I'm not sure if this is the first theology 'blog conference' but it's certainly an interesting idea. It's being hosted at the Fire and the Rose blog.
The topic is “Von Balthasar’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Not something I'm terribly familiar with so it should prove to be enlightening.
A NT scholar whilst I was in University did however, in the course of lamenting the divorce between theology and biblical studies, point to Balthasar as an example of a theologian who proof-texts scripture without due regard to historical criticism and so forth.
Hopefully the conference papers will provide a more nuanced view of von Balthasar's approach to Scripture. Though the issue of Biblical studies' relation to theology is obviously one that needs to be worked out more completely. The same lecturer also complained about Karl Rahner, in an essay in a rare compilation that he owned, telling off Biblical scholars and letting them know that their findings had to conform to the ideas that dogmatic theologians were discussing! I read the essay and found myself agreeing with Rahner for the most part!
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Balthasar Blog Conference
I'm not sure if this is the first theology 'blog conference' but it's certainly an interesting idea. It's being hosted at the Fire and the Rose blog.
The topic is “Von Balthasar’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Not something I'm terribly familiar with so it should prove to be enlightening.
A NT scholar whilst I was in University did however, in the course of lamenting the divorce between theology and biblical studies, point to Balthasar as an example of a theologian who proof-texts scripture without due regard to historical criticism and so forth.
Hopefully the conference papers will provide a more nuanced view of von Balthasar's approach to Scripture. Though the issue of Biblical studies' relation to theology is obviously one that needs to be worked out more completely. The same lecturer also complained about Karl Rahner, in an essay in a rare compilation that he owned, telling off Biblical scholars and letting them know that their findings had to conform to the ideas that dogmatic theologians were discussing! I read the essay and found myself agreeing with Rahner for the most part!
The topic is “Von Balthasar’s Theological Interpretation of Scripture.” Not something I'm terribly familiar with so it should prove to be enlightening.
A NT scholar whilst I was in University did however, in the course of lamenting the divorce between theology and biblical studies, point to Balthasar as an example of a theologian who proof-texts scripture without due regard to historical criticism and so forth.
Hopefully the conference papers will provide a more nuanced view of von Balthasar's approach to Scripture. Though the issue of Biblical studies' relation to theology is obviously one that needs to be worked out more completely. The same lecturer also complained about Karl Rahner, in an essay in a rare compilation that he owned, telling off Biblical scholars and letting them know that their findings had to conform to the ideas that dogmatic theologians were discussing! I read the essay and found myself agreeing with Rahner for the most part!
3 comments:
-
D. W. McClain said...
-
David, for what it's worth I find Dan Treier's and Kevin Vanhoozer's approaches to "Theological Exegesis" to be two of the most helpful and fecund re: the integration of theology and exegesis. As noted by Hans Boersma at the recent AAR in dc - his paper, which is not published (I think) is called Making Pumpkin Pie - Vanhoozer's "method" drama of doctrine is even open in important ways to use by Roman Catholics. Boersma compares Vanhoozer to Yves Congar, much to Vanhoozer's amusement. At his dissertation defense, Dan Treier's diss was compared loosely to some RC approaches, so much so that Vanhoozer noted that (the) Tradition plays such an important role in his understanding of interpretation that he wondered what role Luther and after would have. Point here being that when Balthasar is accused of missing the critical approaches boat, he would largely be happy to accept the charge on the basis that he wouldn't adhere unequivocally to any one critical method in the evaluation of any and all texts. Tradition, context, and the beauty and drama involved in receiving a text are much more interesting and pertinent to his studies. Ratzinger would be an interesting test case, I assume, in a "balthasarian" who interacts with the historical critical method.
-
October 17, 2007 at 3:10 PM
-
DJW said...
-
I understand that perspective and believe there is much more to scripture than the 'historical sense' and of course, the Church approaches Scripture with wholly different presuppositions to historical-critical scholars, and rightly so. But it does beg the question how much theology ought to take into account current biblical studies which seem to change rather often. Take someone like Schillebeecx who attempted a large-scale theological inquiry in conversation with the findings of historical-critical scholars. I think that some of those views are already outdated...so to just what extent should theology base itself upon the changing currents of historical scholarship?
I'm not at all familiar with Trier or Vanhoozer to be honest. I'll see if I can read up on them a bit.
Thanks,
David -
October 17, 2007 at 9:18 PM
-
David W. Congdon said...
-
David,
Thanks for the plug. I hope the conference goes well. It's not the first of its kind. My good friend Travis (of DET) hosted the first annual Barth blog conference earlier this year.
I highly recommend the work of Treier and others on theological exegesis. Balthasar is certainly no Barth, who spent many pages exegeting Scripture with great care. But Balthasar's use of the Bible is often overlooked. People focus on the great theological ideas and miss how he uses Scripture. It should be an interesting and excited blogging event. -
October 23, 2007 at 2:12 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
David, for what it's worth I find Dan Treier's and Kevin Vanhoozer's approaches to "Theological Exegesis" to be two of the most helpful and fecund re: the integration of theology and exegesis. As noted by Hans Boersma at the recent AAR in dc - his paper, which is not published (I think) is called Making Pumpkin Pie - Vanhoozer's "method" drama of doctrine is even open in important ways to use by Roman Catholics. Boersma compares Vanhoozer to Yves Congar, much to Vanhoozer's amusement. At his dissertation defense, Dan Treier's diss was compared loosely to some RC approaches, so much so that Vanhoozer noted that (the) Tradition plays such an important role in his understanding of interpretation that he wondered what role Luther and after would have. Point here being that when Balthasar is accused of missing the critical approaches boat, he would largely be happy to accept the charge on the basis that he wouldn't adhere unequivocally to any one critical method in the evaluation of any and all texts. Tradition, context, and the beauty and drama involved in receiving a text are much more interesting and pertinent to his studies. Ratzinger would be an interesting test case, I assume, in a "balthasarian" who interacts with the historical critical method.
I understand that perspective and believe there is much more to scripture than the 'historical sense' and of course, the Church approaches Scripture with wholly different presuppositions to historical-critical scholars, and rightly so. But it does beg the question how much theology ought to take into account current biblical studies which seem to change rather often. Take someone like Schillebeecx who attempted a large-scale theological inquiry in conversation with the findings of historical-critical scholars. I think that some of those views are already outdated...so to just what extent should theology base itself upon the changing currents of historical scholarship?
I'm not at all familiar with Trier or Vanhoozer to be honest. I'll see if I can read up on them a bit.
Thanks,
David
David,
Thanks for the plug. I hope the conference goes well. It's not the first of its kind. My good friend Travis (of DET) hosted the first annual Barth blog conference earlier this year.
I highly recommend the work of Treier and others on theological exegesis. Balthasar is certainly no Barth, who spent many pages exegeting Scripture with great care. But Balthasar's use of the Bible is often overlooked. People focus on the great theological ideas and miss how he uses Scripture. It should be an interesting and excited blogging event.
Post a Comment