Another full course that is available online is a course on Biblical Theology by Dr. Gerard van Groningen. Though van Groningen is perhaps not a widely known name, he is a good scholar probably best known for his large work, The Messianic Revelation of the Old Testament, a work that I have interacted with a little, but plan on reading more of in the future. While van Groningen is much more “traditional” (you could probably read that as conservative or fundamentalist but I think traditional is a much less pejorative term) than myself, I benefited greatly from listening to this course for several reasons:

1. van Groningen is a model Christian scholar. Listening to him lecture is like listening to an old man reflect on a life of faith, whether you agree with him or not, he is worth listening to with respect.
2. He does attempt to do real pan-Biblical theology that traces through all of Scripture.
3. His view of the central theme of Scripture as Kingdom, Covenant and Mediator is an interesting and helpful perspective.

Thus, I commend to you, his lectures on Biblical Theology available online and on iTunes.

Dr. Gerard van Groningen – OTS215 Biblical Theology (you will need to create a username and password)

Daniel J. Treier, Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scripture: Recovering a Christian Practice (Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2008).

Daniel Treier begins his manual on theological interpretation of Scripture by tracing a brief history. Beginning with the reaction against historical criticism and the seminal work of Barth he traces the influence of Barth through his focus on the ’subject’ of the text, the fact that  “one must enter into or participate in its meaning” and reading “with more attention and love” (p. 16). He traces briefly traces this trend through such scholars as Brevard Childs, David Kelsey, Hans Frei, George Lindbeck, Stanley Hauerwas and Francis Watson (pp. 18-20). After discussing the attempt to recover theological interpretation in the evangelical (pp. 21-25) and Roman Catholic (pp. 25-33) traditions, Treier turns to a brief examination of the ‘Postmodern turn’ (pp. 33- 36). This section functions as both a brief history of and introduction to the issues surrounding this thing called theological interpretation of Scripture.

Now Treier turns to the first part of his introduction to theological hermeneutics by examining three common themes held among those who claim to do theological interpretation. The first of these is the attempt to recover ancient Christian practices (ch. 1: ‘Recovering the Past’). Treier notes that there is a resurgence of those trying to recover their Christian heritage by practicing in line with historical Christianity. He identifies three practices that are used in an attempt to recover this ancient Christian practice: 1) reading as piety (pp. 41-45); 2) reading about Christ (pp. 45-51); 3) reading for Christian practice, with a special emphasis on the fourfold sense of Scripture (pp. 51-55).

The second chapter deals with the concern of “Reading within the Rule(s).” This chapter is about the practice of interpretation within the context of Christian Doctrine. Treier briefly surveys the patristic Regula Fidei (’rule of faith’). He then briefly introduces some of the modern attempts to follow this rule, looking particularly at Francis Watson who argues, contra those like James Barr and John Barton, that “Some division of labor is necessary between biblical studies and systematic theology, but the distinction is functional, not normative” (p. 67). He then finally turns to his case study of the imago Dei, looking particularly at Augustine’s trinitatrian interpretation of the creation event.

The third chapter deals with the final theme that most theological interpreters hold dear, the practice of “Reading with Others.” The the title of this chapter suggests its primary subject matter is communal interpretation, it could just as easily have been titled, “Reading Pietistically,” as a majority of the chapter deals with reading that informs ans is informed by Christian spirituality. Here Treier draws on the work of Lindbeck and Hauwerwas but especially upon Stephen Fowl to show the dialectic between spiritually guided exegesis and biblically guided spirituality.

Treier now turns in part two of his work to engage in three challenges which theological interpretation of Scripture faces. The first in chapter 4 is the idea of biblical theology. Treier very briefly traces the idea of biblical theology from J.P. Gabler, he then cites James Barr and points out the problems that biblical theology has faced. After citing two modern attempts to re-engage with biblical theology, the progressive revelation approach (a la Carson) and the canonical approach (a la Childs), he turns again to Watson who understands biblical theology as something that “bridges the between study of Scripture and systematic theology” (p. 117).

