The divide between theology and history is the real question for biblical theology.

Neo Platonic allegory came into Judaism via Philo and then into Christianioty via Origen
4 Fold allegorical method was there to try and keep history and theology together
Reformation impulse is there is one plain meaning in the text
2 Cor 3.6 proof text for Origen on how to relate to the bible.
Luther reinterpreted for a Law-Gospel contrast on how to relate to God determine difference in
Law vs Gospel in each passage and get them in the right order, Law leads you to Gospel
So anyone could do this and not just the pope and Magesterium biblical languages were important
for this goal.
But this is how history and theology spring apart same history but many different theologies. In
Enlightenment there is a divorce between history and theology.
Takes only 15 years to get to confessions how to protect the exegesis historically is by confessions
but this falls apart in the Enlightenment.
There is an impulse to bring back history and theology back together but dies Biblical theology does
not take fruit till 1950s and in the last 15 years there has been a new attempt at this synthesis to
once again have this marriage.
A theological interpretation of Scripture drive our theological analysis to examine this theological
interpretation of scripture. Rethink the doing of biblical theology. How do we bring Scripture and
theology back together that doesnt lead us nowhere a la Karl Barth
The self is not strong enough to hold meaning
Troeltsch: Empirical method cannot get necessary truths, can only get from the past what can be
correlated with what can be reproduced in the present therefore one time supernatural events
cannot be truth bearing. CS Lewis, locus of knowledge and truth from history to self.
Once the self is evacuated all meaning becomes politics Fish
Homiletics is where meaning comes to the fore meaning becomes a function of personhood and
interpreters create meaning, there JJ van Oosterzee on the need to be truly human
Bultmann: trying to rescue the Bible for the modern person. You will never know what the Bible
means unless you love it. Not enough just to have a theological method.
Group 3 Me Sam, Paul Bockmuehl 7-136 week 10 turned in week 11
1
st
half or so. What do you consider to be the essential points/main points of the argument? What
are the main statements that come out of that weeks discussion that you want to react to in light of
the readings 600 words, page numbers in brackets ok, no footnotes unless bringing in unknown
secondary literature.
Two Primary questions:
What is the relationship between
1. History and theology
Revelation to Scripture
Scripture to other academic disciplines
Lessing: the accidental to the universal
2. What is the role of the self in this relationship
Criticism = principled scepticism
Role of the self becomes primary in containing meaning including language
Mertons critique of this - New seeds of self contemplation the self cannot satisfy the self
During the pre-modern era there had been an overarching meta-narrative that was defined by the
Church and ancient tradition. This worldview was expressed by a near universal belief in the
transcendent as revealed supernaturally in the Scriptures. The Church held the monopoly on the
truth, it was the interpreter of this supernatural revelation which it expressed in its dogmas and
doctrines. Therefore, in the West, the Church had the ensuing political power and respect within
society that such hegemony would lend. The goal of interpretation was to uncover the authors
intended meaning, and as the author was God, ultimately to hear from God. Therefore the author
and the authority of Scripture were tied and as such the Church as the interpreter of Scripture was
the voice of God.
Historical criticism as a hermeneutical approach is a product of modernity and shares its
philosophical presuppositions. Secularisation theory suggests that modernity is merely a
transformed version of the pre-modern medieval Christianity. The attributes of the concept of God,
a sovereign subject who is all determining, were transferred to the modern concept of self. The turn
to the self as sovereign subject rather than the transcendent was a result of the Enlightenment
(Vanhoozer, 1998:45). Once the Church, its dogmas and monopoly on truth had been rejected there
began the search for a new basis for human knowledge. The Enlightenment, characterized by the
deductive Rationalism based on a priori knowledge of Descartes and the inductive Empiricism based
on a posteriori knowledge of Locke, ushered this modern replacement of divine with human self as
the sovereign subject. This concept of self is one as an absolute willing and thinking subject. The
modern subject has become an author, a creator of texts and a maker of meaning. As such the
subject is the producer of meaning and home of meaning (Vanhoozer, 1998:45).
Vanhoozer calls this the first age of criticism and is characterised by the authors (human or divine)
intention. In regards to biblical interpretation it was initiated by the Reformers. Calvins goal of
interpretation was clear, It is the first business of the interpreter to let his author say what he does
say, instead of attributing to him what he ought to say. (Vanhoozer, 1998:47) He was a Renaissance
humanist and his concern for the literal sense of the text was in part due to this influence.
