Table in the Wilderness?

Towards a Post-LiberalAgenda for

Old TestamentStudv.
J

Crais Bartholomew

Pages19-47in Making the Old TestamentLive; From Curciculumto Classroom.

Editedby R. Flessand G. Wenham. GrandRapids:William B. Eerdmans,1998.

Postedonlineby permissionof the publisher.

This essayis printedin Making the Old Testament
Live; From Curriculumto
Classroom(http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key:97808
02844279)
and may be pr-rrchased
frorn www.eerdmans.com.

RICHARDS. HESS
sive exposure. Therefore, Hebrer.r' reading modules are offered
throughout the acadernicyear and the student is encouraged to refrne
and develop reading and interpretive skills. A variety of Old Testament
literature is chosen. Initially the student is introduced to narrative literature. Then the more challenging. poetic and prophetic texts are
studied. Becausethe texts read are never repeated,students are able to
register for and to participate in Hebrew reading modules throughout
their stay at the coilege.
As in the secondhalf of the introductory level, the reading modules are mainly composedof student participation.However, an aclditional component is added to reading, translation,and grammatical
analysis- At this level the students also interpret the biblical text and
discuss its meaning in its original context. This incorporatesthe variefy
of mcthods introduced at levels II and III of the Enelish Bible core
curriculum.
The assessmentsfocus on the student's ability to read, translate,
and analyse the Hebrew texts, both orally in class and in written form
rn examinations and essays-The examinations include texts studied in
classand require the student to analyseand evaluate various interpretations in the light of the Hebrew text. Thev also assessthe abilitv to
synthesisevarious methods and to creatively integrate methods of interpretation to make senseof the Hebrew iext.

A Tablein the Wilderness:

Towardsa Post-Iiberal
Agenda

Study
for OId Testament
CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

Craig G. Bnrtholomezu
is post-doctoral
fellow in Old Tesfnment
hernteneutics
at tlrcCheltenhnmand GloucesterCollcgcof Higher
Educntion.He lns slst'ttaughtOld Testament
at CeorgeWhitefield
Collegein CapeToztttt,SoutltAftica.

A Table in the Wilderness?

'Is there
anyone among vou u'ho, if your child asks for bread, will
give a stone?'Matthew 7:9
jesus uses the metaphor of bread and stones in his teaching on prayer.
The good father can be relied on to give that n'hich is healthy and
nourishing in responseto his child's reqnests.If r.r'ethink of Old Testament studies as something rvhich is served up to studcnts in our universities,colieges,and seminaries,then n'e conld appropriate this metaphor by asking, Is Old Testament studies in its present state bread or
stones? Are the Old Testament curriculums of our day healthv and
nourishing?
In his preface to Thomas Oden's recent book, Requiem,Richard
Neuhaus
declaresthat rvhile Christianitv does offer a feast. much
|ohn
theologicaleducationiends to operatea long way from that feast:

t8

19

,6
CRAICG.I]AI?THOLOMEW

Towardsa post_liberal
Agendafor Old Testnmenf
Sttdy

More and more 'young fogeys' like Oden are discoveringthe truth
that is 'ever ancient,ever ner+,'(Augustine).It is called the catholic
faith, and it is a feastto which he invites us. It is a movable feast,still
developing under the guidance of the Spirit. Oden is Likecinema's
'Aunhe N4ame,'
rvho observedthat life is a banquetand most poor
slobs are starving to death. Origen, Irenaeus,Cvril of Alexandria,
Tl-romasAquinas, Teresaof Avila, lr4artin Luther, John Calvin, John
l{esiey - the names fall trippinglv from Oden's tongue like a gourmet surveying a most spectaculartable.Here are argumentsyou can
sink vour teeth into, conceptualflights of inioxicating complexity;
and truths to die for. Far from the table,over there,wny over there is
Americantheologicaleducationwhereprodigal academicsfeedstan,ing studentson the dry husks of their clcvcr unbelief.l
The Christian hradition offers a table in the wilderness, but, according to this view, much contemporary theology has so succumbed
to the wildemess that it has moved away from the table. For Oden,
who has recently returned from the wildemess of avant-garde, modemistic theology to evangelical orthodoxy, the contemporary wilderness has been the lure of modemity. Oden's htle Requiemrelates not
only to his move away from modemistic theology, but primarily to the
death of modernity. Part of Oden's critique of theologv is that it has
bought far too strongly into the spirit of modemity, a spirit which Oden
maintains is now on its last legs.
Personally I think Oden mav be too quick to lament modemrty;
in my view the post-modern turn is not truly post-modern but rather
a manifestation of the tensions and contradictions within modemitv2
and what we are seeing is better described as late or high moderniby.
Either wa1',lvhat the post-modem tum has done is to expose some of
the prejudicesof modemitv and to call them to account.What n'as often
called 'bread' in modernity is now being exposedas 'stone'by many,
and of colrrse,where theology has succunrbed to the agenda of modemity, it too incvitably sharesin that crisis. It is another of those situations about which Dean Inge wamed - whoever is married to the spirit
of this age is destined to be a widow in the next.
1. Forcrvord in T. Oden, llequient (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), p. xx.
2. See C. Bartholomew, 'Post/t-ate? Modernity as the Context for Christian
Schcrlarship Today,', Thenrelios22,2 (1997), pp. 25-38.

20

In the academy one of the resultsof the crisis of modemity rs

a
situation of increasingpluralism in which a 'ariety of approachescompete for adherence.In this pluralisLiccontext there is increasedpressure
to account for one's approach.It is no longer, for examplc,so easy
to
assume the autonomy of reason as the final arbiter of tnrth. tn
my
opinion this sifuation is to be welcomed becauseit encouragesChristians to have a close look at the extent to rvhich their scholarshiphas
been shaped bv and rooted h moderniry and, like Oden, to ask horv
compatible modernity is with Christianity.
Modemity is, of course, a complex phenomenon to rvhich lve are
all indebted in too many ways to mention. A Christian approach to
modemity ought not to be the attempt to recreate the pre-moclem
situation, as critics of modernity like oden, Newbigin. and Lyon recognise.3Nevertheless,it remains true that the basic roots or rvoild vie'v
that underlies modernify is profoundiy at oclds with a transformatrve
christian perspective upon the world.4 Few scholarshave exposed this
as clearly as Lesslie Newbigin.5 Christianity is public trutir and tlie
Cartesian lcgacy that Descartesbequeathed to the west is antithetical
to a biblical approach to knowledge. I do not have time to argue this
h detail here, but suffice to say that if Nern'bigin's type of anilysis rs
correct, as I belie'e it is, then oden is right. The more theology' succumbs to the agendaand world view of modernity, the further it moves
from the table in the n'ildemess.
But what, you may wondet has this got to do rvith Old Testameni
studies?To a large extent the modem discipline of old resiament studies
is a product of modernity; and, as with theology,one of the questionswe
will need to ask if we are to assessthe extent to which it is 'bread,.is. ,to
3. see Bartholomew, 'Post/Late? Modernity', for hrll referencesto these auth.r.s.
A select bibliography of Newbigin's writings can be found
in L. Newbigin , Lrnf nishcd
Agada: An llpdated Autobiography (Edinburgh: St. Andrerv press,
1g3), pp . 2M-67 .
I am assuming Ln this argument that the tra'sformative understanding
of
the Christ-culture relationship is the most biblical
.ne. see H. Reinhold Niebuhr,
C-fuistand crilfrrre (London: Harper Colophon, 1975),for
a discussion .f the different
Christian paradigms for underitanding this
rerationship, and A. wolters, Crettirtn
Regained(Leicester: InterVarsitv press, ilgs;, for a
supeib statement of this type .f
approach. It is undoubtedly true that, if one
has a iifferent understanding of the
Christ-culture relationship, one may rvell evaluate
nrodernitv ouite diiferentlv.
See, for example, t.. Nervbigin, proper ConJtdsnce.Faith,Doubt
and Ceitnittt,Ll
^. :
in Christian Discipleship(London: SPCK, 1995).

