Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Table in The Wilderness PDF
Table in The Wilderness PDF
Crais Bartholomew
RICHARDS. HESS
sive exposure. Therefore, Hebrer.r' reading modules are offered
throughout the acadernicyear and the student is encouraged to refrne
and develop reading and interpretive skills. A variety of Old Testament
literature is chosen. Initially the student is introduced to narrative literature. Then the more challenging. poetic and prophetic texts are
studied. Becausethe texts read are never repeated,students are able to
register for and to participate in Hebrew reading modules throughout
their stay at the coilege.
As in the secondhalf of the introductory level, the reading modules are mainly composedof student participation.However, an aclditional component is added to reading, translation,and grammatical
analysis- At this level the students also interpret the biblical text and
discuss its meaning in its original context. This incorporatesthe variefy
of mcthods introduced at levels II and III of the Enelish Bible core
curriculum.
The assessmentsfocus on the student's ability to read, translate,
and analyse the Hebrew texts, both orally in class and in written form
rn examinations and essays-The examinations include texts studied in
classand require the student to analyseand evaluate various interpretations in the light of the Hebrew text. Thev also assessthe abilitv to
synthesisevarious methods and to creatively integrate methods of interpretation to make senseof the Hebrew iext.
Study
for OId Testament
CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW
Craig G. Bnrtholomezu
is post-doctoral
fellow in Old Tesfnment
hernteneutics
at tlrcCheltenhnmand GloucesterCollcgcof Higher
Educntion.He lns slst'ttaughtOld Testament
at CeorgeWhitefield
Collegein CapeToztttt,SoutltAftica.
t8
19
,6
CRAICG.I]AI?THOLOMEW
Towardsa post_liberal
Agendafor Old Testnmenf
Sttdy
More and more 'young fogeys' like Oden are discoveringthe truth
that is 'ever ancient,ever ner+,'(Augustine).It is called the catholic
faith, and it is a feastto which he invites us. It is a movable feast,still
developing under the guidance of the Spirit. Oden is Likecinema's
'Aunhe N4ame,'
rvho observedthat life is a banquetand most poor
slobs are starving to death. Origen, Irenaeus,Cvril of Alexandria,
Tl-romasAquinas, Teresaof Avila, lr4artin Luther, John Calvin, John
l{esiey - the names fall trippinglv from Oden's tongue like a gourmet surveying a most spectaculartable.Here are argumentsyou can
sink vour teeth into, conceptualflights of inioxicating complexity;
and truths to die for. Far from the table,over there,wny over there is
Americantheologicaleducationwhereprodigal academicsfeedstan,ing studentson the dry husks of their clcvcr unbelief.l
The Christian hradition offers a table in the wilderness, but, according to this view, much contemporary theology has so succumbed
to the wildemess that it has moved away from the table. For Oden,
who has recently returned from the wildemess of avant-garde, modemistic theology to evangelical orthodoxy, the contemporary wilderness has been the lure of modemity. Oden's htle Requiemrelates not
only to his move away from modemistic theology, but primarily to the
death of modernity. Part of Oden's critique of theologv is that it has
bought far too strongly into the spirit of modemity, a spirit which Oden
maintains is now on its last legs.
Personally I think Oden mav be too quick to lament modemrty;
in my view the post-modern turn is not truly post-modern but rather
a manifestation of the tensions and contradictions within modemitv2
and what we are seeing is better described as late or high moderniby.
Either wa1',lvhat the post-modem tum has done is to expose some of
the prejudicesof modemitv and to call them to account.What n'as often
called 'bread' in modernity is now being exposedas 'stone'by many,
and of colrrse,where theology has succunrbed to the agenda of modemity, it too incvitably sharesin that crisis. It is another of those situations about which Dean Inge wamed - whoever is married to the spirit
of this age is destined to be a widow in the next.
1. Forcrvord in T. Oden, llequient (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), p. xx.
2. See C. Bartholomew, 'Post/t-ate? Modernity as the Context for Christian
Schcrlarship Today,', Thenrelios22,2 (1997), pp. 25-38.
