OLD TESTAMENT STUDIES IN A WESLEYAN MODE:
A RESPONSE TO THE PAPER PRESENTED BY DR. JOHN HARTLEY

Part I: Setting the Perspective

Dr. Hartley's paper is an apologetic for a Biblical theology based upon a solid foundation of a broad matrix of critical methodologies. Such acceptance of the critical historical and literary methods is most welcome. Unfortunately, modern critical methodologies have tended to be condemned or looked upon with suspicion within Wesleyan circles. However, it has been my experience that most of the criticism comes from those on the outside looking in and not from the Biblical scholars themselves who work with these methodologies daily and who know their value for understanding the Biblical text and the community which produced it. The following statement from a recent publication by a Wesleyan theologian is typical:

Generally, the Historical-Critical approach has been negative and destructive, because it has operated on two presuppositions: (1) That Scripture and the Word of God are not to be equated; rather there is a "canon within the canon" which the astute student is to find, while the rest he may reject as totally human and full of error.... (2) An even more devastating presumption is the a priori denial of miraculous.... In contrast, the Historico-Grammatical method of interpretation may and should be practiced by conservative students. This begins with the assumption of inspiration and infallibility, but seeks to understand the Bible by bringing to bear on its pages every possible ray of light from historical backgrounds and setting, cognate languages, philology, and the science of textual criticism. 1

Such a statement is incorrect, prejudicial, and attempts to limit severely the scope of Biblical studies. It is incorrect because the Historical-Critical method is not endowed with the presuppositions which he claims.

Any student of the secondary literature in Biblical studies knows that presuppositions regarding Canon and miracle vary from scholar to scholar and these certainly are not inherent in the method. His statement is prejudicial because it tends to prevent any real dialog with scholars who work with historical-critical methodologies. It sets a communication barrier between the theologian and the Biblical scholar because it condemns a priori his mode of operation. Moreover his description of the so-called Historic-Grammatical method clearly excludes most literary methods of study such as source, form, redaction, audience, tradition, and structural criticism. Such an approach is woefully inadequate to a full treatment of the text with all the rich possibilities that such methods offer.

One might also point out that the description of the Historico-Grammatical method which includes the study of historical backgrounds, setting, cognate languages, philology, and textual criticism does not necessitate the assumptions of inspiration and infallibility. As a matter of fact, if a scholar was so inclined, he could incorporate those assumptions claimed for the Historical-Critical method into the Historico-Grammatical method.

The most serious problem raised by such an attitude toward modern Biblical studies is the one already mentioned, i.e. the communication gap between theologians and Biblical scholars. It is counter-productive when theologians wish to dictate the parameters of Biblical studies to Biblical scholars. And, too often, if a dispute follows, resolution comes about through ecclesiastical politics rather than scholarly debate which would allow a progressive dialectic to exist within the Wesleyan community of scholars. Frequently, I fear, the Wesleyan theologian has adopted a traditional-proof-texting method of approach to scripture. He has sought, in this way, Biblical confirmation of an already firmly fixed tradition. Instead of relying for authority on his doctrine of Scripture,2 he has permitted tradition to carry the weight of authority to the detriment of Scripture. It would be preferable if the tradition were continually brought into creative dialog with the Biblical scholars.

Since the Reformation the Holy Scripture has been understood among most Protestant traditions to be the only and final source of revelation for Christians and thus the final authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. In the words of Martin Luther,

As a matter of fact, a judgment must be pronounced by making the Scripture the judge, something that is impossible if we do not accord primacy to Scripture in all questions that are referred to the church fathers. This means that Scripture itself is the most unequivocal, the most accessible, the most comprehensible authority, itself its own interpreter, attesting, judging, and illuminating all things....3

The Wesleyan understanding of Biblical authority certainly stands in the mainstream of the reformers. Precisely, this emphasis upon the primacy of scripture necessitates the search for its own message. The reformers’ understanding of Biblical authority in large part gave rise to critical Biblical studies in all its manifold richness. The historical and literary methods of Biblical study have been developed through centuries of study of the Bible for its own illumination. Methodologies, such as source, form, redaction, tradition criticism, developed from close observation of the text itself. They are methods which the Biblical text suggested by its very nature.

Dr. Hartley's paper recognizes both the necessity and the rich possibilities of critical Biblical scholarship. It is my hope that his paper will move us in the direction of broader acceptance of these methods and the dialog between theologian and Biblical scholar which is needed in the Wesleyan community.

