No CrossRef data available.
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.
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: 01 November 2008
There was a time when the interpretation of the Bible was a seamless integrated theological activity. Today, the separation of biblical studies from theologically interested exegesis amongst theologians encourages a sceptical arms-length relationship between Old and New Testament scholars and theologians. Theologians criticise biblical studies' so-called objective and disinterested approach to interpreting the Bible for requiring scholars of both testaments to suspend their theological convictions. Biblical scholars condemn theologians for misusing biblical texts in support of their own preconceived theological agendas. The article suggests a way to bring these divergent exegetical approaches into conversation in a charitable, yet critical fashion, by comparing Karl Barth and N. T. Wright's exegesis of Romans 3:21–4:25. It concludes that the biblical scholar's and theologian's respective sensitivity to the historical and theological sense of the biblical text can, when brought together, benefit each other's reading of the Bible.
1 What I mean by a ‘theologically significant reading’ is one that seeks a ‘practical knowledge of God, that is, knowledge which aims at the furtherance of the life of the Christian community, the salvation of humankind, and godly discipline’. See Webster, John, ‘Scripture, Theology and the Theological School’, in Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
2 I am drawing my summaries of Wright's and Barth's respective exegesis of Romans 3:21–4:25 from N. T. Wright, Acts: Introduction to Epistolary Literature. Romans. 1 Corinthians, The New Interpreter's Bible: A Commentary in Twelve Volumes, vol. 10 (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2002), pp. 395–505, and Barth, Karl, A Shorter Commentary on Romans (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1959)Google Scholar. I've selected these works, in particular Shorter Romans because of their straightforward commentary style.
3 Wright writes extensively about Paul's worldview in his essay, ‘Romans and the Theology of Paul’, in Hay, David M. and Johnson, E. Elizabeth (eds), Pauline Theology, vol. 3 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995)Google Scholar and in his recent book, Paul: In Fresh Perspectives (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005).
4 Wright, Romans, p. 464. Wright admits that Paul speaks ‘without using the word, of the covenant’. Still, for Wright, covenant is useful for drawing attention to Gen. 15, which Paul expands upon in Rom. 4.
5 Ibid., p. 465.
6 Ibid., p. 471.
7 Ibid., p. 472.
8 I am here referring specifically to the ground-breaking work of Sanders, E. P., Paul and Palestinian Judaism (London: SCM Press, 1977)Google Scholar. For more recent proponents of this new perspective on Paul see Charry, Ellen T., ‘The Law of Christ All the Way Down’, International Journal of Systematic Theology 7 (2005), pp. 155–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hays, Richard B., ‘Christology and Ethics in Galatians: The Law of Christ’, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 49 (1987), pp. 268–90Google Scholar; Echoes of Scripture in the Letters of Paul (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); and Martyn, J. Louis, Theological Issues in the Letters of Paul (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1997)Google Scholar.
9 Wright, Romans, p. 481.
10 Ibid., p. 492.
11 Barth, Shorter Romans, p. 494.
12 Ibid., p. 497.
13 Ibid., p. 23.
14 Ibid., p. 25.
15 Ibid., p. 43.
16 Ibid., p. 46.
17 Ibid., p. 47.
18 Ibid., p. 49.
19 Ibid., p. 51.
20 Ibid., p. 53.
21 Wright, ‘Theology of Paul’, p. 32.
22 Ibid., p. 49.
23 Ibid., p. 51.
24 Ibid., p. 49
25 Harink, , Paul among the Postliberals: Pauline Theology Beyond Christendom and Modernity (Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos Press, 2003), p. 163Google Scholar.
26 Ibid., p. 166.
27 Ibid., p. 176.
28 Wood, D., ‘Ich sah mit Stauen: Reflections on the Theological Substance of Barth's Early Hermeneutics’, Scottish Journal of Theology 58 (2005), p. 194CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Barth, Shorter Romans, p. 49.
30 Ibid., p. 37.
31 For other positions that are similar to Wright's see Käsemann, Ernst, Commentary on Romans, trans. and ed. Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1980), pp. 21–32Google Scholar; Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism; and Charry, ‘Law of Christ All the Way Down’, pp. 155–68.
32 Wright, Romans, p. 399.
33 Ibid., p. 490.
34 Wright, ‘Romans and Theology of Paul’, p. 41.
35 Barth, Shorter Romans, p. 48.