Chapter 5 addresses the question of how general hermeneutics should influence our reading of Scripture? Treier spends some time outlining the history of hermeneutics spending some time on thinkers such as Gadamer and Ricoeur. He notes that in the practice of theological hermeneutics appeal is often made to precedents such as Augustine, and he outlines his De doctrina christiana.  Among the modern Christian thinkers Treier discuses, he seems to give most space to Thiselton, Zimmermann, and Vanhoozer. In the end, Treier discusses how we might connect general hermeneutics to the special hermeneutics of Scripture. He appears to appreciate Vanhoozer’s view of Scripture as drama for this practice.

Chapter 6, on interpretation and globalization, is one of the most interesting chapters in the book. Treier argues that “Theological interpretation of Sctipture, to the degree that it does not engage these complex phenomena [globalization], is a movement that may prove hard to sustain” (161). With this thought in view, he outlines some of the issues and trends within global Christianity that theological interpretation of Scripture needs to encounter. This is a very interesting chapter, with a number of footnotes, that this reader at least will follow up on.

In the concluding chapter, Treier attempts to situate theological interpretation within the other known practices of exegesis, systematic theology, historical theology, etc. He concludes by trying to point the way forward for theological interpretation, noting the nine theses put forward by the “Scripture Project” (see p. 200) as representative of the movement. He argues that “the ultimate interpretive interest of the church is to know God in a holistic sense” (204) to this end theological interpretation of Scripture is our “map” pointing the way forward.

Treier’s book is an excellent introduction to this slippery thing called “theological interpretation of Scripture.” It is, to my knowledge, the only comprehensive introduction to this subject written at this level. It’s use of the running examination of the imago Dei sometimes enlightens and sometimes confuses (though this may simply be the fault of the reader). In the end, this book functions as the mandatory starting point into this discussion. It is a book that I will refer to again and again to help point my way through the growing morass of literature that falls under the category “theological interpretation of Scripture.”

I have been slightly inactive on this blog for a while but that is because my final deadline for my ThM thesis loomed large. Well, I can say that I have officially turned in the final draft of my thesis. Whew!

I am not a Pauline scholar nor the son of a Pauline scholar. I am, however, a Christian and a student of the Bible. This means I seek to understand the Bible as a whole, not just the parts I like. To that end, I find myself puzzled and perplexed with the new debates about Paul, specifically in regards to the so called “new perspective on Paul.” I make no claims to understand this debate. I have my own thoughts but I’ll keep them to myself.

Nevertheless, if you are interested in the New Perspective on Paul–and if you are interested in Paul and/or are a Christian then you should be–then this two part lecture by notable evangelical scholar D.A. Carson should interest you. D.A. Carson is one of the outspoken critics of the New Perspective. He is both very bright and a very engaging speaker (though he speaks very fast, try and keep up). While, sometimes I think he is over critical of the New Perspective, this two part lecture gives a helpful introduction to the issues from a non-New Perspective point of view. Whether you are well versed in this debate or have never heard of it, these lectures should interest you.

D.A. Carson – The New Perspective on Paul Part 1

D.A. Carson – The New Perspective on Paul Part 2

The next question that I must answer in my academic pursuits is why would a Christian get their PhD in the Old Testament? Wouldn’t you rather learn about Jesus? Isn’t Paul more edifying and instructive? Well the answers to those questions may be yes, for some. But I have always found the Old Testament (I do not say Hebrew Bible because I am thinking of both the MT and LXX, as I will be studying both) to be fascinating, edifying and immensely instructive. I have also found the OT incredibly difficult. Many of the most difficult issues in the Bible, especially those that repulse non-Christians, come from the OT. For this reason I feel the need to truly understand this greater half of the Christian Bible. 

The OT also has the uncanny ability to be inexhaustible (I do not mean that the NT does not, but the OT does in a different way, as we will see presently). As a boy, my Mom tried all the tricks to get me to read my Bible. The most successful ‘trick’ was to point me to all the warfare and violent passages of the OT. I remember vividly reading about Ehud the left-handed judge  and David’s mighty men. Nothing sounded more un-Biblical to me than these passages of testosterone filled heroism and unmitigated gore. They were fascinating to me as adventure stories on a very basic level and they got me asking questions about God and his dealings with people. I am now, however, going to study one of those stories (David and Goliath) on the most detailed level, a PhD dissertation, and I know without a shadow of a doubt that that text will not disappoint me on any level. My point is this, the OT narratives have the incredible ability of distilling their main messages to the most basic level where they are understandable to simple readers (not that there are not some significantly R-rated parts of the Bible that children should not read, there are), but on the other hand the OT was written with such literary sophistication and depth of meaning that a short passage can sustain a great deal of study and illumine a whole array of meaning. This is part of what draws me to the OT.