Humanists concern was to deduce the original and genuine meaning of the classical literature which
meant recovering the mind of the author. The natural interpretation of a passage was one that did
justice to the intention of the author. (Vanhoozer, 1998:47). While historical critics may not view
the biblical texts as inspired the original meaning of the author, the intention, remains the goal of
interpretation. This original sense is used as a check on reading back into the texts any presupposed
dogma or doctrine. In historical critical exegesis the original sense is authoritative, that does not
mean that it is presumed to be true but it remains the norm for establishing the meaning of a
passage. Vanhoozer concludes; the concept of the author as the home of meaning lies at the
centre of pre-modern and modern interpretation alike. (Vanhoozer, 1998:48)
Vanhoozer K J, 1998. Is there meaning in this text? Leicester: Apollos
Hermeneutics: 4 uses
Practical study of principle that guide exegesis, historico-critical/grammatical
Philosophical definition, location and assertation of meaning (Kant, referential meaning what are
they referring to and how can we know they are referring to this)
Significance relevance and application (European = interpretation)
Theological inter-realtionship of biblical concepts
The last one is our concern, the integration of Scripture and theology theological hermeneutics.
What are the 2 main methods coming out of the Reformation thaty guide how we exegete
theologically?
Answer from Reformation is theological hermeneutics. (Gabler is the comparative method) taking
Gablers point and filling it out with theological principles.
2 criterion to make comparisons:
1. Law vs Gospel
2 ways of living message, Scripture, canonically

2. Reformed covenantal model see Vos (remember his primary opponent is Lutheranism)
Dispensationalism is a mixture of both
NTW offers a new theological hermeneutical paradigm from Lutheran Law vs gospel roots
Gabler: allegorical method in Universities but also rises its ugly head in the pietism of the churches
and Catholic world of tradition to back up their eisegesis
Gabler takes large tracts of the Bible and robs them of meaning new trumps old and Jesus trumps
paul
Magesterium/church takes place of final arbiter of meaning to avoid anarchy
Gabler is still living with an allegorical method just adifferent type- fighting against a liberal method
Problem with Sola: wrong methods, because of obscurity of Scripture, culturally, linguistically,
theologically
Sola and perspicuity of Scripture go hand in hand
(Sola was supposed to be with original languages plus history of church and Fathers and done in
community of the church we can find the one meaning because the Scriptures are clear.)
This still does not work as the diversity of interpretation proves.
Gabler relies not on the Church nor Sola for meaning but reason. However Lessing says my reason
rebels Bultmanns allegorical interpretation affirmation that life is still worth living even in the face
of meaninglessness, this is the real meaning of the resurrection hope for future despite the
present existentialist
Gabler still has revelation Lessing (reason) + revelation but if they are tied then reason wins but
not by throwing out the resurrection abstract out to universal truths
Meaning is not in exegetical authorial intention but in the mind (modern)
Meaning is in the context, the imbedded self (post-modern)
Therefore we have medieval synthesis (allegorical method), Enlightenment and Post modern
hermeneutics that construe meaning not in the literal sense of the text but meaning lies elsewhere
ALL ALLEGORICAL METHODS
e.g. the PoMo statement God is Love to those in a certain context e.g. slavery
Dinkler: Bultmann is the apex of the movement started by Gabler
But Bultmann does not use the term Biblical Theology but the churchs life and witness is the only
focus not jess/OT/Paul etc. Difficult to tell in Bultmann where exegesis stops and theology begins
Gabler: lexicography is the key to theology words are given meaning by their context context is
king
Bultmanns method is word studies- which he in turn gets from the text e.g. sarx and soma
Schlatter: master of text and languages, read entire corpus of Greek and Hebrew and NT/OT then
did a word study on pistis in NT
Bultmann: You have to live it to understand it and when you understand it you will live it
Gabler:
Religion vs Theology
But what are they?
Biblical Theology is Religion but by the end of the essay you have a movement in category.
Biblical theology gets its integration points in the Bible which arises inductively as the data is in the
Biblewhereas systematics gets its points from the surrounding culture
Bultmann: Heidegger showed me what the Bible means for the modern world. So philosophy was
the partner for dong this until 1975 these departments are now closing down (not in Catholic unis)
Today this point of contact is sociology
Apology for systematic theology if we can get a good enough Biblical theology we can stop and just
do didactic theology now it is psychology and experience
Universal truth leads to a universal application to a universal experience