, my argument assumes that if there is veridical (successful)theological insightattaching toanyor somebiblical statements, then this isofrelevance to the hermeneutical task. I am assuming, in other words, that it isrelevant to the taskof interpreting an author's statementswhether there is anyimpetus,objectivecontrol,orirreduciblytheologicalcriteriainformingwhattheauthorissayingandthattranscendsherorhisculturalcontext.Thisissurelynotcontroversial, as it is relevant for interpreting the meaning of any book todistinguishbetweenthekindsoftruthclaimsmade-whetherthewritingissurrealantirealism, speculative science fiction, faction, or informed biography, for

example.Itisalsorelevantwhethertheauthor,thinkingtobeengagedinone,isinfactengagedinanother.

21.TheseincludeTorrance1975;Heron1981;Florovsky1962.

22.Thequestionastowhetheratheologicalstatementistrue(alethos)and,ifso,onwhatgroundswasofsignificantlygreaterconcernforthechurchfathersthanforacademictheologyinapostmodernworld,whichisshyofthisconcept.

23. For a discussion of the influence of this Platonic dichotomy on earlyChristianity,seeWytzes1957;1960.

24.Heron1981:70.

25.Thisiswherehumanconcepts(noiai)aregiventopenetratethrough(dia)totherealityofGod.Thiscontrastswithmerehumanopinions(epinoiai)aboutthedivinethatcharacterizethemythologicalprojectionorfabricationwithwhichweareleftifthetwofoldhomoousionisnolongertobeaffirmed.

26.SeeShapland1951.

27.Whatplacedotraditionandthehistoryofreception(Wirkungsgeschichte)possess on this account? If Wirkungsgeschichte is not to become simplyKulturgeschichte,and if tradition is tobedefinedashandingdownGod's self-disclosure as God's eph'hapax ("once for all") Word to humanity, then bothrequire thecategoryof the "ecclesialmind." If this ecclesialmind isnot tobeconceivedinHeracliteanterms,asinaprocessofarbitraryfluxorasthevoiceofthe culture of the day, then it will require to be interpreted alongAthanasianlines,asJ.H.Newmansaw inhisdiscussionofAthanasiusandScripture (seeNewman1903).

28.SeeLeibniz1989.

31.Chadwick1967.

32.Kierkegaard1985:9.

29.SeethehelpfuldiscussioninChadwick1967.

30.Lessing1956:53.

33.Kierkegaard1985:11.

34.Theteacher(ortext)whoseekstodrawattentiontoselfasimportantdoesnotgivebutrather takesaway.Theteacher(or text)whoplacesselfwheretheeternaltruthsaloneshouldbedetractsfromthetruth.Theteacherwhoistruetothe eternal ideals, therefore, must fade away, become nothing ---a merevanishing point or occasion of a relationship that is much greater: therelationshipbetweenthemindandthenonhistorical,nonpersonal,eternal ideasoridealsthatarethetrueobjectsofcontemplation.

Socrateswouldthereforedrawshapesinthesandinordertoaidintheprocessofanamnesis.Hewouldthenquietlydisappear,notwishingtoattractattentiontohimselfinanyway.

AsKierkegaard (1985:13) summarizes theSocraticposition: "The temporalpoint of departure is a nothing, because in the samemoment I discover that Ihaveknownthetruthfrometernitywithoutknowingit,inthesameinstantthatmoment ishidden in theeternal, assimilated into it in suchaway that I, so tospeak,stillcannotfinditevenifIweretolookforit,becausethereisnoHereandnoThere,butonlyanubiqueetnusquam[everywhereandnowhere]."

35. The verb maieuesthai means "to be a midwife"-that is, to facilitate thebirthingofsomethingthatisalreadypresent(immanent)withinoneandtowhichthemidwifeinnowayaddsorcontributes.

36.ArelatedpointismadeinanimportantessaybyStewartSutherland,whenhearguesthattheconceptofrevelationnecessarilyimpliesthediscoveryofthatwhichisnewandnotalreadyknown(seeSutherland1989:43).

37.Kicrkcgaard1985:13,15,16,19.

38. To possess the conditions of the recognition of the truth is, forKierkegaard,topossessthetruthinembryonicform.

39.Kicrkegaard1985:14.

40.Kierkegaard1985:17-18.

41.Barth1975b:295.

42.Evans1999.

