In essence I’m questioning how much time and effort I should put into ‘joining the online discussion.’ I’m working hard to just do my PhD stuff, learn French and German, keep building my Greek and Hebrew skills, not to mention work on my research. If I keep up with this blog I think it will become a place I will post thoughts about my research, book reviews or things like that. I have decided that I feel no pressure to ‘join’ any community. This blog is a place for me to put down some of my thoughts. So, as good as the discussion online is, I feel no pressure to comment on other people’s blogs or to necessarily respond to everyone who comments on mine. I welcome all people to read my thoughts, but I have to be careful that my blog be an addition to my ongoing education not a detraction from it.

All that is to say, I’m not sure where this blog is going, but I’m not quite ready to give up on it. We’ll see.

As for this blog, obviously I haven’t posted in quite some time. However, we’ve made the move and life is beginning to settle in a routine so I hope to use this blog as a forum to discuss topics related to my research and interests. Thus, I hope to be blogging on things I’m reading and thinking about in the areas of: 1 Samuel, Septuagintal Research, narrative criticism and theological hermeneutics. Hopefully, this will become a good place to ‘host’ some of my thoughts.

Update: And I have now sat through a presentation from J. Cheryl Exum (Sheffield University) on the Song of Songs.

I was a freshman, living in dorms at Trinity Western University in Langley, BC, Canada. I remember my RA coming into my room and waking me up quite frantic. “They’re bombing the World Trade Center,” he said. I got up in half a stooper and joined the half a dozen other American students from my floor. We went to our RD’s office (the closes TV with cable) and watched as they showed, over and over again the second plane hitting the south Tower. 

I remember having to go to my intro to philosophy class. My professor was so affected by the events that he said he didn’t know what to say. So we spent a few minutes in prayer and then he dismissed the class. Soon after that, a notice from the university was sent out canceling classes for the whole day.

I went back to my dorm, still in shock, and watched more of the news. I must have seen that second plane hit the south tower three dozen times that day. 

Shortly after that, that same day, they held a special chapel. There was a short message (from the President of the University, I think). Then, they asked all of the American students to stand up. The Canadian students and faculty then gathered around us and prayed for us. I remember being very moved and feeling that the whole experience was very surreal.

The rest of the day was busy finding out about this friend and that friend’s family member who was in New York, and figuring out if they were ok.

I remember most, being an American in Canada and the feeling when the Canadians in chapel prayed for us. It was a profound moment. I felt the sense of tragedy most, when us Americans were prayed for by our fellow Canadian students. Strangely, I felt that I could deal with that sense of tragedy best in that same situation. Maybe it was their sense of empathy. Maybe it was because in that moment we were not Americans and Canadians, we were humans. I’ll never forget it. I still remember too.

This article is an excellent example of Moberly’s interpretive program and I recommend it highly to everyone. In this post, however, I want to examine one aspect of Moberly’s suggestion: the use of Exod. 34:6-7 to set a paradigm for biblical theology. I find this to be a very helpful exercise and worthy of reflection.

Moberly offers the following translation of Exod. 34:6-7 - 

YHWH passed before him [Moses], and proclaimed, ‘YHWH, YHWH, a deity gracious and merciful, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and upon the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation (p. 191).

 Moberly begins his discussion of Ex. 34:6-7 with an interaction with the discussion of this text in Horst Dietrich Preuss’s Old Testament Theology, which Moberly finds to be representative of a historical approach to biblical theology. He thus uses a critique of Preuss to formulate his own positive contributions to understanding biblical theology in light of Ex. 34:6-7.

His first critique of Pruess is his “abstraction of the text [Ex. 35:6-7] from its narrative context” (192). The view that this section may have been inserted into its present context is conceded by Moberly (for the sake of the argument), but, he argues, it still must be dealt with in its present context. For Moberly, failing to notice the narrative context in which it is Moses’ intercession, after apostasy, that sets the scene for this great divine-revelation, fails to recognize how the text is functioning, and essentially what it is talking about. 

The second critique is that when one divorces this text from its context, the text is greatly impoverished. This text, with the “unparalleled cumulation of terms of mercy and forgiveness” (193) is not correctly or fully understood until one realizes that this divine-revelation is given in the context of apostasy, in response to Moses’ intercession, and in the setting of Mt. Sinai. In this context the affirmation of divine mercy is striking indeed.

