Full Text for The Outside Limits of Lutheran Confessionalism in Contemporary Biblical Interpretation [Part 3 (2)] (Text)

The Outside Limits of Lutheran Confessionalism in Contemporary Biblical Interpretation Part 111 (2) Before we leave the s~ibject of 1:ern;ino.l~gical anlbiguity, we slloulti also consider "form criticisn)." briefly. Cec~luse of its proal- inence t~day,:'" the tcrm is often uscd as a virtual synonym of "the hist-orical-critical ;~lcthod," ;~nd again one cor~front.~ the same kind of tendentious genet.-alizatio~ls by borl? the "left*' and the ':i:ight." There ~11.1: both the indiscri>ninatc, blanket condemnations as ivell as the tollgue-ill-cileek assrrtions that "\Ye hatic ul,ti:a?;s used form criticism, only to ;I fcsset: (legrec. ]>l:e.c,iously." iind ag:lin there will bc no com- ~nt~nicatio~~, Jct. alone progress, unless lve tfefir~c our terms carcful1.i~. 'I'hc. t;.tlth in tIlc assertion illat "forrn -t:riticismJ' has always been used is the fact, as we ubseri.ed above in c.oi~nection with "ii~cl~rancy," that it has al..cvays bcen rccoguizec? that Scriptux .maIies some use of parable, n~ctaphor, -hyperbole 2114 other s~mholic ar~cf non-literal. "foyrns." If that, and that alone, is what we' u~lderstand "form criti- cisln" (jn tlle strictest sense of thc tcnn) t(3 ~IIC~II~, our problems \\;ill not be great. The onlv real theoiogic~zl question, then, ill be that of 'outside iirnits,' r~-ith~n ~rhich rllcre may be consjderablc exegetical wl-iation (althou~h of course, no ctnc ~,t.ill u:nlzt, 1.0 be c~egeticall~~ rv1-ong either!) M'tlrit 1:lailll!; 11;ill be out of bountls, then, .is that arg~lnlc~lt in a cixcle ~vhicll blithely and a~:bitrariIy cleclarcs a test 1) $17 to 1 t iegend," "parable," or othcr.v\ise non-literal, and thus maltical of all ancient hisf.orjca1 tl.aClitions is quite understandable, but that it is also realIy s~:ccious procedul:e, both theologically and historically, should not rccjuj!:e ilc.monsrrat:ion here. At the same time, TVC 'if:ill warlt to look very carefully at all available e.i.icIcnce, some of it iZery new, which rnay force a recon- sitleration of some traditional. positions. We will try to be faithful to the sountl Reformation 1~-inciple of following the natural, literal sensc cxcept for compelling reasons to the contrary. These mav be internal (hdicated in the'test itself or by coinp&ison with otller biblical tests), or they may be external. 1,1711at the writer i~~te~~ded is, of course, the literal sense. If he intcrtded to write figuratively, it is really "literaXisticJ' to interl~ret: him literally, just as, obviously, it is reductive to interpret him figurati.ve1y if that was not his intent. But the trick is lo detel-~rzi~ze that intent if possible. Here external cvidence is often very important, and exegetical judgments wil often vanl. The extra-biblical literature of the ancient Near East now available from archaeology, nith the insight it affords into the usages or "forms" and. tllc ~~sycholo~g~ of that ~odd, offers many new sugges- tions for undersiancling tllc bi1)lical fornls which previously 11c\!er came into n~incl. %he hasic interpretative principles remain the same, but t-hcrc arc nun7 infinitel!: 1::ol-& data to consider. Nelv data aln-nys prorol.;e recons.itli:~atic~~ts, soxnctinlcs in n~ajor as .ivell as in n~inor respects. Of coursc, one 111ust not ;il~ply the extra-biblical parallels in a mcchai~ical n!aJr, as has often been tione. Xot only was Israel not that ~rnorigina1 (even I~urn:~niy sptalting), ?)ut very often the 1iter;ll-): forms of its ~tcighbors were part nt~d parcel of tllcir n~\:tholog-, znc1 it is clear that Is~:ael did not "bori-o~z:" (if one may usc tl-le tcrnl at a11) indiscrii21inatel-y. I12 man;' iristnnces, hoive\lzr, there ob:,iousl~. is substantial idcntitv of fo.~i~~s, ailct tl~c accunltllation of orir 1lc1t7 e\'idence I,icls fair to pt~t "forn~ critjcisnz" (in this definitio~~) 011 ;~n inc1:easin~ly ohjectivc and scientific linis. L\ iciv ex;~~l~l>les. 11s .ti-e note eise.cs:here, there arc ob\,io~.