Christology and Scripture: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, edited by Andrew T. Lincoln and Angus Paddison (London: T & T Clark, 2007), 226pp (with thanks to T & T Clark for a review copy)
This collection of essays have emerged from a symposium on christology and scripture at the University of Gloucestershire. The participants are gathered from biblical studies and systematic and historical theology. The aim of these essays is to explore the relationship between Scripture and the person and work of Christ in the context of the recent interest in a theological interpretation of Scripture.
As we any collection of essays some are better than others. The papers that really stand out are by the theologians John Webster and Paul Nimmo and the New Testament scholar Andrew Lincoln. John Webster, in a style that we have been accustomed to, argues that theological interpretation must be grounded in Scripture as the address of Jesus Christ. He takes some shots at historical criticism, stuck in the past and argues for an ontological account of Scripture. Paul Nimmo's paper on Barth and his approach to exegesis stands out mainly because its so well written. Nimmo argues that for Barth scriptural exegesis is how God brings the Word of God alive in the present. (Reading the chapter makes me interested in Nimmo's recently published Being in Action: The Theological Shape of Barth's Ethical Vision). Andrew Lincoln's contribution is a discussion of the virgin birth - how do we read the scriptural accounts in Matthew and Luke and what are the theological implications. Lincoln argues that a literal adherence to the virgin birth is actually theologically problematic (it makes Christ less than fully human) and to read the reference in the creed to 'born of the virgin Mary' metaphorically in 'the attempt to read Scripture faithfully and honestly and to rethink Christological doctrine coherently' (p.102). He says this is a ground-clearing exercise to a larger project (p.86, p.102).
In some chapters the book doesn't really live up to its title and this perhaps reflects my preference for a more systematic approach. The difference between the disciplines of biblical studies and systematic theology is evident here. Stephen Fowl's (whose other work I've enjoyed) contribution seems a bit out of place in this book. Its an OK essay on how Paul encourages the Ephesians to see themselves as Gentiles, but doesn't really connect with a book on Christology and Scripture. Steve Holmes' chapter begins with an interesting discussion of the doctrine of inerrancy and then christological questions around how we read Luke 22.42, but then, probably due to word limits, rushes some of the argument. In other words some of the implications and the argument of the chapter need a longer treatment.
There are some important and useful chapters in the book and for this reason its well worth a read. How we interpret and read scripture remain vital questions for the church and as Webster, and also Nimmo's reading of Barth, show a theological account of scripture and hermeneutics is necessary.
Comments