27

a Post-liberalAgendnfor OId TestamentStudy

Tozuards

CRAIG G, BARTHOLON1EW
what extent has it been integrally shaped by the world view of modernity?' Among liberals and conservati"'es there is widespread acknowledgement of this shaping. Henry Vander Coot argues as follows:
The integration of faith and leaming in the discipline of biblical
studies means that the rvorld view investigated in the text must also
be accepted as the world viert' from the vantage point of n'hich the
text is investigated. Only under such circumstances is the Bible's total
claim properly acknorvledged. Where the biblical framework is not
taken to be the context for scientific study, the only other option seerns
to be the acceptance of a fact-value, science-faith distinction in which
the two tracks of life in the ecclesia and scholarship in the university
are Krupulously kept apart. \A/here scientific theology is not ecclesially funded, it nonetheless continues to be funded pre-theoretically
and that usually by the climate of opinion which happens at any
given moment to reign within the discipline. Where this latter sifuation obtains, one finds specifically that the conduct of theological
scholarship often takes place on rmconscious foundations not so
easily reconcilable wiih the Christian story because in the modem
centuries secularism has taken possession of the intellectual field.
Unfortunately much modem scientific study of the Bible as an historical source illustrates this all too well.6
In his Oxford inaugural Ernest Nicholson is quite clear about the
historical roots of the historical-criticai method that has dominated Old
Testament studies over the past two hundred or so vears. The name of
method indicates its source; it emerged from the
historical ihinking that came out of the Eniightenment, received further
impulses ftom Romanticism, and burgeotred rn the German historical
the historical-critical

school of ihe nineteenth century.

To a remarkable extent, indeed to a greater extent than has often been
realized or acknowledged, it was this historical thinking that provided the basis of biblical hermeneutics in the nineteenth century,
and more than the theologians and biblical scholars themselves it was
the leading figures of the German historical school - Barthold
Gustav Niebuhr, Wilhelm von Humboldt, Leopold von Ranke, Johan
6. H. VanderCoot,TheBiblehTheologtland theClturch(Nerv York and Toronto:
Edrvin Mcllc-nPress,1984),p. 83.

22

Gustav Droysen,Theodor Mommsen,and others- who createdthe

interpretl,e framework and provided the method.T
Of course, Nicholson and Vander Goot would evaluate this
rootageof the historical-critical method very differently. But both would
agree that contemporary Oid Testament studies have been far more
deeply shaped by modernity than most of us realise. In his inaugural
Nicholson wonders whether historical criticism could be a Sisyphean
toil, never reallv making progress,bui he soon rejectsthat possibiliry-.
Ten years down the Iine that possibiliq' cannot be so easily rejected.
Historical criticism is in crisis and there is broad recognition among
Cfuistian scholarsthat changesneed to be made in the hermeneutic we
use in reading the Bible. While few would deny that immense Progress
has been made through historical analysis of the Old Testament,Alister
'Babylonian Captiviry of the Bible':
McGrath is right to speak of the
Formerly undertakenwithin the community of faith, it [the study of
Scripfure] has been banishedto a community with its olvn definite
- although often unacknowledgedand unstated- sets of beliefs
and values.As a result,it is held in bondage.it is not freeto challenge
thosebeliefs,but is judged in their light.E
This captivity has resulted in much Old Testament sfudy serving up
stones rather than bread.gIn a volume of this sort on teaching the Old
Testament it shouid also be noted that this captivitv is as true of the

(Oxford:
theOld Testammt:
A Caiury of theOrielProt'essorship
7. lnterpreting
'Ton'ardsa Post-Critical
Paradigm:
Clarendon,
198i),p. 16.SeealsoW. S.Vorster,
Progress
in J.Mouton,A. G. vanAardeand W.S
in New Testament
Scholarship?',
(SouthAfrica:Human Sciences
Vorster(eds.),Parodigtns
in Theology
and Progress
Research
Council,1988),
pp. 31-a8.
andtheStability
8. A. McCrath,'Reclaiming
Our RootsandVision:Scripfure
of the Christian Church', in C. E. Braaten and R. W. Jenson, Ileclaining the Biblelor
the Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), pp 63-88,69.
9. I will not here argue in detail hovu'contemporary Old Testament study is
often 'stone' rather than 'bread'. ln my ReadingEcclesiastes:
OT Exegesisand Herneneutical Theory (forthcoming) (Analecta Biblica, Rome: PBi, 1998) I track in detail the
negative effect of historical criticism upon the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. In
section four of this paper I sct my proposals in opposition to the effect of modemity
'stone'
upon Old Testament interpretation, thus exposrng some of the
of contem
poran Old Testament studies.
ZJ

CRAIG C. BAITTHOLOMEW

Toutardsa post-liberalAgendafor OId TestamentStudy

philosophies of education that shape most of the modem institutions

within which Old Testament shrdies are taught.10 Price sums r:p the
lristory of the philosophy of education in the follorving way:

studres,retuming briefly to thc questionof the philosophy of education

at thc cnd. The post-modem turn and the resulting pluralism in old
Testamentstudies necessitateihis sort of examination,but even more
so does the ^ature of Christianity as public truth. Not only does the
post-modem tum call many of the roots of modemity into question,
but those roots are largely anhthetical to Chrisfianity. This does not for
a moment mean that nothing good has come out of modemily or the
historical-criticalmethod. Quite the contrary.But it does mean that a
Christianevaluationof the contemporarystaieof old Testamentstudies
ra'ill need to be alert to the shaping influence of modernity.

The historv of philosophy of education reflectsa mor.ement evident

in other phases of thought - a successivecontribution on the part of
antiquity to the Christian icleal for trarrsmittrng cr.rlturefrom one
generation to another and then a gradual elimination from that ideal
of supematural and Christian elements. . . one n'ay of understanding the history of philosophl' of educ.rtion is to regard the attitude
of philosophe'rs tow'arc1sthe justification and explanation of educational theory as having be'enexpressed first in Plato's classic supematuralism, next in Augustine's Christian supernaturalism, and
therr in undergoing a gradrral alteration into the r.vhollynon-Christian
and naturalistic vierv representedby John Dew'ev.ll

Required: A Post-liberal Agenda

for Old TestamentStudies

In a recent article Ruth Jonathan acknon'ledges that modern lib-

The precedingdiscussionprovides a perspectiveon the current stateof

old restamerrt studies bv arguing ihat mainline old restament studies
has generally been too closely and unhealthily associatedwith modemitv.l3 Mv suggestio' is that the way for old restament studies to
reco\.er its health is fbr it to pursue a post-iiberal agenda. C,eorge
Lindbeck appears to have coined the phrase ,post-liberal theology, as
a way of describing the family resemblanceof the work of a number
of Yale theoiogians.ll william Placher sums up the concerns of postliberal theology as follows:

eral education's
overarching aim has been the maximal development of the rational
autonomy of each . . . to the eventual benefit of all. In ordrnary language/ liberal education in modern times has aimed at the freeing of
each from ignorance, prejudice and superstition, so that the maximal
developr.rrent of their talents and tastes would gir.e rise to a fairer,
freer,more reasonableand decent - and also a richer (both culturally
a n d m a t e r i a l l v )- w o r l d . l 2

Postliberaltheology attends to the biblical narrati'es as narratives

ratherthan simply as historicalsourcesor as symbolicexpressionsof
truths lvhich could be expressednon-narratively.But unlike someother
theologiansinterestedin narrati'e, postliberalsdo not iet the storiesof
orrrli'es settheprimary contextfor theology.Thev insistthat thebiblical
ttarratir,,es
Frrovidethe framel,yorkrvithin which Christiansunderstand
the r,r'orld.Christiantheology describeshow the world looks as seen
frorn that standpoint;it doesnot claim to arguefrom some,neutral,or

Any Christian assessmellt of the currcnt state of Old Testament

studies must therefore take account of the relationship betrveen Old
Testament str"rdies and modernitl', and of the philosophy of education
shaping the tcaching of the Old Testament. This is a large task, and rn
this article rr'e will confine ourseh'es to the curriculum of Oid Testamenr
10.At lcastin the U.K. Philosoohvof education:s alsoundergorngthe crisis
in its idenfity t_vpical
ot the post-mfflern turn, as recentcclihonsof the Journaloj tle
Plrtlosophr1
of Educationmake quiie clear.
11.K. Price,'Historvof Philosophyof Educatron',in P Edwards (ed.),The
EttcYcloltedia
of Philosophy,
r,ol. 6 (Nery York/London: !lacN,lillanand Free/CollierMacN{ilieur,1967), p p. 230-{3,212.
12.R. lonathan,'LibcralPhilosophvof Educahon:r\ ParadigmUnder Strarn',
Jourrnlof Plilosoplnlo.fEdurntiott29, 1 (1995),pp. 93-10S,97.

13, In ax unpublished paper, 'Reading the Bible in postmodem llrnes,, I have

argued that conser'ati'e biblica) studies ha'e often also ber:n as deeplv and unhealthily shaped bv moderniry as libc.ral scholarship.
1 4 . G . L i n . l b e c k , ' T o w a r d a P o s t l i b e r a l T h e o l . g y . , i n T h c N a t u r eo f D o c t r i n e .
Religiotr rttrtTTlrcolttsyin a Postliberol,4ee(London: Spak, i9S4).