~sl). many types of 1iisto:-iogi:al)h)~: some wry explicitly theological, others onl\? il-nplicitly so, somc cpiite cxllausti\'c, others hitting onl\~ the high poi,? ts nmitll i,ast iacui-rze anti s~wcopations. NOT "errors," ;:lind YOU, if one bears in niind the writer's intent!"' To no little extent our external. e~!ictence ~r:j.l'l, liclp us deternlinc what his intent was. ihy 1i~~tl~~r\7ati~e') 'i~'i11 \val~t to stick with the most oh.i:ious, surface sense as long as possibfc, but solncti~~ies new, external e~liclencc will nlnkc. it likely that that m:~st not: 11ave been thc t1.1-iter's intent! 'If tlltlre .tvcrc spacc, thc patl:j.a~.cI.lal 11.istorics ri.0~11~1 he a good test case; the ten;lency 11.11icll is still fasllionabie jn many quarters to regard thcm as 11.i.st-01-icall;. n.ortl~lc~ss is cer-tainly not :rcceptable, but the fact that 1t.c ha~c solncthing like half a millcniunl of history coru- prcssed into some forty chapters wit11 an ov-crriding theological iiltcrest (thc "pron~isc") should restrain naivete. In the case of tllc xCII- '-- ! csta~ncnt gospels, tlic e.c:idcnce is more internal in nature, 11ilt it is no\\: n.idc!~. accepted, e1.m in many conservative cii-clcs, that t-hcy are neitl~cr the simple chronicles or biographies n;l1ich tradition ;~ssunlcd them to be, 1101. the "creative" and "lierygmntic" products ~vi tli tllini~ilal factual content that 1iber;tlism tencls to assun~e. Rather we apparently must think of a special genl-e of literature called "goslxl," rvhicll each evangelist adaptetl to his own specific i~cecls. (Or, if you will, it is "testimony literattlr-e," 11ut it ii~akes a world of difference mhethcr .i\:c use that phrase exegetically and forin.-critically, or hcrmenerltically with the relativistic implica- tion that thc Biblc lnerely "contains" the Tf70rd of Gocl!) One major area where this kind of form criticism is invaluable in helping us understand an ancient type of J~istoriograplly which is anything 11~lt 11ativc to us is in the sy~llbolic use of numbers and similar scheinatic devices. The principle, as such, is not new, but archaeological finds have underscored the common~~ess of such prac- tices in the nncient- orient ancl perhaps givc.n us some clues to the interpretation of certain details. This coiltest makcs it increasingly plausible that hyperbole is the explanation for certain estrcn~elp high figures in Scripture"' (although, obviously, such a must be used ivitll caution). It is not news that soillc biblical genealogies omit some generations and use various schematisms, and it becon~es increasiilgly likely that sonlctimcs, especially in earlier periods, they intended to itcscribc political, not genetic relations1;ips. Liltelvise, whilc it has long been accepted that the numeral "forty" is sonle tiincs used syrnl)olicill>~ (perhaps e. g., of the ~vilderness ~vanclerings), the external cvidcncc rvhich has accumu- lated in favor of the late date of tlie Exodus (as increasjngly accepted also by collservative scholars) nlaltes it i111perati1.e that wc also understand tlie "480" of I Kings 6: 1 ns havine been intended symbolically (twelve generations of forty years apiece?). Probably nobody but nobody accepts the 4004 date for the creation of the ~vorld any longer, and in general, Usshcr's chronology is today in quite universal disrepute:'!' Ho~ve~~er, it is in~portant to e~nphasize that, in these as well as in 3 host of otl?cr ex;-alllples, it is tot (at !cast in confessional circles) a matter of taking Scripture less seri- ously-or even less "literally" (as measured by the writer's intent), but of better "forn1-critical" unclerstnnding in the light of inore and better evidence of just what that intent apparently was. IL seeins to 11ie that conservative scholars have often not been as alert in espIoiting this :lpproach for their apologetic purposes as the): 111igllt have been. For esr~mple, it