Journal: Southeastern Theological Review
Volume: STR 04:2 (Winter 2013)
Article: Introduction To The Volume
Author: STR. Editor

STR 4:2 (Winter 2013) p. 115

Introduction To The Volume

STR. Editor

The current volume of STR is a collection of essays centering upon the general theme of “Theological Interpretation of Scripture” (hereafter “TIS”). Gordon McConville has dubbed the discipline of biblical theology as a “somewhat slippery creature, which at times basks in the sun and at other times retreats quietly, or even ignominiously, into the shade.”1 His point is well-taken, as in the field “biblical theology” remains a contested concept, much less a discipline, and one that scholarship categorizes and refigures in the light of emerging trends. But what of TIS? Is it “slippery” and inchoate, a golem-like creature, an “unshaped form” (cf. Ps. 139:16)?

Critics of TIS would have us believe so. Some of the main critiques of the practice of theological interpretation include, but are not restricted to, the issues listed below:

1. It is not new…the church has been doing theological interpretation since its inception. Why is there a need for a new TIS “movement?” In actuality, theological interpretation has been a churchly practice since the beginning and continues to be so in the present. Therefore, there may not be a need for a new-fangled academic enterprise that is somehow supposed to be related to the Church in some ill-defined way.
2. It is not clear…there is no method associated with TIS and thereby it is difficult to assess. TIS ranges methodologically, offering little handles to begin to evaluate its aims, processes, and outcomes. One can press the question further to query whether or not method is the best way to understand the goal of TIS.
3. It is not biblical (enough)…TIS revives patristic and medieval modes of biblical interpretation that are, frankly, not rooted in the historical-grammatical sense of Scripture, which can lead away from the originating biblical meaning and down roads of interpretation that may in fact be dead ends. Biblical scholars sometimes aver that TIS needs firmer rootage in the “plain sense” of the text.
4. It is not theological (enough)…This critique can cut at least two ways. First, TIS invests itself in modes of theological enquiry that its practitioners (often) have not been thought through and so are only superficially applied. Second, the theological commitments that undergird

STR 4:2 (Winter 2013) p. 116

the historical-grammatical sense of Scripture are not reflected upon theologically so that biblical scholars can be working with a philosophy or theology of history that remains profoundly un-Christian and anti-theological. Theologians posit that theo...