1n

25

l,

w
CRAIC C] BAITTHOLOME\'\'

Tcttt,nrtls
a Post-libt:rnlAgendafor OIclTestutttutt Stud1

'objective'position
and indeeddeniesthepossibilitvof sucha posihon.
It pursuesapologctics,therefore,only on an ad hocbasis,looking for
corrunonground with a given conversationpartnerbut not assumng,
someuniversallyacceptable
standardof rahonalitl,.l5
The crucial insight of post-liberal theologv irr my epi11en, is its
recognition thai Christians ought to allow the Word to frame and interpret our world rather than our understandingof the world framing and
interpreting the Word.16ln other u'ords, an integrally Christian agenda
is required in Old Testament studies, Christians find it comparativelv
easy to seethe need for Christian thcologv but otten find it verv difficult
to seehorv a Christianagendacould be important in other areasas rvell.
In this respectA. Plantinga's "Advice to Christian Philosophers" is
particularlv iiluminating. Plantingais a leading American philosophea
and he proposes a direction for Christians in philosophy ihat one could
call posi-liberal. It recommendsprecisely the sort of direction that i have
in mind for Old Testamentstudies.He suggeststhat
Christianphilosophersand Christianintellectualsgenerallymust disindependenceof the rest of the philoplay more autonomy
sophicalworld. SecondChrisiian philosophersrnust display more
integrity - integrity in the senseof integralwholeness,or oneness,or
unity, being all of one piece.Perhaps'integrality' would be the better
word here.And necessaryto thesetrvo is a third: Christian coLuage,
or boldness,or strength, or perhaps Christian self-confidence.We
Christian phiiosophers must dispiay more faith, more trust in the
Lord; rve must put on the rvholearmour of Cod.17
Planfinga is not for a moment suggesting that Christian philosophers
should not be deeply involved in mainstream philosoph,v,but he is also
insisting that
'Postliberal
15. W Placher,
Theologr", rn D, F. Ford (ed.), The Modern Tlieolognns. Att lntroduction to Cltistnn'fheologv in the TtttentiethCerrtury(Oxford: Blackwell,
1 9 8 9 ) ,p p . 1 1 5 - 2 8 , 1 1 7 .
16. I would not neccssarilr' \^'ant to endorse all aspects of postJiberal thmlogv.
Irr tlris respect see,e.9.,the critique of Lindbeck in A. McCrath,Tfu Cenesisof Doctritrc
lOxford: Blackwell, 1990;.
17. A. Plantinga, 'Advice to Christian Philosophers', Fnitlt nn,1 Pltilosophy7,3
( 1 9 8 4 ) , p p 2 5 3 - 7 1 .T h i s a r t i c l e i s t h e t e x t o f h i s 1 9 8 3 i n a u g u r a l a s J . A . O ' B r i e n
Prolessor of Philosophy at the Um'ersitv of Notre Dame.

26

It]heChristianphilosophicalcommunitvmust work out the arrsrvers

to its questions;and both the questiorrs
and the appropriateways of
ivorking out their answersmay presupposebeliefsrejectedat most
of the leadingcentersof philosophy.But the Christianis prro6s.4r1,
quite properlv in starting from thesebeliefs,even if they are so rc_
jected.He is under no obligahon to confine his researchprojectsto
thosepursuedat thosecenters,or to pursuehis own projectson the
basisof the assumptionsthat prevail therc.18
Plantingadet-ends
the right of Christianphilosophersto start from belief
in God in their philosophicalendeavours.He reviervstheism'srclationship to discussions in philosophv about verifiability, the theory of
knowledge,and philosophicalanthropologyand concludesthat theists
lvould fare far better if thev lvorked Fromtheir own starting point rathcr
than trying, as has so often been done, to 'trirn their saiis to the prevailing philosophicaiwinds of doctrine.'19
It is worth reading Plantinga's article in its entiretry-.
Suffice it to
make the point here, that we need the same kind of vision in Old
Testamentstudies.Of courseChristiansneed to be in touch with. arrd
deeply in'olved in, the issuesthat mainstreamOld Testamer-rt
strrdies
are throwing up. But at the same time it is vital that Christians in Old
Testamentstudies display autonomy, integrality, and boldness in shaping an agendar.t'hichis integrally Christian. The best of er.angelicalOld
Tesiament scirolarship has generally manifested these characteristics
and indeed evangelical Old Testamentscholars have achieved a great
deal or.er the past decades.Take Genesisscholarship,for example; we
have moved from having Calvin, Young's works, Leupold, and Kidner,
to ail this plus l{enham and Hamilton. However, this pr.ogresshas i,ery
often taken place amidst the deep connivanceof liberalsand conseryatives rvith modernify,often in unhelpful ways. It is thus imperirtivethat
we reflect consciously on where we have come from and where i\re are
going. This is particularlv important in the present'post-modem' hour,
which, from a post-liberal perspective provicles a unique opportunig',
indeed an imperahve, for Christian old restament scholarsto reassess
their disciplineand to re-form it along integrally Christian li.es. This
'Advice
18.
to Cluistian Philosophers',p. 26.j.
19. This is Plantbga's expression.See 'Advice to Chrishan pl.rilosttphers,,
p. 25E.

27

Toir',rrrjsa Posi-libernlAg,:rttln.for Oltl TestametrlStudtl

CRAIG C. BARTHOLOMEW
is not for a moment to underestimaie all that has been achieved but to
ask how to preserve ihe good in evangelical and liberal Oid Testament
scholarship,and how to develop it into the fuhrre.There needs,i. *y
view, to be a lot of discussion among Christian Old Testamentscholars
about the d,angersand opporfunities, the areas of defence and attack
in Old Testament studics today. There is a need for an agenda - not
the final word, but a resounding call to serve Christ together in the
delightful field of Old Testamentsfudies today and some indication of
the direction this ought to take in our situation.

A Reformational Post-liberal Agenda

Within the evangelical tradition the work of scholars like E. J. Young
and the late R. K. Harrison has helped many to keep alive the possibilify
of a Christian agenda in Old Testamentstudies. Indeed, until today no
work has appeared ihat replacesHarrison's lntroductiortto the OId Testantent.2oTheseschoiarslaboured at a time n'hen a conJessionalapproach
to the Old Testament seemed doomed to extinction. The historical approach of liberal scholars appeared to threaten the very nature of Scripture as God's Word, and so it was here that they fought the good fight.
In such circumstances their strategv was perfectly understandable.
However, over the long term it is crucial that this defence is replaced
by a strategy in which a Christian agenda determines the work sites.
My suspiciorr is that many evangelicalsstijl tend to react and to allow
their work sites to be determined by others' agendas,albeit in negative
mirror image, rather than to allow their work sites to emerge in relafion
'gospel'21(i.r., integrally
to a
Christian) agenda.
Take, for example, the current post-modemism that is being felt

with R. K. Harrisonshorilybeforefusdeath,I leamtthat

20.In a discussion
he had revised his Introduction but that the publisher had thought it too long for a
revised edition.
21. It cannot be stressed too strongll that I do not mean this in a naive,
'gospel'
fundamenta.list sense. I use
to refer to the Christ event in all its depth and
'gospel'
With
complexity.
rts background in Isaiah etc.,
refers to the Christ event as
that tfuough which Cod's creation purposes are achieved and around which the
whole of reality revoives. If this is an accurate description of the Christ event, then
clearly it must shape OT studies in some wav.

28

all over the academy',includrng in theology and biblical studies.22Ther'e

is no doubt that Christian scholars or-rght to take this new trend scriously.23Hon'ever, it u,ould be a mistake for Christian scholars to expend
all their energv there and to neglect u,ork sites that their own perspective rnakes important Alvin Plar-rtingais most perceptive in this respect.
He calls much of this post-modemism creative anti-realism and says,
creative anhrealism is presentlv propularamong philosophers; this is
the vierv that it is human behaviour- in particul.rr,human thought
arrd lanppage - that is somehow responsible ior the frrnd.rnrcrrtal
structure of ihe world and for the fundamental kinds of entities there
however, universal creative antiare. From a theistic point of
"'ielv,
realism is at best a piece of laughablebra vado. For God,of coulse, r'rr'r,es
neither lris existencenor his properties to us and our rl'ays of thirrking;
the truth is just the reverse. And so far as thc created unit cLse rs
concerned,n'hile it indeed ou'es its existenceand characterto activitv
on the Part of a person, that Person is certainly not a hunnn pers.rn.24
In this light it is not surprising to hear Plantinga say that
[t]he Christian or theistic phiiosopher, therefore, has his orvtr r.r,ayof
rvorking at his craft. In some cases there are items on his agenda pressing items - not to be found on the agenda of the non-theistic
philosophical communitv. In others, items that are currently fashionablc appear oi rclatively minor interest from a Christian PersPective.
In still others, the theist rvill reject common assr,tml'rtionsantl vien's
about holt' to start, how to proceed, and n'hat constitlrtes('igot)(-ior
satisfying arlswer. In stilt others the Christiarr rvill take for gr.rnted
and will start from assumptiorrsand premises rejectedbv the philos o p h i c a lc t r m m u n i t y a t l a r g e . 2 5

22. See,r.t., D. R. Griffin, W. A. Beartlslee,arrd J. Holland, lhrieti* of Posl'

(Nen,\brk: SUN\', 1989).ln the U.K. 'posi-rnodernity'was lhe theme
trroderttlheologv
of the Januarvlgqb SOTSconfcrcnce.
23. A. Th.isclton,lntt'4tretittgGttclattrlfhe Posfuro,Jt'rtt
5c| (Ediuburgh:T & T
Clark, 1995),p. 16,rightlr"rrotesof the more extrenreve'rsiorts
of pttst-mocier:rrsnt
that, 'TheseperspectlVes
corrstitutethe most seriousand urgent challt'ngesto tJleolop;v,in compansonwith which the old-style attacksfronr "common-senseL.osttivlsm" appearrelativelvnaive'.
'Advice to ChrishanPhrlosophels',
24.Plantrnga,
pr.269.
25. Plantinga,'Advice to ChristianPhilosophers',
p. 270.

