Although Bultmann responded favorably to Barth’s call for a return to a theological exegesis of S... more Although Bultmann responded favorably to Barth’s call for a return to a theological exegesis of Scripture in the tradition of the Reformers that moved beyond modern historicism without relapsing into premodern biblicism, he criticized Barth for not following through on the necessity of subjecting biblical texts to theological criticism according to the criterion of the Bible’s subject matter ( Sachkritik ). What accounts for their disagreement on this issue? At the root of their conflict over Sachkritik is the confessional difference between Lutherans and the Reformed. Whereas Luther was willing to criticize Scripture on the basis of the gospel, Calvin did not follow Luther in this respect. This article examines the differing understandings of Luther (and thus Bultmann) and Calvin (and thus Barth), arguing that Protestants today must decide what is the genuine legacy of the Reformation heritage regarding the proper understanding of biblical authority, since nothing less than the int...
Christian Faith as Religion investigates the systematic theologies of John Calvin and Friedrich S... more Christian Faith as Religion investigates the systematic theologies of John Calvin and Friedrich Schleiermacher with respect to the questions: What is Religion? and What is Christian religion? The author argues that the classical and liberal exemplars of Reformed dogmatics are best compared when these two questions are thoroughly examined, and calls into question the contention of Reformed theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner that Schleiermacher's theological use of the category 'religion' signifies a departure from the tradition of Calvin. He offers a revised comparative framework that discloses the material and formal similarities between Calvin and Schleiermacher with respect to their employment of the categories 'religion' and 'revelation' and allows the historical theologian to delineate the trajectory from Calvin to Schleiermacher in a way that accounts for both continuity and discontinuity in the transition from classical to modern Protestant the...
41 mann perceived an inconsistency in Barth’s practice, since Barth had opened the door to Sachkr... more 41 mann perceived an inconsistency in Barth’s practice, since Barth had opened the door to Sachkritik in his Romans commentary (even if he himself refused to walk through it, a point to which Bultmann drew attention in his review). The seeds of their later disagreement over the program of demythologizing were sown in this earlier debate over the meaning of Sachkritik. Although the term Sachkritik is a modern designation, what it designates is not.2 As both Barth and Bultmann were aware, its locus classicus is found in Martin Luther’s critical handling of certain biblical texts, most famously in his rejection of the canonical standing of James. Not surprisingly, Luther’s willingness to criticize the Bible was controversial even among many Protestants in the sixteenth century. John Calvin, for all his sympathies with Luther’s theology, refused to follow Luther in this respect. Like Calvin, Barth sought to read the entire canon of Scripture as a unity, whereas Bultmann, like Luther, sa...
Le but de cet article est de mettre en lumiere le caractere trompeur de beaucoup d'ecrits con... more Le but de cet article est de mettre en lumiere le caractere trompeur de beaucoup d'ecrits concernant l'autorite biblique et confessionnelle dans le debat presbyterien sur l'homosexualite. L'A. considere ainsi certains problemes theologiques qui entourent cette controverse, puis suggere qu'une meilleure interpretation de la theologie reformee devrait etre utilisee comme ossature pour discuter du probleme moral. Suit une replique de F.W. Beuttler, enfin une contre replique de l'A.
A lthough the subtitle of the book refers to a "constructive theology," and the author names the ... more A lthough the subtitle of the book refers to a "constructive theology," and the author names the project a "pragmatic theory of religious experience," in his recent book Creative Exchange, Victor Anderson offers readers a much-needed African American philosophy of religion. Anderson addresses traditional topics or "problems" within the philosophy of religion: religious knowledge, suffering and evil, God, and human meaning. Although the focus is on African American cultural experiences, Anderson constructs a philosophy of religion applicable well beyond any particular community. Creative Exchange hinges around Anderson's concept of "the grotesque." In fact, the concept of "the grotesque" is so central that the book could aptly be named "black grotesqueries." In short, "the grotesque" connotes that any given situation, concept, or picture always has more than one dimension or interpretation. Using the popular illusions of the pictures that can appear as a duck/ rabbit and a human face/ saxophonist, Anderson demands that we look at every situation for its depth, complexity, and multiple readings. There is no one or clear perspective to a situation. The grotesque represents the ability to live with ambiguity. Embracing "the grotesque" highlights and leaves unresolved differences that appear contradictory. That makes both the objects and our perception of them ambiguous. Now there are more possibilities for creative ways of understanding the object, which necessarily disrupts our tendencies to synthesize and render clear and unitary that which is indeed absurd and complex. We must understand experience through the lens of the grotesque because, as Anderson rightly asserts, how we understand experience "will determine what gets emphasized as defining aspects of African American religious experience" (9). As a pragmatist, Anderson asserts that religion is in our experiences more than in our doctrinal statements of belief. For black theological work, the grotesque continually asserts that black experience is not reducible to experiences of suffering and humiliation. The grotesque is not just the guiding theme of Anderson's work; it is also characteristic of Anderson's method and argumentation. Anderson engages his philosophical, theological, and cultural interlocutors with the same complexity
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 1993
A formalism for ~he representation of "semantic emphases" is introduced, using principal and acce... more A formalism for ~he representation of "semantic emphases" is introduced, using principal and accessory instantiatiQns. It m~es it possible to convert predicate expressions inbo network-like structures. As an application criteria for ooligatory and optional actants are dealt with.
