On Projects that May Never Be Completed, and Various Other Musings

I.

Ah, my gentle snowflakes, it is once again that time of the year! In Orthodox churches near and far the words of St Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (barring any reprehensible liturgical transgressions which need not concern us here) are being heard during the Divine Liturgy. The Sunday lectionary cycle has just treated us to three consecutive readings from that Epistle (1:11-19; 2:16-20; 6:11-18), and the Saturday lectionary cycle will soon offer us another three (1:3-10; 3:8-12; 5:22-6:2). It is no secret that, like the infallible Moisés Silva and the great J. Gresham Machen before him, I am utterly fascinated by the Epistle to the Galatians; it surely comes as no surprise, then, that year after year hearing its words in Church invariably leads me to revisit the Galatians literature at my disposal, which is fortunately not inconsiderable.

Chief among the works to which I turn is our Infallible Hero’s book Interpreting Galatians: Explorations in Exegetical Method (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2001), which I enthusiastically recommend to all. To open this book is always bittersweet, however, given the opening paragraphs of its Preface:

Like every other book, this one has a history. The main title reflects the latest stage in that history, namely, a volume intended to provide guidance in the development of exegetical method. But in the beginning it was not so. Nearly two decades ago [=c. 1976] I envisioned a more ambitious work, consisting probably of two or three volumes, and covering in near-definitive form every major area in the study of Galatians. It would have established with firmer footing than before the original text of the epistle; it would have uncovered significant facts in the history of interpretation; it would have provided a cogent treatment of Paul’s use of the Old Testament; and so on.

I have not totally given up on some of those goals, but time (the awesome competitor) is against me. A few years ago, however, it occurred to me that there might be some value in publishing part of the material as a work-in-progress. If nothing else, such a move would facilitate conversation with other scholars, whose feedback could be of great help in further developing my research. (In other words, when the inevitable criticisms appear, I can conveniently respond that nothing here is meant in a definitive waymy statements here are all tentative!) Such a volume would have the additional advantage of making it possible to rework and bring together a few articles that have been previously published but that are directly relevant to the larger project.

Needless to say, the mere thought that Silva might never publish his multi-volume treatment of Galatians is enough to trigger the onset of despair in more than one expectant soul. Mercifully, we are not wholly bereft of resources if we wish to pursue Silva’s interpretation of Galatians: in addition to his Interpreting Galatians and a bounty of articles in journals and books, we have a full outline in his contribution to the New Bible Commentary, 21st Century Edition, and his rather thorough treatment of St Paul’s use of the Old Testament in Galatians in his contribution to the Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. (Also, there exists a 13-CD lecture series recorded while Silva taught at Westminster Theological Seminary, and which I hope to acquire some day.) Still, it is surely much to be regretted that Silva’s extended treatment might never see the light of day, neither as a multi-volume work, nor even as the single-volume commentary once slated to appear as part of the BECNT seriesthough, as our friend Kevin Edgecomb has happily reminded us, hope springs eternal.

II.

Now, there are some youthful projects on a grand scale for whose abandonment we should be grateful. Take mine, for instance. Nearly a decade ago, I envisioned a homiletical commentary on the Epistle and Gospel readings for Sundays and Feasts. It would have established the ecclesiastical text of the pericopes with firmer footing than before; it would have identified the more significant lines of patristic and liturgical exegesis connected with each passage; it would have provided a cogent treatment of the canonical shape of the New Testament and its relationship to the shape of the lectionary; and so on. Though I am a little over three decades younger than our Infallible Hero, time (the awesome competitor) seems to have caught up with me too, and I have come to the conclusion that this is not a project that I could realistically complete in my lifetime. Of course, I have not totally given up on some of those goals: for instance, over the past year I have been actively engaged in the production of a Spanish translation of the Epistle and Gospel readings for Sundays and Feasts according to the ecclesiastical text for the growing Orthodox communities in Latin America. Beyond the time issue, however, I have come to question the wisdom of a project like the one I once envisioned. For one thing, patristic commentaries on Scripture are more readily available in English now than ever before: witness IVP’s Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture and Ancient Christian Texts series, as well as Eerdmans’ fantastic series The Church’s Bible (whose volume on Isaiah, I should note, features the NETS translation by none other than Moisés Silva). The publication of patristic sermons is also on the rise: in addition to the old mainstays like the NPNF (for St John Chrysostom) and Toal, one can also turn to the admirable new volume of the complete homilies of St Gregory Palamas. Many similar examples could be mentioned.

More importantly, however, I am now concerned that a series of homiletical commentaries on the lectionary readings might wrongly communicate to its readers that we ought to preach only on those texts mandated by the lectionary. This is, of course, the received wisdom of the “liturgical movement” that swept the Western church (both Catholic and Protestant) in the middle of the past century, and which regrettably has its advocates even in Orthodox circles. But, as so many other notions of the liturgical movement, this betrays a grossly utilitarian understanding of worship: why read any Scriptural texts in worship that will not be the subject of a sermon? And if we ought to preach on these and no other passages, why stick with a lectionary that is so very repetitive in its choices? As is well known, this line of reasoning lead to the scrapping of the traditional Roman lectionary in the West in favor of a new 3-year lectionary that even features readings from the Old Testament. All of these texts are thematically linked to each other, thus facilitating the endeavor to preach from them. By contrast, our lectionary seems like a prehistoric beast: the Epistle and Gospel readings run on practically independent cycles, and the pairings of a given Sunday this year might not be the same as for the same Sunday the next!

