As a follow up to his previous post, Reno comes out swinging again at biblical scholars and historical criticism. An excerpt…
One would think that historical criticism is primarily concerned with, well, history. It isn’t. As Collins makes his case for the continuing central, authoritative role for the historical–critical tradition, writes Legaspi, “What was once an intellectual project for making sense of the Bible appears to have become a sociopolitical proposal for regulating dialogue.” Biblical scholars are important primarily as gatekeepers. They are academic officials who designate what does and does not count as “responsible” interpretation of the Bible.
In other words, the academy is a church, the historical-critical method its dogma, and biblical scholars its priests. Of course, Bultmann said as much years ago.
Read the article. And then get Reno’s must-read intro to interpretation in the early church, Sanctified Vision.
I’m a New Testamenter and all, but I admit, it made my morning to read R.R. Reno giving the business to so many of those in the field of biblical studies.
Great article, especially coming from a miscreant we label “theologian.”
So also in the command, ‘you shall not commit murder,’ Jesus argues not against God’s command through Moses but against the traditional limitation of that command to literal murder. If someone objects, ‘But the text says “murder,” one might reply as a certain rabbi once did to his pupil: ‘Good, you have learned to read. Now go and learn to interpret.‘
Stanley Hauerwas isn’t one of the “in” theologians of the groups I inhabit. That’s too bad. Say what you will about Hauerwas – really, say whatever you want, he’d encourage the rough language – it’s a mistake to ignore his work. And not just an academic mistake; I’d be spiritually poorer had I not been introduced to his writing.
I am convinced that the recovery of the sermon as the context for theological reflection is crucial if Christians are to negotiate the world in which we find ourselves….
I have, however, increasingly come to the recognition that one of the most satisfying contexts for doing the work of theology is in sermons. That should not be surprising because throughout Christian history, at least until recently, the sermon was one of the primary places in which the work of theology was done. For the work of theology is first and foremost to exposit scripture. That modern theology has become less and less scriptural, that modern theology has often tried to appear as a form of philosophy, is but an indication of its alienation from its proper work.