20
27
CRAIG G, BARTHOLON1EW
what extent has it been integrally shaped by the world view of modernity?' Among liberals and conservati"'es there is widespread acknowledgement of this shaping. Henry Vander Coot argues as follows:
The integration of faith and leaming in the discipline of biblical
studies means that the rvorld view investigated in the text must also
be accepted as the world viert' from the vantage point of n'hich the
text is investigated. Only under such circumstances is the Bible's total
claim properly acknorvledged. Where the biblical framework is not
taken to be the context for scientific study, the only other option seerns
to be the acceptance of a fact-value, science-faith distinction in which
the two tracks of life in the ecclesia and scholarship in the university
are Krupulously kept apart. \A/here scientific theology is not ecclesially funded, it nonetheless continues to be funded pre-theoretically
and that usually by the climate of opinion which happens at any
given moment to reign within the discipline. Where this latter sifuation obtains, one finds specifically that the conduct of theological
scholarship often takes place on rmconscious foundations not so
easily reconcilable wiih the Christian story because in the modem
centuries secularism has taken possession of the intellectual field.
Unfortunately much modem scientific study of the Bible as an historical source illustrates this all too well.6
In his Oxford inaugural Ernest Nicholson is quite clear about the
historical roots of the historical-criticai method that has dominated Old
Testament studies over the past two hundred or so vears. The name of
method indicates its source; it emerged from the
historical ihinking that came out of the Eniightenment, received further
impulses ftom Romanticism, and burgeotred rn the German historical
the historical-critical
22
(Oxford:
theOld Testammt:
A Caiury of theOrielProt'essorship
7. lnterpreting
'Ton'ardsa Post-Critical
Paradigm:
Clarendon,
198i),p. 16.SeealsoW. S.Vorster,
Progress
in J.Mouton,A. G. vanAardeand W.S
in New Testament
Scholarship?',
(SouthAfrica:Human Sciences
Vorster(eds.),Parodigtns
in Theology
and Progress
Research
Council,1988),
pp. 31-a8.
andtheStability
8. A. McCrath,'Reclaiming
Our RootsandVision:Scripfure
of the Christian Church', in C. E. Braaten and R. W. Jenson, Ileclaining the Biblelor
the Church (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995), pp 63-88,69.
9. I will not here argue in detail hovu'contemporary Old Testament study is
often 'stone' rather than 'bread'. ln my ReadingEcclesiastes:
OT Exegesisand Herneneutical Theory (forthcoming) (Analecta Biblica, Rome: PBi, 1998) I track in detail the
negative effect of historical criticism upon the interpretation of Ecclesiastes. In
section four of this paper I sct my proposals in opposition to the effect of modemity
'stone'
upon Old Testament interpretation, thus exposrng some of the
of contem
poran Old Testament studies.
ZJ
CRAIG C. BAITTHOLOMEW
eral education's
overarching aim has been the maximal development of the rational
autonomy of each . . . to the eventual benefit of all. In ordrnary language/ liberal education in modern times has aimed at the freeing of
each from ignorance, prejudice and superstition, so that the maximal
developr.rrent of their talents and tastes would gir.e rise to a fairer,
freer,more reasonableand decent - and also a richer (both culturally
a n d m a t e r i a l l v )- w o r l d . l 2
1n
25
l,
w
CRAIC C] BAITTHOLOME\'\'
Tcttt,nrtls
a Post-libt:rnlAgendafor OIclTestutttutt Stud1
'objective'position
and indeeddeniesthepossibilitvof sucha posihon.
It pursuesapologctics,therefore,only on an ad hocbasis,looking for
corrunonground with a given conversationpartnerbut not assumng,
someuniversallyacceptable
standardof rahonalitl,.l5
The crucial insight of post-liberal theologv irr my epi11en, is its
recognition thai Christians ought to allow the Word to frame and interpret our world rather than our understandingof the world framing and
interpreting the Word.16ln other u'ords, an integrally Christian agenda
is required in Old Testament studies, Christians find it comparativelv
easy to seethe need for Christian thcologv but otten find it verv difficult
to seehorv a Christianagendacould be important in other areasas rvell.
