Don't know if you saw this, but David Neff reports on Robert Wilken's opening lecture at Wheaton about how the early fathers read the Bible. I wish I could have been there, but I had too much on my plate that week.Wilken made several key points about the Fathers' nonliteral and image-laden reading of the Bible.
1. The New Testament authors clearly applied Old Testament texts in ways that departed seriously from the plain, surface meaning of the text. When Paul cites Psalm 19 in Romans 10 ("their voice is gone out into all the world"), he applies the Psalmist's statement about the heavens to the preaching of the apostles. This runs against the plain meaning, said Wilken.
2. The books of Scripture do not bear their own significance. They must be united to something greater, which is Christ. Thus Paul interprets the creation of man and woman as a great mystery, which is Christ and the church; and he interprets the water-giving rock in the Sinai desert as Christ.
3. Typically, such creative renderings of the Bible are focused on the Old Testament. That is because the Old Testament text signifies Christ, but the New Testament text does not signify another Christ. It requires no allegory or analogy to reveal the Incarnate Word.
4. The Fathers also understood the interpretation of Scripture to require the reader's participation in the spiritual reality of the text. Thus it is not enough to say that Christ was crucified. We must also say, "I am crucified with Christ," and thus also I am raised with Christ.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
"When Paul cites Psalm 19 in Romans 10 ("their voice is gone out into all the world"), he applies the Psalmist's statement about the heavens to the preaching of the apostles."
Am I missing something, because it seems to me that Mr. Neff's understanding of the relation of these two passages is faulty?? As for the Romans 10 passage referring to the teaching of the apostles I am not seeing it. It seems to me that Paul is simply restating what Ps. 19 affirms, that the truth has indeed gone out via creation and therefore Israel is without excuse.
Scot:
I want to sound a note of disagreement with Wilken.
I know we can't use the third century and later rabbis as an exact analogy to the world of the apostles, but in the case of hermeneutics, I think we can say they were in a very similar conceptual world.
The rabbis, even the early ones, had a firm grasp on p'shat (plain) and d'rash (derived) interpretation. The plain was considered always more important. The apostles, I would argue, use d'rash in their preaching and writing, as a kind of application, not interpretation.
I am very alarmed by reductionist readings of the Hebrew Bible as a book of allegories about Christ. It's plain message is consonant with New Testament ideas. I have a book called A New Look at the Old Testament in which I briefly and theologically sort all this out.
On point #3, above, I'd like to make a further comment. While it is true that it is not "another Christ" that the NT signifies, we do see Paul saying, "even if we had known Christ according to the flesh, we now know him [in that way] no more; therefore if anyone be in Christ there is a new creation... (2 Corinthians 5:16-17), Thus Christ in the NT is not just the historical figure of the rabbi from Nazareth, but is the salvation of the world, good news to the nations (ethne, Gentiles), the beginning and end of history. As such, the full application of the meaning and presence of Christ in all situations, "in whom is hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge," requires, it seems to me, a continual re-envisioning of the world as it is (not just as it was in the first century) and, it seems to me also, we hve ample precedent in scripture and in the work of the Fathers for applying by extension and analogy the truth of Christ to emerging circumstances, just as the Fathers and the NT writers did with respect to ancient Hebrew texts.
Just catching up on these comments, and I see Charlie attributes Robert Wilken's understanding of the way Romans 10 quotes to Psalm 19 to me. I just want to be clear that I was summarizing Robert Wilken's lecture in those four points.
As to the function of the Psalm 19 quote in Romans 10, I would first point out that it is made in the immediate context of Paul's assertion that people cannot believe unless they hear the word preached. So I can understand how that would be read as a reference to the apostolic preaching.
The other reading, while possible, seems to backtrack from his insistence on the importance of preaching and allow for general revelation to carry the burden of gospel proclamation.
Colin Hansen has an article about Christ centered preaching entitled "Christ-Centered Cautions" Stating among other things that there is moral teaching that takes place in the OT. That is instructive in and of itself, without having to refer to Christ.j
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.