is clear that doublets ancl I-ecapitulations were a cornnlon part of the ancient Near Eastelm epic strrle, wit11 the result that thc litcrar!. critics' postulatioxl of ditferelit sources, etc., is often, at best, unnecessary. Another ex- trelncly in~portant application xvould note that "forln-critically') none of ille biblical writers intendcd to write n s7ri1~7~xn of theoloq., hut rather o~ily "tracts for the times," i.e., :ttldressing only specific aild linlitcil goals. I-Iencc their omissions ant1 varying acccnts and fol-mu- lations cannot be madc to signify any real "plu~alisn~" of conflicting theologies. Doctrinal authority still vests on the totality of the c:tnonicnl collection with Scripture interpreting Script~~re, not upon \vhate\rer part of it one happens to find coiigen~al. So far I have chan~pioned ;I relatively lin~itcd definition of "for111 criticisn~,)' which can bc very useful, and which is not in prji~ciple any different from what has alnlays obtainecl in serious escgesis. However, one would only contribute to the ambiguity and tlupIicity which sonictimcs s~lrrounds the phrase if he did not also cmphi~size t11at tl~ere is another usage-~vhicl~ we most certainly 11;ive lrot "al~vays" employed. As concerns this wider usage, the term "form criticism" is often almost a sinlple misnomer. ?'he usual Gcrman term, "Formgeschichte" ("h,istory of forms") is sonlewllat Inore accurate because it denotes the tremendous amount of concern for de\~eIopment ~vhich usually accompanies the enterprise. (Some- (1. times the German "Gattu~zgsforschung," i.e., lnvestigntion of types" is used to denote the earlier, more restricted and objective type of rescarch in contrast to that which -tjr7e nom7 discuss.) LJnderstood this 1i7ay, "form criticism" by 110 nleans limits itself to the illere analysis of the types of literature, but devotes great effort to trying to reconstruct the history of their combination, expansion, etc. Some- times inore technical distinctions are made between form-criticism and "tradition criticism" and/or "redaction criticism." I11 fact the latter t1710 arose in corrective of earlier form-criticism's atomistic concentration or3 individual uints, >~lzd attempt to indicate how thc oral tl.cicIitioii or the final eciitot- coml~ined those small units into tl1c larger ones .ivc ha.irc today. In practice, however, all of this research is often subsulnc.d undcr the caption, "form criticisln," and Ilcnce the ;in~h~guity. As 1 aroue elsewhere, even such investigations cailnot bc dis- F' missed out ot Ilanct. 'There is no n priori reason why tbe charisilla of insl>iration had to be liinitecl to one writer per book, ancl not offerc:~] to the ~vhole clioir of saints w11o contributed to thc boolOs final foi-111. U11fortun::tely, llo~ve~,er, this type of research is not often. approschcd in an atinosphere of such reverence for objective Scriptural authoritv! Mort typically it is associated with a lligll skepticisi~l, both theoloii- caIly ailit Iiistoricallv.~!~Most conseri,ntives, I think, agree that 11eal:l7 any type of: pure 1iier;u-y criticis~ll without objecti~e rcfcrents is nn unliIrenlaturely 2nd too compuehensivel; without pa~ing suf- ficient nttention to the reasoning and moti~.ation behirzd tl~e'h!~othe- sis, as thougl~ it really illade no difference whether or not the); arc prepared in the confessional cor~tcxt of the objective authority of Scripture. The major objection, ivith ~i~liich we have expressed our nlost empllatic agreement, is the naturalism and nationalism n:hich is con~monly associn ted with higher criticism. \T7e 11a.i;e allead!. stressed, however, that sometii~les those different conclusio~~s do not arise from any inotive of excluding supernatu~-a1 causatioil, but simply of pursuing the apparent historical causation more cigorous1~- than the Bible did. As long as the new hypothesis does not eli~ild~zntc the for-n~er, (presenting the procluct as mercl>. a human, "rcligio~is" reaction to ancient circuinstailces analogous to 21o.i.i- I ~lzust react to mine, rather than God's IVorcl for all timc) but: met-elv a~ticulntes the historica1 side or aspect of revelation there n;ould 'seem to bc possibilities, The fact that the Bible ;Iccents that side less must also be a cautionary ilorni for us lest \ire lose its real message by default. 