I agree.

I, generally speaking, agree with what you’re saying. In a seminary context there is nothing wrong with expecting one to give an opinion on how the text relates to modern life. I also like your term “rhetorical thrust.” I’m not personally comfortable with expecting every 3-6 verse pericope in the Hebrew Bible to contain something that is applicable to a modern person. But if one might take each 3-6 verses, in the great context in which they appear, and argue for a rhetorical thrust, I’m not opposed to it.

One might take Job 5.1-7 as an example of what I mean. I think this section loses a ton of meaning when taken alone. It really only has an application within Eliphaz’s first response to Job, which itself only has meaning when one has read the sections coming before it in Job, all of which become most clear(as if such a thing can be applied to the Book of Job!) when viewed in the greater context of the Book of Job. At GCTS specifically you have a Biblical Context, or perhaps Literary Context, section to flesh some of that out. However, one can still examine those seven verses on their own and learn a ton of information that, to use the Christian phase, “let’s one know God more,” without it being “applicable” in the way Christian’s often think of that word.

Generally speaking though, I still think that as Christians we generally rush to an application for today without first letting the text speak for itself. If anything, I think that in the Evangelical version of Christianity plenty of people spend a great deal of effort on understanding the text in light of Christian theology–I’d like to advocate for a bit more patience before getting to that phase.

But again, I don’t think this excuses us from the difficult task of ascertaining that rhetorical thrust and viewing it in light of the Christian faith(s). What I’m saying is, if we as professing Christians are going to take our own canon seriously, we need to wrestle with the exegetical implications of statements like Luke 24.27 and 2Tim 3.16. Thus, we cannot simply be satisfied with an obscure and foreign, yet historically sound exposition of the text. We must, to reappropriate your words, spend a bit more effort understanding the text in light of Christian theology.

@D&T – A passage of an English Bible, but, of course, we really agree. At this point we’re just discussing what amounts to a small niche issue.

I’m not denying anyone’s ability to have insights. But that wasn’t the argument. The argument was about propriety in teaching, which we agree on.

You wrote:
“I would, however, like to see a bit more effort to understand the text on its own terms, apart from Christian theology.”

I could see directing this critique at the MDiv population of GCTS (though of course there are many MDiv students to whom it does not apply). But I could just as easily make the opposite critique of the biblical studies MA crowd. All too often we spend our time dealing with the “text on its own terms” (such a slippery idea…), and then rattle off a “theology and application” section for our papers in about 10 minutes. Now, if we were at a secular institution, seeking a purely historical/literary/philological analysis, this would fine. But we’re not. We’re at a Christian institution, expecting a Christian understanding of the text, and this means doing the hard work of wrestling with the text “in its historical context” and then taking seriously how that contextual understanding informs and is informed by the text’s placement within the Christian canon and the testimony of Christian tradition.

Just to be clear,Calvin, I’m not saying you don’t do this. Seeing as how I’ve never read your stuff, I couldn’t begin to judge. I am , like you, simply expressing my pipedreams for the future of GCTS and the exegetes and scholars it produces.

Thanks for the pingbacks!

On your point #1 – Sounds like yoir talking about reader response criticism. That’s great, provided its disclosed as such.

#2 – I wish they’d get it through their heads that their preaching will be better if they preach their own thoughts based on their own reading of the biblical text, be it in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek.

Glad y’all have returned from the void.