Part 2: Response to Dr. Hartley's Paper

Preliminary Comments:

Dr. Hartley's call to scientific analysis of the text, and his understanding that the theological presuppositions of the Wesleyan scholar will lead him to emphasize certain nuances and slants of interest is welcomed. There is, however, a caution which must be heeded. While one neither can nor should disown his presuppositions, he can, nevertheless, consciously control their influence upon his interpretation of the text. What must be avoided is allowing theological presuppositions to dictate conclusions and to circumvent objectivity in the analytical process of Biblical studies. It would certainly be an error to fail to keep those themes and concerns which are close to a Wesleyan heart from being fully integrated into the context of the whole of Old Testament thought. Such a rush to Wesleyan emphasis would result in a misunderstanding of the significance of these concerns in Biblical thought, and the conclusions would not be convincing to the scholarly world. Dr. Hartley is, of course, sensitive to these problems, but I believe they need to be expressed more directly.

The call to Biblical theology as the final goal of Biblical studies, I believe to be admirable. The synthetic process should indeed be the result of the analytic process. This, of course, does not imply that all Biblical scholars have the gifts or inclination for Biblical theology. Some are excellent exegetes in the narrower sense of the term. Consequently the synthetic process should be a community work building upon one another's strengths and insight. A nexus of scholarly dialog is essential to the process of doing Biblical theology.

An essential part of Dr. Hartley's paper is his plea for an expanded use of what he calls the inductive method of hermeneutics. I have a question as to the difference that exists between the "inductive method" and the "historical-critical" method from which he distinguishes it.4 The basic difference seems to be the initial close reading of the text to understand what one can before the secondary literature is used. This is good practice in any method and particularly the historical-critical method.

Despite the question of the distinction between the methodologies, I am in sympathy with his treatment of hermeneutics. I am particularly intrigued with his suggestions regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in interpretation, the necessity of the analytical process which "may cover multiple critical approaches to the Biblical texts"5, and the call for Biblical theology as the goal of Biblical studies.

1. The Holy Spirit in Interpretation

With respect to the first issue, the place of the Holy Spirit in interpretation, I would agree that the Spirit's involvement has not been adequately defined. As to the statement that the inductive method is compatible with the prominent place given to the Spirit's role in Wesleyan theology, it would seem that such a statement depends upon an adequate definition of what that role is.

The tendency for the Spirit to be a shortcut to interpretation has led too often to a shallow treatment of the text. One is compelled to ask, "How does one keep Biblical study from falling into a subjectivism with such emphasis upon the Spirit as interpreter? For, is one as valid as what it says to another even if they disagree?" Dr. Hartley has given a provocative suggestion for understanding the Spirit in the interpretive process by indicating that the process is synergistic.6 It is the interpreter's responsibility to apply the multiple critical approaches to the Biblical text which will bring insight and understanding. On the other side, it is the Holy Spirit who bears witness to the truth of the theology of the text. Or to restate: understanding of the meaning of the text is primarily the work of critical scholarship, but confirming the truth of the theology reflected to argue that the Holy Spirit also helps him in applying critical methods to understand the text. However, in the course of debate over the meaning of text it seems to me to be exceedingly unfair to claim that the Holy Spirit helped me and not you.

Another emphasis, regarding the Holy Spirit's role in interpretation, is the presence and operation of the Spirit within the community. Too often concepts of inspiration or enablement are individualistic. Dr. Hartley correctly recognizes that form criticism opens up vistas for understanding the Biblical community as a people of God rather than persons of God. To continue this line of thought one may add that the methodologies of source, form, redaction, and tradition criticism illustrate that it is the community which preserved, modified, created, and edited the traditions which are presented in their final form in scripture. The process is a community process and the locus of inspiration is the community. By analogy, could we not suggest that the H it operates in and through the dialog and dialectic of the scholarly community? No one individual has claim to inspiration or enablement. Rather, inspiration is inherent to the flux and flow of the scholarly community at work as a whole.

2. Critical Methods

Dr. Hartley's emphasis upon the necessity of critical methodology beyond linguistic exegesis well taken.8 To concentrate upon linguistics and ignore literary methods is a truncated approach which will bring insufficient results for Biblical theology. Furthermore, his caution with regard to these methodologies needs to be voiced. However, caution must not lead to fear, and such loaded contrasts as naturalistic epistemology vs. divine transcendence and literalistic vs. higher critical methodologies may engender fear of some humanistic demon lying concealed in these methodologies ready to devour the one who trespasses upon his domain. It is rather simply a matter of learning the limitations of any given method. One must not reject sound logical foundations in what is called the naturalistic epistemology, but recognize that conclusions of a transcendental nature cannot be drawn. On the other hand one must be very careful how he uses the notion of transcendence to confirm what he wants to be true in the text. It is easy to slip into eisegesis.