29

CI{AIC C. BARTHOLON,{EW

Tozt,ards
a Post-libernlAgendafor OId TestanrentStudy

Of course it is vital that Christians respond to current scholarlv

trends. Respondingto modemistic Old Testamentscholarshipis, howevet different from allowing modcmistic Old Tcstamentscholarship to
set the overarching agenda. In this respect the distinction in Reformational philosophy between transformational as opposed to reforma'Transformational'
'reformational' are
tional scholarship is helpful.
and
two terms from reformational philosophy,26each of which tries to ger
at the heart of what Christian scholarship should be about. Johannes Klapwijk has argued over the past ferv vears that Christian
scholarship should be transformational.2TThis approach to scholarship
should, in his view, be based on assessment,arrest, and appropriation
with the central category as transformation. He resurrectsthe notion of
'spolatio' (spoiling
the Egyptians) and focusesthe direction of transformational philosophy in ternrs of sanctification compared with the secularisation of secular philosophy. The transformational approach recommends that Christians work where the key sites of action are and try
and transform these sites torvards a Christian direction. 'The idea of
transformational philosophy excludes by definition, howevel, the
possibilitl,"of a separatealtemative circuit of Christian scholarly praxis
becauseit proceedson the baslsof the dynamic notion of possessio.'28
If I understand Klapwijk correctly,he wishes to focus Christian scholarship away from the development of integrally Christian scholarship
and towards transforming se'cularideas.
The reformational approach, associatedwith the Dutch philoso.
phers Dooyeweerd29and Vollenhoven, seesby comparison the need
for the development of scholarship that is driven by integrally Chrishan
roots. If one imagines scholarship as a building then the structure
should emergeout of and take its direction from Christian foundations.
26. Reformafional philosophy is that tradition of Refornred phiiosophv that
has developed in the neo-Calvinist Iine of Herman Dooverveerd and Drk Vbllen'reformational'
hoven. The word
n,as coined by the Canadian aesthetician Calvin Seerveld, to describe philosophv in the Reformed tradition rvhich coruciously
seeks to be shaped by a Christian q'orld view.
'Reformational
27. J. Klapwiik,
Philosophy on the Boundarv Betrveen the Past
and Future', Philonphia R{omtota 53 (1988), pp. 101-34.
28. J. Klaprvijk, 'Reformational Philosophy', p. 105.
29. The best contemporarv explanation of Dooycweerd's philosophv is that
of I{. Clouser, The Myth o/ Reiigirrr.sNeutrality (Notre Dame: Universitv of Notre
Dame Press, 1991).

30

The reformationalapproachrecognises
the importanceof dialogue with
and trar-rsformationof existing n'ork sites but insists that the edifice of
(for example) Old Testamentstudies must be developed as a whole
along integral Christian lines. For a reformational scholar it is not
enough to see where the n'ork sites are and then to try and work
Christianly there.More fundamental questions surface,such as: If I take
a Christian perspective on reality seriously and see my work in OId
Testarnentstudies as service of the Lord Christ, then where ought the
work sites to be in Old Testamentstudies today?
Obviously both transformational and reformational Old Testament scholarship are necded. And both approaches presuppose that
Christian scholarshipought to be Christian.However, it does seem to
me that the dominant requirement is reformational Old Testament
scholarship; and my suggestion is that evangeiicai Old Testament
scholarship tends to be transformational rather than reformational.3O
This seems to me a dangerous paih to pursue. Much evangelicai
'liberals'
scholarship has been of this sort; let so-called
set the agenda
and then evangelicalswill fight according to their agenda and try and
defend the cause rt'here they create the battle. \ /ithin Old Testament
scholarship this has often been the pattem, with evangelicalstaking a
reacfive rather than a proactive stance, so that in the process both
evangelicalsand liberals tend to have been deeply in the grip of modernity.
The problem with this is that one never gets round to doing
positive scholarship that is integrally Christian. Christian scholarship
needs, of course, to be deeply in touch and in dialogue with secular
trends, and to be busy with transformation, but this cannot be the heart
of our direction. Re-formation of the sciencesshould remain our primary concem; ihis will always hvolve transformationbut it will be
more than that in iis construction of integrally Christian scholarship.
As Calvin Seen'eld has said, synthesismay be our practicebut it should
never be our policy.31Scripturally led believers do have a head start in
their orientation to the truth, and as Ku'yper indicated, 'What we really

30. This is of course a generalisation. In the present crisis in OId Testament

studies there are encouraging signs oi evangelicals and others strikrng out in bokl,
new directions, some of which I refer to in scction 4 of this paper.
31. In a personal conversation.

31

Toiuardsn Post-libernlAgendafor OId TestamentStttdy

CITA]GC,.BARTHOLO]VIEW
rleed is a seedling of scientific theory [read "OT theor1."'lthriving on
Chrrstian roots. For us to be content r.t'iththe act of shuffling around
in the garden of somebody else, scissorsin hand [to cut the other's
flor.vers),is to throw awav the honour and lt'orth of onr Christian
f ai t h . ' i 2
In our Old Testamentscholarshipwe are called to love God and
servc our neighbours,Another wav of expressingthis is that rve are to
ser\reup good. nutritious bread to our neighbours,baked as best we
are zrble.Historical criticism has been so shaped bv modernitv that it
has generallynot produced breadbut stones;the danger u'ith transiormational Old Testamentscholarshipis that it producesat besi only less
dangerous stonesl [t never has the time for the inner reformation of
Old Testamentstudies so that we can start producing some ioaves,
howcver inadequatcarrd immafure - this w,ill onl_"hilppen if we allorv
a Christian perspective to determine our agenda in Old Testament
studies.
The 'great' thing rvith 'post-modemiW' is that no one knows
where the Old Testamentr.r'orksites should be anymore anv-n'ay!There
is rvidespreadagreementthat Old Testamerrtstudies are in a state of
flux and uncertainty with no signs of an emerging paradigm-consensus.33Thereis no longer one historical-criticalagenda,if thereever was
one. I)avid Clines will give you one a;5endaand certain work sites,
John Collins will tell you that the historical-criticaln,ork sitesare still
the plirce to operatc from, Brevard Childs rvill cncouragc voll to focus
on the final c;rnonical form, and so on. We are now in a situation where
you have to account for your rvork siteslI I welcome this becauseit
encouragesChristians to accourrtfor their agenda in Old Testament
studies rather than accepting a non-Christian agenda and trving to
work Christianlv u'ithin it.

