Hermeneutic Axioms for a Biblical Ethic

              · '
The Biblical Theologians
New York, 27-28 April, 1973
Discussion starter: "Hermenetlic A.Aj_o.m.s for a Biblical Ethic"
John H. Yoder
Pref ace
What follows:i.s little more than a stack of fragmentary comments, but
much less than a proper paper. It is circulated in advance of our meetin5
on April 27-28 more as a reminder to look at the book which underlies it
than to avoid reading through it at the beginning of our meeting.
The prior paper proper which I submit as the basis of this discussion
is chapters 1 and 6 of my POLITICS OF JESUS (Eerdmans Dec. 1972). I am
sorry not to have budget to give the Biblical Theologians complimentary
copies. That text is quite self-conscious as it goes about the task of
relating ethics and biblical studies. It therefore asks for the kind of
critique this kind of group specializes in.
Beginning Where We Left Off
As Louis Martyn did at the November session, I may best begin with notes
about the preceding meeting. I was struck then by the way in which the
discussion pushed Martyn away from the kickoff point of his paper, a Paul
Minear logion, which he had dramatized by the preposterous imagery of the
mummy reaching up to bend the shovel of the archaeologist.
To have stayed with that point of departure w.uuld, it seems to me, have
meant two things for the continuing discussion. One would have been the
affirmation that although each of us brings to any experience of search his
own first perceptive grid, still one such grid may be better · than another--
the better shovel. We can compare our grids and ask which is able most
competently to perceive which kind of data. I felt that in the rest of the
discussion Martyn sold out his own thesis in f_avo~-. of a permissive pluralism.
Louis went on to say that everyone can have his own canon within the canon
and that each of these is in some sense valid. He backed into a corner
which he labeled "confessional" with any kind of truth claim. Even the
justification for the involvement of Jesus in the conversation around his
witness seemed to be limited to tie modest reason, "because I [!_fart~ I wish
to have him at the table". This b_acking away from a normative claim seemed
t 0 me to go even one step farther' -wti-eri iouis--said that . tlieconversation
around the meaning of Jesus is a conversation "in Christ" because of his own
(}1artyn' ~ confessional position rather than bBcause of anything having
to do with the nature of the table or of the conversation there. Yet at
the same time (he said) the -whole universe is "in Christ"; it is just that
sane people don't know it.
The Biblical Theologians - 2
In the accumulation of these points, which may one by one have real
validity, it seems to me that we lost the initial critical thrust. I remain
unconvinced by that shift in the discussion, and see my concern now as
making a~ain the first point the Minear logion made. A second element of
the meaning of the Minear logion would be not only that one perceptive
grid mi5ht be claimed to be better than another but that in fact the betterness
of the grid could to sane extent be verified. It_ is verifie::i not by moving
to some other plane of discourse or "confessional stance", but because it
enables the perceiver better to read the data. He will have a better percep-tive
grid if he is able to make a fuller, less faddish, more objective,
more inclusive use of the tools of the critical reader. The archaeologist
who improves his shovel according to the direction of the mummy which he is
trying to dig out unharmed is a better archaeologist; he has not slipped
from history into theology or from objectivity into confessio~.
Last November we avoided testing the claim that if the text demythologizes
the scholar it will also light the way to better scholarship, because we got
off onto the imagery of the round table, an image which is arbitrary when
it is exclusive and irresponsible when it is inclusive.
I want to argue that the Minear claim bridges the chasm between the two
kinds of history in a way that transcends the old quest and the no quest,
and constitutes an alternative to the "new quest". It asks for more "object-ivity"
in fostering the dignity and autonomy of the mummy. This is the
opposite of the "objectification" which puts the mummy at the mercy of the
old shovel. Whereas genuine historical study seeks ways to put the historian
increasingly at the mercy of the events back there, the criticism which
goes on behind the shield of the history/theology split reverses the vulner-ability,
as the Martyn paper showed. But the corrective of Minear, unlike
the round table of Martyn is to strive toward a better historical and
literary interpretation of what the author meant. The author is not at the
~able because Martyn chose to invite him. Rather the table is there because
. the author is saying something. i•Ii:!i~ar' s table will also have other partici-p.
ants--Augustine, Martj_n Luther King, Camus if you will--but not as independent
interlocutors when they make it harder to hear Luke's or Paul's Jesus. They
are rather there as aids in hearing the author. They are further resources
to the mummy in making his point about the shovel.
