The Introduction to Paul Rhodes Eddy's and Gregory A. Boyd's -The Jesus Legend: A Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition-

In the Introduction to the above-listed book, Eddy and Boyd argue against what they term the postmodern turn in contemporary historiography. Their argument against such a "turn" is two-fold.

"First, if we follow the radical fringe of the postmodern movement-especially those in the poststructuralist/deconstructionist camp-and thus jettison the possibility of arriving at, or even striving for, a more or less objective understanding of the past, we have to accept that we can no longer so much as speak about "good" versus "bad"-"legitimate" versus "illegitimate"-historiography. Or, if we insist on speaking in this manner, we have to concede that we mean by this distinction nothing more than that we merely prefer one form of historiography-or one set of historical conclusions-over another."

The problem with this criticism is that it is not something that the postmodernist, qua postmodernist, would disagree with. Indeed, one could see the conclusion that Eddy and Boyd insist upon here as just a restatement of the postmodern thesis.

From this, they move on to the following:

"A historical perspective can be judged to be biased and/or misguided only if it can be measured against other sources and/or by other methods one deems more reliable. But this, again, presupposes there is some way for us to step outside our "verbal fictions" and to some extent access objectively the reliability of historical sources. If this is not possible, we are utterly trapped in our purely subjective perspectives and preferences."

What must me taken note of is that the historiographical principle underlying the above quotation is overly simplistic and naive. History as a discipline, in particular when ancient history is under investigation, is not carried out by merely measuring sources against one that has already been determined to be "reliable." A general reliability of one's sources, and thus a hermeneutic of trust, albeit not an uncritical trust, must be assumed in order for historical investigation to move forward. In many cases, there can be no way of independently verifying one's sources other than just seeing how the sources all hang together and cohere. If they present a fairly coherent picture and are mutually supportive of each other, then it is warranted to suppose that they are, on the whole, reliable. What we do not have is an objective measuring stick with which to weigh the reliability of these sources.

The second problem that the authors have is expressed thus:

"Second, if White, Jenkins, Foucault, and others are right in insisting that texts cannot refer beyond themselves, it is not at al clear what these authors are referring to when they make the claim that no text can refer beyond itself... Again, to embrace their analysis is, at the same time, to subject it to its own critique, thus rendering it but one more "foundationless, positioned expression in a world of foundationless, positioned expressions"; thus their analysis cannot be said to be "correct" in any meaningful sense. Along these same lines, if all truth-claims are merely ideologically driven power plays, as radical postmodernists suggest, what are we to make of the truth-claim that "all truth-claims are merely ideologically driven power plays"? The claim itself must be taken to be nothing more than one more ideologically driven power play, in which case it constitutes no grounds for accepting the totalizing claim that all truth-claims are merely ideologically driven power plays."

There are two lines of criticism in this quotation. The first is that one cannot declare the postmodern critique to be either "correct" or "incorrect" if one accepts that line of thinking. This, however, need not worry the postmodernist, as he or she is likely to reject such ways of assessing beliefs/lines of reasoning anyway.

The second criticism is that the postmodern critique suffers its own criticism. In a simplistic way, this is indeed true. However, it would be rash to assume that postmodernists, in claiming that all truth-claims are really power plays, are making a universally quantified statement. I am not as versed in postmodern literature as I'd like to be, but the thrust of such a claim seems to be directed more at those who are in positions of authority and are making claims that are fairly substantial and significant, not against truth-claims per se. That is, one need not levy such a claim against someone stating that it is raining outside. Regardless, the authors' criticism is superficial at best and does not do much to promote further intellectual discourse.

Preface and Chapter 1 of David A. DeSilva's -An Introduction to the New Testament: Contexts, Methods & Ministry Formation-

In the preface to this book, David DeSilva contrasts two types of reading scripture: devotional reading, which focuses on hearing the voice of God, and a purely academic reading. DeSilva maintains that these modes of reading should not stand in opposition to each other but should, rather, compliment each other in their use by the church community. His two objectives in the writing of this book are 1) to allow people to more prayerfully and critically engage and interact with the New Testament, and 2) to enable people to better understand how the Spirit of God is moving through the texts to establish the church community in his image.

