241 - New Directions in New Testament Study & The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology

New Directions in New Testament Study
By Patrick Henry
Philadelphia, Westminster, 1979. 300 pp. $9.95.

The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology
By James D. Smart
Philadelphia, Westminster, 1979. 162 pp. $7.95.

Each of these works describes the present state of biblical research and suggests a future course for biblical scholars. Professor of religion at Swarthmore College, Henry introduces non - specialists to recent developments in New Testament studies and raises critical questions for specialists as well. After an introductory chapter, he states his perspective in a chapter called "Thinking Historically" and argues judiciously both for the limitations and the centrality of historical inquiry in biblical studies. Henry then discusses some of the perennial questions of scriptural interpretation, with particular attention to the problem of text and meaning.

In the following chapters the author presents a cautious historical analysis of several topics central to current study - the Jewish context of Christianity, gnosticism, Jesus, and Paul. He responds to biblical studies based on models from social science (John Gager) and from psychology (especially Richard Rubenstein). In the last two chapters, Henry discusses the current state of Catholic New Testament studies and some of the directions he thinks biblical scholarship should follow in the coming years.

This is an excellent book - clear, helpful, and generally persuasive. While Henry claims to deplore the "obsessively theological preoccupations" of some recent scholarship, his own theological preoccupations are clear. He believes that right theology presupposes a concern for history and for historical continuity with the teaching of Jesus (therefore gnosticism, both ancient and modern, is ruled out as a viable form of Christian faith). He is convinced that Christianity is and needs to be a strongly communal religion, and that overly individualistic interpretations of Scripture are mistaken both descriptively and as guides to Christian practice. (Indeed, on reading the final chapter I came to suspect that what worries Henry is not "obsessively theological" interpretation so much as Bultmannian interpretation.)

There are places where I find Henry not altogether persuasive. He assumes more consensus for Schmithals' understanding of Paul's "judaizing opponents" than I think is justified. On the basis of Howard

242 - New Directions in New Testament Study & The Past, Present, and Future of Biblical Theology

Kee's Jesus in History, Henry claims the redaction criticism per se is more aware of the communal nature of Christianity than form criticism. Redaction critics may decide that the gospel writers have a communal understanding of faith, but there is nothing in the methodology to require the conclusion. However, classical form criticism does presuppose the creative work of Christian communities.

James D. Smart, formerly professor of biblical interpretation at Union Seminary, New York, writes in response to Brevard Childs' Biblical Theology in Crisis (1970). Smart says that "the best that the present writer is able to offer is a few corrections here and there about what has been happening, a few insights drawn from personal experience, with a rough sketch of the period …" (pp. 16f). This is an accurate description of his book. It reads like a long conversation with a wise observer of biblical scholarship in recent decades, but the reader should not expect a detailed argument, extensive footnotes, or much historical distance. A committed theological interpreter of the Bible, Smart is convinced that biblical theology is an essential part of biblical studies, and its neglect may have disastrous consequences for the life of the church.

A fundamental difference between Henry and Smart is evident in their analyses of the current state of biblical studies. Smart maintains that scriptural interpretation should always include historical analysis of the text and theological interpretation of its present implications. He is therefore concerned lest the movement of scriptural interpretation from church and seminary to university undermine the usefulness of scriptural studies for believers. Henry affirms a diversity of gifts in scriptural interpretation and suggests that New Testament studies in the context of secular, liberal arts education "offers new possibilities for Christians, who, out of obedience to God, are committed both to the church and to rigorous thinking" (p. 14).

The alarm, or confidence, with which these two authors view the future of biblical studies suggests something of the difference between their own - equally theological - convictions.

David L. Bartlett
University of Chicago
Chicago, Illinois