In this respectA. Plantinga's "Advice to Christian Philosophers" is
particularlv iiluminating. Plantingais a leading American philosophea
and he proposes a direction for Christians in philosophy ihat one could
call posi-liberal. It recommendsprecisely the sort of direction that i have
in mind for Old Testamentstudies.He suggeststhat
Christianphilosophersand Christianintellectualsgenerallymust disindependenceof the rest of the philoplay more autonomy
sophicalworld. SecondChrisiian philosophersrnust display more
integrity - integrity in the senseof integralwholeness,or oneness,or
unity, being all of one piece.Perhaps'integrality' would be the better
word here.And necessaryto thesetrvo is a third: Christian coLuage,
or boldness,or strength, or perhaps Christian self-confidence.We
Christian phiiosophers must dispiay more faith, more trust in the
Lord; rve must put on the rvholearmour of Cod.17
Planfinga is not for a moment suggesting that Christian philosophers
should not be deeply involved in mainstream philosoph,v,but he is also
insisting that
'Postliberal
15. W Placher,
Theologr", rn D, F. Ford (ed.), The Modern Tlieolognns. Att lntroduction to Cltistnn'fheologv in the TtttentiethCerrtury(Oxford: Blackwell,
1 9 8 9 ) ,p p . 1 1 5 - 2 8 , 1 1 7 .
16. I would not neccssarilr' \^'ant to endorse all aspects of postJiberal thmlogv.
Irr tlris respect see,e.9.,the critique of Lindbeck in A. McCrath,Tfu Cenesisof Doctritrc
lOxford: Blackwell, 1990;.
17. A. Plantinga, 'Advice to Christian Philosophers', Fnitlt nn,1 Pltilosophy7,3
( 1 9 8 4 ) , p p 2 5 3 - 7 1 .T h i s a r t i c l e i s t h e t e x t o f h i s 1 9 8 3 i n a u g u r a l a s J . A . O ' B r i e n
Prolessor of Philosophy at the Um'ersitv of Notre Dame.
26
27
CRAIG C. BARTHOLOMEW
is not for a moment to underestimaie all that has been achieved but to
ask how to preserve ihe good in evangelical and liberal Oid Testament
scholarship,and how to develop it into the fuhrre.There needs,i. *y
view, to be a lot of discussion among Christian Old Testamentscholars
about the d,angersand opporfunities, the areas of defence and attack
in Old Testament studics today. There is a need for an agenda - not
the final word, but a resounding call to serve Christ together in the
delightful field of Old Testamentsfudies today and some indication of
the direction this ought to take in our situation.
28
29
CI{AIC C. BARTHOLON,{EW
Tozt,ards
a Post-libernlAgendafor OId TestanrentStudy
30
The reformationalapproachrecognises
the importanceof dialogue with
and trar-rsformationof existing n'ork sites but insists that the edifice of
(for example) Old Testamentstudies must be developed as a whole
along integral Christian lines. For a reformational scholar it is not
enough to see where the n'ork sites are and then to try and work
Christianly there.More fundamental questions surface,such as: If I take
a Christian perspective on reality seriously and see my work in OId
Testarnentstudies as service of the Lord Christ, then where ought the
work sites to be in Old Testamentstudies today?
Obviously both transformational and reformational Old Testament scholarship are necded. And both approaches presuppose that
Christian scholarshipought to be Christian.However, it does seem to
me that the dominant requirement is reformational Old Testament
scholarship; and my suggestion is that evangeiicai Old Testament
scholarship tends to be transformational rather than reformational.3O
This seems to me a dangerous paih to pursue. Much evangelicai
'liberals'
scholarship has been of this sort; let so-called
set the agenda
and then evangelicalswill fight according to their agenda and try and
defend the cause rt'here they create the battle. \ /ithin Old Testament
scholarship this has often been the pattem, with evangelicalstaking a
reacfive rather than a proactive stance, so that in the process both
evangelicalsand liberals tend to have been deeply in the grip of modernity.
The problem with this is that one never gets round to doing
positive scholarship that is integrally Christian. Christian scholarship
needs, of course, to be deeply in touch and in dialogue with secular
trends, and to be busy with transformation, but this cannot be the heart
of our direction. Re-formation of the sciencesshould remain our primary concem; ihis will always hvolve transformationbut it will be
more than that in iis construction of integrally Christian scholarship.
As Calvin Seen'eld has said, synthesismay be our practicebut it should
never be our policy.31Scripturally led believers do have a head start in
their orientation to the truth, and as Ku'yper indicated, 'What we really
31
CITA]GC,.BARTHOLO]VIEW
rleed is a seedling of scientific theory [read "OT theor1."'lthriving on
Chrrstian roots. For us to be content r.t'iththe act of shuffling around
in the garden of somebody else, scissorsin hand [to cut the other's
flor.vers),is to throw awav the honour and lt'orth of onr Christian
f ai t h . ' i 2
In our Old Testamentscholarshipwe are called to love God and
servc our neighbours,Another wav of expressingthis is that rve are to
ser\reup good. nutritious bread to our neighbours,baked as best we
are zrble.Historical criticism has been so shaped bv modernitv that it
has generallynot produced breadbut stones;the danger u'ith transiormational Old Testamentscholarshipis that it producesat besi only less
dangerous stonesl [t never has the time for the inner reformation of
Old Testamentstudies so that we can start producing some ioaves,
howcver inadequatcarrd immafure - this w,ill onl_"hilppen if we allorv
a Christian perspective to determine our agenda in Old Testament
studies.