Thirdly, Moberly argues, historical approaches to biblical theology such as Preuss’s, end up doing the ground work for biblical theology instead of actually doing biblical theology (cf. the critique of Barth in the preface of his Romans Commentary).

Finally, Moberly notes that the historical approach doesn’t really address the issue being raised in this text of the divine revelation of the divine nature. Recognizing that this text may not have originated with Moses himself (contra most of the history of interpretation) may be helpful for historical reasons. But, for the Christian, it is of little consequent for Christians believe in the divinely inspired text, not the Moses inspired text. To recognize human agency in Scripture is of no consequence for the Christian whether Moses wrote it or someone after the Exile. Whoever wrote it, God inspired it.

The second half of Moberly’s interaction with Ex. 34:6-7 in terms of biblical theology is his exegetical observations about this text and how they can inform biblical theology. His observations are as follows:

1. “[It] is only when Moses intercedes that God reveals” (198). Thus it is that “self-involvement makes possible an encounter with, and fuller knowledge of, God that a self-distancing would impede; in other words, certain kinds of ‘objectivity’, in which the knower tries to keep distance and distinctness from what is known, rule out the kind of knowing of God which is the foundation of biblical and Christian faith” (198).
2. It is the context of the divine speech and Moses intercession that sets the scene in God reveals himself to Moses, while covering him as he passes by (vv. 19-23). Thus, “the fullest account of the name and nature of God in the whole Bible (34:6-7) is preceded by an emphasis upon the limitation of what the privileged recipient is able to receive.” In this we see that “because knowing God is a relational and responsive reality characterized by learning and growth where ever greater knowing is rightly accompanied by ever greater humility of unknowing” (199).
3. “[T]he cumulative emphasis upon YHWH’s mercy and forgiveness [especially in the context of Israel's current apostasy] is remarkable” (199).
4. In light of the inclusion of the phrase “but who will by no means clear the guilty…” in v. 7b we can see that “YHWH’s forgiveness is truly forgiveness, not leniency, still less moral indifference” (200).
5. It is notable that God’s jealousy (qn’) is not mentioned in this revelation. However, it is telling that it is not far away so that in 34:14 God’s “very name–which has just been emphatically associated with mercy, steadfast love, and forgiveness–is said to be Jealous” (200). Moberly contends that “Unless these attributes of God are both respected with total seriousness then the revelation of God will be more or less misunderstood” (200-01).

 In my reading of Moberly he brings out the fact that Exod. 34:6-7, when understood in its narrative context, helpfully illustrates the relational and dialogic nature of theology and also the complex but awesome nature of God. His conclusion is thus to state that, “if biblical theology is to be true to itself, it needs to be a rigorous outworking of that openness and responsiveness towards God that we call prayer” (202). I cannot think of a greater challenge and call to the Christian biblical theologian. Let us rise to the challenge. 

1 Sam. 2:25b

ולא‭ ‬ישׁמעו‭ ‬לקול‭ ‬אביהם‭ ‬כי־חפץ‭ ‬יהוה‭ ‬להמיתם

 

Trans.: But they did not heed the voice of their father for YHWH desired to kill them (my translation).

 

It is possible to read this phrase with the NRSV as “it was the will of the Lord to kill them.” But as far as I can tell, the word חפץ‭ ‬most regularly carries the connotation of “to desire” or “to take delight in” or “to take pleasure in” (cf. BDB, I do not have HALOT with me so I am curious what it says). It is probably possible to translate חפץ‭ ‬as “to want” or “to will.” Two examples of this understanding could be Judg. 13:23, where Manoah’s wife says, “If the LORD had meant (חפץ) to kill us, he would not have accepted a burnt offering,” and Isa. 55:11, where the prophet says, “it shall accomplish that which I purpose (חפץ).” Another example could be the great servant song of Isaiah, where the prophet says in 53:10 “Yet it was the will (חפץ) of the LORD to crush him with pain.”

Perhaps I am reading too much into the use of חפץ‭ ‬in this context based on the English gloss, “delight in” or “desire.” But perhaps I am trying not to simplify this delight language when it comes to God’s punishment in this text. As I read this text, three instances where חפץ‭ ‬is also used of God comes to mind.

