William A. Tooman University of St. Andrews St. Andrews, Scotland, United Kingdom

Transcription

1 RBL 01/2011 Vanhoozer, Kevin J., ed. Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey Grand Rapids/London: Baker/SPCK, Pp. 336, Paperback, $19.99, ISBN William A. Tooman University of St. Andrews St. Andrews, Scotland, United Kingdom All the articles in this volume were previously published in Kevin J. Vanhoozer, ed., Dictionary for Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker, 2005). The Book-by-Book Survey merely reprints the thirty-six articles on the various books of the Hebrew Bible, preceded by a lengthy introduction by Vanhoozer. In this review, I will focus much of my attention on the introduction, which provides a rationale for the book and the theological interpretation movement as a whole. As with the companion volume on the New Testament (Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey), the authors are mostly British-trained scholars, and most teach in U.K. universities or conservative North American seminaries. Many are reliable old hands, but there are also a number of fresh faces. In order, they are: Gordon Wenham (Genesis), Walter Moberly (Exodus), Paul Redditt (Leviticus), Kent Sparks (Numbers), Daniel Block (Deuteronomy), J. G. McConville (Joshua), Alan Groves (Judges), Murray Gow (Ruth), Brian Kelly (Samuel), Richard Hess (Kings), Mark Throntveit (Chronicles), John Bimson (Ezra and Nehemiah), Paul Redditt (Esther), Lindsay Wilson (Job), J. Clinton McCann Jr. (Psalms), Raymond Van Leeuwen (Proverbs), Craig Bartholomew (Ecclesiastes), Tremper Longman III (Song of Songs), Richard Schultz (Isaiah), J. G. McConville (Jeremiah), Christian Brady (Lamentations), Thomas

2 Renz (Ezekiel), Ernest Lucas (Daniel), Mary Evans (Hosea), Willem VanGemeren (Joel), Karl Möller (Amos), Paul House (Obadiah), John Walton (Jonah), Mignon Jacobs (Micah), Thomas Renz (Nahum), Thomas Renz (Habakkuk and Zephaniah), Paul House (Haggai), Albert Wölters (Zechariah), and Mignon Jacobs (Malachi). This arrangement is telling. It follows the order of the English (LXX) Old Testament, not the Hebrew Bible, and, apart from the treatment of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles as single books, it accepts the English delineation of books, not their Hebrew equivalents. (There is no Book of the Twelve, for example.) This signals that theological interpretation, whatever else it might be, does not draw its principal inspiration from the canon criticism of the Brevard Childs school. A few contributors evoke the name of Childs, like a talisman, but none are truly cut from the same cloth. The words canon and canonical are prominent in the introduction and the essays but often appear to mean something more akin to received, as in the received text or the received context. Each author was asked to do five things: to discuss something of the history of interpretation, the theological message of the book, its relation to the whole canon, its unique contribution to the people of God, and to provide a brief bibliography for readers who may wish to probe further (25). This is a great deal to ask in a brief article, the longest of which is seventeen pages (Isaiah; entries average 7.8 pages). Only a few articles reflect a genuine attempt to accomplish all of these things (e.g., Deuteronomy, Isaiah). Most stress one or two of these goals, awarding a few cursory paragraphs to the others. History of interpretation and contribution to the people of God are the elements that are most often abandoned or treated in a fleeting way. A few authors set aside the fivefold structure altogether, giving their full attention to the text s structure and message (e.g., Exodus). These tend to be among the most substantive entries. The introductory essay, which attempts to unify the collection, is titled, What Is Theological Interpretation of the Bible? I read it with interest, in as much as I had been asking that very question for years. More precisely, I had been asking: How is theological interpretation something unique? I found an answer in Vanhoozer s essay, which also raised a number of new questions and objections for this reviewer. Vanhoozer begins with a statement of the goals of theological interpretation, namely, a new kind of interpretation of Scripture that combines an interest in the academic study of the Bible with a passionate commitment to making this scholarship of use to the church (15). This is recapitulated several times in the essay: We believe that that the principal interest of the Bible s authors, of the text itself, and of the original community of readers was theological: reading the Scriptures therefore meant coming to hear God s word and to know God better (22). Interpreting Scripture theologically is the way to read the Bible, for a blessing (Kierkegaard), for the sake of human flourishing, for the individual