43.Bockmuchl2006:24.Onewouldhavetolookhardtofindamoresubtleintegration of theological and historical insight than that which Bockmuehlaccomplishesinhisessay"Resurrection"inTheCambridgeCompaniontoJesus(Bockmuehl2001:102-18).

46. Rae 1997: 119. The point is that we should not assume any continuitybetweenparadigms reposingonWesternconceptsof (thecanonsof) reasonorexperience or culture and the paradigm that results from the presence of theSpiritliberatingustodiscoverinthebiblicalmaterialawitnesstotheeph'hapaxpresence of God with us in the human Jesus. It is for these reasons that thepublicationofBarth'sRomerbrief (Barth1922 [ET,Barth1933]) constituted asea change in the context of the Kulturprotestantismus of the time; he wasarguingthatRomanswasrequiredtobeinterpretedwithinaparadigmthatwasintrinsicallyincompatiblewiththeculturallyconditionedhermeneuticalagendasofthetime.

44.Rac1997:113-19.

45.Kuhn1970:85.

47.VonBaithasar1986.

48.Jungel1989:297-98(cited inRae1997:130).Theprimarydifference isthattheparadigmshiftsintegraltomajorscientificadvancesdiscussedbyKuhnare the results of imaginative heuristic leaps. Michael Polanyi describes theconditionsoftheseasrelatingtotheoperationsofourtacitdimensionwherebypressureonoursubliminalorderingofexperiencesengendersanunanticipatableleap.Thecreativityisours.

49.That is,whereashapecanbeglimpsedasarabbitatonemomentandaduckthenext,andwhereonecandirectone'sperceptionoftheshapetooscillatebetweenthetwo.

50. See Plantinga 2000: 175-76. The obvious question that emerges here iswhether this model allows for verification, falsification, or even adjudication.Doesitnot,moreover,precludethepossibilityofself-criticism?Toexpresstheconcernsmorebluntly:itwouldseemeitherthatthisdoesnotamounttoagreatdealinpracticeorthatifitdoes,itappearsquasi-gnosticatbestanddangerousatworst.

ThesuggestionthataconditionofrecognizingGod'spresenceisbeinggiven"the eyes to see" does not mean that those who do believe that they glimpseGod'spurposivepresenceinthehistoryofJesusarejustifiedinattachingsomekind of inerrant infallibility to their interpretations. What one does see willinevitably be seen "through amirror dimly" andwill be a formof perceptiononlycompletedintheeschaton.However,justassomearegiventheearstohearthebeautyofBrahms andothers less so, discerningGod's presence is a "gift"andnotpurely theresultofhumanendeavor.Topursue theanalogyfurther: toappreciateBrahmsdoesnotmeanthatoneimmediatelypossessesan"indepth"grasp of his use of harmony or the strategies inherent in his approach toorchestration, nor does it mean that such musicological scholarship is notimmensely significant and could serve to enhance one's understanding andappreciationofBrahms'ssymphonies.Thepointisthatifoneistonedeaf,itisunlikelythatonewillappreciatefullythenatureofthemusic.Totheextentthatthisisthecase,onecannotbutfailtoappreciatethesignificanceofagreatdealofwhatscholarlystudiesofhismusicaimtoenhance:anunderstandingof thenatureofthemusic.

Being given the "eyes to see" would, on this model, enhance (albeitincompletely) one's understanding of the nature of the history of Jesus Christsomething that can only play into one's interpretation of every facet of thathistory.

For an analysis of the significance of viewing New Testament historytheologically,seeRae2007.

51.Rae1997:113-19,123,andpassim.

52.Thiselton1980:379-85.

53.Wittgenstein2001.

54.Thiselton1980:382.

55.Thisparticipates in theonewho,by theSpirit, is theSelf-authenticatingLogostheAutologos.

56. Unfortunately, given that theological neutrality is never an option andatheistic suppositions are not theologically neutral, this will occurmore oftenthanwemightchooseorwishtoadmit.

57.CitedinWatson1997:129.

58.Kicrkcgaard1985:3.

1.Scripturequotationsthroughoutthischapteraretheauthor'stranslation.

2.Webster2003.

3. ARCIC (Anglican/Roman Catholic International Commission) 1998:paragraph22.SeealsoWebster2001.

4.Barth1957:673(%38.2).

5.Barth1957:672.

6.Barth1957:672.

7.Barth1957:700.

8. See, in chapter 4 of the present volume, N. T. Wright on doctrines as"portablestories"(pp.62-65).

1.Hays1996.