3 2 - A . K u v p e r , D t : C t n t e e r t C r a t i t , 3 r o l s . ( K a m p e n : K o k , 1 9 0 2 - 5 ) ,i . o l . 3 , p . 5 2 7 .
33. St.e Bib/ic'n/lnterpretattortI (1993) for a number of papers tlealing !vith the
prLsent stateof Old Tesiament scholarship.
3 : 1 .S e eJ . L e v e n s o n , T h e H t b r c i t B i l t l e .t l t c O l c l ' f e s t a u t t ' tat tn t l H i s t o r L c aC
l rrtiasnt
( l , o u i s ri ) ) t - :l V e s t m i n s t e r , / J o h nK n o x , 1 9 9 3 ) ,

32

Some Contours of a Post-liberal Agenda

If we were to pursue a post-liberalagenda in Old Testamentstudies,
what shape rvould such an agenda take? That is of course a huge
question. In this final section I r.t'antto merely make some suggestions
about the sort of contours such an agenda might take.35I should
mention at the outset that I am assuming that Old Testamentstudy is
a theoretical discipline within the academy/university.36 It is a different activity from Bible stud,v or devotional use of the Old Testament,
however closely related it is and should be to these other aciivities.
An OId Testamentlecture is not, and should not be, a Bibie study or
quiet time. Theoretical, precise anaiysis characterisesOld Testament
studies, rvhereas attentive, whole-person listening characterises
devotional reading of the Bible. In relation to this it is important to
35. The tentative nature of this section needs to be stressed. My main concern
in this paper is to make the point that we are in urgent need of a post-liberal agenda
in Old Testament studies. It should also be skessed that I do not regard a post-liberal
agenda as one which would simply erase all that has gone on in Old Testament
stud.ies over the past one hundred years- In my opinion huge advances have been
and are being made, and a post-liberal agenda would want to secure and build on
these.
36. I do not have space in this article to reflect in detail upon the differences
between a uni'ersity and a theological college. In my view old Testament studies
should be integra)ly Christian in both, insofar as they are being practiced by Christians. This is not to deny non{hrishans the right to do Old Testament studies of
course! A demo(ratic society should allow scxietal pluralism to manifest itself in all
sectors of socieqv urduding the universiiy. The point is that such a pluralism rvould
also allorv Chrishans the right to let their most basic beliefs shape their scholarship.
I am arguing that Christian Old Testament scholars in thc universjty and the theological cotlege should positively and critically let their basic belilfs shape their
scholarsfup. Some basic beliefs have to fulfiil this function, and it is difficult to see
why these should be non-Christian rather than Christian, since neutral, objechve
basic beliefs are an impossibility: The difference, in my view, between Old Testament
studies in the university as compared with the seminarv relatcs to the more theorefical nafure of the univerity compared with the more practical nature of the semLnary.
(Cf I: J Venter, 'Yesterday and Today; the 'fask of ih" U.riu".rity,, tn
Social Thcory
and Practice, Kturs XL 4,5, 6 (\925), pp. 402-18, on the theoretical task of the univers r t Y ) T h e i m p o r t a n t p o i n t i s t h a t t a k r n g C l L r r s t r a np r e s u p p o s i t r o n ss e n o u s l y i n O l d
testament sfudies in the universihz does not mean turning the uriversity into a
or Bible college. A uruversrtv might, for example, hlve a practical ttreology
Tffi*y
dePartrnent which reflects theoretically on christran praxis, but its task is not to
teach the practical skills of preaching.

-)J

Agendn.for OId TestarnentSttLdy

Tou:ardsa Pttst-liberal

CRAICG. BARTHOLOMEW

Childs's canonical project is a massive attemPt to recover this

kerygmatic aspect of Scripture in Old Testament studies. As he has
noted againand again,it is an asPectof Scripturethat historicalcriticism
the neglectof the kerygmaticfocus40
doesnot do iusticeio. Interestrnglv,
is
of much liberaland conservative
a
characteristic
Testament
the
Old
of
within liberal Old Testament
Especiallv
Testament
scholarship.
Old
tendcd to focus on
has
continuallv
agenda
circles,the historical-critical
from the text
text
and
away
the
form
of
the stagesunderlying the final
Francis Watcase
that
as a unified whole. So much so has this been the
son says of biblical srudies,

remember that God )rasnot given us his Word primarily for theoretical
analysis.It is giverr to all God's people - not just to scholars- and
is to be receivedby Cod's people in a trusting, listening manner that
n'ill equip us for serviceof the King in his rvorld. Old Testamentstudv
is thus a sccondaryactivity in relation to the purpose of Scripture,and
ought to be directed ton'ards deepeningthe primary activity of listening to Scripture.3T

1 . P o s t - l i b e r a l O I d T e s t a m e n ts t u d y w o u l d l t a a ef a r m o r e

of a kerygntaticfocus.

In his creative application of speech-acttheory to biblical hermeneutics

Nicholas Wolterstorff declares,

To work with ihe final form of the texts,removedfrom this diachronic

framework and envisagednorryas relatively autollomouslinguistic
artefacts,is thereforeto proposea major reorientationor paradigmshift within the discipline.{]

So I recognizethat that interpretativepracticewhich readsand interpretsthe ClrristianBibleso as to discernwhat God is savingtherebv

is only one among many alternative,contestedpractices.Though it
was the dominant interpretatir.epracticein the Christiancommunitv
for about 1500vears,it is my imprcssionthai it has prettv much
disappearedfrom the academiccommunitv and now puts in its appearancemainly in homileticaland devotionalsettings.3S

Historical criticism tends to have biblical scholarsdevoting all tl'reir

energies to the stages underlving the final form of the text, and rarely
getting to expound the kerygma or messageof the tcxt as a whole.4z
This is clear,for example,in the history of the interpretationof
Ecclesiasteswhere there is no single, major critical commentary on the
It is true that there has been a
present (final) form of Ecciesiastes.43

If Scripture is God's Word, then clearly from a Christian perspective

the r-reglectof approaching it as such is a serious indjctment of the
acaderny.Brevard Childs makes a related point to Wolterstorff 's when
he insists that

'Kerygma' has received sustained attention in theolog.v this centurli par40.

'kervgmatic'
in the general sense
ticularlv by Barth, Bultmann, and Dodd. I am r'rsing
function of biblical
message/communicative
interpretation
upon
the
of a focus'for
texts. This gcneral usage needs to be nuanced in relation to these other theological
uses, but I cannot pursue tlris here. Suffice it to note that the kerVgrnatic focus I am
proposing is insepirable from important and complex hermeneutical issues' Speech
act theory is particularly useful in terms of developing a nuanced approach to

The final task of exegesisis to seek to hear the Word of God, rvhich
means that thc r,r'itrress
of N{osesand Jeremiah,of Paul arrd john,
must becomea vehiclefor another\,Vord.The exegetemust cometo
wrestle with the kerygmaticsubst;rncewhich brought into being the
wihress.39

biblical texts which takes account of their communicative function. On the relevance
'Authority
of this for evangetical biblical interpretahon see A. Thiselton's very useful
and Hermeneutics: Some I'roposals for a lv{ore Creative Agenda,' in I']. E' Satterthwaite and D. F. Wright (eds.), A Pdthzoavinto the Holy Stripturc (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 199{), pp. 107-a1.
41. F. Watson, Text, Church ard Warld, Biblical Interpretation iil TheologicalPers p e c t i a e( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , 1 9 9 a ) ,p . 1 5 .
42. There are obvicrtts excePtions to this. The iournal lnlerpretdttott' to( ex'
ample, was founded to focus on the ker-vgma of the Bible' A responsibiiitv of a
post-liberal approach would be to search orrt these positive strands in the history
of Old Testament interprtahon and critically appropnatc them in the Present'
43. For a detailed assessmelrt of this history see m1' Rcarllng Ecclesiastes'

37. Va'cier G.ot, Ific Bihlt' Ln Theolagu,exprlores this reLationshrp betr'een

pre-theoretical and theorchcal approaches to Scripture in detail.
3[J.N. Woltcrst<>ri[,Dittine Drscoursc.PhilosoTthical
Reflectionsou tlte Clttnn ]hnt
C o d S p e a k ( C a m b r i c l g e :C a m b r i d g c U n i v e r s i t v p r e s s , 1 9 9 5 ) ,p . 1 3 1 .
'lnterpretation
39. B. Chitds,
i n F a i r h ' , I n t e r p r t ' t a t i o nt 8 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ,p p 4 3 2 - - { 9I,, l 3

35

JT

[,

CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

Toit'ordsa Post-liberal
Agendafor Old Testamettt
Study

growing senseof the literary unity of Ecclesiastesthis century, but the

Iegacy of the extreme source criticism of Ecclesiastesat the turn of the
century lingers, in that the epilogue continues to be excludeclfrom thrs
unity without serious reexamination. Michael Fox's work44 is an rmportant exception to the failure to wrestle with the literary shape of
Ecclesiastes,although he has not w.ritten a major .o-r,.l".,tu.u on the
book. Fox is one of a few contemporary commentatorsn,ho insist on
taking the frame of Ecclesiastesseriously as an integral part of Ecclesr
astes.45Fox's reading of the epilogue in relation to the marn body of
the book is debatable,in my opinion, but his focus on Ecclesiasiesas a
literary text is crucial if the kerygma of Ecclesiastes,i.e. the canonical
text as we have it, is to be discemed.46
Although conservative old restament scholars have tended to
stress the unity of old restament texts much more strongll,, often rn
reaction to historical crificism, this has not, howevsr, meant that they
have focused their interpretative endeavours on the kervgma of the
individual texts. Consider the Tyndale commentaries for example _
this is in general their weak area.They are often full of useful particular
comments and exploration of major themesin the old restament books,
but they generally have little detail on the commu.icative function of
the text as a literary whole in its original context or today,.A Christian
hermeneutic would insist on bringing all its weight and exegetical
spade work to bear here. This is not to suggest that the historical and
literary and thematic dimensions of texts should be negrectedbut that,
in terms of biblical interpretation, they should be subordhate to the
explication of the kerygma of the text.
Consider, for example, the book of Kings. What rvas its message
to its origi.nalhearers?For all the value of corlremporary commentaries
this question rarely receivessustained attention. The focus has been'n