One salient characteristic of our current situation is the emergence of a growing consensus among... more One salient characteristic of our current situation is the emergence of a growing consensus among theologians and biblical scholars alike that the time has come to “dethrone” historical criticism as the reigning paradigm of scriptural exegesis for the sake of recovering a theological interpretation of the Bible on behalf of the church.1 To illustrate this new development, I have chosen to focus on the arguments of three prominent biblical scholars, each of whom has made a sustained case about the negative effects of historical criticism upon theological exegesis: They are Brevard S. Childs, Christopher R. Seitz, and Dale B. Martin. All three scholars have close ties to Yale and, not surprisingly, they bear a sort of family resemblance to one another inasmuch as their work partakes of theological themes and concerns that have been prominent at that school in recent decades. Notwithstanding their antagonistic posture toward historical criticism, all three are gifted practitioners of the very method whose dominance they seek to overturn. Since I am not a biblical scholar, I must enter into discussion with them as a theologian who is equally concerned about the relations between biblical studies and theology. At the outset, however, it is necessary to clarify that my own theological orientation prevents me from embracing their call to depose historical criticism. As a liberal Protestant for whom historical-critical interpretation of both the biblical and the post-biblical tradition is constitutive of theology's proper task, their initial premise that historical criticism is somehow inimical to a theological treatment of the Bible strikes me as false and misleading. Contrary to the impression given by their explicit formulations, it appears that the real target of their polemics is not historical scholarship per se but, rather, the normative uses to which it is put in theologies informed by it.
In the nineteenth century the unrestricted application of the historical-critical method posed an... more In the nineteenth century the unrestricted application of the historical-critical method posed an unprecedented challenge to inherited Christian notions about the Bible. While this challenge was eventually to be felt most acutely in the study of the New Testament (nt) once the distinction between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” had firmly established itself, traditional viewpoints on the Old Testament (ot) were actually the first to be called into question. As a consequence of historical investigation, it became increasingly difficult for theologians to claim that the gospel is already taught in the ot. Regarding this matter, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) made a bold proposal. He argued against the canonical standing of the ot on the grounds that it expresses Jewish, not Christian, religion. For him this conclusion was the unavoidable result of the advancing critical scholarship that was undermining the christological exegesis used to defend the church's ...
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 2009
A canon is both fixed and dynamic. The interpretive dynamics of the biblical canon did not cease ... more A canon is both fixed and dynamic. The interpretive dynamics of the biblical canon did not cease when the several faith communities closed their canon. Each community claims that its canon is normative for its communal life. Yet, the canonical process has in fact continued in all faith communities: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Interpretations of it reflect the times and cultures in which it is cited. Central to the canon is its evolving understanding of God. Thoughall three religions claim to be monotheistic, each has been stalled for centuries at claiming that only its particular view of God is correct. It is time to move forward toward a fuller understanding of what believing in the One God of All means today.
... This is not to say that the tradition has all the answers to our contemporary questions if ..... more ... This is not to say that the tradition has all the answers to our contemporary questions if ... the tradition as though it had nothing of import to say to us is quite clearly shortsighted. ... analogy to be explored between one aspect of the Reformation initiated by Martin Luther (1483-1546 ...
Many in our culture have difficulty understanding and appreciating the significance of Luther’s a... more Many in our culture have difficulty understanding and appreciating the significance of Luther’s achievement because of its medieval trappings. Paul Tillich’s insightful reflections on the nature of Protestantism provide a helpful way to distinguish what is of mere historical interest from what is of enduring value in Luther’s legacy. Tillich exemplifies the kind of dialogical historical-theological engagement with the church’s heritage that is urgently needed, since it is captive neither to the right with its ideological misuse of the past in support of conservatism nor to the left with its ideological rejection of the past as oppressive.