One sample of the way the mummy reaches out to bend the shovel was
illuminated by James Cone's injection of Joachim Jeremias into the November
meetings. According to both Jeremias and Jim, as they both read Jesus, both
affluence and erudition skew the perceptive grid of the listener to Jesus.
The down-the-nose attitude of the post-Bul tmannians toward Jeremias' historical
optimism is itself not convincing, since it:
a. Defends their own bias in favor of the history/theology split, and
b. Confirms the point being made by Jesus, Jeremias, and Jim Cone.
Furthermore, even if far fewer ipsissima verba can be found than Jeremias
thinks, the point about wealth and learning does not fade away.
The Biblical Theologians - 3
My summary chapter 6 is another specimen of the same kind of claim.
I have no grounds for anxiety about what increasingly informed literary and
historical analysis might do to the claim that the various J esuses of history
and of faith happen to coincide at the point I am dealing with.
I am, however, more interested right now in knowing what help this
socio-political quality of the work and teaching of Jesus can provide the
perceptive grid of the scholar. My book claims not to be original at any
specific point of textual interpretation but only in its jelling a synthesis
for which all the components were already ready. But why then, if all the
parts were there, was it left to an outsider to the biblical guild to put
them together? My suggestion is that there are elements of the sociolo-gical
stance which we sometimes superficially call 11 establishment11 , and
elements of the socio-ethical stance which calls itself 11 responsible 11 ,
which very understandably predispose one toward not perceiving this meaning
or, if it is perceived, toward not considering it interesting. It is to
examples of this thesis that the remainder of this introduction should there-fore
be devoted. I turn first to two more samples from the November meeting;
then to others from my book.
Wherein is there a Unity within the diversity
I would want to agree with as much as I understood of the assertion
of Wayne Meeks that "there is no one New Testament view", coupled with the
encouragement that anyone who so pleases will 9:9 _!-lell to have his own 11 canon
within the canon". This advice is not only--realist-ic-tliy the--only -possible
position in the face of the pluralism both of New Testament data ai1::i of \/
__c_onteffiP-ora:cy -~~~~etical postures. It is also good pastoral advice in the
face of the search- for overly easy answers.
But_it does not follow from this, that all canons within the canon /
are equally valid, or that the entire substance of biblical theology is
turned over to the whim of aJ'.\Y and every interpreter. If the affirmation,
"this is the New Testament view" is understood in the sense of a concen-tration
upon just one vocabulary, or as the claim that all propositions
in a whole body of literature can be made to rhyme in one finished system,
the point is well taken, and there are still people against whom it needs
to be made. Yet after agreeing with that, it is still possible to affirm
in a wider sense a position of which one can claim that it is in substantial
conformity to "the New Testament"; this is what my text claims to do. It
concentrates on Luke and tilen on Paul, but there are occasional references
to John or the Apocalypse or the Catholic epistles or Matthew. The claim is
that "in, with and under11 the wide variety of styles and foci one finds in
the several strata of the canon a degree of commonality. which is not under-cut
but rather reinforced by the pluralism recognized above. The arguments
for thi s wider unity a r e obvious:
a. The Canon has an outer circle. Although a great variety of views
are represented, that variety is not infinite. Certain available
texts of practically equal venerability were excluded when the
sifting process in the Christian cormnunity settled upon this list.