First, in 1 Sam. 15:22, Samuel asks the question both rhetorically and sarcastically expecting the negative answer:

Has the LORD as great delight (החפץ) in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the LORD?

The context here is one where Saul has used the excuse of offering sacrifices to YHWH as the reason that he did not follow YHWH’s commands to slaughter all the Amalekites including “man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey” (1 Sam. 15:3). So, we can say that it appears that God does not take delight in Saul using sacrifice, a good thing on its own, as an excuse to do what he really wants to do, i.e., keep the good animals for himself (or for his people), a bad thing.

A second example, is found in Jer. 9:24

Jer. 9:24 but let those who boast boast in this, that they understand and know me, that I am the LORD; I act with steadfast love, justice, and righteousness in the earth, for in these things I delight, says the LORD. 

Here YHWH declares that what he delights in is steadfast love (חסד), justice (משׁפט), and righteousness (צדקה). These are three loaded theological terms and we will come back to them. It may be helpful to treat this verse as the categories of things that God delights in.

A final example are two verses from Ezekiel. In the context of a discussion about Israel’s apostasy, YHWH’s desire to forgive, but willingness to punish two verses stand out:

Ezek. 18:23 Have I any pleasure (החפץ‭ ‬אחפץ) in the death of the wicked, says the Lord GOD, and not rather that they should turn from their ways and live? 

Ezek. 18:32 For I have no pleasure (לא‭ ‬אחפץ) in the death of anyone, says the Lord GOD. Turn, then, and live. 

This passage clearly expresses YHWH’s desire for his people to turn from their wicked ways that he might forgive them. He does not desire in the death of anyone, as the two verses above suggest. In the context the people of Israel declare “The way of the Lord is unfair” (18:25, 29) to which YHWH replies “s my way unfair? Is it not your ways that are unfair?” (18:25, 29). So the onerous is put on humankind. God desires to forgive His people but the ball is in their court as it were:

Ezek. 18:26 When the righteous turn away from their righteousness and commit iniquity, they shall die for it; for the iniquity that they have committed they shall die. 

Ezek. 18:27 Again, when the wicked turn away from the wickedness they have committed and do what is lawful and right, they shall save their life. 

So, from a biblical theological perspective how do we understand the phrase “YHWH desired to kill them”? First, if we can take Ezekiel 18 as representative of God’s character we can say that God does not delight in anyone’s death. I take this to mean that YHWH’s character is defined by his mercy, i.e., all things being equal YHWH would prefer to show mercy than exercise punishment. Thus it cannot be the deaths of Hophni and Pinchas, per se, that bring about YHWH’s delight. Second, if we can take Jer. 9:24 as programatic for the categories of things that YHWH does delight in, we can suggest a way to understand 1 Sam. 2:25b. 

Jer. 9:24 suggests that YHWH delights in three things: 1) steadfast love, 2) justice, and 3) righteousness. If we take this as programatic of what YHWH delights in than we can categorize YHWH’s delight in 1 Sam. 2:25b. YHWH cannot be delighting in steadfast love (חסד) in this text, though we can postulate that this is what He would prefer to be showing as evidenced by Eli’s appeal to his sons in v. 25a. Likewise it cannot be righteousness (צדקה) that He is delighting in, lest it is His own righteousness that cannot abide the wickedness of the two sons of Eli. Rather, it must be YHWH’s justice (משׁפט) in which He delights in 1 Sam. 2:25b. The phrase “YHWH desired to kill them” or “YHWH delighted in the killing of them” must primarily mean that YHWH desired to restore His justice or He delighted in the restoration of justice that killing them would bring about. This is not to soften the fact that it was the killing of the sons of Eli that brought about that justice and hence that delight but it is to put it in its proper biblical theological context. I wonder if this could be compared to the delight that we feel at the end of a movie or book when a “bad guy” who represented injustice is killed restoring justice to the world of the book or movie? This seems, to me at least, to be the best way to think about this text. God delights in restoring justice, or as the English would say, “putting things to right.” YHWH is a God who delights in restoring His justice, sometimes that requires the death of someone and though he does not delight in someone’s death per se (Ezek. 18:23, 32) he does delight in writing wrongs and restoring justice (one need only think of the death of Hitler)! Hopefully this is a helpful way to think about a verse (or half of a verse!) that poses a difficult biblical theological question.

