In Danger of Missing the Point?
I was thinking about a certain question this morning as I was trying to get back to my studies (thank you Andrew for the Vigil, and for keeping everyone informed of our situation)...and it may make too many assumptions to generate an answer from anyone...here ya go:
The study of the New Testament, (Jesus, Paul, etc., and the theology of the whole movement) says N T Wright (here, 47), is obviously a study of literature. Therefore, in order to understand the New Testament, we need to understand the nature and function of literature. The question of what to do with the New Testament, according to Wright, ought to be the same as the question of what do with any piece of literature (we might think of the New Testament as a subset of the study of literature). Wright even makes the point; modern literary theory, applied to the New Testament, is pressing on theologians such that if they do not stand guard more strongly they are in danger of being forced to retreat!
What do you think? Do you think, modern theologians, in a sense, are in any such danger?
Personally, I think Wright is being a bit hasty here (although I wish he were [W]right!). I think this might be looked at as theologians, for the sake of making everything fit nicely, missing the point, but I do not think they are going anywhere anytime soon.
For clarification; modern literary theory applied to the New Testament, according to Wright, will essentially lead us to the question of “Story” (cf. Anthony Thiselton, here; E P Sanders, here, ch’s15-16)…and I think this is what Wright has in mind here (see also: Wright, here, ch’s2-3).
The study of the New Testament, (Jesus, Paul, etc., and the theology of the whole movement) says N T Wright (here, 47), is obviously a study of literature. Therefore, in order to understand the New Testament, we need to understand the nature and function of literature. The question of what to do with the New Testament, according to Wright, ought to be the same as the question of what do with any piece of literature (we might think of the New Testament as a subset of the study of literature). Wright even makes the point; modern literary theory, applied to the New Testament, is pressing on theologians such that if they do not stand guard more strongly they are in danger of being forced to retreat!
What do you think? Do you think, modern theologians, in a sense, are in any such danger?
Personally, I think Wright is being a bit hasty here (although I wish he were [W]right!). I think this might be looked at as theologians, for the sake of making everything fit nicely, missing the point, but I do not think they are going anywhere anytime soon.
For clarification; modern literary theory applied to the New Testament, according to Wright, will essentially lead us to the question of “Story” (cf. Anthony Thiselton, here; E P Sanders, here, ch’s15-16)…and I think this is what Wright has in mind here (see also: Wright, here, ch’s2-3).
posted by Anonymous | 4:50 PM
4 Comments:
I am not sure people need to be on guard against literary theory so much as they need to be aware what it is. Is that what NT meant? Everyone has some literary theory…some understanding of how to read and approach texts. It is just important to be aware of what those are.
And I mean that in a post-structuralist neo-marxist feminist post-colonial semiological historicist socio-rhetorical sort of way.
I think my choice of the words "stand guard" may have been a bad choice of words. This was simply my attempt at explaining, in my own words, what Wright was saying. Let me use his imagery, and maybe it will help clarify what I was trying to say:
"The tide of literary theory has at last reached the point on the beach where where the theologians have been playing, and, having filled their sandcastle moats with water, is now almost in danger of forcing them to retreat, unless they dig deeper and build more strongly."
I think Wright is saying that theologians, who do not take into account the influence of literary theory applied to the New Testament, are in danger ("almost in danger") of being ran over (I don't think this will ever take place)...Where I think they are simply guilty of missing something.
I have often, in recent times, been bothered with how 'neatly' certain theologians try and fit things. Often times, in doing this, they miss so much (or often oversimplify things).
There is so much more to this, I realize, that needs to be explained (which I will be happy to if asked). This is simply one point in the vast ocean of Wright's 'critical realist' hermeneutic. A method which allows for your point, "Everyone has some literary theory…some understanding of how to read and approach texts. It is just important to be aware of what those are. "
Although, I think your latter point needs allow room for more. I think it is important to not only be aware of what those are, but it is also important to be aware of how those move through and flow out of the text (including the author[s] and the reader[s]) themselves.
I guess I am still a little bit confused. What is the issue? What are theologians doing that is the problem? What are these attacks from lit theorists?
Sorry for being a little thick on this one.
Steve,
I don't know enough on this topic to add anything intelligent, but maybe my lack of experiance/bird's-eye-view can offer some clarification.
First, I think the title is supposed to be either confusing or a hint to the rest of Aaron's post.
Second, I think the issue here has to do with wether or not theologians need to change. Change in question would be the modus operandi of the current theologians - that being of trying to mmke everything they read fit into nice little blocks supporting their own nice little pyramids. However, the evil, nasty, modern, lit theorists is trying to knock their pyramids down by being modern and therefore questioning everything with the angle of "Eastern" philosophies
Hope that clears things up. If it doesn't then at least you know what someone who doesn't understand the subject believes is going on.
MArK
Post a Comment
<< Home