}> ·'. . ·
The Biblical Theologians - 4
b. The material in the Canon all claims to have one center, namely
Jesus who is proclaimed as Messiah. Both in literary and theological
ways this confession provides a criterion whereby we may measure
whether one cancn within the canon is as adequate or as central as
another.
c. There is the concrete experience and the cultural ethos of the
communities '\Jlich guarded these words, transmitted them in liturgy
and catechesis, and progressively wrote them down and gathered the
writings. Some of 'What the writings say provides a leverage for
critiquing the churches which preserved them. This constitutes a
testimony to the 11 objectivi ty11 of the churches in preserving a
tradition which was not especially complimentary to them. At other
points the practice of the ancient communities exemplifies or
elucidates the tradition; in these cases or places practice constitutes a wider hermeneutical aid.
d. There is not only the initial community; the present ecumenical
reality is also an organ of testing. The canon within the cancn
is--called upori to justify itself in -tile encounter with other
perspectives. This encounter is not easy. It is made harder if
the concept of 11 one correct view" which the partners bring to the
conversation is that of a tightly structured monolingual unity.
But neither is it fostered by a noncommittal pluralism which lets
all views stand side-by-side unchallenged, or by a radical relativism
which explains every position without remainder as only the product
of the place it arose.
The Unity of the whole canon defends the objectivity of the specific text.
In the paper by Charles Hall, we were shown a specific example of the
implications for henneneutics which follow from a particular set of prior
assumptions about the social meaning of apocalyptic literature. Both that
literature type and the view of history which Chuck associated with it
were characterized by Hall as an invitation to 11 join the prophet in a banb
shelter". This he contrasted unfavorably with a 11more positive" view which
he himself would rather take, which would attempt more responsibly to direct
the course of history.
Chuck has the right to believe on a priori grounds that there is special
merit in the general framework underlying that typology, but I must protest
against pressing that overall definition of social responsibility on the
apocalyptic literature in such a way as to miss its point. There is no
reference in the apocalyptic literature to the bomb shelter. That kind of
reference might rather be found in the disciplines of the desert canmunities.
The apocalypse in the New Testament canon in particular, and--I would argue--
apocalyptic literature in general is directed to the suffering community
out in the world, especially in the major known urban centers. True
enough, the call is to suffering in a world which they cannot control.
True, their suffering includes the acceptance of minority status. But it is
certainly not a call to be i ndifferent to the fate of the wider world or
f •
' .· ·'
The Biblical Theologians - 5
unconcerned abc:ut the structures of authority therein. The whole point of
I a~calypse is th at despite the impossibility of projectinga continous
I extrapolation of history from now to the fulfilllnent of God's purposes,
' the prophet still affirms that the ultimate victory of God will stand
: in continuity with the faithfulness of His call to the community. Historical
experience to the contrary notwithstanding, apocalypse says th at the
structures of oppression will fall and that loving community will be given
to men as they believe.
Thus we find in the message of the apocalypse two elements which
would be quite compatible with Chuck's friend Toffler. One is the impossib-ility
of extrapolating from past experience into the unknown future. The
other is a kind of optimism about the good possibilities open to a rapid
use of new approaches, taking little account of historical experience with
the toughness of evil. I would thus agree with the suggestion of Wayne
Meeks, who expressed surprise that Hall had not been more interested in
the apocalyptic model. The reason he did not accept it was of course Chuck's
untested prior sympathy for the theocratic stance of the American Protestant
mainstream tradition, even though there is nothing in Toffler to assure
us than anyone's grasping the central levers of command will be possible
any more.
Socio-political Axioms for a Biblical Henneneutic
The above excursions may have served to indicate the mood and the
shape of my undertaking. Now may I return to chapters 1 and 6 of my
THE POLITICS OF JESUS, pp. llff and 94ff.
The first chapter describes the prevalent patterns in contemporary
western systematic ethics where it is said in several ways that the
teachings and the ministry of Jesus do not provide an adequate base for
ethical guidance in the reaJm of the socio-political. These several kinds
of cavil may not unfairly be subsumed under the thesis: "Jesus was apolitical 11 •
They therefore send me into the rereading of the Gospel narrative to see
whether these things are so (Acts 17:11).