Another such contrast found is spiritual vs. scientific.9 Dr. Hartley is attempting to draw a much needed synthesis between the spiritual and scientific dimensions of Biblical theology. A significant problem for the Christian Biblical scholar exists here. Often, that which is theologically the most important is scientifically the least demonstrable. Yet, this need not produce a conflict between scientific study of the text and the community from which it springs and the essential theological concerns. One's choice is not either spiritual or scientific but both/and. At the same time, one must recognize the limitations of each element in the hermeneutical process. The scientific approach may describe the meaning of the text in phenomenological terminology pertaining to what the community of Israel believed about itself at any given point in its history. But this should augment our understanding of the theological affirmation which the believer wishes to confess.

What has been said about the synthesis between the spiritual and scientific should also be applied to faith and secularity.10 Here also, Dr. Hartley seems to be calling for a synthesis between the methods of the secular and believing scholar. Here again he must be applauded. There does not appear to be any necessary conflict between the critical method of the university and the theological concern of the seminary. One must understand that the secular scholar is not concerned with faith affirmations apart from describing them as a phenomenon of the Biblical community. Secular scholarship neither confirms nor denies the truth of theological statements. If a particular scholar does, he himself is leaving the scientific study o the text and crossing the boundary into theological affirmation.

Referring again to Dr. Hartley's discussion of form criticism, I cannot agree more with the strengths which he attributes to the form critical method. Nevertheless, his critique of the naturalistic base of form criticism,11 I find to be questionable. Again, I fail to see the necessary conflict between the community creating the text and God communicating His word to the community. Creating, preserving, altering, using, editing traditions are community exercises and in these activities of the community God's word finds its incarnation. Moreover, that a certain pericope may have been inspired to explain a phenomenon which the people encountered is, in fact, a type of historical setting within the life of the community and should not be ruled out as a possible genesis of some traditions as Hartley implies. It is still God's word, canonical, received by the church as authoritative regardless of its origin.

3. The Call for Biblical Theology-Comprehension Stage of Hermeneutics

Within the call to produce Biblical theology, Hartley correctly perceives the diversity within Biblical thought and the community which produced it.12 Biblical theology often seems to be the search for the center or in many cases a stating of what is to be the center and attempting to arrange Biblical thought around the center. Hartley recognizes both the difficulty of locating that center and the reality that that center, no matter how broadly conceived, will be many-faceted. In developing Biblical theology one must understand the complicated process of the growth of Biblical religion and canonization. I have no essential quarrel with Dr. Hartleys suggestion that the first step toward Biblical theology be monographs on specific themes-and certainly his examples of covenant and sin are well chosen-yet I fear that our tendency to go looking for what is distinctly Wesleyan may override our need to understand all the Scripture for itself. Certainly, we will turn to particular key themes. However, such themes must be treated carefully in full light of their place in the traditions and processes of the Biblical community and the canon. Any Biblical theologian, Wesleyan or otherwise, must be comprehensive in scope. I am worried that a Wesleyan Biblical theology which begins with motifs particularly important to Wesleyans may also end there, without being placed within the total context of Biblical thought.

The question of finding the center of Biblical thought suggests a related problem which Dr. Hartley has alluded to but not developed, that is, the problem of the unity of Scripture. I am concerned that too often a presupposition in our search for the unifying core of Biblical thought is a simplistic notion of the unity of Scripture which in reality does not exist. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament emerged from a single unchanging, culturally pure community. Consequently, even those themes which endure through the Old Testament or both testaments are not given uniform treatment by all Biblical writers.

Frequently, a simplistic overview of Biblical unity has caused significant misunderstanding. A very basic insight is that the existence of a New Testament implies some discontinuity with the Old. Indeed, New Testament writers specifically state many discontinuities. Moreover, such discontinuities are as theologically significant as the unity of scripture. To illustrate: there are certain popular fundamentalist movements, the most noted headed by Jerry Falwell, which maintain that the United States must support the modern state of Israel and that this is a divinely ordained moral position. Falwell cites Old Testament passages of the election of the nation of Israel as proof that modern Israel is the apple of God's eye and that all nations will be blessed which bless her. Falwell does not cite the Epistle to the Hebrews or the Acts of the Apostles or any other New Testament work, and for good reason. In the New Testament the people of God is not the nation of Israel. – However, the naive belief that all the Bible is the Word of God allows Falwell to pick a few isolated verses from the Old Testament and cite them as having Biblical authority. Unfortunately, this simplistic perspective and use of scripture is widely accepted among both pastors and laity of our movement. We have been remiss in the Biblical and theological education in our churches and apparently our colleges and seminaries also. Consequently such Biblical and theological illiteracy allows these potentially dangerous inaccuracies to abound.

