INTRODUCING THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. A Book Review. Presented to. Dr. Jason Lee. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary

Transcription

1 INTRODUCING THEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE A Book Review Presented to Dr. Jason Lee Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for SYSTH 3203 by Jeffrey A. Manning May 27, 2013

2 Treier, Daniel J., Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, pp. $ If one were to observe the subtitle of this text, they would find a glimpse of the author s intent in writing this introduction. Daniel Treier, associate professor of theology at Wheaton College, understands this movement of theological interpretation primarily to be a recovery effort not necessarily a rebellion against or reaction to other forms of hermeneutics. This movement seeks to reverse the dominance of historical criticism over churchly reading of the Bible and to redefine the role of hermeneutics in theology (14). Maintaining the various benefits of modern scholarship, Treier seeks to provide an overview of both the major themes and key figures in pre-modern exegesis as well as the contemporary move forward. Summary In his introduction ( From Karl Barth to Postmodern Theory ), Treier traces how the reassertion of theological interpretation came to be by highlighting the seminal work of Karl Barth, particularly his Romans commentary (Der Römerbrief). Aware of Schleiermacher s work in hermeneutics, Barth believed that he did not have to choose between historical criticism and exegesis. Historical criticism for him was the prep work of interpretation (16). Certainly without perfection but with great influence, Barth produced strands of inspiration concerning theological interpretation, especially those in the Yale school such as Brevard Childs, Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, and Stanley Hauerwas. Treier continues on to briefly describe both evangelical Protestant and Roman 2

3 3 Catholics involvement in scholarly work during the battle with modernism. What he describes is the varied reception of theological interpretation amongst these two groups. Each one over a period of time maintained different aspects but much more narrowly than that seen in the pre-modern eras. Lastly, Treier discusses the challenging role that the many postmodernisms have had in response to historical criticism s lack of selfcriticism. Part one, Catalysts and Common Themes, is composed of three chapters that focus on the agreements that theological interpreters have with one another. The first agreement is that theological interpretation is not a new hermeneutical method but a return to precritical exegesis (37-55). Serving this purpose are four major aspects (three of which Treier discusses here): 1) reading as piety 2) reading about Christ and 3) reading for Christian practice. 1 There is a relationship between orthodoxy and orthopraxy that must exist in order to experience true understanding. Secondly, Treier explains the connection that the Rule of Faith (Regula Fidei) had in preserving orthodox Christian doctrine. He writes, The early Christians saw the Rule of Faith as a form of moral restraint against human tendencies to twist the Scriptures in self-interested ways (59). It provided the means for the church to present a legacy of faith against challenging identities. Third, the interpretation of Scripture belongs to the church. Treier acknowledges that no one has been more influential in this regard more than Stephen Fowl. According to Fowl, The argument in a nutshell is that theology and ecclesiology should drive scriptural hermeneutics, not the other way around (85). 1 The fourth aspect is reading Scripture in light of the canonical story operating as a hermeneutical criterion (41).

4 4 Part two, Continuing Challenges, explores a few of the internal arguments that exist between advocates of theological interpretation. The first concerns the nature of biblical theology and whether the movement should be treated as an interdisciplinary program or as a tyrannical imposition upon the biblical text ( plundering the Egyptians ). This question arises from the biblical theology movement s use of modern historical method rather than those found within conservative, evangelical biblical studies. After presenting two other proposals for how to do biblical theology (progressive revelation, canonical approach), Treier asks whether theological interpretation can reframe both the definition and conversation. To this, he only concludes that the waters are muddy. The second challenge mentioned by Treier is the proper use of general hermeneutics. The question here consists of a modern-postmodern debate on whether a special hermeneutic such as that being proposed fits within the broader conversation of general hermeneutics. Is it simply an expression of interpretation within more general ones or should Scripture alone determine the interpretation of Scripture? Treier sees an overlap between the two but recognizes that there needs to be some more outworking so that no one is plundering the Egyptians or fearful of a Trojan horse (156). Lastly, in a chapter entitled From the Western Academy to the Global Church? Treier examines the challenges of presenting theological interpretation globally even though it primarily exists in Western academia. Using two illustrative incidents (postcolonial thought and Pentecostal Christianity in the global south), Treier seeks to introduce the complexities that exist at the junction of Scripture and globalization. Is it possible to offer a genuine expression of interpretation to the global community? Ultimately, despite the challenges, Treier calls for courage. Quoting Craig Ott, Treier writes, The vision is ultimately one of a new

5 5 humanity (not ethnic pride), a new city (not a locality), a new citizenship (not nationalism), and a new creation (not a fallen one) (184). The church in every culture is accountable to Scripture and it is important for them to determine what is faithful to the Christian faith. In his conclusion, In the End, God, Treier offers an amalgamation of the two parts while presenting guide to theological interpretation under the subtitles: exegesis, biblical theology, historical theology, systematic theology, and practical theology. He acknowledges that though a definitive work has not yet been accomplished, there are many pieces in place for a fuller pursuit. Critical Evaluation Positively, the book is balanced, both in its structure as well as material concerning the past and present nature of theological interpretation. Treier includes many of the major figures and issues including the latest suggested reading for further research. Though he is a clear proponent of the movement (more notably in his other proposals), Treier is also a critical conversationalist within it. To the degree that he describes the scholarly landscape, he succeeds. As he says, this is a book about the reversal of historical criticism s dominance. In this sense, that has required an answer from more conservative scholarship. Negatively, one is left trying to understand the solutions to the problems. Although not his intent to set out a positive suggestion for how to move forward, the reader might be left to wonder if there is any major movement in that direction. In this sense, the book comes across more as a survey than an introduction. One observation of this is that a working definition does not come until page 200. Throughout the text, in seeking to provide various examples of theological exegesis using the Image of God,

6 6 Treier does give some insight into the discipline. However, one is curious as to the particular methodology and practice that he incorporates. All in all, the book is likely more appropriate for students of these disciplines rather than a layperson since there is a bit of assumption of knowledge in the areas of hermeneutics, philosophy, and church history. Conclusion Treier has written a reliable and helpfully critical text for those interested in engaging with theological interpretation. He seems well equipped to survey such a discussion containing a variety of disciplines and persons. Several have analogically described this text as a map for which Treier guides the reader across the landscape of theological interpretation. To this, he has succeeded and it will be interesting to see both the progression of this movement as well as Treier s contribution to it.