What is missing from this utilitarian view of the lectionary is the crucial notion that reading and hearing the Scriptures in the Church is a complete act of worship in and of itself. Used in this capacity, then, Scripture only needs to be read and heard in order to be “liturgically effective” as such. Naturally, the Scriptures must also be preached, but it should be understood that this is a separate matter (that is, a separate act of worship) altogether. Now, one may preach on the Scripture readings of the lectionary, of course, but this is not strictly necessary; one may also (and I might, laudably and profitably, given the lean biblical diet of many of the people in our churches) preach according to the pattern commonly known as lectio continua. This does not lessen the importance of lectionary readings in the least, since, as we have noted, these readings fulfill an altogether different liturgical functioncertainly in the Byzantine lectionary, the Gospel readings, for example, are carefully selected and arranged in a canonical shape that paints a definite picture of Christ, the Mystery of whose power and divinity in the Resurrection we celebrate every Sunday.

III.

So, in the end, there is every reason to render thanks that my youthful project will never be finished, but every reason to mourn the fact that Silva’s might not. Let us fervently pray that things will remain unchanged with the former, but that they will radically change with the latter, much to our benefit!

About these ads

8 responses to “On Projects that May Never Be Completed, and Various Other Musings

  1. Well, I certainly hope that you have been diligent in keeping notes toward your great project, and that, like your infallible friend, you will leave some of those gleanings about for those poor souls deprived of the full harvest of your labors.

    Hope does indeed spring eternal, and should especially do so in the heart of an author. I still think Silva may surprise us all. And you may miraculously someday even finish your own great project, which should not be abandoned. If anything, my friend, perhaps you will learn to delegate, and as an editor will be able to achieve what you otherwise might not do alone. So, never abandon such things–rather move them to a back burner.

  2. At the local Evangelical megastore, I noticed a book (Quo Vadis Evangelicalism?, I believe!) on the bargain shelf the other day which collected articles from the JETS by various presidents of the Society over the years, including one by Silva on evangelical theology & biblical scholarship. Are you familiar with this book or with that article in particular?

  3. Kevin> Did you miss the part (two paragraphs long) in which I explained that I think mine is a pointless and possibly misleading project? ;-) But yes, I have almost a decade’s worth of notes, drafts, and tentative exercises laying around — in manuscript, in printed form, and even in the computer! I should only be too glad if no one ever seems them; much of it is so rudimentary as to be useless. Anyway, I’m focusing on the Spanish-language Eklogadion, these days; the only project worth keeping alive is the translation and dissemination of the ecclesiastical Greek text of NT for liturgical use.

    And I do hope against hope that Silva (who is infallible, but sadly not my friend!) will surprise us all. Then my joy will be complete!

    Aaron> Yes, the book you mention is a compilation of significant presidential addresses to the Evangelical Theological Society. Through the magic of the Wayback Machine, Silva’s address may be accessed here. Also of note in that book are he addresses by Ned B. Stonehouse and Stan Gundry, which serve as the backdrop for Silva’s.

  4. My dear friend, you are looking backward, while I am looking forward. If it’s rudimentary, then separate the gold from the dross and spruce it up. There are people who have plans for you after all, and your little project, when (not if!) their plans are implemented will have proved itself a useful precursor.

    And you’re such a good boy to be doing what you should be doing, instead of my Kevin Has A Bibliotelic Deficit Dis… Oh Look Another BOOK!!!

    Do not sell yourself short! If the distinguished Dr Silva knew you, he would be your friend. His circle of friends is sadly diminished without your inclusion. I speak from experience!

  5. Almost completely unrelated to your post, I just noticed that the reason I like your prose is that it reminds me of the latter half of 2 Maccabees chapter 2, which is one of my absolute favorite passages.

  6. Kevin> Oh, the stray notes and drafts can certainly be useful to me personally, as they reflect my own understanding of the task of exegesis for preaching and such. But again, I don’t think the earlier project is achievable, and I worry that it would communicate the wrong message about liturgical preaching, anyway. Frankly, I think it best for preachers to sharpen their skills through the conscientious study of patristic commentaries and sermons, and then integrating that to their reading of Scripture. As it is, there are far too many people out there who just want to turn to a book (or a seminary professor, or a priest, or an elder, or whatever) and find “the Orthodox view” on this or that without putting any effort into it themselves; adding a homiletical commentary to the publications they can misuse is not advisable.

    Meanwhile, if I ever became a friend of the infallible Moisés Silva, I’m sure he would insist that I quit telling people that he’s infallible. Since I have no intention of doing that, I think the status quo is better. ;-)

    Nick> Then both you and Kevin are wrong! ;-)

    Peter> What can I say? Long live hypotaxis!

  7. “…As it is, there are far too many people out there who just want to turn to a book (or a seminary professor, or a priest, or an elder, or whatever) and find “the Orthodox view” on this or that without putting any effort into it themselves; adding a homiletical commentary to the publications they can misuse is not advisable.” – Amen.

    When I read the Fathers and then hear what I typically hear in Orthodox Churches or on AFR I cringe and feel rather worried about the future of Orthodox homiletics…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s