One other caution regarding the necessity of Biblical theology needs to be mentioned. The call for Biblical theology to extend to application to the contemporary setting my impinge upon the theologian's domain and tend to dominate and impede the process of systematic theology which synthesizes the descriptive work of the Biblical scholar with tradition, experience, contemporary philosophy and culture. The work of the Biblical scholar is primarily descriptive. The synthetic work is primarily within the purview of the systematic theologian. Of course, both disciplines should proceed within a framework of mutual dialog.

I have no specific critique of the examples of Biblical themes which Hartley indicates may be of particular importance for Wesleyan theology.13 I have already voiced the more general concerns. I am particularly pleased with his treatment of social sin and responsibility which the Old Testament clearly addresses. However, I want to move on to a few concluding statements.

Conclusion

Several times in the course of this conference, reference has been made to prevenient grace as a hallmark or perhaps the hallmark of the Wesleyan-Armenian tradition. If this is the case, it is interesting to me that the exponents of such a tradition have tended in recent years to close themselves off from critical methodologies because they are humanistic and naturalistic. Moreover, there seems to exist a tendency to espouse so much of fundamentalism with its exceedingly narrow frame of reference. This seems to me to be a great incongruity which ought not to exist. The Wesleyan Biblical scholar should experience and know the prevenient grace of God by opening his mind to the whole panorama of Biblical scholarship, critically examining all which is offered there. No area of learning should be ruled out a priori and pejoratively called higher criticism or naturalistic or humanistic criticism. While Dr. Hartley does not specifically mention the doctrine of prevenient grace in his defense of critical methodologies, he certainly has captured its spirit.

Finally, the question which is at the heart of the conference: "What is the Wesleyan Mode for Biblical studies?" is particularly problematic, in part, because study of the history of Biblical exegesis and hermeneutics in the Wesleyan tradition exists to my knowledge. It seems to me that such a study is crucial for an adequate answer to the question of the conference. I believe that we have raised some issues which are central to the Wesleyan Biblical scholar's work, e.g. the authority of Scripture, the Holy Spirit in interpretation, prevenient grace and openness to critical methodologies. However, these are but a few issues presented in a very preliminary way. I am not suggesting a search for a Wesleyan hermeneutic, which will lock us into a traditional prison-house. In fact, such a study may require self-criticism, for, I suspect that we would discover two hundred years of eisegesis. I wonder if we are mature or secure enough to look at ourselves in a critical manner. A study of our exegetical heritage would perhaps help to give us insight into our relationship to the wider world of Biblical studies and help to establish our self-identity within that wider context.

Notes

1 Richard S. Taylor, Biblical Authority and Christian Faith (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill Press, 1980) pp. 70-71.

2 "That both Old and New Testaments constitute the divinely inspired Word of God . . . and the final authority of life and truth. " Cited from the statement of belief of the Wesleyan Theological Society.

3 Assertio omnium articulorum M. Lutheri per Bullam Leonis X novissimans damnatorum (Declaration of all the articles of Martin Luther condemned through the papal bull of Leo X), WA, VII, p. 97. Cited from Werner George Kümmel, The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of Its Problems, trans. S. McLean Gilmour and Howard C. Kee (Nashville and New York: Abingdon Press, 1972), p. 22.

4 Hartley, p. 2.

5 Hartley, p. 3.

6 Hartley, p. 6.

7 Hartley, p. 11.

8 Hartley, p. 4.

9 Hartley, p. 5.

10 Hartley, p. 7 ff.

11 Hartley, p. 15.

12 Hartley, pp. 17-22.

13 Hartley, pp. 22-29.

© Copyright 1999 by the Wesley Center for Applied Theology. Text may be freely used for personal or scholarly purposes , provided this notice is left intact. Any use of this material for commercial purposes of any kind is strictly forbidden without the express permission of the Wesley Center at Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID 83686. Contact the webmaster for permission or to report errors.

Edited by Aaron R. Bynum of Northwest Nazarene University (Nampa, Idaho) for the Wesley Center for Applied Theology.