Although Bultmann responded favorably to Barth’s call for a return to a theological exegesis of S... more Although Bultmann responded favorably to Barth’s call for a return to a theological exegesis of Scripture in the tradition of the Reformers that moved beyond modern historicism without relapsing into premodern biblicism, he criticized Barth for not following through on the necessity of subjecting biblical texts to theological criticism according to the criterion of the Bible’s subject matter ( Sachkritik ). What accounts for their disagreement on this issue? At the root of their conflict over Sachkritik is the confessional difference between Lutherans and the Reformed. Whereas Luther was willing to criticize Scripture on the basis of the gospel, Calvin did not follow Luther in this respect. This article examines the differing understandings of Luther (and thus Bultmann) and Calvin (and thus Barth), arguing that Protestants today must decide what is the genuine legacy of the Reformation heritage regarding the proper understanding of biblical authority, since nothing less than the int...
Christian Faith as Religion investigates the systematic theologies of John Calvin and Friedrich S... more Christian Faith as Religion investigates the systematic theologies of John Calvin and Friedrich Schleiermacher with respect to the questions: What is Religion? and What is Christian religion? The author argues that the classical and liberal exemplars of Reformed dogmatics are best compared when these two questions are thoroughly examined, and calls into question the contention of Reformed theologians Karl Barth and Emil Brunner that Schleiermacher's theological use of the category 'religion' signifies a departure from the tradition of Calvin. He offers a revised comparative framework that discloses the material and formal similarities between Calvin and Schleiermacher with respect to their employment of the categories 'religion' and 'revelation' and allows the historical theologian to delineate the trajectory from Calvin to Schleiermacher in a way that accounts for both continuity and discontinuity in the transition from classical to modern Protestant the...
41 mann perceived an inconsistency in Barth’s practice, since Barth had opened the door to Sachkr... more 41 mann perceived an inconsistency in Barth’s practice, since Barth had opened the door to Sachkritik in his Romans commentary (even if he himself refused to walk through it, a point to which Bultmann drew attention in his review). The seeds of their later disagreement over the program of demythologizing were sown in this earlier debate over the meaning of Sachkritik. Although the term Sachkritik is a modern designation, what it designates is not.2 As both Barth and Bultmann were aware, its locus classicus is found in Martin Luther’s critical handling of certain biblical texts, most famously in his rejection of the canonical standing of James. Not surprisingly, Luther’s willingness to criticize the Bible was controversial even among many Protestants in the sixteenth century. John Calvin, for all his sympathies with Luther’s theology, refused to follow Luther in this respect. Like Calvin, Barth sought to read the entire canon of Scripture as a unity, whereas Bultmann, like Luther, sa...
Le but de cet article est de mettre en lumiere le caractere trompeur de beaucoup d'ecrits con... more Le but de cet article est de mettre en lumiere le caractere trompeur de beaucoup d'ecrits concernant l'autorite biblique et confessionnelle dans le debat presbyterien sur l'homosexualite. L'A. considere ainsi certains problemes theologiques qui entourent cette controverse, puis suggere qu'une meilleure interpretation de la theologie reformee devrait etre utilisee comme ossature pour discuter du probleme moral. Suit une replique de F.W. Beuttler, enfin une contre replique de l'A.
A lthough the subtitle of the book refers to a "constructive theology," and the author names the ... more A lthough the subtitle of the book refers to a "constructive theology," and the author names the project a "pragmatic theory of religious experience," in his recent book Creative Exchange, Victor Anderson offers readers a much-needed African American philosophy of religion. Anderson addresses traditional topics or "problems" within the philosophy of religion: religious knowledge, suffering and evil, God, and human meaning. Although the focus is on African American cultural experiences, Anderson constructs a philosophy of religion applicable well beyond any particular community. Creative Exchange hinges around Anderson's concept of "the grotesque." In fact, the concept of "the grotesque" is so central that the book could aptly be named "black grotesqueries." In short, "the grotesque" connotes that any given situation, concept, or picture always has more than one dimension or interpretation. Using the popular illusions of the pictures that can appear as a duck/ rabbit and a human face/ saxophonist, Anderson demands that we look at every situation for its depth, complexity, and multiple readings. There is no one or clear perspective to a situation. The grotesque represents the ability to live with ambiguity. Embracing "the grotesque" highlights and leaves unresolved differences that appear contradictory. That makes both the objects and our perception of them ambiguous. Now there are more possibilities for creative ways of understanding the object, which necessarily disrupts our tendencies to synthesize and render clear and unitary that which is indeed absurd and complex. We must understand experience through the lens of the grotesque because, as Anderson rightly asserts, how we understand experience "will determine what gets emphasized as defining aspects of African American religious experience" (9). As a pragmatist, Anderson asserts that religion is in our experiences more than in our doctrinal statements of belief. For black theological work, the grotesque continually asserts that black experience is not reducible to experiences of suffering and humiliation. The grotesque is not just the guiding theme of Anderson's work; it is also characteristic of Anderson's method and argumentation. Anderson engages his philosophical, theological, and cultural interlocutors with the same complexity
Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 1993
A formalism for ~he representation of "semantic emphases" is introduced, using principal and acce... more A formalism for ~he representation of "semantic emphases" is introduced, using principal and accessory instantiatiQns. It m~es it possible to convert predicate expressions inbo network-like structures. As an application criteria for ooligatory and optional actants are dealt with.