R.W.L. Moberly, Professor of Theology and Biblical Interpretation at Durham University, has offered up the second book in the new series, ‘Old Testament Theology’ (the other being the volume on Jeremiah by Breuggemann). Many of those who would read this review know that Moberly is my thesis advisor, so I am naturally somewhat predisposed to appreciate his work, and this volume is no exception. Hopefully, however, this review will be helpful to others.

Moberly begins his work by discussing exactly what a “theology of Genesis” should be. He discusses traditional historical criticism and ideological criticism, but proposes his own canonical and confessional theology whereby Genesis is understood “within the context of continuing traditions of faith, life, and thought” (12). Thus, Moberly’s work is significantly different than many “theological” studies of the book of Genesis, and is, in fact quite different than one would expect of a book titled, The Theology of the Book of Genesis.

The content of the book is a series of nine studies of particular texts that have significance for Genesis as received Scripture today, as well as two methodological studies on reading Genesis 1-11 and Genesis 12-50. One of the strengths of this book is that each of these studies draws upon previous significant publications that function to give the work more scholarly depth (see the bibliography below). The specific texts discussed are Gen. 1; 2-3; 4; 6-9; 12:1-3; 12:3a; and 37-50. As a theology of the book of Genesis it may seem disproportionate for Gen. 12:1-3 to receive almost 40 pages while chapters 37-50 receives only twenty and Gen. 13-36 receives no mention at all (I’m sure John Anderson will be disappointed that Jacob is not mentioned). 

Moberly’s approach is encapsulated in the following paragraph:

The theological interpretation of scripture – its reading with a view to articulating and practicing its enduring significance for human life under God – involves a constant holding together of parts and a whole which is regularly reconfigured. It is in the meeting of biblical text with canonical context and the ongoing life of communities of faith that theology is done – and where one may hope to try to articulate a theology of Genesis (17).

Moberly accomplishes this view of biblical theology very well. This little book is an excellent example of how careful exegesis can inform the believing community. I find it to be an extremely helpful approach. However, this approach tends to give more weight to texts that we are interested in rather than to texts that the Genesis itself emphasizes. This can lead to abuses of the text for the text as a whole is no longer allowed to dictate its own emphasis. Thus, in taking this approach we must keep in mind that the texts we are most interested in may not be those that the book in as a whole is most interested in and we must respect the books own emphases.

Furthermore, though I have not read the other volume in this series I cannot say if it is characteristic of the series or whether it is Moberly’s own idiosyncrasies that have led to the form the present book takes, but calling this book The Theology of the Book of Genesis is significantly misleading. Moberly himself says that this book is “a guide to, rather than a comprehensive coverage of, what theological understanding and appropriation of Genesis today may involve” (20). This is eminently true of the book. It is nowhere near a theology of the book of Genesis, but it is a very excellent engagement with the theology of the book of Genesis. And as such, I highly recommend it to anyone interested in what theological interpretation may look like.

Bibliography of studies by Moberly that inform this book:

“How Should One Read the Early Chapters of Genesis?” in Reading Genesis after Darwin, ed. Stephen Barton and David Wilkinson (New York: OUP, 2009).

“Did the Interpreters Get it Right? Genesis 2-3 Reconsidered,” JTS 59 (2008): 22-40.

“On Interpreting the Mind of God: The Theological Significance of the Flood Narrative (Genesis 6-9),” in The Word Leaps the Gap: Essays on Scripture and Theology in Honor of Richard B. Hays, ed. J. Ross Wagner, C. Kavin Rowe, and A. Katherine Grieb (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008), 44-66.

“The Mark of Cain – Revealed at Last?” HTR 100 (2007): 11-28.

Prophecy and Discernment, CSCD 14 (Cambridge, CUP, 2006).

“How Appropriate Is ‘Monotheism’ as a Category for Biblical Interpretation?” in Early Jewish and Christian Monotheism, ed. Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Wendy E.S. North, JSNT Supp. 263 (London: T&T Clark, 2004), 216-34. 