the underlving eventsrather than on the kerygma of tlre text in its iinal
form. The historical aspect of thc text is important, but Kings is not
This is why
primariiy a history book; it is kerygmatically focused.4T
Leah Bronner's work on the Elijah, Elisha narrativesis so usefui.asIt
sets ihem againsi rvhat rve knolv of Baal and they spring to life as n.e
se that all that is predicatedof Baalis actuallv true of Yahweh!Reflection on this perspectiveas addressedto the exilic and post-exiliccommunity,, thc audience for rvhom the book was lvritten, leads one into
the communicaLivedynamic of the text.ag
The Old Testament books surprisingly come to life n'hen apin their historicaicontexts.I think
proachedas kervgmatically-focused
of Gordon Wenham's rvork on Genesiswhich, in m-vview, receivesits
dynamic from inquiring after Genesis' messagc/kerygma in its ANE
context,especiallywith respectto Genesis1-10.50This may secm obvious but historical criticism and reactionaryevangelicalscholarship
generally did not move one in this direction and thus distorted rather
than deepened Christian use of the Old Testament.Especially for the
Old Testament student it was easy to feel caught between a sourcecritical approach which fragmented the text or an inerrantist approach
which ignored the complex iiterarv genres of Genesis.If their deience
of the historicity of the OId Testamentsometimes prevented conservative scholarsfrom doing the hard u'ork on its kerygma, so too did their
concem for the unity of the testamentssometimes get in the n,ay. For
E. J. Young, for example, the main n'ressageof ionah is prediction of
47. The relationship of sl"nchronic to diachronic analyses of Old TL'stament
texts remains controversiai, It seems to me that we musi be cautious about setting
them against each other. The best analysis of their relationship has, in mv opinion,
been done bv lVleir Stemberg in his discussion of the relationship between discottrse
analysis and genetic an.rlvsis. See M. Stemberg, The Poeticsof Bibliul Narrattot.
ldeological Literature ntd the Drnnra of Rerrr/ing(Bloomingkrn: lndiana University
Press), pp. 7-23.
i18. See L. Bronner, l'he Storieso,f Elilah ond Llisln as l)it/r:rtiicsAgnirtst Bnnl

44.'FrameNarrariveand compositionin the Bookof

eohereth,,HLrcA18
Q9n), pp.83-106;
andHisContraditions
(sheffield:
Qoheleth
Armond,1989)Foran

Worship (Leiden: Brill, 1968).

49. Iain Provan's 1 E 2 Kincs (Old Testament Guides, Sheffield: SAI', 1994
rightlv and most hclpfullv analyses the historical, literarl', religious, ald didachc
e l e m e n t s i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f K i n g s . S e ea l s o h i s 1 a n t l 2 K i t t g s ,N e r v l n t e r n a t i o n a l
Biblical Commentary (Massachusetts/Cariisle: Hendrickson, Paternoster).
'What
50. On the creation narratives see also thc cxcellent rvork by J. Stek,
S a y s t h e S c r i p t u r e s ? ' ,i n H . J . r ' a n T i l ( e c i . t ,P o r l r t i t s o f C r a i l i t t r r :t s i b l i c n la n d S c i o t f i f i c
Perspecttues
on the Worl'l's Fttnnatiott(Crand Rapicls: Ecrdmans, 1990), pp. 203-65

assessment of Fox's reading of the epiiogue see C. Bartholomen,,

Rcodins Ecctesr_
asles.
45. G. Ogden, Qolrcleth (Sheffield: JSOT), is also 'erv helpful
in taking the
shape of Ecclesiastesas a whole seriouslv.
46. In ReadingEcclesiastes
I have tried to show just hon' significant it is for the
interpretation of 'Ecclesiastes'if 'the book' is read n,itiout the epil.rgre
as an mtegral
part.

36

37

[*

CRAIC G, BARTHOLOMEW

Agendafor OlclTestament
Study
Toztardsa Post-liberal

Christ!51This may defend a conseryative view of Scripture but it prevents one from positioning oneselfamong the Hebrew group to n,hom
this masterfulkerygmaricstory of the disobedientprophet is being told,
r,vith the insight gradually dawning that Jonah is a paradigm of Israel
and the real question is where you are in relation to Yahrveh'srvill ancl
word!
Literary and narrative approacheshave of coursebeen very helpful in moving the focus from the underlying events to the final shape
of the text. Indeed it is through narrative and carefully crafted literature
that many of the authors of the Old Testament books present their
message.The kerygmatic nature of the Old Testamentshould, however,
alert us to the fact that a iiierary approach which stops short of clarifving ihe kerygma of the text is insufficient. Consider Jonah, for example. That there is skilful narrative technique is clear.But it seemsto
me that Jonah is finally kerygma rather than story or perhaps I should
say that story is emploved in the service of kerygma. We never know
what happened to Jonah - did he come round to God's rvay of thinking or not? He seemsto have 6;onefull circle and not to have leamt at
all. This, I suggest, is not a good ending for a story - but it is for a
kerygmatically focused story/sermon, in which the key issue is not
what happened to jonah but . . . rvhere are the hearers in relation to
Cod's Word and will?!
Christian Old Testamentstudies should privilege the present form
of old Testamenttexts but they should privilege them kervgmatically
or communicatively, and refuse to make the literary or historical aspect
of these texts the dorninant one.52A hermeneutic is required rn'hich
takes full account of the literary and historical aspects and explores
their relation to the dominant kerygmatic aspect.stemberg's poetics13

and thc Peopleof Godare the most

and N. T. Wright's The NeittTestarnent
helpful indicationsof this sort of direction availableat present.5a
J. C.
McCann's ATheologicallntrodttctionto the Bookof Psahns:'fhePsalntsas
is a marvellousexampleof what can happenwhen the historical,
Torah,S
literary/canonical, and kerygmatic dimensions of a biblical text are
integrated. The discoverv that the Psalter has something of an overali
iiterary shape has opened up all sorts of new directions in study of the
psalms,$ and McCann develops theseinsights such that one begins to
hear the Psalter as Scripture in a fresh and powerful way, and in a way
that fits naturally with the New Testament.
And indeed. the recovery of a kerygmatic focus to Old Testament
study needs to be extended beyond individual books and texts to the
whole OId Testamentand to the Scriptures as a whole. Historical criticism has always led to fragmentationof texts and has a built-in antipathy to the unity of the Old Testamentand the Bible. It does not takc
much discemment to realise the implications of this for any doctrine
of Scripture as God's (univocal) Word. Old Testamentand biblical theologv have taken a systematichammering from historical criticism and
there are few u'ork sites in these areas remaining from the historicalcritical paradigm.sT
Unfortunately hansformational consen'ative schoiarship has neglected to createmany either. Following current fashions conservatives
tend to rvork thoroughly on small texts from the Old Testament,quietly
and uneasily hoiding to the unity of Scripture but having no powerfr-rl
emerging Old Testamentand biblicat theologies to support that belief.
There are some encouraging exceptions to this trend. One exception is Moore Collegc in Australia, where Graham Goldsrt'orthl', Bill

51.E.J,Young,
An Introduction
totheOldTestament
(GrandRapids:
Eerdmans.
1960),
p.280.Youngrvrrtesthar'[t]hefundamental
purposeof thebookof Jonahrs

sonal discussion with him I gather, however, he w'ould not aBree rvith me in derribing the Old Testament texts as kerygmatic.
55. J. C. McCann, ATheological lntroduction lo thr Bookof Psnlns: Tht Psnltr.sns
Torah (Nashville: Abingdc,n, 1993).
56. See, c8, i C. McCann, ed., Tlie'Slnpe dnd Slnpitrg of the Psaltu (Sheffield:

Fromperwith a communicative
modelof textualify.
54.Sternberg
operates

not found in its missionary or universalistic teachirrg. It is rather to show that

]onah
being cast into the depths of Sheol and yet brought up alive is an illustration of the
death of the Messiah for sins not His own and of the Messiah's resurrection. . ,
Thus the expcrierrce of Jonah has as its basic purpose to point forward to the
experience of that One that is "greater than Jonas."'

52. C/. thc discussion of the relationship between the literarv. historical. and
theological aspects of the Ncrv Testament texis in N. T. wright, ire NettTeslanrent
and the Pcopleo/God (Minneapohs: Fortress, lV)2).
53. Stemberg, Tle Pot'ticsof Biblical Narratioe.

38

ISOT,le93).

