Is New Testament Theology Sufficiently Theological?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I would avoid exclamation marks (e.g., lines 18, 42, 147, 252). They are unnecessary. Each reader is able to judge for him/herself the importance of a given statement. Our readers do not have to be instructed by means of exclamation marks.
As to the quote: “[theology is] an integrative discipline that continuously searches for a coherent, balanced understanding of Christian truth and faith in light of Christian tradition (biblical and historical) and in the context of historical and contemporary thought, cultures, and living faiths." (lines 72-74). I would add in the brackets not only [theology is] but - to be precise - [Christian theology is]. Indeed, theology as such cannot be limited to Christianity only. For instance, we can speak of Jewish theology - and the above definition cannot apply to Jewish theology, but exclusively to Christian theology.
Line 166 - Century: perhaps "century".
Line 168 - Ecologically sensitive theology could be also mentioned.
Line 202 - Bible (with a capital letter)
Line 241 - an end quotation mark is missing
Author Response
This is a welcome and helpful review. I will accept all corrections and revise accordingly. Thank you for your attention.
Reviewer 2 Report
NTT is the theology within New Testament texts. While the Scriptures of Jesus are of course important for understanding the New Testament, there is no indication why half the article is about the Old Testament instead of the New Testament. It is not clear why there needs to be a tradition within which NTT operates, given that the canon is mostly the same for all Christians. NT Wright is an Anglican bishop. It is not clear how he relates to other theologians mentioned. Moreover, it is not clear why only these theologians (though they're all impressive) are mentioned. There isn't an organizing principle that is logical. It is instead a catch-all of various denominations and confessions of Protestant theologians. How is this not generic systematic Protestant theology?
Author Response
“NTT is the theology within New Testament texts.” – I agree that that is how it is commonly conceived, but the point of the article is to argue that that’s not really being “theological.” I go out of my way to avoid the question of historical-critical methodology, but one of the hallmarks of that work is that it is supposed to be descriptive only. NTT may be quite happy with that, but if it wants to be theological in nature and not simply a description of what Author X thinks the Apostle Paul thought about Y, then some very serious course corrections need to be made. I describe these in the “confessional” and “constructive” sections.
“While the Scriptures of Jesus are of course important for understanding the New Testament, there is no indication why half the article is about the Old Testament instead of the New Testament.” – Most of the references to the Old Testament come about because a classical theologian like Anselm or Aquinas quote them as examples of why theology should be a certain way (e.g., prayerful, provisional, interdisciplinary). The intention is to help explain what Christian theology is and has always been in the tradition, and to show where contemporary NTT has or has not departed from these norms.
“It is not clear why there needs to be a tradition within which NTT operates, given that the canon is mostly the same for all Christians. NT Wright is an Anglican bishop. It is not clear how he relates to other theologians mentioned.” – If NTT is just historical description, then I think this critique is right. However, if it is actual theology that could have systematic/constructive/pastoral impact, then I think it *must* be treated as coming from a particular tradition (though I don’t think I’ve even made that claim in this essay; I’ve only noted that it has been and could be). The mention of Wright and Goldingay is done because they are self-consciously Reformed (or at least writing from within that tradition) and so they have particular concerns about traditional Reformed theology and how the New Testament does or does not support, say, Calvin’s view of election.
“Moreover, it is not clear why only these theologians (though they're all impressive) are mentioned. There isn't an organizing principle that is logical. It is instead a catch-all of various denominations and confessions of Protestant theologians.” – The most important point to bring out is that none of the contemporary scholars I interact with are Christian Theologians by training or scholarly appointment; they are New Testament Studies experts. They are chosen because they have expressed in their work a predilection for more, as it were, a sincere desire to be doing something theological, and have succeeded (by the canons of constructive theology) to varying degrees. There just aren’t that many biblical studies people who interact significantly with the sciences—so Green must suffice as a hopeful paradigm example. There just aren’t that many Bible scholars who wade into controversial theological debates, so Wright and Goldingay are helping to point the way. And there aren’t many NTT monograph authors who admit that their desire is to see their NTT work benefitting the church, so Blomberg makes a good example. Another way to put it, I selected these conversation partners because they have shown interest in and are known for some connection to the theological interpretation of Scripture.