3 social good. the ultimate aim of the present work is to commend ways of reading scripture that lead to the blessing of knowing God and of being formed unto godliness (27). These explanations, and the half-dozen others like them, are helpful. In their emphases and expressions they underline the Pauline and Protestant underpinnings of Vanhoozer s interpretive approach. More important, they clarify that, by Vanhoozer s understanding, theological interpretation is not a kind of interpretation at all. It is interpretation with a particular objective in mind; it is interpretation with a normative voice. Theological interpretation appears to be interpretation that brackets out any results of the academic study of the Bible that are not immediately relevant to the (confessional) church. This conclusion is reinforced by the three premises of Vanhoozer s brand of theological interpretation (20 24): (1) Theological Interpretation of the Bible is not the exclusive property of biblical scholars but the joint responsibility of all the theological disciplines and of the whole people of God, a peculiar fruit of the communion of the saints 1 ; (2) The Theological Interpretation of the Bible is characterized by a governing interest in God, and by a governing intention to engage in what we might call theological criticism of readers [rather] than of biblical authors or biblical texts ; (3) The Theological Interpretation of the Bible names a broad ecclesial concern that embraces a number of academic approaches. The phrase broad ecclesial is not defined in terms of confession or institution but in terms of hermeneutics. For Vanhoozer, the movement is broad in that the contributors are allowed to utilize varying hermeneutical models. Some stress the final form of the text, others stress divine authorship, and still others stress the reception of the text in the church. Vanhoozer also includes a number of clarifying propositions under the heading What Theological Interpretation Is Not. The first claim is that Theological interpretation of the Bible is not an imposition of a theological system or confessional grid onto the biblical text (14). On the other hand, Vanhoozer admits, we do affirm the ecumenical consensus of the church down through the ages and across confessional lines that the Bible should be read as a unity and as a narrative testimony to the identities and actions of God and of Jesus Christ. In other words, it is not that theological interpretation lacks a confessional system or confessional grid, but the confession has been reduced to a particular view of the nature of the Bible as Scripture. Some clarification of the limits of this restriction would have been instructive. Clearly, confessional Protestants are included 1. It is interesting to note that, despite this claim, of the twenty-nine contributors to Theological Interpretation of the Old Testament, all but two (Kevin Vanhoozer and Craig Bartholomew) were trained as biblical scholars.

4 within this group, and liberal Protestants are excluded, but what of the Eastern and Western Catholic traditions? 2 The second claim is that theological interpretation of the Bible is not an imposition of a general hermeneutic or theory of interpretation onto the biblical text. This qualifier hangs on the definition of a general hermeneutical theory. Vanhoozer argues that the Bible may not be read like any other book because there is something left for interpreters to do after reading the Bible like any other book (17). This something is the normative task to speak authoritatively to the church. Finally, Theological Interpretation of the Bible is not a form of merely historical, literary, or sociological criticism. each of these disciplines stops short of a properly theological criticism to the extent that it brackets out a consideration of divine action (17). This, too, is a recapitulation. Theological interpretation must move beyond history, text, or culture to make confessional claims and to speak to the contemporary church. At the end of the day, it appears that theological interpretation is not new at all. It is not a kind of interpretation. It is interpretation with the objective of creating confession and demanding action; it is interpretation within the context of confessional Christianity. But Christianity has been writing confessions from the very beginning. It has been speaking authoritatively from the Bible from the very beginning. This is not to say that there is nothing new in Vanhoozer s call. He is attempting to re-scribe the boundaries of Protestant confessionalism in hermeneutical-dogmatic terms rather than purely dogmatic ones. He has redefined acceptable interpretation to include any interpretation that is accomplished under an expressly Christian assumption that the Bible is Scripture ( a unity and a narrative testimony to the identities and actions of God and of Jesus Christ ). Judging by the authors who contributed to the Book-by-Book Survey, Vanhoozer s audience is Protestant and evangelical. For this audience, Vanhoozer has set aside more propositional claims about the Bible, such as inerrancy and inspiration, and prioritized instead the qualities of unity and testimony. Indeed, [n]o one denomination, school of interpretation, or hermeneutical approach has a monopoly on reading the Bible for the word of God (27). This position certainly moves him closer to elements within the older 2. In his review of the New Testament companion volume, Theological Interpretation of the New Testament: A Book-by-Book Survey, Erik Heen wisely observed, Since the volume programmatically affirms the ecumenical consensus of the church, one would expect more explicit engagement with this tradition, especially the two central doctrines of the church articulated at Nicea and Chalcedon. But mention of either the Trinity or the two natures of Christ is largely absent from the pages of this volume, though they may be variously implied ( Silence on this front is even more pronounced in this volume; one searches in vain for some articulation of a connection between confessional ecumenical claims and the message of the Hebrew Bible.

5 Christian traditions and may even serve to soften rigid boundaries of identity within his tradition. Despite the fact that theological interpretation, as a system, is intended to produce normative interpretations for Christian interpreters, Vanhoozer hopes that the book will also prove to be an indispensible resource for all academics, including theologians, historians, scientists, and sociologists. Unfortunately, Vanhoozer has created two hurdles to any achievement of this goal. The first hurdle is his tone. He claims that practitioners of theological interpretation have knowledge of God. Only they have a framework for understanding today s world. They are exemplary of best interpretive practice. Other interpreters are wandering in the wilderness and admitting ideological demons into the academic house. These kinds of comments permeate his essay. It is a surprising attitude (and surprising verbiage) to adopt for one who hopes to gain a hearing outside of the evangelical enclave. They are not arguments; they are value judgments, and they are not particularly constructive ones. The second hurdle is his incredible negativity toward the Enlightenment, post-enlightenment, modernity, modern critics, and especially the university. He argues throughout that universities, since the Enlightenment, have been ceaselessly attempting to purge all varieties of theology from their halls. This is an unnecessary, fallacious claim that only undermines his goal of speaking to an academic audience. 3 These hurdles point out the inherent incompatibility of his twin objectives: to interpret the Bible for the church and to speak to the wider academy. What one says in the academy and what one says in the church may or may not differ. How one speaks to the academy and how one speaks in the church must differ, lest one forfeit one s authority one s testimony with one or the other. 3. See Michael C. Legaspi, The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010).