I am, however, a Christian and the NT is immensely important to me. I will always read the NT and I will always be a student of it. However, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of us Christians read our Bibles in the wrong direction…back to front. I have heard it said numerous times that it is only in light of the NT that the OT can be understood. This seems fundamentally backwards to me. I am more of the opinion that only in light of the OT can the NT be understood! Try reading the Return of the King without having previously read the Fellowship of the Ring and the Two Towers. You have no idea what this great climax is about. I feel the same way about the NT. Now, that does not mean that knowing where the story ends (NT) does not illuminate more precisely what has gone before. Any good novel reveals new information on a multiple readings because you know where the story is going. But that doesn’t mean that you should read the end first. So in my desire to understand the NT I find it necessary to start with the OT. 

Furthermore, I have a suspicion that the OT is significantly under-appreciated within Christian circles. Aside from Psalms and Proverbs I don’t think the OT is widely read. I think this is incredibly unfortunate. Let me give you one anecdotal example of why this is so. When my dad told his friend Tony Campolo, that his son would be pursuing a PhD in the Old Testament, he said this: “That’s great. We need people to read the OT. You can know Jesus from the NT but YOU DON’T KNOW GOD, unless you read the OT!” I think he may have been intentionally overstating the issue, but I think he’s got a point. Thus, I will be studying the OT, as the greater half of the Christian Bible.

C. Hassell Bullock, Franklin S. Dyrness Professor of Biblical Studies at Wheaton College, has offered a very interesting study of the canonical relationship between “Wisdom” (ketuvim?) and Torah (”Wisdom, the ‘Amen’ of Torah,” JETS 52/1 [2009]: 5-18). Bullock’s thesis is that wisdom literature functions as “the ‘amen’ of Torah” (p. 5). What he means by this is that wisdom literature functions in a dialogical relationship to Torah that affirms the major tenets of Israelite faith from the Torah. 

He examines three Pentateuchal themes that “wisdom” affirms: 1) the creator God, 2) monotheism, and 3) the theme of the “fear of the Lord/God.” In each section he examines texts from Psalms, Proverbs, Job and Ecclesiastes to show how they affirm these Pentateuchal themes to varying degrees of success. 

For the most part I enjoy these kinds of intertextual and pan-biblical studies. However, a thesis of this kind always over simplifies the issues. I think Bullock is right to insist that “Wisdom” is in dialogical relationship with Torah (as well as the Prophets), but I think it is too simple to say that “Wisdom” merely affirms the Torah’s truths. It seems to me that the “Wisdom” literature, in several key places, is trying to wrestle with the truths from Torah. An example of this is Bullock’s oversimplification of Ecclesiastes to fit his paradigm. He argues that Ecclesiastes offers an “amen” of the creator God not by engaging in creation language but by observing “the universal system that turns in endless cycles of time and human experience. And his ‘amen’ of the God who stands behind this system is one of resigned acceptance, devoid of enthusiasm” (p. 10). One begins to wonder if Ecclesiastes does not break Bullock’s paradigm. Further, Bullock even admits that “Ecclesiastes as a whole does not fit comfortably within Torah theology” (p. 15). Even so, he speaks of “Qoheleth’s muted but distinct ‘amen’” (p. 15). Would it not be better to speak of the Wisdom tradition as wrestling with and trying to understand and live with Torah, rather than simply offering an “amen?” It seems to me that this is likely.

Another contention I have will Bullock’s work is his lack of clarity on what he means by “wisdom.” He begins his article by arguing that the tripartite structuring of Scripture could be described as a equilateral triangle, “The vertex represents Torah, and the two flanking angles represent prophecy and wisdom” (p. 5). One assumes from this, that when Bullock refers to “wisdom” he means the ketuvim, the third part of the Hebrew tripartite canon. But if this is the case, where is his interaction with Chronicles, Lamentations, Ruth, Daniel, Esther, Song of Songs? Did these not fit into his thesis?