My conclusion is that to declare Jesus apolitical is to beg the
question. It does so by replacing a substantial observation with a formal
one. Because we do not wish to be bound by what Jesus does and says in
the socio-political realr.l, we declare him outside that realm.
Then chapter 6 deals with several sets of interpretive instruments
which are regularly used to build the bridge between Jesus and his disciples
or between the New Testament studies and ethical $~<tl'?s·.~ These axiomatic
polarities, I submit, are an expansion of the prior begging of the question.
They are not data from the text. Therefore they need to be tested rather
than taken for granted. All that would seem to be fruitful, beyond those
texts, to open the conversation now with "The Biblical Theologians", is
to add a few footnotes about the cultural conditioning of the axioms identi-fied
and challenged there.
The Biblical Theologians - 6
The New Testament community of believers represented a voluntarily
covenanted counter-culture community, visible although occasionally
persecuted into clandestinity, socially very organized although in a
decentralized way. In this context John, Matthew, and Luke are more alike
than they are different: the gospels, the General Epistles, and Paul are
more alike than they are different. The commonality is more evident at
the point of their sociological insertion into the world than on the level
of religious language. Jesus talking to Palestinians, Luke writing for
Theophilus, and the other canonical authors each with a different readership,
obviously express themselves in a great variety of vocabularies, with corre-lative
variations in underlying cultural and metaphysical assumptions. If
then the level of language is taken to be basic, as Ivy League Historical
theology properly tends to do, then it will be no surprise that the differences
will be given more attention than the commonality. The opposite would however
be the case if we were to ask how the church was living in the world.
Then the commonalities which are traced in an amateur way by THE POLITICS
OF JESUS would be more striking.
This picture all changes with Constantine and Augustine. Now the
tension between covenant community and the structures of this world as
bearers respectively of the reality of this age and that of the next, no
longer take the shape of sociologically discernible entities, but rather are
relocated on metaphysical levels, whether Augustinian, existentialist, or
other. A host of new polarities will arise--lay/clergy, religious/secular,
law/gospel, history/Geschichte, empirical/faith, modifying in different
ways the earlier distinction between the people who were freely following
Jesus and those who were not. The various dualities which in the New
Testament had served to describe and reinforce the church-world tension now
serve (after Constantine) to justify the complementarity of the religious
and the secular, within the baptized unity of western culture. Whether it
be apocalyptic or neoplatonic, monastic or existentialist, the same dualistic
language can serve in both connections: either to dramatize the necessity
for choice between Jesus and other lords or to illuminate the tense · complemen-tarity
of the elements of the Christendom synthesis.
If it is the case that established intellectual styles in western
universities are thus strongly detennined in their shape by the inherited
magisterial structure of the western Christendom which they express and
serve, then it would be appropriate that we would find fruitful critic ism
of those axioms coming from three distinct counterperspectives. One . would
be the effect of a rigorously honest historiography which would insist on
letting- the- pecu:iiarity of the biblical data dictate the shape of our
r~Eding ther~of. This is what I see happening in the work symbolically
represented in our last meeting by the reference to the Paul Minear logion.
If radical scholarly honesty pennits the mummy to speak, he can tell us
what is wrong with our shovel in ways that would not happen before when
the reader exercised a less self-critical sovereignty over the document.
Ano.!-_~e~_ source of new perspective to which we would quite fittingly look
would be those socio-political movements which arise outside the establish-ment
and yet for some reason are able to comrrrunicate to the magisterial
·community. This was represented in our last meeting by James Cone with his
persistent call that the text be read from the point of view of the poor.
The Biblical Theologians - 7
A third perspective from which some similar renovation of clarity
might arise is one which combines in a weak way the orientations of the
other two, although in ways that have not always fulfilled its potential
for originality: namely that early fonn of underdog historicist biblicism
which the historian has come to call "Radical Refonnation": which since
Waldo potentially, since Cheltchitsky clearly, and even more strongly since
Anabaptisim, has been reading the Bible as a criticism of Christendom.
I suggest that my effort in THE POLITICS OF JESUS is an effort to
blend these three perspectives at the point of their commonality.
JHY/jk