“Living Dangerously: Genesis 22 and the Quest for Good Biblical Interpretation,” in The Art of Reading Scripture, ed. Ellen F. Davis and Richard B. Hays (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 181-97.

The Bible, Theology and Faith: A Study of Abraham and Jesus, CSCD 5 (Cambridge: CUP, 2000).

“Solomon and Job: Divine Wisdom in Human Life,” in Where Shall Wisdom Be Found? Wisdom in the Bible, the Church and the Contemporary World, ed. Stephen C. Barton (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 3-17.

The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, OBT (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1992; repr., Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001).

At the Mountain of God: Story and Theology in Exodus 32-34, JSOT Supp. 22 (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1983).

The context of this passage (see 1 Sam. 2:12-25) is that Eli’s sons have been abusing their power as Priests to extort the people. Eli informs them that he has heard bad things about them and he warns them  (by implication) that they are sinning against God. The response to this warning is found in 1 Sam. 2:25b and is as follows:

ולא‭ ‬ישׁמעו‭ ‬לקול‭ ‬אביהם‭ ‬כי־חפץ‭ ‬יהוה‭ ‬להמיתם

My Translation:  But they did not heed the voice of their father for YHWH desired to kill them.

Using what appears to be a causal כי clause it suggests that God’s desire to kill them was the reason for their refusal to heed their father’s warning. This is troubling to the concept of human free will. What then are we to do with this troubling verse? I confess I don’t exactly have answers but here are a few thoughts.

First, the situation between the reaction of Eli’s sons and God’s causing their reaction because of his desire to kill them is closely reminiscent of the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Exod. 4-13). Now, in all of the discussion about which came first the chicken or the egg (i.e., did Pharaoh harden his own heart first or did God harden Pharaoh’s heart first?) the most cogent explanation that I have come across is as follows. The biblical text first makes clear that God intends to harden Pharaoh’s heart (Exod. 4:21; 7:3), then follows with several ambiguous statements that Pharaoh’s heart was hardened (ויחזק‭ ‬לב‭ ‬פרעה, Exod. 7:13, 22), then Pharaoh hardens his own heart (והכבד‭ ‬את־לבו, Exod. 8:11 [8:15 ET]), then finally after another ambiguous occurrence (8:15 [ET 8:19], 9:7) and Pharaoh again hardening his own heart (8:28 [ET 8:32]) does God explicitly harden Pharaoh’s heart (ויחזק‭ ‬יהוה‭ ‬את־לב‭ ‬פרעה, Exod. 9:12). The answer, in my opinion, to the question of who hardened Pharaoh’s heart is, the text clearly says both. There is an obvious interplay between Pharaoh hardening his own heart, ambiguous statements of his heart “being hardened,” and God actually hardening his heart. This strikes me as a great example where the biblical text shows the interplay between divine sovereignty and human free will (or responsibility) that gets confused in systematic theology. We cannot say that God did not harden Pharaoh’s heart so we affirm that God is sovereign, likewise, we cannot say that Pharaoh did not harden his own heart so we affirm that he had free will and was responsible for his actions.

Similarly, I see an interplay between divine causality and human free will/responsibility in 1 Sam. 2:25. It is telling that the text depicting the response of Eli’s sons says “they did not heed the voice of their father” not “God caused them to not heed the voice of their father.” They are responsible for their actions. On the other hand, it was God’s desire to punish them for their wicked deeds, so God is ultimately responsible for their continuing in their wicked deeds so that he would punish them. Thus, we have the causal כי  ‬clause describing the relationship between “they did not heed…” and “…God desired to kill them.” It seems that Eli’s sons acted on their own accord in their response to Eli’s warning (“they did not heed their father’s voice”) but also God is the cause of their refusal “because YHWH desired to kill them.” There is a back and forth here (not quite so pronounced as in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart, but present nonetheless) that refuses to be pinned down in answering the question: who is ultimately responsible for the sons’ actions. The narrative will not give us a simple answer, but it clearly affirms that both God and the sons are responsible.

Those are my thoughts on this issue, I’m open to others.

S.A. Cummins, “The Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recent Contributions by Stephen E. Fowl, Christopher R. Seitz and Francis Watson,” Currents in Biblical Research 2/2 (2004): 179-96.