3llany non-confessional scllolars (and probabhl elen ag- nostics) nl.ay extelr~znlLy reach the salllc co~iclusions, but their ovcrall tlzeologicnl context ~vill be seryc~.nl light-yc:irs 1:er71o.i7ecl! This problen~ of anti-superni~tu~';~lis~~~ bcc:o~lics nl~ich more acute, Ilowc'rier, wllen the iss~le of ~niri~c'les or jx-edictive prophecy is raised (tve return to tlie latter belo~v). Ob\.;iousIy, any sort of closed-off naturi~lism is even beyond consideration. Not much better is the "resurrcction mininlalism" played by ~nntl);, nccorcling nearly all other miracles a genteel (at best!) skepticism, or 3 ilemythologizing cultura! relativism ("If the writer hacl lived loclay, he ~vould not have expressed transcendence in strl>ernat~it:alistic terms"). R3y ex- perien.ce has, indeed, often been that in sc>rmons or discussions on such tests about all that ~Eoes COIIIL\ thro~lgh is the sl?ealterJs desire to clen~o~~strate, nboi~e all, that he is no "fundan~entalist" or "literalist"! If one truly believes in the resurrection of the b(?d.c~~ it is 'larci to see on 1~11at consistent gi:o~lnds ail:,; miracle can be c!c!:~ii.d. ;St the same timc, if it is plain that no tkrt.ologicr.zE deuinl is in\ olred (including that of Scripture) tlicrt' is probably solnc sligilt rooln for exegetical difference in judgn~en t on n~hat the writer really it1 tendect to sap, ~iltllo~tgl~ in a confessional context this ~vill indecd l~c slight, and wiI1 requixe. cogent evidence for tllose esceptio~is (the cogency of ~vhich 1)crllaps not all will vjeir. eqttally). Sometimes (by no mcans alwii!/s) it seenls clear that it "sign" in biblical usage was broader than "miritcle," i.e., app:Lrcilt auly to faith ant1 represcntillg 110 break jn tllc il;itt~r;ll order. I'herc ma). Ile some difference in judglnent as to j~~ccisely isl~ere that line cornes, and the e:.;t:ent to which those "mil-aoles" in a broader and narrorver sense lxa); overlap and fade in oile ;~notlicr suggcsts the i,ossil,ilily tli at soioeti7ize.s the biblical rc.~:itcr luay 11ot havc 117re.1icied to rcllort an): literal miraLle, but is using a literary tlei.icc lo tr!. to co:nlnunjcate to mortals "what eye hat11 not secn . . .". As rve shall note belo.cv, such an a1q~i:oach ?~ln?; 1-~11rcseilt a rialicl use of "form criticism," but it obviously is l>reg~~ant wit11 great abuse ant[ nlr~st Ire applied with the grcatest caution. One will sc;~rc.ely ~vant to judge anjlonc's orthocloxy in this respect on a 1mrcly quantitative basis (a non-literal ~rnderstanding of two nii1:a- clcs ncceptal~le, for csample, but of three not!), but at the same til~lc something is plaiilfy iishy if one ineets offhanded "explanations" of this sort for ;my substantial number of supernatural occurrences. Gencrallv, I think, a better case can he made for such understandings (if at: all') at certain times n:lien the miracle is n part of a11 extended literan. anit (where Inan): more criteria are available for judging) than i'f it is cisscintiali~~ a pericope unto itself. Somewhat similarly with predictive prophecy! there are possihilities at itivzes that the biblical writer nlay be ~lsing literary techniques of "foreshado~ving" or thc like (describing a more generi+l, inlmnnental operation of the 1570r(Z in history) rather than literally reporting a prediction (cf. below). '4 scconcl major objection is the historicnl skepticism which often accompanies the theological type. One must, of course, try to distinguish a certain "he~rristzc" skepticism or "liberalism" of even a good conserviltive critic as he tries to avoid naivete and discover what the text really