57. Tom Wright notes, for cxample, in his update of Stephen Neill's Tfte
Interpretation o;fthe Neru Testament,that "[t]he connection betrveen the Old and New
Tetaments remains a matter of interest, but shictly on tlre sidelines as far as the
mainstream of New Testament scholarshrp is concerned." In Tfu Interprttation of the
New Testament1861-1986(Oxford/New' York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 365.

39

w
CRAIGG. TiARTHOLOMEW

Tou,nrdsa Post-liberal
Agendafor OId Testnnrcnt
Study

Dunbrell, and others have made biblical theology an integral part

of
their curriculum for many yearsnow, and in the processa st;dy;rream
of publications has emerged from this school.58of course these have
their rveaknessesbut they seem particularly valuable in attempting ro
get at the inner uniry of scripture.certainly for any community *".iirrg
to uphold Scripture as God's word, works of this nature are indispensabJe.lames Barr and tangdon Gilkey apparently sounded the
death knell of the biblical theology movement, but there seems to have
bcen a neglect of cautious assessmentof the strengths and weaknesses
of that movement and the insistenceon not gir.ing up on old restament
and biblical theology. Karl Barth has said that the best apologetics is
a
good systematics,and undoubtedly the best defence or tne unitv
of
Scripture would be a series of old restament and biblicar theoroeies.
scobie has recently published a number of stimuiafing articres o,itn"
possibility of and shape a biblical theology might take;but this discussion is rare in biblical studies nowadays.59It is also heartening to
see
Francis wa^tsonattempting to revive bibrical theology in his reclnt
Tert
and Truth.$

2. Post-Iiberal Old Testament scholarship zrsouldhaue

more of a comrnunal nature.
It is i'creasingly difficult for an individual to write a single old
restament theology or a major ord restament introduction in his/her
rife58. I am told that this traditionof biblicaltheologygoesbackto D. w
B.
Robinson,
formerArchbishop
of sydneyandat onetimeVice-pnncipal
of thecolrege.
It n'ascertainJv
nurturedby formerprincipalD. B. Knox.seeasexamples
G. Goldsworthy,Gospel
patemoster,
andw*dora(Carrisle:
19gzIr995J),
w. J.Dumtreil,coi,enant
andCrcation:
An old restament
patemoster).
Couenant
Trrcorogv
(Exeter:
TheEntrofthe
Beginning:Reuelation21_22andtheoIdTestamerrt(Australia:[,ancer,tg85t,
See,for example,S. Scobie,,TheStructureof Biblical Theology,,Tyndale
_ .. .59
BulLetin42,2 (1991),pp t$-9a.
60 cl atsoC. R. seitz, word without Lnri. Tlo orrrrestamentas AbidingTheologicalwi.tness(Grand Rapids:Eercimans,
199g).walter Brueggemannhas reiularl'
the streamin producinga number of bookson old restamentthir_,logv
qon: lgalrt 'l'estnnrcnt
see his o/d
Theorogy.
Essavs
o, structure,Thente,and rert (Minneapolis:
Fortrt'ss, 1992)and most recentryseehis monunrcntatJTrrcorogv
of ttreottl Testa'ment:
Testimotry,
Dispute,Aduocac7
(Mirrneapolis:Fortress,1997J.

40

tirne today. An advantage of this is that it serves io remind us that

Chrisfianscholarshipshould be communal.The battlefor ChristianOld
Testamentscholarship will never be fought successfullybv a series of
individuals; it must be a deeply communal venture. FrancisWatson
correctly says in his plea for a theological biblical hermcneutic that
'what is needed above all is not individual performancesbut communal
agreement as to how a theologically-oriented exegesiscould be established. developedand practised.Clearly,such a consensuswill not in
the foreseeablefuture comprehend more than a minority of bibiical
scholars.'61
Modernity has been,/is deeply individualisiic and so is modern
scholarship. Originaiity and individual performance are the goals. A
Christian perspective will not ignore thesebut will also want to find a
place for tradition, faithfulness,communal work and service.The great
thing is to serve up nutritious bread and this requires communal projects. If Old Testamenttheologies are a great need of the day that will
probably involve a group of like-minded intemational Christian Old
Testamentscholarswho share a commitment to post-liberal Old Testament scholarshipworking together.Communal Old Testamentschoiarship will also involve nurturing and passing on the vision to new
generations of OId Testamentscholars.

3. Post-liberal Old Testament studies zpould be more

interdisciplinary.
By this I mean a number of things. First, like all disciplines,OId Testament study works rvith philosophical tools, i.e.,with an ontology and
an epistemology. It needs to ensure that these are Christian and will
thus need to be in dialogue rvith Christian philosophers and theologians.One thinks, for example, of Watson'sseriousplea for a theological
hermeneuhicin his fert, Church and World. In this creative tcxt he includes detailed exegesisof parts of Genesis in order to shor,."how a
theological hermeneutic would work with the biblical text. In my view
hermeneutic questions are theological and philosophical, so it would
be most helpful if Christianbiblicalscholarscould dialoguewith Chris61. F. Watson, Text, Church and Worltl, p. vll.

41

CRAIGG BARTHOLOMEW
tian iheologiansand philosophersin order io raise their consciousncss
about their philosophical and theologicalpresuppositions.conscior-rs
self-reflectionon methodologv is fast becoming an imperative and it is
important to ask n'hat a Christia^ methodology/ies should look like.
Recentdecadesha'e seen major advancesmade in Christian perspectives in philosophv,b2
and old restamentscholarscould easilvdialogue
with scholarsiike Plantinga and wolterstorff in theseareas.ivithin Nen,
-ibm
Testamentstudies,
wright's The NeioTestgnrcnt
ud thepeopleof cod
is an excellentexample of the fruit that taking philosophy serio,sly in
biblical studies can bear.sadlv not much of this sort of *,ork has 1'et
been done in Old Testamer-rt
studies.
seco.d, scripture is God's word for all of life and thus biblical
studies has unique potential for dialogue across disciplines, much of
which potential has rrot been exploited. Hor,r,,for example, does Old
Testamentethics relate to theological ethics and philosophical ethics?
And does old restament law have any insights to offer contemporarl,
legal studies - if so hor.r'does one go about relati.g these disciplines?
Third, other cliscipli.es also bear on Old Testamentstudics, and
not least on the teaching of the old restament, which is the main theme
of this collection of essays.within the university and the theological
college old restament studies is taught rvithin an educational milieu
that has developedover centuries.As we noted, this educationalethos
is not neutral, and particularly in the university context has been deeply
shapcd by modernitv, as a 'r'ho's *'ho of influential educational philosophers over the last felv hundred years soon demonstrates.within old
Testament studies the dominance of historical criticism fits hand-rnglove *'ith the rationalistic modern universit'.63
Ch.siians teaching the oid restament rvill therefore need to bc
alvare not onlv of non-Christian influences on old restament sfudies,
but also of the ideologies shaping the philosophy/ies of education rn
their teachins context. Increasedspecialisationand separationof disci62. See, c.9.. A. Pla.tinga, 'Christian philosophv at the End of the Tr'enheth
Century', in s. criffioen and B. M. Balk (eds.), Christinn philosopltyat thc Closcof il*,
T t p t : t r t i e tC
h t r t t u r y . , 4 s s c s s r r i . rar fn d P e r s p c c t i L(,K
ea m p e n : K o k , i 9 C 5 t , p p . 2 9 _ ; 3 .
63. Sc'cJ. kvenson, TIrc Ilebrciu Bible, Ior a stimulatjng orlalrlsis of religior.ls
interprctatiorr of the old restament compared with that of historical criticism. He
s h o n ' s h o u ' t h c ' m o d c r n u n i ' e r s i t v a n d h i s t o r i c a l c r . i i i c i s r . ln. r a r , eb e e n s h a p e d b v i h e
same ideolosr,.

