-
Views
-
Cite
Cite
N. L. A. Lash, Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. By I. Howard Marshall, with essays by Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Stanley E. Porter. Pp. 136. (Acadia Studies in Bible and Theology.) Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2004. isbn 0 8010 2775 6. Paper. N.p, The Journal of Theological Studies, Volume 57, Issue 1, April 2006, Pages 286–287, https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/fli167
Close - Share Icon Share
Extract
This work offers three lucid, carefully argued lectures from I. Howard Marshall, in search of ‘a principled way of moving from Scripture to its contemporary understanding and application’ (p. 9) while avoiding the Scylla and Charybdis of ‘liberalism’ and ‘fundamentalism’, followed by critical but sympathetic responses from Kevin J. Vanhoozer and Stanley E. Porter.
Insisting that ‘all of us do in fact go beyond Scripture in our doctrine. There is such a thing as development in doctrine’ (p. 42), Marshall sensibly concludes that ‘The closing of the canon is not incompatible with the nonclosing of the interpretation of that canon’ (p. 54). ‘How can we decide which developments are legitimate?’ (p. 44). We should ‘take our guidance for our continuing interpretation of Scripture and the development of theology from what goes on in Scripture itself’ (p. 77).
The devil is in the detail. What about the slaughter of the Canaanites? ‘It is incredible that God should so act’ (p. 67). ‘Our basis lies in a mind nurtured by the Spirit, the mind of Christ, which has taught us that such behavior is unacceptable amongst human beings’ (p. 67), on which Vanhoozer comments: ‘this way of going beyond Scripture has more of Marcion than of Marshall about it’ (p. 85). Marshall is, of course, aware of such problems, but remains insistent that we ‘interpret Scripture by Scripture itself rather than by any overriding external authority’ (p. 48). Easier said than done: there is a ghost at the feast. All three contributors tremble before Lessing's warning of ‘the “ugly ditch” that separates biblical and systematic theology’ (p. 82). The Lessing of history issued no such warning. Why does evangelical biblical scholarship continue to ascribe to the Lessing of myth the status of an overriding external authority?
