In the second lecture, Howard Marshall continues to set the scene. First sketching a dichotomy of ways in which Christians have “gone beyond the Bible” in responding to challenges of ethics, worship, and most strikingly doctrine. Unless the importance of his dichotomous classification of these becomes clearer later, my take is that the fact of such “going beyond” is more important than his particular classification of differing ways of doing so.
By far more interesting, to me at least, is his rehearsal of the ways in which the Biblical authors, in the New Testament already model such “going beyond”. Firstly and perhaps to no one’s surprise, they go beyond the Old Testament (their Scriptures) in a number of ways. Much more striking (if only because most modern Christians have fairly Marcionite attitudes to the Old Testament) is his demonstration that the writers of the New Testament in a number of ways “go beyond” the teaching of Jesus. He begins by noting that the New Testament goes beyond presenting the teaching of Jesus to “proclaiming him as crucified, risen, and returning Saviour and Lord”.1 Strikingly for such an icon of Evangelical scholarship, Marshall then points to the four quite different portraits of Jesus in the four gospels as evidence for this.2 Marshall concludes this point saying:
It is evident that the evangelists worked creatively, either on a common pool of tradition or on a mixture of sources both oral and written, in such ways they made different selections of material to include and edited what they did include in different ways, The result is that we have for readily distinguishable portraits of Jesus that can be regarded as developments of whatever lay behind them. This is not to say that the developments are incompatible with one another, but that they are written from four different perspectives.3
Marshall’s conclusion to this lecture also seems to me important:
The church, under divine guidance, has established the Canon, and I will assume that it cannot be changed. The church believes that it’s faith and practice rest upon that collection of books and that no others can have that function. Yet the closing of the cannon did not bring the process of doctrinal development to an end. Thus, the question of the interpretation of scripture remains open. (( I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 51-52. ))
That openness seems to me precisely the point at issue today. Is Marshall correct or not? If he is not correct, then how might one account for the evidence he offers? But if he is correct, then by what right do some choose to announce that interpretation on particular issues that concern them is now “closed”?
- I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 51. [↩]
- Here he relies quite heavily on Blomberg’s discussion of John’s presentation of Jesus. [↩]
- I. Howard Marshall, Kevin J. Vanhoozer, and Stanley E. Porter. Beyond the Bible: Moving from Scripture to Theology. Baker Academic, 2004, 51-52. [↩]