2.Hays1996:3.

3.SeePincoffs1986.

4.SeeMcClendonandSmith1975.

5.Forafulleraccountofthis,seeWannenwetsch2002.

6.Dunn1988:2.712.Dunnoptsforthepassivevoiceratherthanthemiddlevoice.

7. For a fuller account of a theological pan-aesthetics, theway inwhich allsensoryperceptioncancoincideinfaith,seeWannenwetsch2000.

8.AlasdairMaclntyrepointsout that in theclassicalconceptof thepracticalsyllogism in Aristotle, what results from the appropriate perception of thehighestgoodand thewiseponderingof its realization inagivencircumstancevia phronesis is action itself. "There is no logical space for something else tointervene:adecision,forexample"(Maclntyre1988:140).

9.SeeBauckharn1998a;Bockrnuehl2003:31,andpassim.

10.SeeSchunack1992.

11.Onthepoliticalsignificanceofthisdistinction,seemyargumentaboutthe"conciliar obligation" of the church to arrive at a consensus in elementalquestions(Wannenwetsch2004:298-317).

12.SeeOliverO'Donovan'sconsiderationsonthe"imperfectability"ofhumanjudgmentthatneedsbothtodistinguishitselffromGod'sjudgmentandtoimitateitinacertainway(O'Donovan2005:13-30).

13.On thedistinctionbetweensubjectiveaccountsofanyhumanactionanditsobjectivepurpose,theactual"objectoftheact,"seeWannenwetsch1998.

14.SeeWannenwetsch2005.

15.Seehischapter"TheVirtues,UnityofaHumanLifeandtheConceptofaTradition"(Maclntyre1981:204-25).

16.HauerwasandJones1989.

17.Forafulleraccountof thesacramentsasaformofactionandjudgment,seeWannenwetsch,forthcoming.

1.Itshouldbeacknowledgedthatitisnotalwayseasytojudgewhatcounts,say, as an incidental, nonauthoritative background cultural practice and whatcounts as a binding practice for disciples in other cultural contexts. For oneattempt to formulate criteria for distinguishing the authoritative from thenonauthoritative,seeWebb2001.

2. For example,Warfield construes theBible as doctrine and thus views itsauthorityintermsofthepropositionsconveyed,whereasBultmannconstruestheBible as myth and authority in terms of the self-understanding of humanexistenceexpressedtherein.

3.Thisquestionleadstoanother:"Whichdiscipline,NewTestamentstudiesorsystematic theology, is in the best position to construe Scripture theologicallyandthustoreapaharvestoftextualmeaningbyseparatingthetheologicalwheatfrom the cultural and historical chaff?" The answer of the present chapter is"Both,iftheycanworktogether."

4.SeeRicceur1974:482.

5. Ricceur's own answer to our guiding question would be "the biblicalimagination"(seehisessay"TheBibleandtheImagination"[Ricceur1995:144-66]).Hishermeneuticalphilosophycorrelatestheworldprojectedbythebiblicaltextwiththeperennialquestionsofhumanexistence.

6.Dodd1936a:18.

7.What I findhelpful inDodd is his deep commitment to treating theNewTestamentashistory, literature,andtheology;hisconvictionthat thebeginningofChristian theology is in theNewTestament's useof theOldTestament; hispassion fordiscerningpatternsof ideas and actions alike (cf.Rom. 6:17: `Butthanks be to God, that you ... have become obedient from the heart to thestandard of teaching [typon didaches] to which you were committed"). SeeMarkusBockmuehl'srelated"discussion"withDoddinBockmuehl2006:27-74.BockmuehlisparticularlystruckbyDodd'ssilencewithregardtotheroleofthereaderinNewTestamentinterpretation.

10. Kelsey himself thinks that what makes the Bible Christian Scripturederivesnotfromwhatitsaysbutratherfromwhatitdoes;hethinksofbiblical

authorityinfunctionalterms,asamatterof"shapingChristianidentity"ViewingtheNewTestamenttextsasdiscourseexposesKelsey'scrucialshortcomingheretoo: because discourse pertains towhat a person doeswithwords, there is noneedtocontrastGodsayingwithGoddoing.

8.SoMcDonald1980:5.

9.SeeRicceur1976:30.

11.Forafullerdescriptionandacritiqueof thishermeneutical two-step,seeGilbertson2003:21-31.

14.Peterson2005:182.