Cummins reviews the works of Fowl, Seitz and Watson as representative of the Theological Interpretation movement. He looks at each of them in terms of 1) their reaction against historical-critical interpretation, 2) their Trinitarian framework, 3) their understanding of Scripture as a Two-Testament text, and 4) their understanding of Scripture and its importance for the Christian community.

Cummins begins by assessing each author’s views in regards to what he calls “a collective dissatisfaction with what is deemed to be impoverished and inadequate historical approaches to biblical interpretation” (181). He introduces Fowl’s understanding of “determinate,” “anti-determinate,” and “underdetermined” interpretation. Cummins suggests that in Fowl’s counter-proposal their should perhaps be more room for a more sufficient role for the biblical text including “the admittedly complex matter of its intentionality” (184). He seems to prefer Watson’s view which he summarizes as arguing that,

God is meaningfully and truthfully disclosed in Scripture: not just behind the text (via historical reconstructions of some ‘original’ context), nor merely before it (via interpreting communities and their variegated contemporary contexts), but in and through a written biblical text which mediates the Word, Jesus Christ (184). 

This last quote strikes me as an immensely helpful presentation of God’s revelation in the biblical texts.

Cummins then moves on to a look at the Trinitatrian Framework of Scripture in the thinking of the three scholars under review. In terms of proponents of TIS Cummins says, “all things begin, proceed and reach their end under the governance of the triune God” (185). It also becomes readily apparent that one’s view of the Trinity greatly affects one’s interpretation. The discussion here is nuanced but shows, in this readers view, how close these three scholars are on this issue. Ultimately, TIS involves “human participation in the triune divine life” (186) and a growing role for the Spirit in biblical interpretation.

In regards to the question of what to do with a Two-Testament canon, Theological Interpreters recignize that that the “biblical text transcends its context(s) of origin to adopt a complex role within the life of its primary reading community, the church” (188). Obviously, the most difficult aspect of a Two-Testament canon for the church, is the question of what to do with the OT. According to Cummins, Fowl tends to understand the role of the OT as of abiding importance for the church but, consanant with his tendency to see the believing community as the key to interpretation, how to accept the OT as Scripture “is an open question to be answered by the church on a context-specific basis” (188).

Seitz and Watson seem to have a different emphasis. For Watson the abiding importance of the OT arises in the centrality of Jesus. So that for the Christian, OT interpretation has its importance in its pointing to and setting up the preconditions for Christ. Seitz, however, nuances it differently. For him, reducing the OT’s importance to Christ reduces the OT to something less than it should be. For him it is important for the OT to maintain its “abiding witness.” So that both in itself as a revelation of God and as it extends towards Christ, the OT is important. The main way that he accomplishes this is through his ‘figural’ (or typological) readings.

Watson, Seitz and even Fowl, strike me as hitting key points, but emphasizing different sides of this apparently three sided coin.

Finally, Cummins turns to an examination of Scripture and its importance for the character and conduct of the Christian community. The main discussion, naturally, revolves around Fowl who has placed a great emphasis on interpreting within the Church community. An emphasis on the role of the Spirit and the role of the community (versus individuals) in the interpretation of Scripture is gaining higher and higher ground, especially in the work of Fowl. To this Seitz cautions against placing too high a role on the interpretive community and the Spirit’s role lest we devaluate “Scripture’s literal sense, and thereby any confidence that the church remained under God’s providential care” (192). Watson’s voice is sounded only at the end of this discussion to note that biblical interpretation is not an end in itself (which all practitioner’s of TIS would agree) but seeks an ecclesial embodiment of Scripture “so that the church may be a means of divine grace and address to the wider world” (193).

Cummins article is a very helpful interaction with three prominent proponents of a Theological Interpretation of Scripture. The categories that he examines are key for this movement but also key for Christianity in general. His closing comments of the helpfulness of this movement for Christian faith are helpfully encapsulated when he writes that “The recognition that Scripture, Spirit and the Christian community are bound up with one another, while weighted in different ways, stresses the importance of the ecclesial embodiment of Scripture within the wider world” (193).