Ultimately, reflection on the relationship of the parts of the canon is a very helpful enterprise and I am a full supporter of it. However, Bullock’s thesis seems over simplified, so while I learned from it, I don’t think I could endorse it.

It has been quite a while since I’ve put my hand to the Septuagint. I’ve been rather busy, the last few months have been applications, working on papers, thesis, etc. However, in my reading I came across an article (Moberly, see below) that contains a very interesting discussion of the interpretive difference in this verse. Here is a brief discussion of a possible (probable?) reason for the main difference between the MT and LXX of Jonah 3:4.

MT:

Jonah 3:4 ויחל‭ ‬יונה‭ ‬לבוא‭ ‬בעיר‭ ‬מהלך‭ ‬יום‭ ‬אחד‭ ‬ויקרא‭ ‬ויאמר‭ ‬עוד‭ ‬ארבעים‭ ‬יום‭ ‬ונינוה‭ ‬נהפכת׃

Translation: “And Jonah began to go into the city a journey of one day, and he called out and he said, ‘Yet forty days and Ninevah will be overthrown.’”

LXX:

Jonah 3:4 καὶ ἤρξατο Ιωνας τοῦ εἰσελθεῖν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ὡσεὶ πορείαν ἡμέρας μιᾶς καὶ ἐκήρυξεν καὶ εἶπεν Ἔτι τρεῖς ἡμέραι καὶ Νινευη καταστραφήσεται. 

Translation: “And Jonas began to go into the city about a one days journey, and he called out and he said, “Yet three days and Ninevah will be overthrown.’”

Translational Note:

It must be noted that this verse in the LXX is strikingly “interlinear” or literal. It follows the Hebrew exactly betraying several semitisms including the redundant καὶ ἐκήρυξεν καὶ εἶπεν (”and he cried out and he said”)

τρεῖς vs. ארבעים

Here is the difference in this verse. There can be no believable scribal error that could have accounted for this variant. Since the Hebrew ‘forty’ (ארבעים, }arbaœ{ˆîm) and ‘three’ (שלש, sûaœloœsû) have no letters or sounds in common. The change (whichever is original) must then be interpretive.

Reasons for the change

The most common understanding of this issue is to see the ‘three’ (τρεῖς) of the LXX as a capitulation to the other significant ‘threes’ in this text such as Jon. 1:17 and 3:3 (so Allen, 222, n. 15). However, those who take seriously the flow of the story could argue that the LXX’s ‘three’ fits the progression much better, giving it the appropriate sense of immediacy and fitting the timeline of Jonah’s sitting and watching in ch. 4 (so Bewer, 52). Further, there are those who argue that the change from three to forty makes the most sense because of the significance of the number forty in terms of a time for repentance, testing, and fasting (e.g., Bewer, 53). On the other hand, the number forty makes more historical sense to allow for the time it would take to make the message known throughout a large city (so Duhm, 200-04; Wolff, 150). In short, there seems to be reasonable arguments for the priority of either the MT’s ‘forty’ or the LXX’s ‘three.’ What then do we make of this variation?

Moberly’s Proposal

Moberly understands the key issue being how one understands the character of Jonah in this text.  Here is why: he writes that “If Jonah were seeking to move the Ninevites to repentance, the logic of his speech would require ‘three days’” (Moberly, 166). On the other hand, the fort days reflects a Jonah who does not want the Ninevites to repent, there is no urgency, Jonah is intentionally preaching a message he doesn’t really want to be followed. Hence chapter 4 (see Moberly, 167). In this light, the LXX is an interpretation that seeks to make Jonah a more positive figure, whereas the Hebrew still understands him as one who has no desire to see the Ninevites repent. For this reason (of difficulty), and for the overwhelming manuscript support for the MT, Moberly argues that the MT is the more original. But to what extent are both readings possible interpretations of the character of Jonah? This is an interesting case the interpretive issue is decided almost exclusively on the larger picture of how one views the portrayal of a single character. I leave the matter open, but appreciate the fact that as a Christian, we have two interpretive options in two different traditions that both have their own logic. Aren’t Septuagintal studies fun!