12.FromCharlesDickens,AChristmasCarol,StaveII.

13.SeeVanhoozer2005b.

15.Ialsohavetwosecondarygoals:(1)aidandabettheologicalinterpretationofScripturebynurturingtheemergingdiscussionbetweensystematic theologyand New Testament studies; (2) respond to my critics (and to confine theseoccasionalskirmishestothefootnotes).

16.WhenreadersimposetheirownsenseontheNewTestamenttexts,theydoto the apostleswhat Feuerbach says theologians do toGod: project their ownideas.Thiswayinterpretativeidolatrylies.

17.Thecriticismflowsinbothdirections.CarlHenry(1990)attacksBrevardChilds for having a weak notion of inspired authorship, and Brevard Childs(2005)attacksNicholasWolterstorffforimposing"animaginativephilosophicalconstruct"(seeespeciallyp.385).

18.Chapman2006:186.

19. I agree with Stephen Chapman that "a canonical account of inspirationkeeps the theological interpretationofScripture focusedwhere it shouldbe-onthe text" (Chapman2006: 200),with the proviso thatweneed to construe thetextasapostolic(andultimatelydivine)discourse.Chapman(2006:186)appeals

to Sandra Schneiders's account of the "ideal meaning" produced by theinteraction between (1) what the text says about something, (2) the genre inwhich it is said,and(3) thepersonalstyleof theauthor.Thisaccountascribescommunicativeagency to an impersonal text; authors here have only stylistic,not substantial, significance. Chapman believes that the concept of authorialdiscourse cannot by itself do justice to the process of canon formation.Everythingdependsonwhatwemeanby"author,"however.Formyownpart,Iunderstandtheauthortobethepersonorpersonsresponsibleforthefinalformof the text and hence its concomitant illocutions (e.g., meaning), and IunderstandinspirationtoascribeauthorshiptoGodaswellastotheapostles,hisproximatehumanagents.

20.Jesuswasthefirst"apostle":GodtheFathersentJesus,whowastheWord,ashismessage(Mark9:37;cf.Heb3:1);Jesusinturnsendsouthisapostleswiththemessagetospreadtheword(Mark3:14;cf.1Thess.2:6).SeeBarnett1993.

21.Bauckham2006:5.Seep.475,whereBauckhamcitesCoady'slandmarkphilosophicalstudyoftestimony:"Whenwebelievetestimonywebelievewhatissaidbecausewetrustthewitness"(Coady1992:46).

22.Bauckham2006:6.

23.Bauckham2006:9.

24.Watson2006:121.

25.Theoperativetermis"inspiration"(theopneustos[2Tim.3:161).AlthoughsomeattempttoreducethenotionofGod'sspeakingtodivinedictation,itwouldbeamistaketoequatedivinediscoursewiththatcaricature.Thehumanauthorswerenot simplypassive scribes;on thecontrary, theyactivelydid thingswithwords, performing various illocutionary acts. StephenChapman notes that theconceptof inspirationarose in theearlychurch toaccount for theunityof thetwoTestaments,nottosay"thatGodwassomehowresponsiblefortheliteraryauthorship of the Bible" (Chapman 2006: 185). But how, one wonders, doesinvoking the languageof divine inspirationmake the case for the unity of theOldandNewTestamentsexceptbyimplyingthatGodreallywastheirultimateauthor?The church fathers had no compunction in using phrases such as "theHoly Spirit saith" or in referring to to logia of God. Irenaeus states that the

"Scripturesareperfect,inasmuchastheywereutteredbytheWordofGodandHisSpirit"(AgainstHeresies2.28.2).Foracomprehensivelistinganddiscussionoftherelevantpatristicevidence,seeWestcott1895:417-56.Perhapsonereasonfor the lack of early creedal statements regarding divine authorship was thattherewasnoneed:theirdivineoriginwaseverywhereassumed.J.N.D.Kellycomments, "It goeswithout saying that the fathers envisaged thewholeof theBible as inspired" (Kelly 1978: 61; see Kelly's broader discussion of themeaningofinspirationonpp.61-64).

26. "By performing an illocutionary act with the noematic content of thehumandiscourse,Godcansaysomethingentirelydifferent"(Childs2005:387).

27.SoWebster2007.

28."TheparallelsbetweentheportrayalofJesusinLukeandthewordinActsaffirmthenarrativeunityofthetwoworks"(Pao2002:253).