The approach used in the book is founded upon "socio-rhetorical interpretation" as a mode of exegesis. By this is meant one is to use a plethora of resources in order to fully understand how the text is able to persuade its audience on multiple levels of understanding for the purpose building up the church. To go about this, DeSilva notes that this will require textual analysis on four distinct levels. The first, the "inner texture," focus on the words that the author uses in order to craft a text that is meaningful. Second, the "intertexture". This requires examining how the author interacts with other texts. The third layer focuses on the social, cultural, and historical world of the author and his intended readers. The fourth "ideological texture" looks at how the text is used by the author to achieve certain goals.

The focus of the first chapter is a survey on the production and canonization of the 27 accepted books of the New Testament. Both processes, production and canonization, can be seen as pastoral response conducted to deal with issues and questions in the church. Three criteria are put forward that were essential to a text's being included among the canon: apostolicity, antiquity, and catholicity. In wrapping up the discussion of the first chapter, DeSilva states the following which I find quite interesting:

Although inspiration would later become linked with canonicity, the early church did not equate the two... The attempt to define a standard collection of inspired texts was not an attempt to distinguish between words that God had inspired and words that God had not inspired, but rather an attempt to gather together the resources that would continually and reliably point the churches back to the apostolic witness.

Eastern Orthodoxy and the Bible

In The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Demetrios J. Constantelos says the following in an entry on the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Bible that I find interesting:

"It (the Bible) does not reveal everything that God is or is not; in many respects, it is a mystery, and the main purpose why it was written is so that human beings may believe and have life (John 20.30)."

"It is for this reason (that the Bible cannot be understood divorced from the historical experience and the consciousness of the communities of believers) that the Bible is considered the book of the community, depending on the community's authority and approval of its authenticity, its inspiration, and interpretation."

"The writers of the biblical books were not passive receivers of messages but energetic and conscious instruments recording the revealed message in their own styles, and through their own intellectual and linguistic presuppositions. For the Orthodox, inspiration (theopneustia) is an elevated state of being that makes it possible to grasp and record revelation. The Holy Spirit inspires the writers, but it is the writers who write and speak, not as mechanical, passive instruments but in full control of their senses."

"For the Eastern Orthodox, then, the Bible is the inspired word of God in terms of content rather than style, grammar, history, or frame. Very few if any Orthodox theologians accept the word-by-word inspiration of scripture. It is for this reason that the Orthodox church has never had serious disputes concerning the application of the historical-critical method in its approach to exegesis and hermeneutics."

"The prevailing opinion is that once the canon of the Bible has been established, its authority becomes absolute, but the church remains its continuous and watchful guardian. The Bible's inspiration, canonicity, and authenticity depend on the church's consent."

"Nevertheless, all facets of belief and life of the church have been saturated with the teachings of the scriptures. Doctrines, ethical teachings, and liturgical worship have scriptural foundations and are always in agreement with the scripture."

"The interpretation of scripture and the celebration of the eucharist are the two principal bonds between the ancient and the ongoing life and thought of the Eastern Orthodox church."

"The Bible is everyone's book but not for everyone's interpretation. Subjective interpretation, which may lead to misunderstanding and extreme individualism, should be subject to the objective interpretation of the church. Subjective interpretation, usually the task of the pastor or preacher, is expected to rely on the objective exegesis of the church's theology. And there is no authentic theology outside the historic experience of the church and its teachings."

With the exception of the transliterated Greek word in the third quotation, all italicizations are my own.

The Historical Context of Gregory the Great

The entry on Gregory the Great in The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church states the following concerning the historical context within which Gregory had assumed the Papacy:

On his accession to the Papacy, accepted only after a sever interior struggle, Gregory found Italy in an alarming state. The land was devastated by inundations, famine, pestilence, and the invasion of the Lombards, and the position of the Church threatened by the claims of the imperial power at Constantinople.

It would not, therefore, be an understatement to assert that circumstances were less than ideal for Gregory when he became the bishop of Rome. This will need to be developed in greater detail, especially through analysis of primary source material, in order to draw more solid and substantial historical conclusions.

Writing

I've given in and decided to start "blogging". Frankly, I could care less if anyone ever sees this or if I gain any "followers". The main purpose is to aid me in my own writing and researches. Booth et al. note, "When you don't take notes on what you read, you're likely to forget or, worse, misremember it." Also, "... the most important reason for learning to report research in ways readers expect is that when you write for others, you demand more of yourself than when you write for yourself alone." There it is then, the two main reasons for me to start this blog: 1) an aid to help me remember and assess what I have been currently reading, especially as it relates to my work for classes, and 2) a way for me to improve on how to better convey ideas to others.