One salient characteristic of our current situation is the emergence of a growing consensus among... more One salient characteristic of our current situation is the emergence of a growing consensus among theologians and biblical scholars alike that the time has come to “dethrone” historical criticism as the reigning paradigm of scriptural exegesis for the sake of recovering a theological interpretation of the Bible on behalf of the church.1 To illustrate this new development, I have chosen to focus on the arguments of three prominent biblical scholars, each of whom has made a sustained case about the negative effects of historical criticism upon theological exegesis: They are Brevard S. Childs, Christopher R. Seitz, and Dale B. Martin. All three scholars have close ties to Yale and, not surprisingly, they bear a sort of family resemblance to one another inasmuch as their work partakes of theological themes and concerns that have been prominent at that school in recent decades. Notwithstanding their antagonistic posture toward historical criticism, all three are gifted practitioners of the very method whose dominance they seek to overturn. Since I am not a biblical scholar, I must enter into discussion with them as a theologian who is equally concerned about the relations between biblical studies and theology. At the outset, however, it is necessary to clarify that my own theological orientation prevents me from embracing their call to depose historical criticism. As a liberal Protestant for whom historical-critical interpretation of both the biblical and the post-biblical tradition is constitutive of theology's proper task, their initial premise that historical criticism is somehow inimical to a theological treatment of the Bible strikes me as false and misleading. Contrary to the impression given by their explicit formulations, it appears that the real target of their polemics is not historical scholarship per se but, rather, the normative uses to which it is put in theologies informed by it.
In the nineteenth century the unrestricted application of the historical-critical method posed an... more In the nineteenth century the unrestricted application of the historical-critical method posed an unprecedented challenge to inherited Christian notions about the Bible. While this challenge was eventually to be felt most acutely in the study of the New Testament (nt) once the distinction between the “Jesus of history” and the “Christ of faith” had firmly established itself, traditional viewpoints on the Old Testament (ot) were actually the first to be called into question. As a consequence of historical investigation, it became increasingly difficult for theologians to claim that the gospel is already taught in the ot. Regarding this matter, Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834) made a bold proposal. He argued against the canonical standing of the ot on the grounds that it expresses Jewish, not Christian, religion. For him this conclusion was the unavoidable result of the advancing critical scholarship that was undermining the christological exegesis used to defend the church's ...
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology, 2009
A canon is both fixed and dynamic. The interpretive dynamics of the biblical canon did not cease ... more A canon is both fixed and dynamic. The interpretive dynamics of the biblical canon did not cease when the several faith communities closed their canon. Each community claims that its canon is normative for its communal life. Yet, the canonical process has in fact continued in all faith communities: Jewish, Christian and Muslim. Interpretations of it reflect the times and cultures in which it is cited. Central to the canon is its evolving understanding of God. Thoughall three religions claim to be monotheistic, each has been stalled for centuries at claiming that only its particular view of God is correct. It is time to move forward toward a fuller understanding of what believing in the One God of All means today.
... This is not to say that the tradition has all the answers to our contemporary questions if ..... more ... This is not to say that the tradition has all the answers to our contemporary questions if ... the tradition as though it had nothing of import to say to us is quite clearly shortsighted. ... analogy to be explored between one aspect of the Reformation initiated by Martin Luther (1483-1546 ...
Many in our culture have difficulty understanding and appreciating the significance of Luther’s a... more Many in our culture have difficulty understanding and appreciating the significance of Luther’s achievement because of its medieval trappings. Paul Tillich’s insightful reflections on the nature of Protestantism provide a helpful way to distinguish what is of mere historical interest from what is of enduring value in Luther’s legacy. Tillich exemplifies the kind of dialogical historical-theological engagement with the church’s heritage that is urgently needed, since it is captive neither to the right with its ideological misuse of the past in support of conservatism nor to the left with its ideological rejection of the past as oppressive.
Uploads
Papers by Paul Capetz