Ultimately, however, Cummins is offering a summary of his readings of Fowl, Seitz and Watson, and I am offering my summary of Cummins. This strikes me too far removed from the source. So to that end, I append the works that Cummins interacts with in his article for further reading, some of which I have read, the rest of which are on my reading list. Enjoy.

Works by Fowl, Seitz and Watson

Stephen E. Fowl

“The Ethics of Interpretation, or What’s Left Over After the Elimination of Meaning,” in D.J. Clines, S.E. Fowl and S.E. Porter (eds), The Bible in Three Dimensions, JSOT Sup 87 (Sheffield: Sheffiled Academic Press, 1990): 379-98.

The Story of Christ in the Ethics of Paul, JSNTSup 36 (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1991).

“The New Testament, Theology, and Ethics,” in Joel B. Green (ed.), Hearing the New Testament: Strategies for Interpretation (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994): 394-410.

“Who can Read Abraham’s Story?” JSNT 55 (1994): 77-95.

“Texts Don’t Have Ideaologies,” BibInt 3 (1995): 1-34.

“Christology and Ethics in Phil. 2.5-11,” in B. Dodd and R.P. Martin (eds.), Where Christology Began (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1998): 140-53.

Engaging Scripture: A Model for Theological Interpretation (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1998).

“Learning to Narrate Our Lives in Christ,” in Chrstopher R. Seitz and Kathryn Greene-McCreight (eds), Theological Exegesis: Essays in Honor of Brevard S. Childs (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 199): 339-54.

Review of Text and Truth: Redifining Biblical Theology, by Francis Watson, Modern Theology 15 (1999): 94-96.

Review of Is There a Meaning in This Text? by Kevin J. Vanhoozer, Modern Theology 16 (2000): 260-62.

“The Role of Authorial Intention of Theological Interpretation of Scripture,” in Joel B. Green and Max Turner (eds.), Between Two Horizons: Spanning New Testament Studies and Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids,: eerdmans, 2000): 71-87.

With L. Gregory Jones, Reading in Communion: Scripture and Ethics in Christian Life (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1991).

With L. Gregory Jones, “Scripture, Exegesis, and Discernment in Christian Ethics,” in Nancy Murphy, Brad J. Kallenberg and Mark Thiessen Nation (eds.), Virtues and Practices in the Christian Tradition: Ethics after MacIntyre (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1997): 111-31.

Christopher R. Seitz

Word Without End: The Old Testament as Abiding Theological Witness (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998).

“Christological Interpretation of Texts and Trinitarian Claims to Truth: An Engagement with Francis Watson’s Text and Truth,” SJT 52 (1999): 209-26.

Figured Out: Typology and Providence in Christian Scripture (Louisville, KY Westminster/John Knox Press, 2001).

“Our Help Is in the Name of the Lord, Maker of Heaven and Earth. Scripture and Creed in Ecumenical Trust,” in Christopher R. Seitz (ed.) Nicene Christianity: THe Future for a New Ecumenism (Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2001): 19-34.

Francis Watson

Text, Church and World: Biblical Interpretation in Theological Perspective (Grad Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994).

“A Response to Professor Rowland,” SJT 48 (1995): 518-22.

“Bible, Theology and the University: A Response to Philip Davies,” JSOT 71 (1996): 3-16.

Text and Truth: Redifining Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997).

“The Scope of Hermeneutics,” in Colin E. Gunton (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine (Cambrdige: CUP, 1997): 65-80.

“A Response to John Riches,” BibInt 6 (1998): 235-42.

“Toward a Literal Reading of the Gospels,” in Richard Bauckham (ed.), The Gospel for All Christians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998): 195-217.

“The Old Testament as Christian Scripture: A Response to Professor Seitz,” SJT 52 (1999): 227-32.

“Trinity and Community: A Reading of John 17,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 1 (1999): 168-84.

“The Bible,” in John Webster (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Karl Barth (Cambridge: CUP, 2000): 57-71.

“The Triune Divine Identity: Reflections on Pauline God-Language, in Disagreement with J.D.G. Dunn,” JSNT 80 (2000): 99-124.

Gospel and Scripture: Rethinking Canonical Unity,” TynBul 52 (2001): 161-82.

“The Quest for the Real Jesus,” in Markus Bockmuehl (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (Cambridge: CUP, 2001): 156-69.