Bibliography

Leslie C. Allen, The Books of Joel, Obadiah, Jonah and Micah, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1976); J. Bewer, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah, ICC (Edinburgh, T & T Clark, 1912); B. Duhm, “Anmerkungen zu den zwölf Propheten. XIV. Buch Jona,” ZAW 31 (1911): 161-204; R.W.L. Moberly, “Preaching for a Response? Jonah’s Message to the Ninevites Reconsidered,” VT 53/2 (2003): 156-68; H.W. Wolff, Obadiah and Jonah (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1986).

R.W.L. Moberly, The Old Testament of the Old Testament: Patriarchal Narratives and Mosaic Yahwism, Overtures to Biblical Theology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), xvi + 224 pps [repr. by Wipf & Stock, 2001, 240 pps.]. My pagination will refer to the original Fortress Press edition.

Readers of this blog will not need to be told of my bias for this book. Moberly is going to be my doctoral advisor at Durham, so obviously I think very highly of him and his scholarship. But don’t let my bias dissuade you, this really is a wonderful book.

Moberly’s stated purpose in this book is to explore the question of what it means to do biblical theology. The chosen topic for this exercise is the importance of the giving of the divine name in Ex. 3 and 6 and the relationship to the patriarchal narratives that went before, and the Mosaic Yahwism that followed. He begins in ch. 1, by establishing two things: 1) that in the texts of Ex. 3 and 6 “God was revealed to Moses, on behalf of Israel, as having the name YHWH,” 2) Moses and Israel did not previously know that name and 3) the one revealed as YHWH is the same God as the God of their ancestors (p. 35). This chapter is quite exegetical and a brief review cannot do it justice. Let us just say that Moberly is a very careful reader of Scripture and his exegesis is always worth reading.

Moberly follows the conclusion of the first chapter by asking the logical question: if God is revealed in a new way as YHWH in Exodus why is the name YHWH used in Genesis as well? The answer is, “The use of the name YHWH in Genesis conveys the perspective of the storytellers who tell the originally non-Yahwistic patriarchal stories from within the context of Mosaic Yahwism” (p. 36). After stating this thesis up front he goes on to describe and critique other options for solving this problem starting with the traditional documentary hypothesis (pp. 39-52), and then the conservative approach which seeks to re-understand what the revelation of the divine name really meant (pp. 52-67). In the end he puts forward his own proposal as one where “in the primeval history the Yahwistic writers operated as ancient storytellers with little interest in maintaining historical perspectives in any modern sense” (p. 69). The use of the divine name in Genesis helps to develop continuity between the religion of the patriarchs and the Mosaic Yahwism that followed from the exodus. It is probably not historically accurate to say that Abraham called upon the name of the Lord but it is theologically accurate.

In chapter 3, Moberly, develops his thesis from the previous chapter and establishes the fact that “the writers of the Pentateuch shared a common tradition that the patriarchs lived in a context prior to and distinct from Mosaic Yahwism” (p. 103). He concludes this based on an examination of the patriarchal religion as more comfortable with their canaanite neighbors, as opposed Mosaic Yahwism which saw them as antagonistic, in the differing cultic practices of the patriarchal religion, including the apparent importance of trees, and in comparison of the apparent lack of moral interest in the patriarchal narratives to the all consuming importance of ‘holiness’ in Mosaic Yahwism.

In his 4th chapter, which doubles as the title of the book, Moberly develops the crux of his thesis, namely that there are such parallels in the concept of a new dispensation between Genesis and Mosaic Yahwism with the Old Testament and the New Testament that it is appropriate to borrow from Christian terminology and think of Genesis 12-50 as “the Old Testament of the Old Testament” (p. 146). This is, I think, the most original contribution of Moberly’s study. He develops this argument by first reviewing the relationship between Gen. 12-50 and the rest of the OT in the works of some of the heavy hitters of the last century, including Wellhausen, Alt, Cross, Gottwald, and von Rad (pp. 107-25). He then unpacks his own thesis comparing the relationship between Gen. 12-50 and the rest of the OT with the relationship between the OT and NT in terms of similarity in continuity and discontinuity (see, pp. 126-28), the concepts of differing dispensations (see pp. 128-29), the idea that one dispensation claims to fulfill, in some way, the previous (pp.140-42), and the traditional understanding of typological relationships (pp. 142-46). This way of describing the relationship between Gen. 12-50 and the rest of the OT is conceptually extremely helpful.