The 'great' thing rvith 'post-modemiW' is that no one knows
where the Old Testamentr.r'orksites should be anymore anv-n'ay!There
is rvidespreadagreementthat Old Testamerrtstudies are in a state of
flux and uncertainty with no signs of an emerging paradigm-consensus.33Thereis no longer one historical-criticalagenda,if thereever was
one. I)avid Clines will give you one a;5endaand certain work sites,
John Collins will tell you that the historical-criticaln,ork sitesare still
the plirce to operatc from, Brevard Childs rvill cncouragc voll to focus
on the final c;rnonical form, and so on. We are now in a situation where
you have to account for your rvork siteslI I welcome this becauseit
encouragesChristians to accourrtfor their agenda in Old Testament
studies rather than accepting a non-Christian agenda and trving to
work Christianlv u'ithin it.
3 2 - A . K u v p e r , D t : C t n t e e r t C r a t i t , 3 r o l s . ( K a m p e n : K o k , 1 9 0 2 - 5 ) ,i . o l . 3 , p . 5 2 7 .
33. St.e Bib/ic'n/lnterpretattortI (1993) for a number of papers tlealing !vith the
prLsent stateof Old Tesiament scholarship.
3 : 1 .S e eJ . L e v e n s o n , T h e H t b r c i t B i l t l e .t l t c O l c l ' f e s t a u t t ' tat tn t l H i s t o r L c aC
l rrtiasnt
( l , o u i s ri ) ) t - :l V e s t m i n s t e r , / J o h nK n o x , 1 9 9 3 ) ,
32
-)J
CRAICG. BARTHOLOMEW
remember that God )rasnot given us his Word primarily for theoretical
analysis.It is giverr to all God's people - not just to scholars- and
is to be receivedby Cod's people in a trusting, listening manner that
n'ill equip us for serviceof the King in his rvorld. Old Testamentstudv
is thus a sccondaryactivity in relation to the purpose of Scripture,and
ought to be directed ton'ards deepeningthe primary activity of listening to Scripture.3T
1 . P o s t - l i b e r a l O I d T e s t a m e n ts t u d y w o u l d l t a a ef a r m o r e
of a kerygntaticfocus.
The final task of exegesisis to seek to hear the Word of God, rvhich
means that thc r,r'itrress
of N{osesand Jeremiah,of Paul arrd john,
must becomea vehiclefor another\,Vord.The exegetemust cometo
wrestle with the kerygmaticsubst;rncewhich brought into being the
wihress.39
biblical texts which takes account of their communicative function. On the relevance
'Authority
of this for evangetical biblical interpretahon see A. Thiselton's very useful
and Hermeneutics: Some I'roposals for a lv{ore Creative Agenda,' in I']. E' Satterthwaite and D. F. Wright (eds.), A Pdthzoavinto the Holy Stripturc (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 199{), pp. 107-a1.
41. F. Watson, Text, Church ard Warld, Biblical Interpretation iil TheologicalPers p e c t i a e( E d i n b u r g h : T & T C l a r k , 1 9 9 a ) ,p . 1 5 .
