Basis of Theology - Biblical? Philosophical? Or. . ?

[Socius]

I would like to offer something not often thought of but entirely relevant when considering whether Theology is biblical or philosophy.

I start with the statement that the Bible that we currently have in our possession is a critically edited hypothetical text.
Simply, it is critical because no original "bible" survives and those that do survive reveal thousands of variants of which decisions need to be made.
It is edited for the above reason. To have one finished "bible" form for use requires the work of experienced editors to make decisions on what may have been the earliest or original reading. It is hypothetical because no editor involved in the process of giving us a bible will say there is "no error" or "no mistakes" in their choices of variants.

To give an illustration, if one were take a copy of the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and compare it with the more recent New Revised Standard Verision they will note that some readings have been omitted and others added. For example, try to find Luke 24:12 in the RSV. Or compare the length of the Lord's Supper in in both the RSV and NRSV in Luke. Many more variations exist, particularly when one adds all the the many biblical editions we have.

Therefore, when one starts with the premise that they, in this case CTS, are "committed to the agenda that systematic theology stands upon an exegetical, biblical base" one asks what does this exactly mean? What do they mean when they say "bible," and which and why have they chosen certain variants over others? Was it due to a philosophical presupposition of some readings over another? Furthermore, how particularaly biblical is a position without knowledge of the surviving manuscripts? I am a strong believer that no one can do theology proper without what is known from the extant manuscripts. When one only uses a critically edited biblical text to develop a theology their theories are at greater risk of expressing "philosophical" prejudices, whether their own or that of others. To put it another way, when CTS say "The material we will seek to use will be biblical rather than creedal or confessional" are they considering the variant readings which have crept into our biblical versions which suggest a creedal or confessional development? To quote text-critic David C Parker, "the exegete of the NT cannot afford to ignore the variant readings: they provide some of the earliest commentaries upon the meaning of the text" (An Intro. to the NT MSS and their Texts, p. 183).

Sola Scriptura? hmmm....did such a thing ever really exist?

[Metacrock]

we have a science of textual criticism through which we can make scientific and systematic investigations and find answers to the problems of the orignial text. You have a good point, becuase in doing this we are actually using a form of philosophy (science) to produce the text that is supposed the revelatory basis of theology.

What that really means is the question itself is misleading. There's a synthesis of both philosophy and revelation in theology.

[Metacrock]

Sola Scriptura? hmmm....did such a thing ever really exist?

the question of this thread did not employ that term. Those who post here know that I am not a fundamentalist and Id on't by sola scriptura.

[Socius]

Sola Scriptura? hmmm....did such a thing ever really exist?

the question of this thread did not employ that term. Those who post here know that I am not a fundamentalist and Id on't by sola scriptura.

I know that you don't go by sola scriptura and didn't mean to imply that. I was going by the CTS quote of the original post

[Socius]

There's a synthesis of both philosophy and revelation in theology.

But the fact that one appeals to revelation, is this not based upon the person's philosophy? In other words, It is one's philosophy that says that revelation is possible? Alternatively an atheist will say that revelation is not possible based upon his/her philosophy.

[Metacrock]

Sola Scriptura? hmmm....did such a thing ever really exist?

the question of this thread did not employ that term. Those who post here know that I am not a fundamentalist and Id on't by sola scriptura.

I know that you don't go by sola scriptura and didn't mean to imply that. I was going by the CTS quote of the original post

I see. that's cool.

[Metacrock]

There's a synthesis of both philosophy and revelation in theology.

But the fact that one appeals to revelation, is this not based upon the person's philosophy? In other words, It is one's philosophy that says that revelation is possible? Alternatively an atheist will say that revelation is not possible based upon his/her philosophy.

good point.