Ever one not to do exegesis for exegesis sake, but to explore the heuristic implications for the church, Moberly unpacks how his thesis is helpful to describe the relationship between the OT and NT and how it helpfully fits within a Jewish-Christian dialogue. Because of his understanding of the OT of the OT, he defends the language of Old Testament as opposed to Hebrew Bible, because, when properly understood, the language of OT, is not pejorative but merely recognizing a proper Christian understanding of the OT much the same way that a Jewish understanding of Gen. 12-50 would regard that text as continuous yet discontinuous with their own faith.

Finally, Moberly discusses how his thesis would impact the typical understanding of Pentateuchal criticism. His contention is that all the Pentateuchal writers worked under the assumption that there was a different dispensation of divine revelation starting in Exodus and so the traditional redactional understanding of the Pentateuch based on the term YHWH is mistaken. Furthermore, based on his understanding of the discontinuity between Gen. 12-50 and the rest of the OT, it becomes increasingly unlikely that such a religious world would have been invented. Thus, there appears to be at least some credibility to the historical reliability of the patriarchal narratives. 

Moberly’s book is an example of an inventive paradigm for reading the Pentateuch that is based on careful readings of the text. Moberly’s work is always worth reading merely for his exegesis and this work is no exception. However, I am increasingly convinced by his arguments and find his conception of the composition of the Pentateuch very helpful. Furthermore, his thesis causes one to helpfully ponder both the relationship between Gen. 12-50 and the rest of the OT and the relationship between the OT and NT. In his thesis, just as Gen. 12-50 is foundational for the rest of the OT, so the OT is foundational for the NT. This is, in my thinking, a very helpful way to view the Christian Bible.

V. Philips Long is Professor of Old Testament at Regent College. But back when he taught at Covenant Theological Seminary he offered this course on Biblical History.

Long is, in my opinion, one of the best scholars on Biblical History. A good supplement to this online course would be his work with Iain Provan and Tremper Longman III, A Biblical History of Israel. This work is, again in my opinion, probably the best work on Biblical History (specifically of Israel, but their methodology is equally applicable to the NT).

Long is in the camp of Maximalists, which basically means that his view of the history of Israel is roughly that of the biblical testimony. This is in contrast to the minimalist view of Israelite history which argues that there is little historical information in the biblical witness. However, he is not a biblical maximalist in the fundamentalist frame which merely repeats the refrain, “the Bible said it so its true.” He is merely not a methodological skeptic. So for him, the Bible is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, he assumes the historical reliability of the Bible unless there are compelling reasons to believe otherwise. He furthermore does not believe in the myth that archaeological finds are somehow more fact than texts. I find his approach very helpful and his book worth reading. But, thankfully, you get a large gist of it from listening to this series of lectures.

This is a full seminary course so it’s pretty detailed, but its taught in such a way as to be both engaging and informative. I recommend it to anyone who would like to learn a little more about biblical history and about the ‘historical books’ of the OT. It is a fantastic resource.

V. Philips Long – OT230: Old Testament History at Covenant Theological Seminary

I just received my copy of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Volume 52, No. 1 in the mail today. I must say that usually I read a couple of articles in each volume and the book reviews of books that I am interested in. However, in this volume I find myself interested in every single article. The theme, which I do not think JETS often has, appears to be the canon and textual criticism. There looks to be some fascinating essays by some first rate evangelical scholars:

C. Hassell Bullock, “Wisdom, the ‘Amen’ of Torah”

Peter J. Gentry, “The Text of the Old Testament”

Stephen Dempster, “Canons on the Right and Canons on the Left: Finding a Resolution in the Canon Debate”

Daniel B. Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century”

C.E. Hill, “The New Testament Canon: Deconstructio ad Absurdum?”

This may very well be the first time I am tempted to read my copy of JETS from cover to cover. Since my thoughts have been turning to canon anyway I may use this issue of JETS as a jumping off point for a discussion of the Christian canon. Stay tuned.