“How is this not generic systematic Protestant theology?” – I’m not sure what is meant by this statement. The aim of the essay is for a Constructive Theologian (me) to assess the extent to which NTT is “theological” as constructive (and maybe even systematic) theologians understand the term. That is, how much are biblical scholars who do NTT doing the sorts of things that theologians do? And the answer is, “Quite a bit, but with a long way to go.” So the essay is really meant for biblical studies people who want to be doing Christian theology. If biblical studies scholars who publish NTT don’t care to be theological in the way that theologians are, that’s okay, but this essay is not for them.
Reviewer 3 Report
The article attempts to answer the question that serves as its title, namely, "is New Testament Theology (NTT) sufficiently theology?" The answer that the author gives is clearly stated in the conclusion. "No, but it is a lot closer to the mark than theology is to being sufficiently biblical." Although I am in no place to judge how biblical the discipline of systematic theology may be, the answer strikes me as plausible after reading the article.
After introducing the question and topic of study, the heart of the article involves an evaluation of NTT in light of six criteria: coherentism; historical considerations; contemporary thought, cultures, and living faiths; NTT's confessional orientations; its constructive outputs; and its ability to collaborate with other disciplines. In addition, the article opens with a section that reflects on the nature of theology, which provides an orientation to the author's understanding of theology before progressing through the six criteria by which NTT is judged.
The article's greatest strengths include a clear outline and a strong authorial voice that pulls the reader through the argument. In addition, examples are cited from contemporary NTT at each point in the argument. These examples enable readers to participate in the author's evaluation. While reading, I did wonder if the reliance on only one or two examples in each section (Blomberg [confessional]; Wright and Goldingay [constructive]; Green [collaborative]) was sufficient to determine that NTT was insufficiently theological when it comes to the three latter criteria. Yet the benefit of using a small number of examples is that the author can interact with each of the authors mentioned in greater detail. Although further examples may enhance the author's point, they would also substantially lengthen the article. Those engaged in the study of NTT will likely recognize the phenomena which the author describes without any further problems, and the author's extended engagement with each of the authors mentioned is much to be appreciated.
One place where I would ask the author to consider making a minor revision to the article comes in section 2. Although I can see the benefit of having a section that orients readers to what the author means by theological, I found it challenging to find the six criteria used in the rest of the article within section 2. Since the rationale for the existence of section 2 is the "justification of the six aforementioned trajectories," it might be helpful to clarify how these criteria relate to the discussion within the section. The introduction, conclusion, and headings use similar terminology to introduce the six criteria. The article might be a bit easier to read if the same terms could be connected more clearly to the definition of theology provided by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen.
Author Response
This is a welcome and helpful review. I have taken to heart especially the final revision request and rewritten the final part of section 2 as follows:
"First, the discipline is “integrative,” meaning that it incorporates many disciplines. I have renamed this aspect “collaborative” and treat it in section 9. The definition also mentions “coherence,” which I evaluate in section 3. As for NNT’s contributions to “Christian truth and faith in light of Christian tradition,” I assess these elements under “confessional” and “constructive” (sections 7 and 8respectively). I treat “the context of historical and contemporary thought” in section 4. Kärkkäinen’s “contemporary thought, cultures, and living faiths” I examine in section 5. By applying these six elements of Kärkkäinen’s definition as a rubric of sorts, we can make some determinations about how NTT fares qua theology."
I hope this clarifies how VMK's definition gets broken down into my six category rubric.
My thanks for the suggestion. As for the issue of using only one or two examples in each section, my sense is that those who work in the biblical studies field will very quickly recognize that they are either representative (e.g., Blomberg) or singular (e.g., Green) simply through familiarity with publications. That is, I very much doubt that an NT scholar will think that NTT broadly embodies the conviction that theology should lead to doxology or that NTT is busy weighing in on theological controversies that have pastoral implications. Of course, I'm happy to try adding more examples, but in the case of being constructive and collaborative they are in very short supply.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The stated aims of this paper are "Christian" theology, reiterated in the conclusion. The paper reasonably attempts to be inclusive and yet within space limits for a paper mostly on Joel B. Green in having a "for instance" with the internal debates of the Reformed tradition but mentioning other Christian traditions.