42. There are obvicrtts excePtions to this. The iournal lnlerpretdttott' to( ex'
ample, was founded to focus on the ker-vgma of the Bible' A responsibiiitv of a
post-liberal approach would be to search orrt these positive strands in the history
of Old Testament interprtahon and critically appropnatc them in the Present'
43. For a detailed assessmelrt of this history see m1' Rcarllng Ecclesiastes'
35
JT
[,
CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW
Toit'ordsa Post-liberal
Agendafor Old Testamettt
Study
the underlving eventsrather than on the kerygma of tlre text in its iinal
form. The historical aspect of thc text is important, but Kings is not
This is why
primariiy a history book; it is kerygmatically focused.4T
Leah Bronner's work on the Elijah, Elisha narrativesis so usefui.asIt
sets ihem againsi rvhat rve knolv of Baal and they spring to life as n.e
se that all that is predicatedof Baalis actuallv true of Yahweh!Reflection on this perspectiveas addressedto the exilic and post-exiliccommunity,, thc audience for rvhom the book was lvritten, leads one into
the communicaLivedynamic of the text.ag
The Old Testament books surprisingly come to life n'hen apin their historicaicontexts.I think
proachedas kervgmatically-focused
of Gordon Wenham's rvork on Genesiswhich, in m-vview, receivesits
dynamic from inquiring after Genesis' messagc/kerygma in its ANE
context,especiallywith respectto Genesis1-10.50This may secm obvious but historical criticism and reactionaryevangelicalscholarship
generally did not move one in this direction and thus distorted rather
than deepened Christian use of the Old Testament.Especially for the
Old Testament student it was easy to feel caught between a sourcecritical approach which fragmented the text or an inerrantist approach
which ignored the complex iiterarv genres of Genesis.If their deience
of the historicity of the OId Testamentsometimes prevented conservative scholarsfrom doing the hard u'ork on its kerygma, so too did their
concem for the unity of the testamentssometimes get in the n,ay. For
E. J. Young, for example, the main n'ressageof ionah is prediction of
47. The relationship of sl"nchronic to diachronic analyses of Old TL'stament
texts remains controversiai, It seems to me that we musi be cautious about setting
them against each other. The best analysis of their relationship has, in mv opinion,
been done bv lVleir Stemberg in his discussion of the relationship between discottrse
analysis and genetic an.rlvsis. See M. Stemberg, The Poeticsof Bibliul Narrattot.
ldeological Literature ntd the Drnnra of Rerrr/ing(Bloomingkrn: lndiana University
Press), pp. 7-23.
i18. See L. Bronner, l'he Storieso,f Elilah ond Llisln as l)it/r:rtiicsAgnirtst Bnnl
36
37
[*
CRAIC G, BARTHOLOMEW
Agendafor OlclTestament
Study
Toztardsa Post-liberal
Christ!51This may defend a conseryative view of Scripture but it prevents one from positioning oneselfamong the Hebrew group to n,hom
this masterfulkerygmaricstory of the disobedientprophet is being told,
r,vith the insight gradually dawning that Jonah is a paradigm of Israel
and the real question is where you are in relation to Yahrveh'srvill ancl
word!
Literary and narrative approacheshave of coursebeen very helpful in moving the focus from the underlying events to the final shape
of the text. Indeed it is through narrative and carefully crafted literature
that many of the authors of the Old Testament books present their
message.The kerygmatic nature of the Old Testamentshould, however,
alert us to the fact that a iiierary approach which stops short of clarifving ihe kerygma of the text is insufficient. Consider Jonah, for example. That there is skilful narrative technique is clear.But it seemsto
me that Jonah is finally kerygma rather than story or perhaps I should
say that story is emploved in the service of kerygma. We never know
what happened to Jonah - did he come round to God's rvay of thinking or not? He seemsto have 6;onefull circle and not to have leamt at
all. This, I suggest, is not a good ending for a story - but it is for a
kerygmatically focused story/sermon, in which the key issue is not
what happened to jonah but . . . rvhere are the hearers in relation to
Cod's Word and will?!
Christian Old Testamentstudies should privilege the present form
of old Testamenttexts but they should privilege them kervgmatically
or communicatively, and refuse to make the literary or historical aspect
of these texts the dorninant one.52A hermeneutic is required rn'hich
takes full account of the literary and historical aspects and explores
their relation to the dominant kerygmatic aspect.stemberg's poetics13
51.E.J,Young,
An Introduction
totheOldTestament
(GrandRapids:
Eerdmans.
1960),
p.280.Youngrvrrtesthar'[t]hefundamental
purposeof thebookof Jonahrs
sonal discussion with him I gather, however, he w'ould not aBree rvith me in derribing the Old Testament texts as kerygmatic.
55. J. C. McCann, ATheological lntroduction lo thr Bookof Psnlns: Tht Psnltr.sns
Torah (Nashville: Abingdc,n, 1993).
56. See, c8, i C. McCann, ed., Tlie'Slnpe dnd Slnpitrg of the Psaltu (Sheffield:
Fromperwith a communicative
modelof textualify.
54.Sternberg
operates
52. C/. thc discussion of the relationship between the literarv. historical. and
theological aspects of the Ncrv Testament texis in N. T. wright, ire NettTeslanrent
and the Pcopleo/God (Minneapohs: Fortress, lV)2).