29.Cf.KarlBarth'sdepictionofJesusastheactiveagentinourknowledgeofhim:"Forinthis[biblical]attestationHeHimselflives....HeHimselflivesonlyintheformwhichHehasinthepicture....ItisthepicturewhichHeHimselfhascreatedandimpresseduponHiswitnesses"(CDIV/3).

30. For more on the illocutionary dimension of discourse, see Vanhoozer2002:172-77.

33.Bockrnuehl2006:72.

34.ThePaulineletterscontainsevenreferencesto"gospelofGod"andtento"gospel of Christ." I take these phrases as objective genitives, indicating thecontent of the gospel.However, I am not averse to taking them as subjectivegenitives,inwhichcasetheemphasisfallsondivineauthorship.

31.Ricocur1976:14.

32.Riccur1976:15.

35.1willreturntothethemeof"theodicy"intheconclusion.

36.Dodd 1936b: 37. Ricmur has practicedwhatDodd preached, producingseveralseminalstudiesonthecognitivesignificanceoftheBible'sliteraryformsforunderstandingrevelation,time,andthenameofGod.See,forexample,hisessays"BiblicalTime"and"NamingGod"(Ricaur1995:167-80;217-35).

39.HarrisandInsole2005:2-3.

37.Kelsey1999:192-97.

38.Martens2005:97n51.

40.Ollenburger2006:50.Althoughspeech-actphilosophersthemselveshavenotattended to literaryforms,othershave(againstStanleyPorter, inMarshall,Vanhoozer,andPorter2004:117).Therearenowsignificantworksthatemploytheconceptof illocution, for example, to account for featuresofnarrative anddrama(e.g.,Pratt1977;Lanser1981;etal.).

43.SoSternberg1985:2.

44.Kuyper1954:520.

41.Howell1961:4.

42.Ryken2005:457.

45."Toauthorizeasequenceofwordsasaworkistodeclarethatonewantsone'sreaderstoreaditasatotality"(Wolterstorff2004:226).

48.PaoemploysthetermhypostatizationofthewordtodescribethewayinwhichLukespeaksofitashavingpowerandagency,notingthatthewordis"themainactoroftheconquest"(Pao2002:155).

49.Pao2002.As theMosaic lawandcovenant formedacommunity, so thegospeltooisacommunity-formingword.

46.SeeVanhoozer2005b:388.

47.Pao2002.

52.Diversityofapostolicdiscourseisapastoralstrength:"Forpostcanonicalchurches find themselves in circumstances similar to those for which biblicalbookswere variously tailored, and tailored not for the sake of suprahistoricalcomprehensiveness(producingaunitedlysystematic theology)but for thesakeofintrahistoricalpertinence"(Gundry2005:17).

50.Childs2005:380.

51.Gundry2005.

53.SeeTreier2006.

54.Or, touseMichaelPolanyi's terminology: the"focal"point isChrist,butthecanonicalformsareenabling"tacit"perspectives.

55.Peterson2005:182.

56. Phrase taken from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. Compare thecorrespondingphrasein theLatinMass:Dignumet justumest ("It is rightandfitting").

57.What we say and do must also befit the particular situation. The NewTestament remains the norm, but the contemporary context affects how onestagesorperformstheapostolicscript(seeVanhoozer2005b:325).

58.Tosaythatsomething-anassertion,afriend,love,asquare-is"true"istosaythatitmeasuresup"inbeingorexcellence,towhateverwayisoperativeinthe context" (Wolterstorff 2006: 42). Something similar holds, I believe, forgoodnessandbeautyWemaythusdefinethe"right"aswhatisinkeepingwithsomething'smetaphysical,ethical,oraestheticpurpose.

59.Itakethephrase"righteousnessofGod"asindicatinginthefirstinstanceGod's own being and action, especially as these pertain to his upholding hiscovenantrelationshipwithIsrael.

60.Tilley2000:1.

63.Aswithmetaphors that describe the saving significance of Jesus' death,

theselargerformsofdiscourseareultimatelyirreducibletotheoreticaldiscourse,even though it is often expedient to provide monological distillations: "Webelieve...."

64.Peterson2005:204.

61.CitedinTilley2000:85.

62.Tilley2000:4.

65.Millhauscr1997:58.

66. In saying this, I take nothing away from the role of baptism and theEucharist. These two dominical ordinances are also forms of communicativeaction that require the apostolic discourse in order to be intelligible. SeeVanhoozer2005b:407-13.