We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 January 2009
A distinction was proposed in old Protestantism, by Johannes Musaeus among others, but not then generally adopted: that the authority of Scripture is a ‘double capacity: one to judge other writings and teachings…, another to bring about the assent of faith…’. Recognition of this distinction and separate discussion of these capacities is, in my judgement, necessary to resolve many modern perplexities about Scripture. The present essay is concerned for the second sort of scriptural authority, precisely in its difference from the first. We will begin with the simple fact that the church reads Scripture, in expectation of faith.
1 Introductio in theotogiam (1679), ii.iii.
2 von Campenhzusen, Hans Freiherr, Die Entstehung der christolichen Bibel (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1968), 173–241.Google Scholar
3 Ibid., 237–242.
4 E.g., Johann Gerhard, Loci theologici (1657), i.xviii. §367.
5 Von Campenhausen, 240–241. Several ways in which this scheme of covenants may be problematic, make another question. To one way, Soulen, R. Kendall, The God of Israel and Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996).Google Scholar
6 Widdicombe, Peter, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), 54–57.Google Scholar
7 This is one reason why attempts to rescue Scripture from whatever at any time are its political incorrectnesses, by ‘translations’ that excise them, are so fatuous. Thus the editors of Lectionary for the Christian People, ed. Lathrop, Gordon & Ramshaw-Schmidt, Gail (New York: Pueblo, 1986)Google Scholar detect, besides many other shortcomings, antisemitism in John. Let them then denounce this; perhaps they are right. But let them not sanitize John by translating hoi Iudaioi with ‘Jewish people’ when they are favorably or neutrally mentioned, and ‘Judeans’ when they are unfavorably mentioned. There are of course worse productions than this lectionary; someone unitiated in current ideology might take The New Testament and Psalms: An Inclusive Version, ed. Gold, Victor et al. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995) for a student prankGoogle Scholar. But the matter is serious: only a church that had forgotten her identity with the apostolic church could stand to use such materials.
8 Theologia positiva acroamatica (1664), 83: ‘Sumitur vel praecise qua verbum divinum est, quomodo dicimus scripturam esse antiquiorem ecclesia, vel qua literis consignatum est, quomodo scriptura est posterior ecclesia…’.
9 Ratschow, Carl Heinz, Lutherische Dogmatik zwischen Reformation und Aufklärung (Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1964), 1:79.Google Scholar
10 For the doctrine and its development, in its paradigmatic Lutheran form, with texts, Ratschow, , Lutherische Dogmtik, 81–97.Google Scholar
11 E.g., Proverbs 6:1–19.
12 I do not here draw very directly from the work of Brevard Childs, but his great work must be named, as a part of what, I am sure, will be a permanent foundation of such reflections as follow; Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).Google Scholar
13 Ebeling, Gerhard, Wort und Glaube (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1960), 33.Google Scholar
14 The great interpreter of this is Gogarten, Friedrich, Der Mensch zwischen Cott und Welt (Stuttgart: Vorwerk-Verlag, 1956).Google Scholar
15 Ebeling, Wort, 33.
16 Ibid., 36.
17 Ibid., 451.
18 The whole of post-modernism, in all its modes and fads, is of course unified by this at least: a resounding No.
19 Very much to its credit for realism, by the way.
20 A set of diagnostic and polemic essays on the matter is provided by Braaten, Carl E. & Jenson, Robert W., eds., Reclaimingthe Bible for the Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmanns, 1995).Google Scholar
21 Gadamer, Hans Georg, Wahrheit und Methode (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1965), 250–290.Google Scholar
22 Ibid., 361–382.
23 Ibid., 275.
24 Including most thoroughly and destructively those of the ‘biblical-literature’ and ‘religious-studies’ denominations.
25 And, of course, as the disintegration of Western society into cliques continues, increasingly before any body of text.
26 Gerhard, Loci, i.ii, §414: ‘Non excludi a nobis per assertionem perspicuitatis pium studium in lectione et meditatione Scripturae adhibendum, nee adminicula ad Scripturae interpretationem necessaria’.
27 de Lubac, Henri, Exègése Médiévale: les Quartre Sens de l'Écriture (Paris: Aubier, 1959–1964).Google Scholar
28 Ibid., 1:493.
29 Ibid., 1:504.
30 Ibid., 1:479–487.
31 Ibid., 1:425–439.
32 Ibid., 1:515: ‘On est conduit par une série de faits singuliers jusqu'à un autre Fait singulier; une série d'interventions divines, dont la réalité même est significative, schemine…’..
33 Ibid., 1:202–207.
34 Ibid., 11/1:60–64.
35 Luther's Works, vol. 38, ed. Bachmann, Theodore (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg, 1960), 247.Google Scholar
36 De Lubac, Exegése…, 1:416: The three spiritual senses ‘result from the hiatus… between Christ's two advents. When that hiatus is there, the spiritual sense…which was an eschatological sense, necessarily divided itself in three’.
37 Ibid., 1:621.
38 Ibid., 1:511–643.
39 For somewhat grudging recognition of this by de Lubac, ibid., 1:571–586.
40 Medieval capitulation to this temptation is clearly described by de Lubac; ibid., 642.
41 In the following, I depend principally on the work of jacob Neusner. He provides a summary of his results in Rabbinic Judaism: Structure and System (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).Google Scholar