,11

Towardsa Post-liberalAgendafor OId TestamentStudy

plines in the modern'mulhiversity'means,for example,that Old Testament speclalistswill not readily think of the influence of philosophy of
education upon their discipline. Horvever,a Christian agendarvill mean
being sensitive to these influences and the importance of thinking
tfuough the universitv from a Christian perspective.
Certainiy there is much in modern educational philosophy to hold
onto, but the crisis of post-modemity is being felt in the philosophy of
education as rvell. Roger l-undin begins his excellent text on postmodemity rvith two chapters on the crisis of education in the U.S.A.6a
And a similar crisis and flux is evident in U.K. education, as a perusal
of recent editions of the loumal of Philosophyof Educationdemonstrates.
Paul Hirst, whose modem analytical approach to education has deeply
influenced British education, has recently mot'ed away considerably
from his previous educationalphilosophy.65
Perhapsthe most significant implication of modemity for religion
has been the latter's privatisation. Freedom of religion is allowed but
religion is privatised and confined to people's private and church lives.
Reason and human autonomy are understood to reign in the public
spheresof life such as politics, economics,and education.Here religion
is thought to be inappropriate and divisive. As regards Christian education it must be noted that many Christians have argued that this
model of liberal pluralism is Christian. Education, interpreted through
this grid, is to be for all and ought to be open and unprejudiced in its
searchfor truth. I have norvhere secn the view that Christian education
ought to be neutral and objective more ciearly articulated than by
Hirst.66The follorving quotes give some senseof his influential position
in the 1970's.
The belief that religion does in fact significantly influenceany part
of the curriculum in Catholic schools,other than that of specifically
religious education,can be seriouslydoubted. (p. 3)
6.{. R. Lundin, The Cultttre of Interpretation.Cfuistian Faith and the Posttnodern
World (Crand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993).
65. See the articles and especiallv Hirst's contribution in R. Barrow and
P. White (eds.), Balord Liber,tl E,lucatiort. Essaysin Honour of Paul H. Hirsf (London
and Nerv York: Routledge, 1993).
'Education,
66. P. Hirst,
Catechesis and the Church School', in L. Francis and
D. W. Lankshear (eds.), Christtan Perspectiues
on Church Schools(Leominster: Cracewing Forvler Wrighr, 1,993119791),pp.2-16.

43

CRAIGG. BARTHOLOMEW

Tozuards
a Post-libernlAgendafor OId TestamttttStudtl

This second,sophisticatedview of educationis thus concemedwith

passing on beliefs and practicesaccording to their obiectivestatus
and with their appropriatejustification.It is dominatedby a concem
for knowledge, for truth, for reason,distinguishing ihese clearryfrom
belief.conjectureand subjectivepreference.(p. 5)
on this secondview, the characterof educationis in the end deter,
mined simply by the canonsof objectivityand reasonappropriateto
the different forms of knowledge and understandingthit *e hau".
What is involved in teaching say the riences, history the arts, is
determined by the nature of these pursuits themselvesand not by
characteristicsthat are in any way dependenton any religious presuppositions. Though certain Chrisfians at times try to argue otherwise, I suggestwe have now reacheda point in our understanding
of the nature of the sciences,the arts, mathematics, philosophy and
so on, that their autonomy and independenceof any specifically
Christian presuppositionsmust be granted. (p. 5)
The . . . concept of education I have been arliculating is . . . marked
aboveall by:
a. a commitment to the autonomy or independencefrom religious
beiiefs of the pursuits of objectivity and reason;and
b. a commitment to developinga rationaily autonomousperson
whose life is self-directedin the light of what reasondetermines.(pp.
7-8)
Hirst's is a quintessentiaily modem view of Christian education.
It should be noted that he is arguing this perspective as a
Christian.
Christian catechesisis, in his view, a pri'ate matter that can comple.
ment objective education.6T
The 1970's Hirst, in my opinion, is completely wrong about the
neutrality of education and its independence from reiigron.6S
tn the
context of the post-modernism debate there has emerged a recognition
of the extent to which modernity is a particular tradiiion with ils
own
prejudices. Encouragingly, Hirst himself has recognised the
extent to
6T Hirst's mode] is a good expression of the nature-grace understanding
of
the Christ-culture relationship. For a discussion of this
see R. lt. Niebuhr, Chist"and
Culture (I-nndon: Harper Colophon, 1975).
68. See R. Clouser, The hlyth of Religious Neutrality.

which his 1970'sposition was shapedby a particular perspective.In

the 1993 collectionof essayscelebratinghis career,Hirst remarkably
acknon'ledgesthat in the 60's and 70's British philosophy of education
'a hard rationalism',
a spell
and he himself were under the spell of
which, savs Hirst, has now been broken. According to the 1993Hirst
'we must shift from seeing education as primarily concemed with
knowledge to seeing it as primarily concerned with social practices.'
Although Hirst is not arguing for religion as foundational in the
sensethat I would, the contrastwith his 1978position is remarkable.
He says,for example,that
A greatmistakeof the 'rationaiist'approachwas that it sarvtheoretical
knowledgeas the only type of knowledgethat is properly significant
in determiningboth the ends and meansof rationalpracticeand thus
of the good life. . . . If practicalreasonis given its proper place in
determiningthe endsand the meansof the good life,with the achievements of theoreticalreasonseenas in generalancillary.the notion of
rationalchoicethat the conductof the good life requirescanno longer
be that of detached,neutral judgement of either ends or means. . .
There can be no detachedclean slate position from which ail possibilities can be assessed.
. . .69
Hirst has recognisedthe problems with the myth of neutral, objectir"e
education. Sadly though, the notion of neutral objectivity still tends to
reign supreme in the general practice of education, often even among
Christians. Even as a growing awarenesshas developed in the U.K. that
we all have presuppositionsand that inevitablyour communalbaggage
shapesour scholarship,few have discerned the responsibility for Christians to allow their presuppositions to shape their academic pursuits
as the rest of their lives.7o
69.P Hirst,'Education',
p. 193.
70. lt should be noted that some very good n'ork is being done on the theory
of educahon from a Chrisfian perspective. See, for cxample, J, Shortt and T. Cooling
(eds.), Agendafor EducutionalClrangc(Leicester:Apollos, 1997),F..J.Thiessen,'[eaching
for Comntnitttett: LiberttlEclucntion,Ittdoctrhntiott,and Christian Nurture (Leorninster:
Gracewrng, 1993). and theiournal Spectnmt-since
i997 knon'n as lournal of Eriu'
cation and Christiatt Belie.f.Thework is being done, but there are few places in higher
education in the U.K. lvhere an attempt is being made to integrate such theory of
education with a post-liberal agenda for Old Testament studies.

AA

45

Towardsa Post-liberalAgetda for OId TestnmentStudtl

CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW

A Time for Setting the Thble

As Christians in Old Testament studies rve are working all the time
with some kind of agenda for OId Testament studies, but is it a conscious and integraily Christian one? Time and again students come to
their teachersseeking guidance in discerning where to focus their energies. Now it is wrong for a supervisor to impose his interestsupon the
studcnt, but it is equally wrong to give no guidance. ln discerning our
God-given vocation John Stott once helpfully commented that we need
to discern our God-given gifts and then ask how those gifts can best
be stretched to meet the needs of the day. Imagine you are rn'orking
with a student rvho has the gifts and the call to service of the Lord
Christ in Old Testament studies. What n'ouid you say to her in her
quest to stretchher gifts in relation to the needsof the day? Any attempt
to answer this question will force one to confront another question:
n'hat are the needs of the day in Old Testamentstudies?Where are the
urgent holes that need to be plugged until more thorough work can be
done?

ca1ly,recognizingthe need to renew their orvn vocabularyas well as

to leam from the critiques offeredby postmodem culture.If they do
anything lessthan that, if they neglecttheir own heritageor view it
solely as a source of corruption and oppression,Christians are in
danger of selling their own birthright - their savilg vocabulary of
sin and grace,judgementand forgiveness,death and resurrectionfor a cold pottageof jargon and obscurity.Tl
Such an agenda in OId Testamentstudies could only be achieved
by a group with a common vision - a common world view and commiknent to post-liberal OId Testamentscholarship - who work communally to serve our neighbours by giving them bread and not stones.
'In sum, we who are Christians and propose to be Old Testament
scholars and teachersmust not rest content with being Old Testament
scholars who happen, incidentally, to be Christians; we must slrive to
be Christian Old Testament schoiars. We must therefore pursue our
projects with integrity, independence,and Christian boldness.'72

I have argued here that a post-liberal agendais the sort of direction

that Old Testamentstudies should aspire to. There is much at stake in
the discipline of Old Testamentstudies and it is valuable to pause every
now and again to check our bearings. This paper is a call to check the
'postdirection of current Christian Old Testament scholarship in our
modem' context. What are our gifts and what are the needs of our day?
How are we to work together in order to serve up bread and not stones
in our scholarly work on the OId Testament?The post-modern condition makes it important to undertake such reflection now. If not, the
danger is that Christian Old Testament scholarship will drift into a
reflection of post-modern pluralism with little communal agenda until
perhaps a new consensusemergeswhere it will make its uneasy home
once again. However, the opportunity is there for Christian Old Testament scholars to seize the present and to use the present flux to chart
a fruitful wav ahead in our field. M/hat Lundin says of modemity and
post-modemity in general is true of Old Testamentstudies:
Christian belief presentsdistinct alternativesto Enlightenmentrationalism and the pragmaiic irrationalify of postmodernity
Christians engage contemporary theories, they ought to do so criti-

46

71. Lundin, Thz Cttlture of Interpretation,p.30.

72. This is an adaptation of Plantinga's conclusion in 'Advice to Christian
Philosophers'.

47