53. Stemberg, Tle Pot'ticsof Biblical Narratioe.
38
ISOT,le93).
57. Tom Wright notes, for cxample, in his update of Stephen Neill's Tfte
Interpretation o;fthe Neru Testament,that "[t]he connection betrveen the Old and New
Tetaments remains a matter of interest, but shictly on tlre sidelines as far as the
mainstream of New Testament scholarshrp is concerned." In Tfu Interprttation of the
New Testament1861-1986(Oxford/New' York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 365.
39
w
CRAIGG. TiARTHOLOMEW
Tou,nrdsa Post-liberal
Agendafor OId Testnnrcnt
Study
40
interdisciplinary.
By this I mean a number of things. First, like all disciplines,OId Testament study works rvith philosophical tools, i.e.,with an ontology and
an epistemology. It needs to ensure that these are Christian and will
thus need to be in dialogue rvith Christian philosophers and theologians.One thinks, for example, of Watson'sseriousplea for a theological
hermeneuhicin his fert, Church and World. In this creative tcxt he includes detailed exegesisof parts of Genesis in order to shor,."how a
theological hermeneutic would work with the biblical text. In my view
hermeneutic questions are theological and philosophical, so it would
be most helpful if Christianbiblicalscholarscould dialoguewith Chris61. F. Watson, Text, Church and Worltl, p. vll.
41
CRAIGG BARTHOLOMEW
tian iheologiansand philosophersin order io raise their consciousncss
about their philosophical and theologicalpresuppositions.conscior-rs
self-reflectionon methodologv is fast becoming an imperative and it is
important to ask n'hat a Christia^ methodology/ies should look like.
Recentdecadesha'e seen major advancesmade in Christian perspectives in philosophv,b2
and old restamentscholarscould easilvdialogue
with scholarsiike Plantinga and wolterstorff in theseareas.ivithin Nen,
-ibm
Testamentstudies,
wright's The NeioTestgnrcnt
ud thepeopleof cod
is an excellentexample of the fruit that taking philosophy serio,sly in
biblical studies can bear.sadlv not much of this sort of *,ork has 1'et
been done in Old Testamer-rt
studies.
seco.d, scripture is God's word for all of life and thus biblical
studies has unique potential for dialogue across disciplines, much of
which potential has rrot been exploited. Hor,r,,for example, does Old
Testamentethics relate to theological ethics and philosophical ethics?
And does old restament law have any insights to offer contemporarl,
legal studies - if so hor.r'does one go about relati.g these disciplines?
Third, other cliscipli.es also bear on Old Testamentstudics, and
not least on the teaching of the old restament, which is the main theme
of this collection of essays.within the university and the theological
college old restament studies is taught rvithin an educational milieu
that has developedover centuries.As we noted, this educationalethos
is not neutral, and particularly in the university context has been deeply
shapcd by modernitv, as a 'r'ho's *'ho of influential educational philosophers over the last felv hundred years soon demonstrates.within old
Testament studies the dominance of historical criticism fits hand-rnglove *'ith the rationalistic modern universit'.63
Ch.siians teaching the oid restament rvill therefore need to bc
alvare not onlv of non-Christian influences on old restament sfudies,
but also of the ideologies shaping the philosophy/ies of education rn
their teachins context. Increasedspecialisationand separationof disci62. See, c.9.. A. Pla.tinga, 'Christian philosophv at the End of the Tr'enheth
Century', in s. criffioen and B. M. Balk (eds.), Christinn philosopltyat thc Closcof il*,
T t p t : t r t i e tC
h t r t t u r y . , 4 s s c s s r r i . rar fn d P e r s p c c t i L(,K
ea m p e n : K o k , i 9 C 5 t , p p . 2 9 _ ; 3 .
63. Sc'cJ. kvenson, TIrc Ilebrciu Bible, Ior a stimulatjng orlalrlsis of religior.ls
interprctatiorr of the old restament compared with that of historical criticism. He
s h o n ' s h o u ' t h c ' m o d c r n u n i ' e r s i t v a n d h i s t o r i c a l c r . i i i c i s r . ln. r a r , eb e e n s h a p e d b v i h e
same ideolosr,.
,11
43
CRAIGG. BARTHOLOMEW
Tozuards
a Post-libernlAgendafor OId TestamttttStudtl
AA
45
CRAIG G. BARTHOLOMEW
46
47