says, from the skepticism or "liberalism" of a more basic itleologlcal sort, but the problem remriins. \ITe have already noted the c'teep philosophical roots (back to Descartes at least) of this ltincl of skepticisnz of literary records. The)? may be granted sonle credibilit); for the period of composition, 'but very little for the earlier peyiod .c\.hich they purport to describe-and the traditional tendency has gencrnlI!r been to ~naxiinize the interval between the two. Generally, one might say that the facticity of- the accounts is considered "~~iltg until proved innocent", i.e., tlntil ('~~ro~~ecl" true "scientifically , and, of course, that kind of absolute proof is very hard to come by-cven in contenlporary events, as witness nearly any courtroom trial! Thus the "histories" of Kihle tinlcs producecl by many modern scholars are very often more accurately histories of their autllor's slecially fot:ii~ criticis~n) still reign supreme: the prcmonarchical history of Israel (skepticism generally increasing the furtlzer back we go), and the history of early Christianity in the first century A. 'D. TVhen to this historical sltepticisn~ one acids the theological naturalisnl we have alrcady scored, one begins to grasp the extent to 1vhic11 "creative biblical scholarship" has reallj- riggcd the rules of the game in order to permit illaxi~nu~~l "freedom" and (or crentio. ex ~zihilo"!) in which. the conservative scllolar can participate with only the greatest difficult\: without compromising his principles. Here too one must be c? , lc -3f u 1. not to tar everyone wit11 the same brush in broadsides at "the historical-critical method", but neither n7ill one feel any obligation to rnn interference for what can in this respect often only be judged esecrr.lb1c ;~ictJzod, "scientifically" as well as theologically. 1'17hen one observes 1io.i~ the skeptical presuppositions breed skeptical results? one \\-ill no longer feel any need to retreat into some realm of subiectivit\- in ordcr to (allegedly) protect the Gospel froin the acids of 1iYI~ercriticism poured out on the Bible, and a fortiori one mill abjure illosc further spi~itualizations which would ever1 make r:irtuiilIu all ctlnco.)! for historicity a sign of unfaith and the like. (I In contrast, a confessional'' principle will surely procced on "innocent until provetl guilty" lines-n11d probnhly on historical as well as theological grounds, nltJloug1l this will be a innjor example of lrow the two interact. Except for thc "heuristic" type lloied above, there seems to be no possible justification for srrch incorrigible sluse of distance and, hence, irrelevunce, which critical study of tIic f3ible easily produces. Ko doubt, there is great truth here if one is not: very careful. Histor-, by an)J definition, deals with things past, ant1 if cine stay: stuck there, the point of it all goes by the boarcl by "default", which, as I have already lamented, happens all too often in biblical studies. In modern scholarship, the problem has been dealt with in basically two ways The classical libernlisln of the late nineteenth centun, tried, as it n7erc, to sl and its contcst it cannot be entircly faulted) to take into account some newer data, in- cluding this understanding of "form criticism" bearing on what the sacred writer's intent may have been (and somctirncs, apparently, its refusal even to countenance hypothetical explorations along those lines). Similarly, more clear ciistinctions between what is really doctrinal or hcrmcneutical and what is only traditional exegetical opinion are also imperative when LCMS church conventions n~akc pronouncements on matters of Scriptural interpretation. 38. Cf. Harrison, op. cit., pp. 1 163ff. and passim. 39. A recent study on this topic in our circles which I think deserves to be hailcd is that of Fred Kramer, "A Critical Evaluation of the Chronology of Usshcr," pp. 57-67 in P. A. Zinlmerman (Ed.), Rock Strata and the Bible Record (Concordia, 1970). I